In James v. Marinship Copr. (1944) 25 Cal.2d 721, an argument was made comparable to the one made here, that the union, operating under the protection of special precedents and special legislation, could maintain a closed shop and at the same time maintain an arbitrarily closed, or partially closed, union. The court rejected this argument and enjoined maintenance by the union of its closed shop at the expense of black workers, who had been denied membership in the union and relegated to an auxiliary. A union may use various forms of concerted action to enforce an objective reasonably related to any legitimate interest of organized labor, said the court, but the objective of concerted labor activity must be proper and must be sought by lawful means (pp. 728, 729) A state court has the power to protect against abuse of rights by labor unions, and the fundamental question is whether a closed shop coupled with a closed union can constitute a legitimate objective for organized labor. It cannot, said the court, pointing out that when a union attains a monopoly over particular services by collective labor action which results in a closed shop, it occupies a quasi-public position similar to that of a public service business and acquires corresponding obligations which a court will enforce. (P. 731.)