Karahadian Ranches, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
| Decision Date | 10 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | R,AFL-CI |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | KARAHADIAN RANCHES, INC., Petitioner, v. The AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the State of California, Respondent, UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA,eal Party in Interest. Civ. 21406. |
Marco E. Lopez, Carlos M. Alcala, Francis E. Fernandez, Carmen S. Flores, Jerome Cohen, William H. Carder, Ellen Greenstone, Tom Dalzell, Sanford N. Nathan, Dianna Lyons and Wendy Sones for Real Party in Interest.
Karahadian Ranches, Inc. (Karahadian or petitioner) seeks statutory review (Lab.Code, § 1160.8) of a decision of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB or Board) determining that petitioner committed a number of unfair labor practices and of Board's remedial order based thereon. (All statutory references will be to the Labor Code unless otherwise specified.)
Karahadian is an agricultural employer (§ 1140.4, subd. (c)), subject to the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (§ 1140, et seq. [hereafter ALRA] ). It is a family concern, incorporated in California, engaged in the growing of grapes on some 570 acres in Riverside County. Milton Karahadian is a part owner and the principal officer. Between March 3 and June 8, 1977, the period in which the alleged violations occurred, the number of Karahadian's agricultural employees varied from a low of about 200 to a high of 375.
On charges filed by United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO (UFW), a labor organization within the meaning of subdivision (f) of section 1140.4, ALRB's General Counsel filed a complaint accusing petitioner of 12 acts allegedly constituting unfair labor practices. Karahadian filed an answer in essence denying the charges. The case was heard by an Administrative Law Officer (ALO) between June 15 and July 15, 1977, in Coachella. The ALO concluded that 10 of the 12 charged unfair labor practices had been committed. 1 Karahadian filed exceptions with respect to eight of the ten violations found by the ALO and also took exception to the ALO's proposed order as being overly broad and unwarranted in several particulars. 2 The Board thereafter rendered its decision affirming the ALO's determinations as to six of the eight violations found by the ALO and contested by Karahadian. 3 Board's remedial order was in substance the same as that proposed by the ALO.
The events giving rise to the alleged unfair labor practices at issue occurred during the late winter and spring of 1977. Karahadian was then under union contract with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), but that contract was due to expire April 16, 1977, and UFW was attempting to resume the role of employee representative it had enjoyed under an earlier contract from 1970 to 1973, prior to enactment of the ALRA. To that end, in the late winter and spring of 1977 UFW had filed notices of intent to take access and notices of intent to organize. Similar notices were filed by several other agricultural labor organizations. UFW conducted an intense campaign. Karahadian undertook a "no union" campaign and through the Farm Bureau hired an outside agent to assist in its campaign. The agent conducted two seminars for petitioner's supervisors and foremen, 4 instructing them how to conduct themselves properly under the strictures of the ALRA. Thereafter there were several meetings between the supervisors and Milton Karahadian to discuss the prohibition of discrimination against employees because of union activity, the access rule, rules for employee discipline and the "do's and don't's" of the law. Petitioner's "no union" campaign consisted primarily of handing out pro-management leaflets to its employees on four or five occasions through its supervisors and foremen.
These events culminated in a representation election on June 24, 1977.
Of the six unfair labor practices found by Board to have been committed, on review petitioner contests only three. 5
Petitioner contends the Board's determination it committed an unfair labor practice by unlawfully interrogating Hamiid Ali on April 27, 1977, is not supported by substantial evidence on the whole record (see § 1160.8; Martori Brothers Distributors v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 721, 727-728, 175 Cal.Rptr. 626, 631 P.2d 60; Tex-Cal Land Management, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 335, 346, 156 Cal.Rptr. 1, 595 P.2d 579; George Arakelian Farms, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 258, 264-268, 168 Cal.Rptr. 537; Sunnyside Nurseries, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 922, 930-931, 156 Cal.Rptr. 152). We agree.
On April 27, 1977, employee Hamiid Ali was working on the ranch thinning grapevines. Working in a nearby area were his friend and fellow employee, Ali Nage, and two Mexican nationals. Ali Nage had a good deal of difficulty understanding English, but could make out a few words. 6 The two Mexican nationals did not speak English.
