Cadiz v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.

• Decision Date: 25 April 1979
• Docket Number: R,AFL-CI
• Citation: 92 Cal.App.3d 365,155 Cal.Rptr. 213
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 88 Lab.Cas. P 55,268 Jose L. CADIZ et al., Petitioners, v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent; UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA,eal Party in Interest. Civ. 4446.

Page 213

155 Cal.Rptr. 213

92 Cal.App.3d 365, 88 Lab.Cas. P 55,268

Jose L. CADIZ et al., Petitioners, v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Real Party in Interest.

Civ. 4446.

Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.

April 25, 1979.

Hearing Denied July 27, 1979.

Joseph E. Herman, George E. Preonas, Bette Bardeen, Kenwood C. Youmans, Keith A. Hunsaker, Jr., and Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, Los Angeles, for petitioners

Marvin J. Brenner, Ellen Lake, Thomas M. Sobel and Daniel G. Stone, Sacramento, for respondent.

Jerome Cohen, Sanford N. Nathan, John Rice-Trujillo, Tom Dalzell, Ellen Greenstone, Michael Heumann, Linton Joaquin, George C. Lazar, Dianna Lyons and Kirsten L. Zerger, Salinas, for real party in interest.

OPINION

GEORGE A. BROWN, Presiding Justice.

In this proceeding Jose L. Cadiz, a farm worker, and his employer, M. Caratan, Inc. (Petitioners) jointly seek a writ of mandate directing the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) to set aside its order nullifying and dismissing their petition for decertification of the United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO (UFW), an agricultural union, and for an order directing that impounded ballots cast in a decertification election be counted. The central issue is the effect under the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA) of an existing one-year term collective bargaining agreement on the timeliness of a petition for an election to decertify the incumbent collective bargaining representative.

Facts

Pursuant to an election held under the ALRA on September 6, 1975, the agricultural employees of M. Caratan, Inc. elected the UFW to serve as their collective bargaining representative. Eighteen months later, on March 22, 1977, the board certified the UFW. Negotiations between the UFW and the employer continued for more than a year until May 11, 1978, when the employer and the union executed a one-year written collective bargaining agreement pursuant to the terms of the ALRA. By its terms the agreement would automatically renew itself unless either party gave the other party 60 days' notice prior to its expiration date requesting negotiations for a new agreement.

On August 25, 1978, approximately three and one-half months after the commencement of the one-year contract, petitioner Cadiz filed a decertification petition pursuant to LABOR CODE SECTION 1156.7¹, ² subdivision (c), with the regional ALRB director (see § 1142) who over the objections of the UFW determined that the petition complied with all the statutory requirements for raising an issue of representation and, as required by the act (see § 1156.3, subd. (a)), ordered the election to be held on September 1, 1978, seven days after the petition was filed.

The election was held on schedule. Acting in response to the UFW's motion on August 31 to dismiss the petition as being untimely, the ALRB on September 1, 1978, ordered impoundment of the uncounted ballots to maintain the status quo pending resolution of the timeliness issue raised by the UFW. Petitioners' request for reconsideration of the impoundment order was denied by the ALRB on September 7, 1978.

On September 25, 1978, a three-to-two majority of the ALRB issued the decision challenged herein (M. Caratan, Inc. (1978) 4 ALRB No. 68), dismissing the decertification petition as untimely and vacating the election. In sum, the ALRB held that as to one-year contracts under the ALRA a petition for decertification will be timely only if filed during the last month of the contract and during the eleven months succeeding expiration of the agreement.

DISCUSSION

Turning to the substantive issues first, we view the case as primarily one of applying the clear, unambiguous and unfettered language of section 1156.7, subdivision (c), which, to repeat, provides:

"(c) Upon the filing with the board by an employee or group of employees of a petition signed by 30 percent or more of the agricultural employees in a bargaining unit represented by a certified labor organization which is a party to a valid collective-bargaining agreement, requesting that such labor organization be decertified, the board shall conduct an election by secret ballot pursuant to the applicable provisions of this chapter, and shall certify the results to such labor organization and employer.

"However, such a petition shall Not be deemed timely unless it is filed during the year preceding the expiration of a collective-bargaining agreement which would otherwise bar the holding of an election, and when the number of agricultural employees is not less than 50 percent of the employer's peak agricultural employment for the current calendar year." (Emphasis added.)

