Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Laflin & Laflin
| Decision Date | 23 February 1979 |
| Docket Number | AFL-CI,M |
| Citation | 152 Cal.Rptr. 800,89 Cal.App.3d 651 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 88 Lab.Cas. P 55,257 AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the State of California, Petitioner and Appellant, v. LAFLIN & LAFLIN et al., Respondents, United Farm Workers of America,oving Party and Appellant. Civ. 19293, Civ. 19495. |
The Agricultural Labor Relations Board (hereafter ALRB or Board) appeals from an order of the Riverside Superior Court denying its application for preliminary injunctions pending disposition of unfair labor practice charges against four separate agricultural employers: Cy Mouradick & Sons, Coachella Vineyards, Richard Peters Farms and Harry Carian (hereafter respondents). United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO (hereafter UFW) appeals from the same order and a subsequent order denying its motion to vacate the first.
Some pertinent facts will be included in the discussion of the issues. Summarized here are the facts and law necessary to an understanding of the contentions. (All statutory references will be to the Labor Code unless otherwise specified.)
Respondents are four grape growers in Coachella Valley. They are subject to the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (Lab.Code, § 1140, et seq. (hereafter ALRA)) as agricultural employers (Lab.Code, § 1140.4(c)). UFW is a labor organization as defined by section 1140.4(f). ALRB is the state administrative agency charged with implementation of ALRA including the conduct and certification of representation elections (see §§ 1156-1159) and adjudication of unfair labor practice charges (see §§ 1160-1160.9; Belridge Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 21 Cal.3d 551, 557-558, 147 Cal.Rptr. 165, 580 P.2d 665). By section 1144, ALRB is authorized to make "such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of (ALRA)."
Under its rule-making power, ALRB promulgated a regulation designated section 20910 of title 8 of the California Administrative Code, effective December 1, 1976. So far as is here pertinent, that regulation provides that any labor organization that has filed a valid notice of intent to take access on a designated employer within the past 30 days may file a notice of intention to organize the agricultural employees of the same employer signed by or accompanied by authorization cards signed by at least 10 percent of the current employees of the employer. Within five days thereafter, the employer is required to furnish to ALRB an employee list as described in the regulations. Thereupon ALRB's regional director is to determine if the 10 percent showing of interest has been satisfied and, if so, is to make a copy of the employee list available to the filing labor organization. The same list is to be made available to any labor organization which within 30 days of the original filing date files a notice of intention to organize the agricultural employees of the same employer. No employer is required to provide more than one such employee list in any 30-day period. The employee list required by regulation 20910 is known as a "pre-petition employee list." 1
An employee list is defined by the regulations as "(a) complete and accurate list of the complete and full names, current street addresses, and job classifications of all agricultural employees, including employees hired through a labor contractor, in the bargaining unit sought by the petitioner (organizing union) in the payroll period immediately preceding the filing of the petition." 2 (Cal.Admin.Code, tit. 8, § 20310(a)(2).) Between February 14 and April 26, 1977, pursuant to sections 1149 and 1160.2, 3 on charges by UFW, ALRB's General Counsel filed unfair labor practice complaints against respondents and a number of other agricultural employers charging that each of them had committed an unfair labor practice by failing timely to furnish a complete and accurate employee list in compliance with regulation 20910. 4
On June 6, 1977, ALRB issued its decision finding respondents Coachella Vineyards and Cy Mouradick & Sons and some of the other growers guilty of the unfair labor practices charged. Stating that the same remedies are appropriate in cases of partial failure to comply with regulation 20910(c) as in the case of outright refusal to comply (see fn. 4, Ante ), Board issued extensive remedial orders. (See § 1160.3.) The portions of the orders that are of direct concern on appeal are those relating to pre-petition employee lists and expanded access. Cy Mouradick & Sons and Coachella Vineyards were ordered to cease and desist from "(r)efusing to provide the ALRB with an employee list as required by § 20910(c) of the Regulations." Further, each employer was ordered to take "affirmative action" to effectuate the policies of ALRA, including (1) providing to ALRB forthwith the pre-petition lists due pursuant to the notices of intention to organize previously filed by UFW (Jan. 25, 1977, as to Coachella Vineyards, and Jan. 26, 1977, as to Cy Mouradick & Sons 5); (2) providing "the UFW with an employee list when the 1977 harvest begins and every two weeks thereafter" (emphasis added); and (3) granting UFW substantially expanded rights of access, i. e., substantially in excess of the access rights normally provided by the regulations. 6
On the same date, June 6, 1977, an Administrative Law Officer (ALO) issued a proposed decision and recommended order (see § 1160.3) finding respondent Richard Peters Farms and Harry Carian and several other growers guilty of the unfair labor practices charged. The recommended order was in substance much like the orders of the Board in the other case. In addition to provisions not here material, it proposed to require respondents to cease and desist from "(r)efusing to provide the ALRB with an employee list as required by Section 20910(c) of the Regulations" and to take affirmative action including: (1) providing ALRB "with an employee list as required by Section 20910(c) of the Regulations"; (2) providing "the UFW with an employee list when the 1977 harvest begins and every two weeks thereafter" (emphasis added); and (3) granting "expanded access to the UFW as defined by the Board on the employer's property during this and the next harvest season."
