Gentry v. Culinary Workers, Bartenders & Hotel Service Employees, Local 535
Before: Waite
WAITE, J. pro tem.* Plaintiff filed this action to enjoin defendants from maintaining a picket line at or about the California Hotel in San Bernardino, and the court granted an injunction.
While the evidence was in many respects conflicting, such conflict was resolved by the trial court and a review of the transcript reveals the following to be a fair summary of the material facts: Following certain preliminary negotiations between plaintiff and representatives of the Central Labor Council of San Bernardino County, Mr. Bees, executive secretary of the defendant union, together with Mr. DeiWolfe, of the State Conciliation Service and Mr. Miramonte, the union organizer, met with plaintiff and Mr. Stone, his hotel manager, on August 28, 1956. Mr. Bees said that the union proposed to organize the hotel employees and a discussion was had concerning the proper method to be used for determining whether a majority of the employees desired the union as their representative. Finally, it was agreed to hold an election by secret ballot and Mr. DeWolfe stated that he would write a contract which provided that if the election results were favorable to the union, plaintiff would agree to negotiate with the union, but if such results were unfavorable to the union, then the union would agree not to bother or molest plaintiff or the hotel employees for one year. Mr. Bees stated that if plaintiff would agree to an election the union, if it lost the [768]election, would not bother plaintiff and would take no action for one year to organize the employees.
Mr. DeWolfe then prepared a Memorandum of Agreement For Representation Election, using the printed form provided by the State Conciliation Service, and plaintiff signed the agreement, relying on the representations above mentiond. Mr. Rees also signed the agreement on behalf of the union. Paragraph 11 of the agreement provides:
“It is further agreed that the results of this election shall be accepted as binding on both parties for a period of not less than one (1) year from date of this Agreement.
“In the event the Union wins the election the Employer agrees to bargain upon request, with the Union as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the above Unit in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of work or other conditions of employment, and if any understanding is reached on such matters, embody such understanding, upon request, in a signed agreement; and in the event the Union loses the election it agrees to refrain from raising the question of representation for the time specified above.”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)