Screen Guilds Magazine (May 1936)

The Truth About Tuller O N May 2, seven pages of legal opinion by Mr. Walter K. Tal¬ ler appeared in the trade papers “as compiled for Bess Meredyth, 77 accord¬ ing to the statement in the Hollywood Reporter. “Miss Meredyth sought legal opinion . . . and engaged one of the fin¬ est law firms in the country to render that opinion/ 7 the item goes on the say. There are two sides to every question. The Screen Writers 7 Guild feels that in Laurence W. Beilenson it is represented by a man who is experienced in organi- bation law, conservative and one of the outstanding attorneys of the United States. Part of the organization since its formation, Mr. Beilenson 7 s legal ad¬ vice has been competent, accurate and just in the past. It is on his advice and with his counsel that Article XII has been invoked and rescinded and that the amalgamation with the Authors 7 League of America has been accomplished. Not in any sense to combat a thing that does not need to be fought, but only to present to the membership a fair analysis of the problems involved, we asked Mr. Beilenson to direct his atten¬ tion to the opinion which was published in the trade papers. The following is his reply: May 5, 1936. The Screen Writers 7 Guild, 1655 North Cherokee, Hollywood, California. Gentlemen: Y OU have asked me to direct my at¬ tention to the opinion of Mr. Wal¬ ter K. Tuller, published in the trade papers of May 2, 1936. The essential conclusion of the opinion is that the contract of The Screen Writers 7 Guild and the Constitution of the Authors 7 League of America, Inc., are invalid, re¬ spectively, as being in restraint of trade under the California and the United States statutes. I have given careful study to the opinion. Before we prepared the con¬ tract of April 6, 1933, Mr. Ewell D. Moore and I wrote an opinion as to its legality on these exact points. I con¬ cluded at that time that the contract met the test of legality and I have not changed my opinion. That opinion is on file with the Guild and it would serve no useful purpose to attempt to detail it in full. The Cartwright Act contains Section 13, providing: “Labor, whether skilled or unskilled, is not a commodity within the meaning of this Act. 77 The Cali¬ fornia courts have consistently upheld the full rights of labor organizations to organize through unions and control their members. The leading case in California is J. F. Parkinson Co. vs. Building Trades Council, 154 Cal. 581, upholding as legal for labor organiza¬ tions the secondary boycott, which is held illegal in many other States. Other important cases are: Pierce vs. Stablemen’s Union, 156 Cal. 70; People vs. Armentrout, 118 Cal. App. 761; Jor- dahl vs. Hayda, 1 Cal. App. 696, 699; Overland P. Co. vs. Union L. Co., 57 Cal. App. 366; and McConville vs. Milk Union, 106 Cal. App. 696. In Overland P. Co. vs. Union L. Co., 57 Cal. App. 366, the Court upheld as legal an agreement between an employ¬ ers 7 association and a labor union whereby the latter agreed to sell the labor of its members only to members of the employers 7 association, and also held that the fact that a publishing house because of its refusal to become a member of the employers 7 association was prevented from securing union labor to continue its business did not entitle it to either injunctive relief or damages. In upholding the agreement of the union to sell the labor of its mem¬ bers only to members of the employers 7 association the Court said: a T HE so-called Cartwright Act (Stats. 1907, p. 984, as amended by Stats. 1909, p. 594), upon which plaintiff relies in bring¬ ing this action, contains a provision that labor, whether skilled or un¬ skilled, is not a commodity within the meaning of this act. The por¬ tion of the Typographical Agree¬ ment pleaded by plaintiff is a con¬ tract concerning labor. It is an agreement by the unions to sell their labor only to persons coming within a designated class. “It is the right of every man to engage to work for or to deal with, or to refuse to work for or to deal with, any man or class of men as he sees fit, without being held in any way accountable therefor. ( Park¬ inson vs. Building Trades, 154 Cal. 581, 599 (16 Ann. Cas. 1165, 21 L.R.A. (N.S,) 550, 98 Pac. 1027) ; Pierce vs. Stablemen’s Union, 156 Cal. 70, 75 (103 Pac. 324).). These rights may be exercised in associ¬ ation with others so long as they have no unlawful object in view. (.Parkinson vs. Building Trades, supra, at p. 599.) Thus, where building contractors and a group of workmen made an agreement which restricted the opportunities of a contractor not a party thereto, it was said, that though the business of the third party was interfered with, the courts could give no re¬ lief, since ‘the law could only make it possible for the complainant to do business in the way he chooses by compelling the defendants to do business in the way they did not choose. When equal rights clash, the law cannot interfere. 7 ( Na¬ tional Fireproofing Co. vs. Masons Builders Assn., 169 Fed. 259 (26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 148, 94 C.C.A. 535).). “In the case of Pierce vs. Stable¬ men’s Union, 156 Cal. 75 (103 Pac. 327), it was said: ‘We think that today no court would question the right of an organized union of em¬ ployees, by concerted action, to cease their employment (no con¬ tractual obligation standing in the way) and this action constitutes a “strike. 77 We think, moreover, that no court questions the right of these men to cease dealing by con- (Continued on Page 18) " It seems reasonable, also, to point out that if The Screen Writers 7 Guild is an illegal combination in restraint of trade, so is Actors 7 Equity Association and the Dramatists 7 Guild. They have done pretty well for a goodly number of years. ^ 5 • May, 1936