The trial court permitted defendants to introduce evidence over objections by plaintiff that theaters with which Local 162 has closed-shop contracts were members of interstate chains. The evidence indicated that different theaters were members of chains such as Fox West Coast, Inter-Mountain Fox Stanley Werner Theatres (a chain of about 200), National Theatres (a chain of about 425), Loew's, Incorporated (a chain of about 300), Paramount-Dumont (a chain of about 250), and PKO (a chain of about 200). It was estimated that 30 per cent of the theaters in San Francisco were connected with interstate chains. This evidence was undisputed.
The defendants also submitted proposed amendments to the findings of fact and conclusions of law that 'said motion picture theaters are engaged in and affect interstate commerce; that said employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Labor Management Relations Act' and that 'sole and exclusive jurisdiction for any claimed unlawful activities of Local 162 falls under the Labor Management Relations Act.'
The fact that there is no evidence or finding that the Center Theater was engaged in interstate commerce does not make the action local in nature, for plaintiff could have been displaced from any theater by a member of Local 162 under the contracts. And the refusal of Local 162 to dispatch plaintiff to suitable employment is a refusal as to all the theaters. The discrimination caused by Local 162 applies to all theaters, for no theater will hire plaintiff unless he is dispatched by Local 162. Moreover, plaintiff's prayer substantiates the involvement of all theaters, for he prays for a mandatory injunction 'compelling defendants forthwith to dispatch plaintiff to suitable employment as a moving picture machine operator or projectionist within the jurisdiction of Local 162,' which involves all the theaters in San Francisco, and in the alternative for an injunction to prevent defendants from interfering with plaintiff's right to employment at the Center Theater in the City and County of San Francisco or at any other motion picture theater in said City and County. The involvement of all theaters is further emphasized by plaintiff in his Supplemental Memorandum wherein he states: Here the entire controversy is between Thorman and the union and that he (plaintiff) is not suing to get back a job at Center Theater. Thus the Union's unfair labor practice, if any, encompasses all the theaters in San Francisco, and plaintiff so alleges.