The fact that the defendant is affiliated with the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, also a defendant herein, and presumably might make the effect of the limitations imposed on the plaintiff's employment felt on a nationwide scale is of no consequence. The employment involved in the present case concerned only the Center Theater in the City and County of San Francisco and there is no hint that the business of that employer affected interstate commerce. Accordingly the dispute is not one within the cognizance of the National Labor Relations Board and the state courts are not deprived of their jurisdiction to resolve the controversy and to award equitable relief and damages for tortious conduct.
It is clear that the plaintiff's cause of action falls within the principles announced in James v. Marinship Corp. and that mandamus is a proper remedy. The defendants claim, however, that in determining the plaintiff's loss of earnings the trial court failed to take into consideration earnings by the plaintiff in other than theater employment, and that such loss of earnings was based in part on overtime work available at the Center Theater whereas the plaintiff's health would not have permitted him to perform such work. It appeared that the plaintiff had earnings from other than theater work both before and after his discharge from the Center Theater. The court awarded damages based upon the difference in the plaintiff's actual earnings from theater employment and the actual earnings of the projectionist who replaced him at the Center Theater during the period involved. This was a reasonable and proper basis to award damages. The findings of fact and conclusions of law are essentially in accordance with the allegations of the amended complaint as to the right to the writ of mandate and the award of damages and there is substantial evidence in support thereof.