Smyrniotis v. Local Joint Executive Bd. of Hotel and Restaurant Emp. and Bartenders Intern. Union of Long Beach and Orange County

9 Citing cases

  1. Englund v. Chavez

    8 Cal.3d 572 (Cal. 1972)   Cited 21 times
    In Englund, an association of 27 growers in the Salinas Valley approached the Teamsters union to "feel out" the prospects of negotiating a bargaining agreement.

    Hereafter all section references are to the Labor Code, unless otherwise stated. As we noted in Smyrniotis v. Local Joint Executive Bd. (1966) 64 Cal.2d 30, 35 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 725, 409 P.2d 949], one of our most recent decisions interpreting the Act, "[t]he legislative motivation for adoption of the Act obviously lay in the inequity visited upon an employer helplessly caught in the throes of an internecine union struggle for which he was not responsible as well as in the social cost which such a dispute entailed." (See also Seven-Up etc. Co. v. Grocery etc. Union (1953) 40 Cal.2d 368, 376 [ 254 P.2d 544, 33 A.L.R.2d 327].)

  2. Corrigan v. Barbers Beauticians Union

    251 Cal.App.2d 490 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 3 times
    In Corrigan v. Barbers Beauticians Union (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 490, 500 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 533], the defendant union conceded that it represented none of the relevant employees and that such workers instead all belonged to another independent union which had been recognized as the exclusive bargaining agent by the plaintiff employer.

    [1] The Act does not apply unless the concerted interference with the employer's business arises out of a dispute between two or more labor organizations as to which has the exclusive right to bargain with an employer or have its members perform work for him. ( Smyrniotis v. Local Joint Executive Board etc. B.I.U., 64 Cal.2d 30, 36-37 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 725, 409 P.2d 949]; Surrey Restaurants v. Culinary Workers Bartenders Union, 54 Cal.2d 461, 464 [ 6 Cal.Rptr. 18, 353 P.2d 730]; Messner v. Journeymen Barbers etc. Int. Union, 53 Cal.2d 873, 881-882 [ 4 Cal.Rptr. 179, 351 P.2d 347]; Petri Cleaners, Inc. v. Automotive Emp. etc. Local No. 88, 53 Cal.2d 455, 471-472 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 470, 349 P.2d 76]; Seven Up etc. Co. v. Grocery etc. Union, 40 Cal.2d 368, 372-373 [ 254 P.2d 544, 33 A.L.R.2d 327].) [2] In order to justify a preliminary injunction under the Act "the existence of a `jurisdictional' strike must be tentatively established by the complaint and affidavits in the manner provided by section 527 of the Code of Civil Procedure."

  3. Englund v. Chavez

    24 Cal.App.3d 422 (Cal. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 2 times

    In order to justify the preliminary injunctions here granted, the existence of a jurisdictional strike must be tentatively established by the complaint and affidavits (Surrey Restaurants v. Culinary Workers & Bartenders Union, 54 Cal.2d 461, 6 Cal.Rptr. 18, 353 P.2d 730). In its most recent opinion construing the statute, Smyrniotis v. Local Joint Executive Bd., 64 Cal.2d 30, at pages 35-36, 48 Cal.Rptr. 725, at page 729, 409 P.2d 949, at page 953, our Supreme Court noted: 'The structure of the California [Jurisdictional Strike] Act is both deceptive and simple. It incorporates two different parts of the Taft-Hartley Act and joins them in an 'incongruous whole'.

  4. United Farm Workers Organizing Comm. v. Superior Court

    4 Cal.3d 556 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 22 times
    In United Farm WorkersOrganizing Committee v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.3d 556, wherein we cautioned against broad injunctions limiting "legitimate activities of industrial combatants" (pp. 569-570) we also pointed out that "Needless to say, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting a court from enjoining violence, activity which contains threats of injury, violence or reprisals, activity which creates public safety hazards, or activity which obstructs ingress and egress to buildings or stores."

    Petitioners do not here challenge the provisions of that injunction and it is not involved in this proceeding. In this proceeding petitioners do not attack the validity of the Antle-Teamster contract, nor do they assert that their dispute with Antle predated the execution of the Teamsters contract. Were this latter contention made and found to be true, it is likely that the dispute would not be a jurisdictional dispute within the meaning of Labor Code section 1118 ( Smyrniotis v. Local Joint Executive Bd. (1966) 64 Cal.2d 30 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 725, 409 P.2d 949].) On September 21, 1970, an unfair labor practice charge was filed by another Salinas Valley agricultural employer alleging that UFWOC, by engaging in secondary boycott activities directed against Antle and several other agricultural employers, had violated section 8, subdivision (b), subsection (4) of the National Labor Relations Act.

