Court Opinion

ID: 9599195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:15:53.500711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:12.255921
License: Public Domain

CARTER, J.
I dissent.
I cannot agree with either the reasoning or the result reached in the majority opinion. I would write the opinion in this case as follows:
From their verified complaints and affidavits, viewed most favorably for plaintiffs, it appears that plaintiffs are promoters of professional wrestling matches in Long Beach and Ocean Park, respectively. Defendants are American Television Equity Society, and officers and directors of the society.
According to the affidavit of the society’s president, it is a nonprofit corporation- organized under the laws of California primarily for the purpose of acting as collective bargaining agent for its members in respect to improving conditions of employment of various “sports artists” who appear on television programs and to establish rules of fair play. In *419September, 1949, its predecessor, an unincorporated association, filed with the National Labor Relations Board an application for recognition as a labor organization under the National Labor Management Relations Act. Later it filed a similar application and was accorded recognition by the board as such an organization. Among its members are professional wrestlers licensed by the California State Commission. In its form of application for membership they applicant states that he appoints the society as his bargaining agent. Plaintiffs allege in their complaints, however, that the society is not “an organization, or agency, or employee representation committee, or any local unit thereof, in which employees participate or exist for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, hours of employment, or conditions of work, as provided in Section 1117 of the Labor Code of the State of California. . . . [S]aid Society, Inc., was organized for the purpose of compelling certain professional wrestlers in the State of California to become 'members of, or affiliated with, said defendant corporation so that defendants could and would receive a percentage of the money paid to said wrestlers for their television rights.”
There is a dispute as to whether the wrestlers appearing in plaintiffs’ arenas are their employees or independent contractors. The complaints allege that the relationship of employer-employee does not exist; that plaintiffs “book” the wrestlers for performances and have an agreement with a “certain” corporation under which the latter has the right to televise the matches, for which right the corporation pays the wrestlers; that plaintiffs exercise no control over the manner or method of performance by the wrestlers. Defendants’ affidavits are to the contrary.
Further, it is alleged that none of the wrestlers performing in matches promoted by plaintiffs belong to the society. In September, 1949, defendants combined to injure plaintiffs’ businesses, by claiming falsely that the society was a bona fide labor organization to safeguard the interests of employees, and that a labor dispute between plaintiffs and the society existed, when in fact its purpose was to compel wrestlers to become members of it so it could receive a percentage of the money paid them for television rights, and that no labor dispute exists. (This is denied by defendants.) To carry out its purpose of obtaining a percentage of the *420wrestlers’ pay, defendants demanded that plaintiffs sign an agreement with the society that plaintiffs would use only wrestlers who are or will become members of the society. Plaintiffs refused to agree and defendants have picketed and threaten to continue to picket their places of business to compel them to sign such an agreement. The pickets carried a sign stating “unfair to organized labor.” As a result of the picketing, plaintiffs have lost and will continue to lose business. There is no labor dispute between plaintiffs and the wrestlers performing at their arenas. The "preliminary injunctions enjoined the picketing.
The sharp conflict in the complaint and affidavits is apparent. The preliminary injunction was issued, however, and I must accept the view most favorable to plaintiffs, as the trial court is the judge of credibility and must resolve the conflicts. (Northwestern Pac. R. Co. v. Lumber & S. W. Union, 31 Cal.2d 441, 443 [189 P.2d 277].) Plainly, the foregoing matters alleged by plaintiffs are sufficient to establish that professional wrestlers are independent contractors rather than employees. It might seem to show also that the sole purpose of the society and of its picketing activity and demands is not to advance the working conditions of employees or of professional wrestlers as independent contractors. It is to compel them to be members of its organization in order that it may receive a percentage of the compensation which such wrestlers receive for consenting to the broadcast of the matches on television. If this is the only purpose or object of the society, it would appear to be lacking in lawful objective, it being merely a scheme whereby the society will profit from wrestlers without giving them anything in return. I do not know how the members of the society would share in the money so obtained, if at all, but if they share equally, then a portion of the compensation of each wrestler would be shared by all, resulting in wrestlers who commanded higher compensation sharing in part with those receiving less. The only other possibility that presents itself is that the officers of defendant society would consume the. profits in salaries paid to themselves, and that their activity in picketing or interfering with plaintiffs’ businesses has as its object a “racket,” that is, extorting money from the wrestlers, or has no object at all, except that of hurting plaintiffs’ businesses.
I do not think that such an interpretation of the complaint is reasonable, nor that the trial court so intended to con*421strue it. It is not alleged that the foregoing purpose was the sole one in the latter part of the quotation from the complaint, and'in the first part, it is alleged that the society is not an organization in which employees participate, which I construe to mean that wrestlers are independent contractors rather than employees and the members of the society consist of the former. In the same tenor it is also alleged that there is not a labor dispute between plaintiffs and the wrestlers performing in their arenas. But what constitutes a labor dispute is indecisive, that term being vague at the best. As will be seen from the discussion later herein the pertinent factors do not involve such indefinite phrases as “labor dispute,” “independent contractors” and “labor organizations.” The question is, whether the acts of defendants as such are justified because of the circumstances. I turn, therefore, to the detailed statement in the affidavit of the president of the society showing that it is in part organized to improve the working conditions of professional wrestlers, whether they be called employees or independent contractors, and to deal on behalf of its members with those who use their services, and to adopt rules of fair play among wrestlers, and that the picketing here was done to bring the wrestlers used by plaintiffs into its ranks. Thus there is a situation where independent contractors whose commodity for sale is services —wrestling—join in an association to improve their bargaining position with the buyer of their talents in order that they may obtain more advantageous working conditions and compensation. To that end they picket a prospective user of their services to compel the ones whose services he is using to join the association, and to deal with it in regard to compensation, working conditions and the selection of those who shall be participants in the exhibitions.
