Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd.
|14 May 2015
|GERAWAN FARMING, INC., Petitioner, v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA, Real Party in Interest.GERAWAN FARMING, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA, Real Party in Interest.GERAWAN FARMING, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Defendant and Respondent.UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
|California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Irell & Manella, David A. Schwarz ; Georgeson, Belardinelli and Noyes, C. Russell Georgeson ; Barsamian & Moody and Ronald H. Barsamian for Petitioner and for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Luke A. Wake ; Benbrook Law Group, Bradley A. Benbrook , Stephen M. Duvernay ; Walter & Wilhelm Law Group, Paul J. Bauer ; McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth, Anthony Raimondo for NFIB Small Business Legal Center as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner and Plaintiff and Appellant.
Carl G. Borden for California Farm Bureau Federation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner and Plaintiff and Appellant.
Robert P. Roy for Ventura County Agricultural Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner and Plaintiff and Appellant.
John C. Eastman and Anthony T. Caso for Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner and Plaintiff and Appellant.
Jason E. Resnick for Western Growers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner and Plaintiff and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris , Attorney General, Douglas J. Woods , Assistant Attorney General, Mark R. Beckington and Benjamin M. Glickman , Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent.
Mario Martinez , Edgar Aguilasocho ; Altshuler Berzon , Scott A. Kronland and Jonathan Weissglass for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
KANE, J. —
Agricultural employer Gerawan Farming, Inc. (Gerawan), and United Farm Workers of America (UFW) have never reached mutually acceptable terms to enter a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) regarding Gerawan's agricultural employees. UFW was certified as the employees' bargaining representative in 1992, but after engaging in initial discussions with Gerawan, disappeared from the scene for nearly two decades. In late 2012, UFW returned and the parties renewed negotiations. A few months later, at UFW's request, the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (the Board) ordered the parties to a statutory "Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation"
(MMC) process pursuant to Labor Code section 1164 et seq.1 Under the MMC process, if a 30-day mediation period does not succeed in producing a CBA by voluntary agreement, the mediator decides what the terms of the CBA should be and reports that determination to the Board. Once the mediator's report becomes the final order of the Board, the report establishes the terms of an imposed CBA to which the parties are bound. (See §§ 1164, 1164.3.) Here, following the Board's final order adopting the mediator's report, Gerawan petitioned this court for review under section 1164.5, challenging the validity of the order and the MMC process on both statutory and constitutional grounds.2 Among Gerawan's claims is the contention that UFW's lengthy absence resulted in an abandonment of its status as the employee's bargaining representative.
We agree with Gerawan's statutory argument that it should have been given an opportunity to prove abandonment to the Board once UFW requested the MMC process. More fundamentally, we agree with Gerawan's constitutional arguments that the MMC statute violates equal protection principles and constitutes an improper delegation of legislative authority. Accordingly, the Board's order, Gerawan Farming, Inc. (2013) 39 ALRB No. 17, is set aside.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Gerawan is a family-owned farming business that has been in operation since 1938. Gerawan grows, harvests and packs stone fruit and table grapes on about 12,000 acres of farmland located in Fresno and Madera Counties, employing several thousand direct-hire workers and farm labor contractor employees.3
As was the case in the proceedings below, Gerawan's petition for review presents a description of its operations and business model, presumably because of its concern that such practices would be impeded by the CBA established under the MMC process. We summarize that description here, not
to agree or disagree, but simply to accurately portray Gerawan's stated perspective. According to Gerawan, since the 1980's it has placed a major emphasis on quality control and on keeping well-trained, productive employees. To ensure the quality of its produce, it has developed unique interactive methods to maintain quality control at each step of the harvesting and packing process, including an ability to respond to problems in any individual worker's performance in real time. Allegedly, throughout the process, individual workers are notified of any problems, are given additional training or instruction and, if necessary, receive corrective action. Additionally, Gerawan asserts that to retain good workers it has consistently paid its direct-hire employees substantially more than the average industry wage, with many being compensated on a sliding-scale system (within a targeted per hour range) based on quality and productivity. In Gerawan's view, these operational features have been and still are central to its ongoing success but would be hampered or prevented by the imposed CBA.4
UFW's Certification in 1992
On July 8, 1992, following a runoff election in 1990, UFW was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative for Gerawan's agricultural employees. On July 21, 1992, UFW sent a letter to Gerawan requesting negotiations. On August 13, 1992, Gerawan accepted UFW's request to begin bargaining and invited UFW to submit any proposals it wished to make. UFW did not send a proposal to Gerawan until November 22, 1994. In February 1995, the parties held one introductory negotiating session.5 After that, UFW did not contact Gerawan again until late 2012.
