Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd.
| Decision Date | 09 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | F069896,F070287 |
| Citation | 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 713,247 Cal.App.4th 284 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | GERAWAN FARMING, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD et al., Defendants and Respondents. Lupe Garcia, Intervener and Appellant, v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board et al., Defendant and Respondents. |
Certified for Partial Publication.*
Georgeson and Belardinelli, C. Russell Georgeson, Fresno; Irell & Manella, David A. Schwarz, Santa Ana, Bruce A. Wessel and Josh Geller, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Scott & Cyan Banister First Amendment Clinic, UCLA School of Law, Eugene Volokh, Los Angeles, for The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, The First Amendment Coalition, and The California Newspaper Publishers' Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Douglas J. Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Tamar Pachter and Nelson R. Richards, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Respondents.
Walter & Wilhelm Law Group and Paul J. Bauer, Fresno, for Intervener and Appellant.
KANE
, J.
Pursuant to Labor Code section 1164 et seq.
, if an agricultural employer and a union certified to represent the agricultural employees of that employer have failed to reach an initial collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (the Board) may, if requested by one of the parties and certain statutory conditions are met, order them to undergo a binding process referred to in the statute as “mandatory mediation and conciliation” (MMC).1 (§ 1164, subd. (a)
.) In the MMC process, after an initial 30–day period of voluntary mediation is exhausted, a decision-maker (the mediator) takes evidence and hears argument from the parties on all disputed issues (the “on the record” phase of the MMC process) and then submits a “report” to the Board stating the mediator's findings on what he or she believes the terms of the CBA should be. The grounds for the mediator's determinations must be stated in the report and supported by the factual record. (§ 1164, subd. (d).) When the report becomes the final order of the Board, it establishes the terms of an imposed CBA to which the parties are bound. (§ 1164.3, subds. (a)-(e).)
In this case, Lupe Garcia (Garcia), an employee of agricultural employer, Gerawan Farming, Inc. (Gerawan), requested the Board's permission to attend and peaceably observe the MMC process that had been ordered between Gerawan and United Farm Workers (UFW). Specifically, Garcia wished to observe the on-the-record phase of the MMC process, where evidence and argument would be presented by the parties to the mediator on all disputed issues. In his request to the Board, Garcia argued that he and other members of the public had a constitutional right of access to the on-the-record portion of the MMC process. The Board rejected Garcia's request and proceeded to issue a broad policy decision that members of the public have no right to attend MMC proceedings. (See Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. United Farm Workers of America (Aug. 21, 2013) 39 ALRB No. 13.)2
In response to the Board's no-public-access ruling, Gerawan filed a declaratory relief action in the trial court, seeking a judicial declaration that the Board's ruling violated a right of public access protected under both the federal and state Constitutions. Garcia intervened in the same action and filed a similar pleading in the form of a complaint-in-intervention. The Board demurred to both complaints on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because section 1164.9 limited all judicial review of the Board's rulings in such cases to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court. The trial court agreed with the Board and sustained the demurrers without leave to amend. Gerawan and Garcia have separately appealed from the resulting judgments3 of dismissal, arguing that (1) section 1164.9 did not preclude the trial court from exercising jurisdiction because that section is unconstitutional and (2) the Board's no-public-access policy violates a right of public access to civil proceedings protected under the federal or state Constitution, or both.4
We agree with Gerawan and Garcia on the first point, and we remand the action to the trial court on the second. As to section 1164.9, we hold that its absolute preclusion of superior court jurisdiction, even in exceptional circumstances where (as with Garcia) the sole statutory mechanism for judicial review was unavailable and constitutional rights were assertedly at stake, impermissibly divested the superior court of its original jurisdiction without an adequate constitutional foundation for doing so. Therefore, section 1164.9 is unconstitutional.
It follows that the judgments of dismissal must be reversed. The trial court had jurisdiction to reach the constitutional issues raised in the several causes of action. Accordingly, we will reverse and remand the case back to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.5
Gerawan is a family owned farming business based in the Fresno area that grows, harvests and packs stone fruit and table grapes. It provides employment to several thousand agricultural employees. In 1992, following a contested run-off election, the UFW was certified by the Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of Gerawan's agricultural employees. Although some initial bargaining discussions took place at that time, Gerawan and UFW never entered into a CBA.
