Lund v. Auto Mechanics' Union No. 1414

California Supreme Court Oct 14, 1940 No. S. F. No. 16146Published

Before: Curtis, Edmonds, Marks, Shenk

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the respondent was not entitled to injunctive relief against the union's peaceful picketing because the respondent's business operations were so integrated with the lessee's repair shop that the union's activities were privileged.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in enjoining peaceful picketing where the union had a legitimate interest in the employment relations of the lessee.
Whether the respondent's business practices created a single, integrated unit that justified the union's picketing of the entire premises.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the appellants clearly have a substantial interest in the employment relations of the lessee, Strobel, and under such circumstances they are privileged to peacefully picket his place of business.”

“the respondent was not entitled to injunctive relief.”

Opinion — Edmonds

EDMONDS, J. Acts of union labor occasioned this suit for an injunction, and the appeal is from a decree enjoining the [375]Auto Mechanics’ Union and its business agent from maintaining pickets at the respondent’s place of business.

At the time the controversy arose, the respondent owned and operated the ‘' Campus Garage” at Palo Alto. By a verified complaint he alleged that he had only six employees, “none of whom are members of any union and none desire to join a union; that there is no dispute between him and these employees regarding wages, hours, working conditions or otherwise”, and they are not on strike. However, the allegations continued, the appellants caused pickets to be placed and maintained in the front and rear of his establishment, carrying signs with the inscription “Unfair to Organized Labor, Auto Mechanics’ Union No. 1414”, to his damage in the sum of $10,000.

Upon the filing of this complaint, the superior court issued a temporary restraining order. Later the appellants answered the complaint and the issues thus joined came on for trial. Upon findings of fact that the acts charged in the complaint had been committed by the appellants, the court rendered judgment enjoining them from “intimidating, threatening, molesting or coercing” the respondent or any of his employees or customers and also from stationing, any pickets for that purpose. Damages in the amount of $1 were awarded.

The following facts appear from the evidence introduced at the trial:

Until a short time before this suit was commenced the respondent carried on a general garage business, furnishing to the public automobile sales, repair, lubrication and storage services. Two buildings were used for this purpose, a small one with an entrance on Alma Street and a larger one adjoining it and running through the entire block with entrances on both Alma and High Streets. As a member of the Motor Car Dealers’ Association of Palo Alto, respondent in 1937 entered into a closed shop agreement with the Auto Mechanics’ Union. By the terms of this agreement the members of the association had the right to cancel it if within 90 days from its effective date (May 1, 1937) the union had not succeeded in procuring compliance by the independent automobile dealers in that territory with the union standards of employment. A controversy subsequently arose between

Lund v. Auto Mechanics' Union No. 1414

AI Brief

Opinion — Edmonds

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

Dissent — Curtisshenkmarks

AI Brief