The opinion
COUGHLIN, J.
I concur, but deem it advisable to note that the modification of the injunction deleting therefrom restrictions upon the language defendants may use in picketing signs, posters, placards or slogans is not an authorization to use language the object of which is to effect quota hiring. Where the object of picketing is unlawful, the picketing is unlawful, and may be enjoined. (Northwestern Pac. R.R. Co. v. Lumber & Sawmill Workers’ Union, 31 Cal.2d 441, 445-446 [ 189 P.2d 277 ] ; Park & Tilford Import Corp. v. International etc. of Teamsters, 27 Cal.2d 599, 603 [ 165 P.2d 891 , 162 A.L.R. 1426 ].) Quota hiring based on race, creed or color is unlawful. (Hughes v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.2d 850 [ 198 P.2d 885 ].) An employer who is required to hire a designated percentage of his employees only because they are persons of a particular race, creed or color, and perforce is required to refuse to hire those of another race, creed or color in order that he may employ the former, is required to discriminate against those he refuses to employ because they are not of the race, creed or color included within the percentage hiring classification. However, an injunction directed to conduct which is neither active nor threatened is unauthorized (Crescent Feather Co. v. United Upholsterers Union, 153 Cal. 433, 437 [ 95 P. 871 ]; Champion Min. Co. v. Consolidated Wyo. Gold Min. Co., 75 Cal. 78, 85 [ 16 P. 513 ]; Early v. Santa Clara *410 Broadcasting Co., 211 Cal.App.2d 367, 373 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 212 ]; Granger v. Orange County Board of Supervisors, 168 Cal.App.2d 274, 276 [ 335 P.2d 748 ]; De Haviland v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., 67 Cal.App.2d 225, 238 [ 153 P.2d 983 ]; Pezold v. Amalgamated etc. Workmen, 54 Cal.App.2d 120, 126, 127 [ 128 P.2d 611 ]; Chrisman v. Culinary Workers’ Local No. 62, 46 Cal.App.2d 129, 133-134 [ 115 P.2d 553 ]), and as the record here does not support the conclusion defendants were engaged in or threatened picketing for the purpose of effecting quota hiring, either directly or indirectly, that part of the order enjoining such is erroneous.
BROWN (Gerald), P. J.—I concur in the views expressed by Mr. Justice Stone and those expressed by Mr. Justice Coughlin.