UFW's Reappearance in 2012 and the Renewal of Bargaining
On October 12, 2012, UFW sent a letter reasserting its status as the certified bargaining representative for Gerawan's agricultural employees and demanded that Gerawan engage in negotiations. Gerawan responded by letter dated November 2, 2012, expressing its willingness to bargain in good faith, but also raising a number of questions and concerns based on UFW's lengthy absence from the scene. An explanation of UFW's absence was requested, but
UFW refused. Nonetheless, the parties proceeded with negotiations. Between January 17, 2013, and March 29, 2013, the parties held 10 or more bargaining sessions.
MMC Process Ordered by the Board
On March 29, 2013, UFW filed a declaration with the Board requesting that the Board issue an order referring the parties to the MMC process pursuant to section 1164 et seq. Gerawan filed an answer objecting to UFW's request on the grounds that the requirements of sections 1164 and 1164.11 were not satisfied and UFW had abandoned its status as the employees' bargaining representative. On April 16, 2013, the Board rejected Gerawan's arguments and ordered the parties to begin the MMC process.
Gerawan filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the superior court, asking the court to set aside the Board's order sending the parties to the MMC process. The superior court denied the petition.6
A mediator was impaneled in May 2013 and conducted several mediation sessions with the parties. After the voluntary mediation phase of the MMC process was exhausted without any agreement being reached on the terms of a CBA, the mediator conducted on-the-record hearings in which he received testimony and evidence and made rulings on objections.7 Thereafter, the mediator alone crafted the subject CBA. On September 28, 2013, the mediator submitted his report (i.e., his determination of the CBA's terms) to the Board.
The Board Adopts the Mediator's Report
Gerawan filed a petition with the Board objecting to the mediator's report, both generally and as to its particular terms. The Board granted review and remanded the matter back to the mediator as to six issues. After further meetings were held with the parties, the mediator issued a second report to the Board dated November 6, 2013. On November 19, 2013, the Board adopted the mediator's second report and it became the final order of the Board as set forth in Gerawan Farming, Inc., supra, 39 ALRB No. 17, the legal effect of which was to establish the mediator's proposed CBA (as reported) as the final order of the Board. (See § 1164.3.)
The Prior Decertification Election
Two weeks beforehand, on November 5, 2013, with the Board's authorization, Gerawan's employees held an election to decide whether to decertify UFW as their bargaining representative. The ballots were impounded by the Board and have not yet been counted, pending the Board's resolution of claims of misconduct relating to the election. Shortly after the employees' votes were cast, Gerawan requested that the Board stay the MMC proceedings until the outcome of the election was known. The Board denied the stay request on November 14, 2013, without explanation.8 Thus, it is undisputed that when the Board adopted the mediator's report on November 19, 2013, and thereby approved the CBA as determined by the mediator, it did so despite the intervening decertification election, which may have ousted UFW.
Gerawan's Petition for Review
On December 16, 2013, Gerawan filed a petition for review (or more specifically, a petition for a writ of review) to this court, seeking our review under section 1164.5 of the Board's final order in Gerawan Farming, Inc., supra, 39 ALRB No. 17. In its petition, Gerawan...
To continue readingRequest your trial