On June 8, 1977, Ruth Friedman, an ALRB staff attorney, hand delivered to respondents' attorney a copy of the June 6 decisions and orders of the Board and the ALO, together with a letter addressed to respondents' attorney informing him Board would "expect a complete payroll list of all current employees of each of the employers to be in the ALRB office in Coachella by Thursday, June 9, 1977 at 1:00 p. m." for "the week ending June 3, 1977," that "(e)ach of the lists must be in strict compliance with Section 20310(a) (2) of the Board's regulations" and that if this demand were not complied with Board intended to apply to the Riverside Superior Court "for an order restraining each of these employers from refusing to comply with the entire orders (sic) in each of the cases." 7
On June 10, 1977, ALRB filed in Riverside Superior Court a petition for restraining orders and preliminary injunctions to restrain and enjoin respondents and the other growers "from failing to comply with" the orders of ALRB and the recommended order of the ALO dated June 6, 1977, and to restrain all parties from engaging in violence. After alleging the status of ALRB, the growers and UFW and the fact that UFW was currently engaged in an organizing campaign, the petition alleged the filing of the previously mentioned unfair labor practice complaints against the growers between February and April 1977, the rendition on June 6 by ALRB of its decision and orders and the rendition on the same date by the ALO of his proposed decision and recommended order, 8 and the fact that the growers were currently engaged in the harvest of grapes and were then or within the next four weeks would be at their peak of employment for the year. It further alleged that the decision of the ALO would not be final for at least 20 days after the order was served, by which time the harvest would be far advanced or over and "the lists" would be of no use; that unless restrained by the court, respondents and the other growers would "continue to commit unfair labor practices by continuing to refuse to comply with the order of the Board and Administrative Law Officer"; and that until 30 days after service of its orders, "the Board has no means to enforce its orders except by order of this Court." The prayer requested issuance of temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions enforcing the orders of the Board and the recommended order of the ALO dated June 6, 1977. It was requested that temporary restraining orders issue forthwith and that an order to show cause issue for hearing on the application for preliminary injunctions.
Three declarations were filed in support of the petition. Only one is material to the issues on appeal, that of Ruth Friedman concerning the June 8 letter notice to respondents' attorney demanding a complete employee list from each grower for the week ending June 3 by 1 p. m. on June 9. (See text preceding fn. 7, Ante.) 9
Although it is not well documented in the record, there was apparently a hearing on June 10 with respect to issuance of the temporary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Filipino Accountants' Assn. v. State Bd. of Accountancy
...may be available. (6 Witkin, Cal.Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Appeal, § 223, p. 4212; see Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Laflin & Laflin (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 651, 662-663, fn. 11, 152 Cal.Rptr. 800; Coalition for L.A. County Planning etc. Interest v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 76 Cal.App.3......
-
Carian v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
...Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Reimel, supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 179, 70 Cal.Rptr. 407, 444 P.2d 79; see Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Laflin & Laflin (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 651, 678-679, 152 Cal.Rptr. 800.) The Board's determination that the pre-petition employee list regulation is reasonably nece......
-
Public Employment Relations Bd. v. Modesto City Schools Dist.
...Teachers Assn. v. Superior Court, supra, 24 Cal.3d 1, 12-13, 154 Cal.Rptr. 893, 593 P.2d 838; Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Laflin & Laflin (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 651, 663, 152 Cal.Rptr. 800.) We believe that reference to both the NLRA and ALRA provides guidance for this court in decidi......
-
Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. California Coastal Farms, Inc.
...of the parties, and the probable effects upon them of the order requested. [Citations omitted.]" (ALRB v. Laflin & Laflin (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 651, 679, 152 Cal.Rptr. 800.) 7 In determining whether relief is proper under section 1160.4, the trial court must make a two-part determination: "[......