Sheets

I dissent. I would affirm the judgment for the reasons expressed by Mr. Justice Vallée in the opinion prepared by him for the District Court of Appeal in Sheets v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority, (Cal.App.) 12 Cal.Rptr. 213 .

Schauer, J., concurred.

Respondent’s petition for a modification of the opinion was denied September 13, 1961.

The legal problem involved on this appeal is a limited one. The facts, however, are somewhat complicated.

*484 Prior to March 3, 1958, there were two transit companies furnishing mass transit in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. One was the Los Angeles Transit Lines, primarily an urban system, and the other was Metropolitan Coach Lines, primarily an interurban system. Both companies had collective bargaining agreements with separate unions. Los Angeles Transit Lines had such an agreement with the Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of American (hereafter referred to as Amalgamated) which covered about 2,100 employees. This agreement was to continue until May 31, 1959, and from year to year thereafter in the absence of a 60-day notice of termination by either party. There is no contention or evidence that such a notice was ever given. Metropolitan Coach Lines had several such agreements, the major one being with the plaintiff and appellant the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen (hereafter referred to as Brotherhood) which covered about 1,047 employees. This agreement was to continue until November 30,1959.

In 1957, as a result of the…