After an absence of contact for nearly two decades, UFW reappeared in late 2012 and demanded a resumption of negotiations with Gerawan. In early 2013, following several bargaining sessions with Gerawan, UFW filed a request to the Board to have the parties ordered into the MMC process pursuant to section 1164 et seq.
On April 16, 2013, the Board granted UFW's request and ordered Gerawan and UFW to commence the MMC process. A mediator, Matthew Goldberg, was appointed in May 2013.
On June 10, 2013, Garcia, a longtime agricultural employee of Gerawan, appeared at an early MMC meeting (along with other Gerawan employees) and asked the mediator for permission to intervene and participate in the proceedings. At that point in time, the initial voluntary mediation phase of the MMC process had not yet been exhausted. Gerawan supported the idea of allowing employee participation, but UFW did not. The mediator denied Garcia's request, explaining that the mediation proceedings were confidential and that he (Garcia) was not a party to those proceedings.
On July 10, 2013, Garcia filed a petition with the Board as an alleged interested party, seeking the Board's permission to formally intervene and participate in the MMC process. Garcia wanted to participate as an intervening party because the proceedings would likely impact terms and conditions of his employment. He believed that UFW had abandoned him, did not represent him and could not adequately represent his interests. Gerawan filed points and authorities supporting Garcia's petition to intervene. Among other things, Gerawan argued that employees (such as Garcia) and other members of the public were entitled to attend the on-the-record phase of the MMC process based on a qualified First Amendment right-of-access. On July 29, 2013, the Board denied Garcia's petition to intervene. The Board declined to reach Gerawan's public access argument because Gerawan allegedly did not have standing to raise Garcia's rights, and Garcia's petition had not raised the argument.
On August 2, 2013, Garcia filed a modified request to the Board, asking for permission to simply attend and quietly observe the on-the-record portion of the MMC process. This time, the request was expressly based on an asserted constitutionally protected right of public access to such proceedings. On August 21, 2013, the Board denied Garcia's access request. The Board stated it was willing to address the issue because of its importance: “[T]he issue raised by Garcia—whether Garcia and the public have a right of public access to MMC proceedings under the federal and state constitutions—presents an issue of first impression which, if left unresolved, could potentially result in the deprivation of constitutionally protected rights.” The Board discussed the relevant Supreme Court and other precedents and held that the MMC process was distinguishable from civil trials or civil proceedings in which the public has a right of access. The Board reasoned that the MMC process is “more akin to a labor contract negotiation,” and expressed that it could “not see how public access would play a significant positive role in the functioning of MMC or any type of labor contract negotiation for that matter.” Therefore, the Board concluded that there was no First Amendment right of access to the Board's “quasi-legislative proceeding known as MMC.” The Board also ruled that the public had no right of access to MMC proceedings under the California Constitution.
Gerawan filed its complaint for declaratory relief in Fresno County Superior Court on October 28, 2013. Gerawan's complaint sought a judicial declaration that the Board's no-public-access ruling violated the federal and state Constitutions by denying to members of the public and the press a right of access to the on-the-record phase of the MMC process. Gerawan's complaint also sought damages, attorney fees and injunctive relief under title 42 United States Code section 1983
(42 U.S.C. section 1983 ) against individual Board members or officials, premised on the alleged violation of access rights under the federal Constitution.
On December 23, 2013, Garcia filed a motion to intervene in the action in order to file a proposed complaint-in-intervention. On February 11, 2014, the trial court granted Garcia's motion. Garcia's complaint-in-intervention was filed on April 1, 2014. Like Gerawan's complaint, Garcia's complaint-in-intervention...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd.
-
Cmtys. for a Better Env't v. Energy Res. Conservation & Dev. Comm'n
...provisions, the legislature cannot either limit or extend that jurisdiction"]; Gerawan Farming, Inc. v Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 284, 294, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 713 ( Gerawan Farming ) [Legislature does not have power to "defeat or impair" the courts’ jurisdiction].)......
-
Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd., F076148
...trial court, as it had jurisdiction to reach the constitutional issues raised in Gerawan's and Garcia's complaints.8 (Gerawan Farming II, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 289.) In the unpublished portion of the opinion, we held section 1164.5's timing provision did not apply to Garcia's claims ......
-
Cnty. of Riverside v. D.W.
...to determine that the trial court erred. We independently determine the meaning of a statute. (Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 284, 293.) "Our fundamental task in construing a statute is to ascertain the intent of the lawmakers so as to effec......