Hamiid Ali testified that Milton Karahadian approached him as he was working; that they exchanged greetings; and that then Milton Karahadian asked him: "You with Chavez?" Hamiid replied in the affirmative. Then Milton Karahadian asked: "What happened with your friend, he got shot the other night?" Hamiid denied this. Milton Karahadian then said, "Chavez, your friend, he shoot him."
Milton Karahadian admitted in his testimony that he asked Mr. Ali how Chavez was doing. He explained that he had been informed from the beginning that Ali was an organizer for the UFW and that his question about Chavez Based on this incident petitioner was charged with two unfair labor practices, an implied threat and unlawful interrogation. The ALO rejected General Counsel's theory that what was said constituted an implied threat but concluded that it did amount to "an interrogation concerning union activity."
But interrogation without more is insufficient to prove an unfair labor practice. An unfair labor practice is defined as conduct that interferes with, restrains or coerces employees in the free exercise of their rights (§ 1153, subd. (a); see Belridge Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 551, 559, 147 Cal.Rptr. 165, 580 P.2d 665), and it was General Counsel's burden to prove that the interrogation constituted an unfair labor practice within the meaning of the act.
Federal decisions under section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) (29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1)), after which subdivision (a) of section 1153 of ALRA was modeled, establish that interrogation not itself threatening does not constitute an unfair labor practice unless it is coercive in light of all the surrounding circumstances. (N.L.R.B. v. Monroe Tube Co., Inc. (2d Cir.1976) 545 F.2d 1320, 1328; Sahara-Tahoe Corp. v. N.L.R.B. (9th Cir.1976) 533 F.2d 1125, 1126; Stanislaus Imports, Inc. (1976) 226 NLRB 1190, 1192.) One important factor to be considered is whether there is any evidence the interrogation intimidated any employee. (N.L.R.B. v. Monroe Tube Co., Inc., supra; Sahara-Tahoe Corp. v. N.L.R.B., supra.)
Here there is no evidence that any employee was intimidated, coerced or inhibited in any way in the exercise of employee rights by the conversation between Karahadian and Hamiid Ali. The two Mexican workers were apparently out of hearing range and could not understand English. Although Ali Nage understood a few words of English, he testified that he had to approach the pair in order to hear the conversation that was taking place. It is evident from his testimony that he did not hear the initial exchange in which Karahadian asked how Chavez was doing, and there was nothing in Nage's testimony indicating he in any way felt intimidated, coerced or restrained in the exercise of his rights by what he heard of the conversation. Hamiid Ali himself was clearly not intimidated, coerced or restrained. In the first place, he so testified. Secondly, it is rather apparent that Milton Karahadian already had information that Hamiid Ali was a UFW supporter, that Ali knew or suspected that Karahadian had been so informed, and that Mr. Ali was not in the least deterred from his union activity.
It is true, of course, that General Counsel was not required to show actual intimidation, interference or restraint but only that Karahadian engaged in conduct that would reasonably tend to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights. (Pandol & Sons v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 580, 586, 159 Cal.Rptr. 584; Joy Silk Mills v. National Labor Relations Board (D.C.Cir.1950) 185 F.2d 732, 743-744, citing N.L.R.B. v. Link-Belt Co. (1941) 311 U.S. 584, 599, 61 S.Ct. 358, 366, 85 L.Ed. 368, 379.) However, the complete absence of evidence that any employee felt intimidated or coerced coupled with the ALO's determination that no implied threat was involved established that the exchange was not reasonably likely to interfere with, coerce or restrain employees in the exercise of their rights. (See N.L.R.B. v. Monroe Tube Co., Inc., supra, 545 F.2d at p. 1328; Sahara-Tahoe Corp. v. N.L.R.B., supra, 533 F.2d at p. 1126; Stanislaus Imports, Inc., supra, 226 NLRB at p. 1192; cf. N.L.R.B. v. Marland One-Way Clutch Co., Inc. (7th Cir.1975) 520 F.2d 856, 865-866.)
In support of their position with respect to this...
To continue reading
Request your trial