San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon Page 2

San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon general information

Media for San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 20, 1959 in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon

Charles P. Scully:

The case then went back to the California Supreme Court and it conceded that with respect to the injunctive relief.

It was not possible for it to sustain the judgment of the trial court and accordingly, it reversed as to that.

But then it construed the remand of this Court and stated that this Court had invited the California Court, and this is the page 332 of the record.

That it had invited the California Court to examine the state law to determine whether a cause of action for damages in Court could be maintained under that law in a situation which this Court referred to as different from the violence in the Laburnum, stated that the particular case was distinguishable.

And then it's included, and this is at page 337 of the record.

And this is -- quoting, "Based on the foregoing provisions of the statutory law of this State in the findings and conclusions of the trial court which is amply supported by the evidence, the conduct of the defendants constituted unlawful labor practices contrary to and in violation to the laws of the State."

And so I believe Mr. Chief Justices -- Mr. Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, that summarizes very briefly for you what has transpired in the courts below insofar as the litigation in this case is concerned.

Felix Frankfurter:

What do you -- go on --

Earl Warren:

I'll just want to say this that you give us, this procedural background, and would you give us the factual effect.

Charles P. Scully:

Yes, Your Honor.

Earl Warren:

It wasn't in the very (Voice Overlap) --

Charles P. Scully:

Right.

Earl Warren:

-- and just -- just so with the orientation.

Charles P. Scully:

Right.

And that's what I -- that's -- that's what I had started, Your Honor.

I had pointed out with respect to the first item the testimony that the union had presented the contract to the employer for its examination in a statement that would not request its signature until after the employees had joined or agreed to join the union.

Then the union advised the employer that all of the men were agreeable to becoming members of the union and that's in the record at pages 103 and at page 237.

So that the union went out, spoke to the employees, they agreed to become members and the union then advised the employer.

The employer then stated that it wished to speak to each man individually.

That's at page 103 and page 238 of the record.

And the employer spoke to them outside the presence of any union representative.

That -- that's at page 110 of the record.

The employer then stated, and this -- testimony by the employers at page 240 of the record, that he didn't want any union that in the testimony from an employee witness was that the employees drew an inference that the employer disapproved of unions, page 133 of the record.

And in fact, the employer admitted that everyone knew he was not union-minded, page 159 of the record, and that he left the employees know his feeling.

That's at page 269 of the record.

The employer testified also that he had never employed a union member and have never signed a union contract.

That's at page 111 of the record.

The employees then later decided to leave it up to management whether they should join or not join the union.

That's at page 120 and 129 of the record.

But then later on, they changed their minds about joining and the employer advised the union representative that the employees had voted unanimously no union, page 240 of the record.