Carian v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
| Citation | 193 Cal.Rptr. 434,145 Cal.App.3d 508 |
| Decision Date | 27 July 1983 |
| Docket Number | AFL-CI,R |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Harry CARIAN, Petitioner, v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA,eal Party in Interest. Civ. 20243. |
Harry Carian (petitioner or Carian) seeks statutory review of a final decision and order of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB or Board) determining that petitioner committed two unfair labor practices and ordering petitioner to take specified affirmative action. (All statutory references are to sections of the Labor Code unless otherwise specified; the Agricultural Labor Relations Act as codified will be referred to ALRA.)
Carian is an agricultural employer engaged in growing table grapes in Riverside County. It employs approximately 400 employees once or twice a year for up to a week each time. Carian owns three labor camps which are operated by its working crews.
On March 28, 1977, United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO (UFW), an agricultural labor organization, served Carian with a notice of intention to organize. Eight days later on April 6, purportedly in an attempt to comply with ALRB's "pre-petition employee list" regulation (Cal.Admin.Code, tit. 8, § 20910) 1 petitioner furnished ALRB a list of some 207 employees (the first employee list). This list specified no payroll period, nor did it set forth job classifications for the employees listed. For some 54 employees the addresses listed consisted of post office boxes, for some 92 employees the addresses listed were outside Coachella Valley. Approximately 50 percent of the employees listed were housed in one of the labor camps owned by Carian. However, the addresses given for only about seven employees named one of these camps or a street location that might have been meant to designate one of the camps.
Having been apprised of the position of UFW and ALRB that the first employee list was insufficient, sometime after April 6, 1977, Carian commenced the practice of presenting to its employees an "employee information card," requesting from the employee his or her full name, mailing address, "current street address," social security number, and his or her birthdate if under the age of 18 years. The card stated at the top: Following a space for the date the card contained the following pretyped recital: "I AM NOT WILLING TO SUPPLY ANY INFORMATION THAT I HAVE NOT WRITTEN ON THIS CARD." This was followed by a space for the employee's signature. The card was in both English and Spanish.
Thereafter on April 22 and May 2, 1977, petitioner submitted two additional employee lists to ALRB. Neither list identified the payroll period to which it pertained. The April 22 list (the second or supplemental list) set forth the names and addresses of 140 employees, giving as their job classification, "general labor." Thirty-one addresses listed were post office boxes, and a large number of addresses were outside Coachella Valley. Three employees were listed for whom no address was stated. The May 2 list (the third list) set forth the names of 207 employees, 182 of whom were the same as on the first employee list. The third list provided only two additional "street" addresses where none had been supplied by the earlier lists.
Although the record does not disclose the dates, subsequently UFW filed a petition for certification accompanied by signatures or authorizations of at least 50 percent of Carian's agricultural employees, and an election was scheduled and held. Whether or not UFW prevailed in the election is not disclosed by the record. It is indicated that the validity of the election is being contested.
Pursuant to charges filed by UFW commencing April 5, ALRB's General Counsel issued a complaint which, after several subsequent amendments, alleged that petitioner had committed two unfair labor practices: one by failing to supply a complete and accurate pre-petition employee list as required by regulations 20910 and 20310(a)(2); the second by unlawfully interrogating employees, through use of the employee information cards, as to whether or not they preferred to be visited by union organizers. Carian filed an answer denying the charging allegations of the complaint. The case was joined with five other unfair labor practice cases in which three other agricultural employers were alleged to have committed similar unfair labor practices. 2 Separate hearings were noticed and had in each case before an administrative law officer (ALO), but both the ALO and the Board rendered, respectively, only a single decision pertaining to all of the cases. 3 The ALO concluded that petitioner had committed the two unfair labor practices alleged. Considering petitioner's exceptions to the ALO's recommended decision and proposed order, the Board affirmed the rulings, findings and conclusions of the ALO "as modified" in its decision and adopted the proposed order as modified. So far as we have been able to ascertain, 4 the only modification of the rulings, findings and conclusions of the ALO to be found in Board's decision is its characterization of the unfair labor practice based on the employee information cards as an unlawful interrogation rather than an unlawful surveillance as the ALO had concluded.
Petitioner contends ALRB's promulgation of the pre-petition employee list regulation (Cal.Admin.Code, tit. 8, § 20910 [see fn. 1, ante] ) was in excess of its authority, a usurpation of the legislative function and not reasonably necessary to effectuate the purposes of ALRA. Failing that, petitioner contends the decision in an earlier subpoena enforcement proceeding is res judicata on the question of petitioner's compliance with the regulation and, further, that Board's determination petitioner committed an unfair labor practice by using the employee information cards is contrary to law and not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. The latter contention is also made with respect to Board's determination petitioner committed an unfair labor practice by failing to furnish a full and complete pre-petition employee list. Finally, petitioner contends that Board's order is overboard and so disproportionate to the conduct involved that it must be characterized as punitive and retributive rather than remedial.
We have concluded that the regulation is valid, that the decision in the subpoena enforcement proceeding is not to be given res judicata effect, that the finding of an unfair labor practice in respect to the pre-petition employee list is supported by substantial evidence on the whole record, that the finding of an unfair labor practice based on the employee information cards is not; and that the order is, indeed, overbroad and defective in several respects.
It is true, of course, that an administrative agency may not promulgate regulations that alter or amend the statute it administers or enlarge or impair its scope. (J.R. Norton Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1979) 26 Cal.3d 1, 29, 160 Cal.Rptr. 710, 603 P.2d 1306; Morris v. Williams (1967) 67 Cal.2d 733, 748, 63 Cal.Rptr. 689, 433 P.2d 697; see California Sch. Employees Assn. v. Personnel Commission (1970) 3 Cal.3d 139, 143-144, 89 Cal.Rptr. 620, 474 P.2d 436.) It is also true that an administrative regulation in conflict with a provision of the enabling statute or its purpose is invalid. (Clean Air Constituency v. California State Air Resources Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 801, 815, 114 Cal.Rptr. 577, 523 P.2d 617, passim.) Further petitioner is correct that in considering the validity of an administrative regulation, it is proper for a court to determine whether the regulation is reasonably necessary to effectuate the purposes of the statute being administered. (Gov.Code, § 11342.2; Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 392, 411, 128 Cal.Rptr. 183, 546 P.2d 687.) However, administrative regulations come before a court "freighted with [a] strong presumption of regularity" (id., quoting Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Reimel (1968) 69 Cal.2d 172, 175, 70 Cal.Rptr. 407, 444 P.2d 79), and it cannot be concluded ALRB's pre-petition employee list regulation is in excess of its authority, in conflict with the ALRA or not reasonably necessary to effectuate its purposes.
Petitioner's argument that promulgation of the regulation is unauthorized by any provision of the act discloses a misconception. There is no requirement that there be specific statutory authority for a particular regulation. Section 1144 of ALRA authorizes Board to promulgate "such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of [ALRA]." The authority conferred on ALRB is a broad one. (See Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Laflin & Laflin v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
...only a single decision pertaining to all of the cases, designated 4 ALRB No. 28. (See Carian v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., supra, 145 Cal.App.3d at p. 519, fn. 3, 193 Cal.Rptr. 434.) On the basis of the testimony of Sun World's vice president, Mr. Nies, the ALO found as follows: "I f......