Petermann v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters - 174 Cal. App. 2d 184, 344 P.2d 25 (1959)

Rule:

It would be obnoxious to the interests of the State of California and contrary to public policy and sound morality to allow an employer to discharge any employee, whether the employment be for a designated or unspecified duration, on the ground that an employee declined to commit perjury, an act specifically enjoined by statute. The threat of criminal prosecution would, in many cases, be a sufficient deterrent upon both the employer and employee, the former from soliciting and the latter from committing perjury. However, in order to more fully effectuate the State's declared policy against perjury, the civil law, too, must deny the employer his generally unlimited right to discharge an employee whose employment is for an unspecified duration, when the reason for the dismissal is the employee's refusal to commit perjury.

Facts:

Plaintiff employee filed a complaint against defendants, an employer and a union, containing two causes of action. In his first claim, the plaintiff alleged that he was discharged from his job by defendants the day after he testified truthfully before a legislative hearing, contrary to the union's instructions. He alleged that his work was satisfactory during his employment and even "highly satisfactory" the day before the hearing. In his second cause of action, he alleged that the union issued a withdrawal card arbitrarily and maliciously. The employee appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants.

Issue:

1. Did the employee allege sufficient facts to establish a wrongful discharge claim? 
2. Under the circumstances, could the employee hold the defendants liable for the issuance of the withdrawal card? 

Answer:

1) Yes. 2) No.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court overturned the judgment as to the wrongful discharge claim and upheld the judgment as to the claim involving the discharge card. The court first held that the employee, although in an at-will situation, had alleged sufficient facts to establish a wrongful discharge because it was against public policy to discharge the employee for declining to commit perjury. However, the court also held that the employee had not exhausted his remedies within the union as to his claim challenging the issuance of a withdrawal card. The union's constitution obligated a member to seek redress within the union from "adverse rulings or decisions." The issuance of the withdrawal card was such an adverse decision.