Hobbs-Parsons Co. v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local No. 386

PEEK, J. Defendant, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Number 386 (hereinafter referred to as Local 386), appeals from an order granting a preliminary injunction by which said local was enjoined from taking any further action relative to informing the public and members of the retail and wholesale produce business that the employees of plaintiff, Hobbs-Parsons Company, were receiving lower wages and fewer fringe benefits than the employees represented by Local 386.

Plaintiff is a California corporation engaged in the wholesale produce business, distributing its produce to markets and stores located in various northern California counties, including markets and stores located in Stanislaus and Merced Counties. At the time this action was brought, plaintiff had a binding collective bargaining agreement with Local 439, also of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers.

Defendant Local 386 represents wholesale produce drivers employed by produce companies located in Stanislaus and Merced Counties. It represents none of the plaintiff’s employees, nor does it seek to represent them.

Plaintiff brought this action after Local 386 sent letters to all the grocery stores within its territorial jurisdiction that purchased produce from plaintiff. The purport of this communication was to advise these grocery stores that Local 386 was about to commence an advertising campaign designed to [535]inform their patrons that they were selling produce delivered and supplied by plaintiff and that employees of plaintiff received lower wages and had fewer fringe benefits than employees represented by Local 386. The letter also stated that Local 386 did not intend to interfere with the normal operation of these various retail outlets, nor did it intend or desire to induce or encourage any work stoppage or other concerted refusal of employees to perform assigned work. A letter similar in tenor was sent to the various unions dealing with these retail outlets.

Plaintiff in its complaint alleged, among other things, that as a result of the letters sent out by Local 386, plaintiff’s patrons had been intimidated, and because of such intimidation had ceased to and refrained from patronizing plaintiff’s business, resulting in irreparable damage to plaintiff.

Defendants demurred generally to plaintiff’s complaint and demurred specially on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. They further moved to strike certain portions of the complaint.