Lillefloren

In each case petitioners were found guilty of contempt for violating a temporary restraining order of the superior court issued in an action for injunctive relief by employer-plaintiff against defendants unions and members thereof in connection with the latters’ labor activities. Petitioners seek a review of the judgments and orders of commitment.

The temporary restraining order follows closely the language of the Hot Cargo Act (Lab. Code, §§ 1131-1136) which was considered and found invalid in In re Blaney, 30 Cal.2d 643 [ 184 P.2d 892 ],

The additional contention is made that the defendants and petitioners were engaging in their labor activity for an unlawful purpose, namely, to compel the employer-plaintiff to sign a closed-shop contract when it was engaged in interstate commerce, and defendants do not represent a majority of plaintiff’s employees; that they are making a demand for a closed shop which would be unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act. (49 Stats. 449 ; 29 U.S.C.A. 151 et seq.) (See Park & T. I. Corp. v. International etc. of Teamsters, 27 Cal.2d 599 [ 165 P.2d 891 , 162 A.L.R. 1426 ].) But here the restraining order did not forbid the making of such…

I dissent for the reasons stated in the concurring and dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Edmonds in Park & T. I. Corp. v. International etc. of Teamsters, 27 Cal.2d 599 , at page 615 [ 165 P.2d 891 , 162 A.L.R. 1426 ], and for the additional reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in In re Blaney, 30 Cal.2d 643 at page 661 [ 184 P.2d 892 ].

Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied March 4, 1948. Shenk, J., voted for a rehearing.