Service Employees International Union v. Superior Court

[714]Opinion

STANIFORTH, J. This petition for writ of prohibition was brought by Service Employees International Union, Local 102, AFL-CÍO (Union) to restrain the superior court from exercising further jurisdiction in this matter, claimed to rest within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board (Board). We agree the matter is not within the jurisdiction of the superior court and accordingly issue the writ of prohibition as prayed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1102; Musicians Union Local No. 6 v. Superior Court (1968) 69 Cal.2d 695 [73 Cal.Rptr. 201, 447 P.2d 313]; Writers’ Guild of America West, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 468, 473, 474 [126 Cal.Rptr. 498].)

Plaintiff (real party) Royal Convalescent Hospital, Inc. (Royal) initiated the action by its complaint for a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions. It alleges Union “engineered a concerted refusal to work” in Royal’s hospital without first notifying Royal and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of its intention, in violation of section 8(g) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) (29 U.S.C. § 158). Royal claims the walkout was motivated by prejudice against the religious beliefs of its majority shareholder, and further claims unless enjoined, the walkout will seriously impair the health and well-being of its patients. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction which we have stayed.

Before filing the complaint, Royal complained to the regional director of the Board about the alleged threatened walkout. The acting director declined to issue a complaint because there was no showing the Union either authorized or condoned any sick-out action of Royal’s employees. The Board stated unorganized workers such as Royal’s employees are not subject to the notice-giving requirement of section 8(g).

The jurisdictional basis alleged by Royal for the superior court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction here is (1) the Board has an antimanagement attitude so that Royal cannot get a fair hearing there; (2) the nearest Board office is over 100 miles from Royal; (3) the threatened conduct has a direct and immediate effect on the public health and safety of the jurisdiction and is thus traditionally subject to local adjudication. In support of these arguments Royal cites Linn v. Plant Guard Workers (1966) 383 U.S. 53 [15 L.Ed.2d 582, 86 S.Ct. 657], in which a cause of action for libel was found not exclusively within the Board’s