Subdivision (b) of section 1156.7 (fn. 2, Ante ) establishes that an existing collective bargaining agreement shall bar a petition for election among the employees for so much of the term of the agreement as does not exceed three years. In labor law jargon this is referred to as a contract bar. It is to be noted that neither this section nor any other provision of the ALRA prohibits a one-year contract nor prescribes any other term for a collective bargaining agreement. It simply states that a contract for longer than three years will not act as a contract bar for a period in excess of that time. It does not pretend to prohibit a contract for any shorter period.

Subdivision (c) of section 1156.7 (see fn. 2, Ante ) creates an exception to this contract bar by providing that when 30 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit under the particular contract sign a petition requesting that the labor organization be decertified the ALRB shall direct an election to be held. The crucial language as to timing of a decertification petition specifically states that "Such a petition shall not be deemed timely unless it is filed during the year preceding the expiration of a collective-bargaining agreement which would otherwise bar the holding of an election . . . ." (Emphasis added.)

This language on its face explicitly permits a decertification petition to be filed at any time during the term of a one-year contract and is too clear to permit any administrative or judicial tampering with its provisions. ³

The guiding principle of interpretation was laid down by the Legislature in Code of Civil Procedure section 1858:

"In the construction of a statute or instrument, the office of the Judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted; and where there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all."

That prime rule of construction has been adopted and restated by the cases. Thus, in Caminetti v. Pac. Mutual L. Ins. Co. (1943) 22 Cal.2d 344, 353-354, 139 P.2d 908, 913, the Supreme Court instructed "The intent of the Legislature must be ascertained from the language of the enactment and where, as here, the language is clear, there can be no room for interpretation."

(See also Teachers Management & Inv. Corp. v. City of Santa Cruz (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 438, 446, 134 Cal.Rptr. 523; Livingston v. Heydon (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 672, 677, 104 Cal.Rptr. 83.)

The court should not, of course, be concerned with considerations of legislative policy or wisdom. "Courts do not sit as super-legislatures to determine the wisdom, desirability or propriety of statutes enacted by the Legislature." (Estate of Horman (1971) 5 Cal.3d 62, 77, 95 Cal.Rptr. 433, 444, 485 P.2d 785, 796, cert. den., 404 U.S. 1015, 92 S.Ct. 672, 30 L.Ed.2d 662; see also Bodinson Mfg. Co. v. California E. Com. (1941) 17 Cal.2d 321, 325, 109 P.2d 935.)

Notwithstanding these cardinal rules of construction the ALRB not only held that the Legislature did not mean what it plainly said in section 1156.7, subdivision (c), but went further and legislated its own rule by authorizing the filing of a decertification petition during a period which it thought to be the most desirable and wise period, that period being during the last month of a one-year contract and the succeeding eleven months after the contract's expiration. ⁴ It seems clear to us that the ALRB exceeded its authority by thus arrogating unto itself the right to act contrary to the express terms of the statute. (California Welfare Rights Organization v. Brian (1974) 11 Cal.3d 237, 242, 113 Cal.Rptr. 154, 520 P.2d 970, cert. den., 419 U.S. 1022, 95 S.Ct. 497, 42 L.Ed.2d 296; Whitcomb Hotel, Inc. v. Cal. Emp. Com. (1944) 24 Cal.2d 753, 757, 151 P.2d 233.)

In support of its decision and order the ALRB relies primarily upon National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) precedent under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Section 1148 provides that "The board shall follow Applicable precedents of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended." (Emphasis added.) Similarly, in the context of the ALRA the Supreme Court has directed " '(w)hen legislation has been judicially construed and a subsequent statute on the same or an analogous subject is framed in the identical language, it will ordinarily be presumed that the Legislature intended that the language as used in the later enactment would be given a like interpretation. This rule is applicable to state statutes which are patterned after the federal statutes. (Citations.)' (Citations.)" (Belridge Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 551, 557, 147 Cal.Rptr. 165, 169, 580 P.2d 665, 669; see also Nishikawa Farms, Inc. v. Mahony (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 781, 787, 136 Cal.Rptr. 233.)

Since the passage of the NLRA in the mid-1930's the NLRB has developed certain general principles relating to existing collective bargaining contracts barring petitions for decertification or rival union petitions. However, unlike the ALRA the NLRA contains no legislative direction or guidelines governing the principles of a contract bar;...