Preliminarily, it should be observed, plaintiffs assert that there was no economic relation between it and the wrestlers, because the wrestlers were paid by a “certain” television corporation for the right to televise the matches, hence there was no relationship between them and the wrestlers at all. Plaintiffs allege, however, that they “book” the wrestlers for the performances put on by them. Thus it would appear that they choose who shall perform, and as they are in the promotion business of exhibiting such matches, there is a direct connection between them and the wrestlers. Moreover, they also allege that they made a contract with a tele*422vision corporation whereby they granted the right of television to the corporation for a compensation “mutually agreed upon. ’ ’ The wrestlers were not a party to the agreement. All that is alleged is that the corporation pays compensation to the wrestlers for television rights. It certainly cannot be said that bringing concerted action at the place where the matches are performed and televised, under these circumstances, is so remote that it is not justified, assuming the concerted activity is otherwise legitimate.
There is no basis for the injunction, inasmuch as the picketing is not for an unlawful object. The object thereof is to persuade the wrestlers engaged by plaintiffs to join the society and be represented by it and to have plaintiffs agree to. engage wrestlers through the society. The fact that they are independent contractors or that there is not a labor dispute or the society is not a labor union in the sense that the wrestlers are not employees in the ordinary employer-employee relation, does not alter the ease. They are offering their services—their labor—for sale and have a definite economic interest in banding together to more effectively negotiate with prospective purchasers on questions of price, working conditions, etc. In those respects there is no substantial difference between an independent contractor and the one with whom he contracts and the employer-employee relation. In both cases the person is seeking a market for his personal services on the best terms obtainable, and in both the prospective user of those services is, generally speaking, an employer, a user and engager of personal services. The economic interests and positions are fundamentally the same. Indeed, the interference with plaintiffs’ businesses may be privileged under a rule that: “One who purposely causes a third person not to enter into or continue a business relation with another in order to influence the other’s policy in the conduct of his business is privileged, if (a) the actor has an economic interest in the matter with reference to which he wishes to influence the policy of the other and (b) the desired policy does not illegally restrain competition or otherwise violate a defined public policy and (c) the means employed are not improper.” (Rest., Torts, § 771.)
Thus having common factors, cases in the labor relations field are pertinent. Peaceful picketing is lawful “if reasonably relevant to working conditions and collective bargaining” even though there is no dispute between the employer picketed and his employees (C. S. Smith Met. Market Co. v. Lyons, 16 *423Cal.2d 389 [106 P.2d 414]) as is picketing to compel independent contractors to join a union, there being an appropriate economic connection. (Emde v. San Joaquin County etc. Council, 23 Cal.2d 146 [143 P.2d 20, 150 A.L.R. 916] ; Riviello v. Journeymen Barbers H. C. Intl. Union, 88 Cal.App.2d 499 [199 P.2d 400].) And, in Bautista v. Jones, 25 Cal.2d 746 [155 P.2d 343], this court held valid an injunction granted to independent peddlers of milk to enjoin a milk drivers’ union from preventing milk brokers from supplying them with milk, because the union would not permit the peddlers to join the union, but said: “It (the right to work in independent business) is equally subject to peaceful, economic pressure by labor organizations seeking legitimate ends, such as conditions of work, collective rather than individual bargaining, seniority privileges and other methods of advancement, and the union or closed shop. (See McKay v. Retail Auto S. L. Union No. 1067, 16 Cal.2d 311 [106 P.2d 373] ; C. S. Smith Met. Market Co. v. Lyons, 16 Cal.2d 389 [106 P.2d 414] ; Shafer v. Registered Pharmacists Union, 16 Cal.2d 379 [106 P.2d 403] ; American Federation of Labor v. Swing, 312 U.S. 321 [61 S.Ct. 568, 85 L.Ed. 855].)
“The businessman-worker operating in an industry or field in which he competes with organized workmen may likewise be subjected to the same means of persuasion as any other workman to join the union and conform to the conditions regulating union labor. ’ ’
I am not relying upon any statute and none has been suggested which prohibits the conduct of defendants. Nor am I concerned with the recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court, such as Building Service Emp. Intl. Union v. Gazzam, 339 U.S. 532 [70 S.Ct. 784, 94 L.Ed. 1045], International Brotherhood, C.W.H. Union v. Hanke, 339 U.S. 470 [70 S.Ct. 773, 94 L.Ed. 995, 13 A.L.R.2d 631] and Hughes v. Superior Court, 339 U.S. 460 [70 S.Ct. 718, 94 L.Ed. 985], where the state policy expressed by court decision or statute or the national policy expressed by Congress were found valid, although peaceful picketing was involved. Here there is no state policy, either by statute or court decision, which makes defendants’ actions unlawful. On the contrary, in analogous fields, where the strict employer-employee relation exists, the policy is to permit such conduct.
It is urged that the banner “unfair to organized labor” carried by the pickets was false, because there was no labor dispute and the wrestlers are not employees; they are inde*424pendent contractors. I have pointed out, however, that their position is substantially the same as organized labor. Moreover, that phrase “is not a falsification of facts and ‘to use loose language or undefined slogans that are part of the conventional give-and-take in our economic and political controversies— like “unfair” or “fascist” is not to falsify facts.’ (Cafeteria Employees Union v. Angelos, supra; see Park & T.I. Corp. v. International etc. of Teamsters, supra.) ” (In re Blaney, 30 Cal.2d 643, 649 [184 P.2d 892].)
I would, therefore, reverse the orders.
Traynor, J., concurred.
Appellants’ petition for a rehearing was denied April 2, 1953. Carter, J., and Traynor, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.