Labor Code § 1050. Misrepresentation preventing former employee from obtaining employment; Misdemeanor

Interpretation

Even though a complaint, charging plaintiff’s union and his former employer with breach of a collective bargaining agreement, misrepresentation and interference, failed to specify violation of any particular provision of the agreement, it was reversible error to dismiss the action on the ground that it was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, where it appeared from the allegations that the complaint could be amended to state a cause of action under 29 USCS § 185(a), a part of the Labor Management Relations Act, within the state court’s jurisdiction based on violation of a specific provision of the agreement, as well as causes, also within the state court’s jurisdiction, for defamation and breach of the union’s duty of fair representation. Breitegger v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Nov. 19, 1974), 43 Cal. App. 3d 283, 117 Cal. Rptr. 699.

In the employee’s action against the employer, a vendor, and a union for wrongful termination, the court held that the employee failed to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the successor ever prevented or attempted to prevent the employee from obtaining further employment by means of misrepresentations. Walker v. Boeing Corp. (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2002), 218 F. Supp. 2d 1177.

Former employee’s claim of defamation by slander, pursuant to CC § 46(3), and blacklisting, which evolved from Lab C §§ 1050 and 1054, could not stand because the employee failed to create any triable issue of fact regarding whether the disputed statements were made with actual malice or showing that they were in any way related to a prospective employer. Smith v. Pac. Bell Tel. Co. (E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2009), 649 F. Supp. 2d 1073.

Applicability

A former employee who alleged that his former employer knowingly caused its agents in its employ to commit a violation of Lab C § 1050, and that, as a proximate result thereof, plaintiff was not rehired by the former employer failed to state a cause of action under Lab C § 1050, which makes it a misdemeanor for an employer, after an employee has left his service, by any misrepresentation, to prevent the former employee from obtaining employment, and 1054, which provides that any person who violates § 1050 is liable to the aggrieved party for treble damages. Lab C § 1050, applies only to misrepresentations made to prospective employers other than the defendant. It does not apply to misrepresentations made by employees of the defendant to other of the defendant’s employees. Kelly v. General Telephone Co. (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Oct. 4, 1982), 136 Cal. App. 3d 278, 186 Cal. Rptr. 184.

In an action by a local union representing racetracks security guards against two racetracks, an association of racetracks, and another local union, seeking damages based on allegations the racetracks had withdrawn recognition from plaintiff union and had extended recognition to defendant union, which was known to be unauthorized and unwanted by the affected employees, the trial court properly sustained a general demurrer to a cause of action for misrepresentation for “blacklisting” under Lab C §§ 1050 and 1054, because the plain and clear language of the statutes show they apply only to individual employees. Section 1054 provides for a damage remedy for the party aggrieved by a violation of the § 1050 prohibition against an employer blacklisting a former employee. It is patent that the aggrieved party must be the blacklisted employee, not a union, since the latter can neither be fired nor quit. Service Employees International Union v. Hollywood Park, Inc. (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Dec. 12, 1983), 149 Cal. App. 3d 745, 197 Cal. Rptr. 316.