  5. Continental Baking Co. v. Katz

    68 Cal.2d 512 (Cal. 1968)   Cited 313 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Continental Baking, this court explained the theory behind this two-pronged test: "`[By] balancing the respective equities of the parties, [the court] concludes that, pending a trial on the merits, the defendant should or that he should not be restrained from exercising the right claimed by him.'"

    See e.g., DeGodey v. Godey (1870) 39 Cal. 157, 167; Patterson v. Board of Supervisors (1875) 50 Cal. 344, 345; White v. Nunan (1882) 60 Cal. 406, 407; Miller Lux v. Madera Canal etc. Co. (1909) 155 Cal. 59, 62 [ 99 P. 502, 22 L.R.A.N.S. 391]; Piper v. Hawley (1918) 179 Cal. 10, 19 [ 175 P. 417]; Kendall v. Foulks (1919) 180 Cal. 171, 174 [ 179 P. 886]; Thompson v. Moore Drydock Co. (1946) 27 Cal.2d 595, 597 [ 165 P.2d 901]; Isthmian S.S. Co. v. National Marine etc.Assn. (1953) 40 Cal.2d 433, 435 [ 254 P.2d 578], overruled on other grounds, 64 Cal.2d 30, 40 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 725, 409 P.2d 949]; Union Interchange, Inc. v. Savage (1959) 52 Cal.2d 601, 606 [ 342 P.2d 249]; Surrey Restaurants v. Culinary Workers Bartenders Union (1960) 54 Cal.2d 461, 468 [ 6 Cal.Rptr. 18, 353 P.2d 730]; see generally, 1 Beach on Injunctions (1894) § 117; 2 High on Injunctions (4th ed. 1905) § 1696; 1 Joyce on Injunctions (1909) § 410a; Spelling, Injunctions and other Extraordinary Remedies (2d ed. 1901) § 22.) [13] "The granting or denial of a preliminary injunction does not amount to an adjudication of the ultimate rights in controversy.

  6. Pro-Family Advocates v. Gomez

    46 Cal.App.4th 1674 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 25 times

    If the evidence conflicts, we must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's decision. (See Isthmian S.S. Co. v. Nat. Marine etc. Assn. (1953) 40 Cal.2d 433, 434-435 [ 254 P.2d 578], overruled on another point in Smyrniotis v. Local Joint Executive Bd. (1966) 64 Cal.2d 30, 40, fn. 3 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 725, 409 P.2d 949].) However, if no issue of fact is presented, we determine whether the granting of the preliminary injunction was error as a matter of law. ( Environmental Coalition of Orange County, Inc. v. AVCO Community Developers, Inc. (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 513, 521 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 59].)

  7. Service Employees Int'l Union v. Hollywood Park

    149 Cal.App.3d 745 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 17 times

    (19) One of the purposes of the Jurisdictional Strike Act, of which section 1122 is a part, is the "protection of the union in its traditional use of concerted activity to improve wages and working conditions." ( Smyrniotis v. Local Joint Executive Bd. (1966) 64 Cal.2d 30, 35 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 725, 409 P.2d 949].) (18b) The favoritism to the Teamsters alleged here necessarily adversely affected SEIU's property and organizational interests, undercutting its ability to use concerted activity on behalf of its members.

  8. People v. Columbia Research Corp.

    71 Cal.App.3d 607 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 8 times
    In People v. Columbia Research Corp. (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 607, 139 Cal.Rptr. 517, the court found an order prohibiting the defendant from " ‘describing any goods or services... as "first class" unless such goods or services are equivalent to the highest quality of goods or services offered within the geographic area within which they are to be provided’ " was not so vague and ambiguous as to be void.

    Its decision will not be reversed on appeal unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion. ( Isthmian S.S. Co. v. Nat. Marine etc. Assn., 40 Cal.2d 433, 435 [ 254 P.2d 578], overruled on other grounds in Smyrniotis v. LocalJoint Executive Bd., 64 Cal.2d 30, 40 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 725, 409 P.2d 949]; Oktanski v. Burn, 138 Cal.App.2d 419, 422 [ 291 P.2d 954]; Christopher v. Jones, 231 Cal.App.2d 408, 412 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 828].) (2) In deciding the case at hand, this court is necessarily governed by settled rules on appeal.

  9. Smyrniotis v. Local Joint Executive Bd. of Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Intern. Union of Long Beach and Orange County

    44 Cal. Rptr. 600 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 1 times

    For Opinion on Hearing, see 48 Cal.Rptr. 725, 409 P.2d 949. Gyler & Gottlieb, by Emanuel Gyler, Long Beach, for appellants.