Lopez v. Shiroma
| Decision Date | 24 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | 1:14-CV-00236-LJO-GSA |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | SILVIA LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. GENEVIEVE SHIROMA, an individual; CATHRYN RIVERA-HERNANDEZ, an individual; J. ANTONIO BARBOSA, an individual; SILAS SHAWVER, an individual; and DOES 1-20, Defendants. |
Judges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation, and this Court is unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases and matters. Given the shortage of district judges and staff, this Court addresses only the arguments, evidence, and matters necessary to reach the decision in this order. The parties and counsel are encouraged to contact the offices of United States Senators Feinstein and Boxer to address this Court's inability to accommodate the parties and this action. The parties are required to reconsider consent to conduct all further proceedings before a Magistrate Judge, whose schedules are far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that of U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill, who must prioritize criminal and older civil cases.
Civil trials set before Judge O'Neill trail until he becomes available and are subject to suspension mid-trial to accommodate criminal matters. Civil trials are no longer reset to a later date if Judge O'Neill is unavailable on the original date set for trial. Moreover, this Court's Fresno Division randomly and without advance notice reassigns civil actions to U.S. District Judges throughout the nation to serve asvisiting judges. In the absence of Magistrate Judge consent, this action is subject to reassignment to a U.S. District Judge from outside the Eastern District of California.
Plaintiff Silvia Lopez is an employee of Gerawan Farming, Inc. (Gerawan), who seeks to disassociate from Gerawan's certified bargaining representative, the United Farm Workers of America (UFW or the Union). Lopez Compl. Doc. No. 2 (hereinafter "Compl.") ¶¶ 1, 32-33. Plaintiff petitioned the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB or the Board) to conduct a decertification election pursuant to California's Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA or the Act). Id at ¶ 32. The Board granted the request, but impounded the ballots from the election in response to allegations of unfair labor practices and election improprieties. Id at ¶ 36. Plaintiff alleges that the decision to impound the ballots was pretextual and that the Board intends to impose a collective bargaining agreement upon Gerawan employees notwithstanding the results of the election. Id. at ¶ 41.
Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court forcing the ALRB to count the ballots and make the election results public, as well as other relief. Id at ¶¶ 48, 51, 57 and p. 17 ¶¶ 1-5. Before this Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Defs.' Mot. To Dismiss, No. 12-1 (hereinafter Defs.' Mem.), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6).
California's Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA) is administered by the Board and a separate office of general counsel. Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1141(b), 1149 (). The general counsel and the five members of the Board are appointed by the governor. Id. The Board adjudicates unfair labor practice (ULP) allegations, drafts regulations, and oversees union representation elections. §§ 1142, 44. The general counsel's office is responsible for investigating and prosecuting ULP claims. § 1149. The general counsel's office supervises attorneys appointed by the board, as well as officers and employees ofregional offices. § 1145.
Regional directors investigate petitions seeking to certify or decertify a bargaining representative, 8 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 20385, 20390, oversee elections, id. § 20350, initiate compliance proceedings, id. § 20290, and investigate ULPs, id. § 20216. Parties may appeal most decisions made by a regional director to the Board, id. §§ 20219, 20393.
The executive secretary acts as liaison between the Board and parties appearing before it. The Secretary maintains a list of parties with actions currently pending before the Board, id. § 20162 and manages its docket, id. §§ 20190, 20231 & 20240. The executive secretary also appoints investigative hearing examiners to address allegations of election improprieties. Id. § 20370
The ALRB oversees proceedings addressing ULP complaints and union representation issues, which are significantly different in nature.
Any person may file a charge alleging a ULP. Cal. Lab. Code § 1160.2; 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 20201. The regional director investigates the charge, and the general counsel's office will issue a formal complaint if there is "reason to believe" a ULP has been committed. 8 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 20216, 20220. Parties issued a complaint have a right to a hearing. Id. § 20269. ULP hearings are similar to court trials in that parties may call witnesses, and engage in discovery and motions practice. Id. §§ 20237, 20246, 20260 & 20269. An administrative law judge (ALJ) presides over the hearing, makes findings of fact and issues a decision. Id., §§ 20279-82. Parties may file an exception to the ALJ's findings, requiring the Board to review the findings and issue a final decision. Id. § 20286. Parties can also request that the Board reconsider its own final opinions. Id. A party may appeal a final order of the Board to a California appellate court, but review is limited to issues of law. Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1160.8, 1164. Published board decisions are precedential. 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 20287.
Representation issues are addressed through a process of petitioning for certification or decertification of a bargaining representative. Cal. Lab. Code § 1156.3; 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 20300. When a petition is filed, the regional director conducts an investigation to determine if there is anadequate showing of interest. 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 20300. "The regional director's determination of the adequacy of the showing of interest to warrant the conduct of an election shall not be reviewable." Id. The regional director supervises any subsequent election. Id. § 20350. Any party can challenge the eligibility of a voter or submit objections to the manner in which the election was conducted. Id. §§ 20355, 20365. The executive secretary deals with election challenges and objections by appointing an investigative hearing examiner (IHE). Id. § 20370(a). Either the Board or the regional director may order ballots impounded while these proceedings are ongoing. Id. § 20360. The IHE conducts a hearing and issues findings and a decision. Id. § 20370(b)-(i). A party may file an exception to the IHE's decision. Id. § 20370(j). The Board may also review the IHE's findings on its own initiative. Id. § 20370(k). However, "to be entitled to administrative review by the Board complainants must present a prima facie case that specific misconduct tainted the election." Lindeleaf v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd., 41 Cal. 3d 861, 868 (1986) (emphasis added); J.R. Norton Co. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd., 26 Cal. 3d 1, 9 (1979). Generally, decisions as to whether the election results are valid are not reviewable by state court. Cadiz v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd., 92 Cal. App. 3d 365, 382 (1979). The Cadiz Court explained that "[t]he ALRA further promotes the speedy resolution of representation issues by statutorily fixing the collective bargaining unit and providing for post rather than pre-election hearings on issues bearing on elections." Id. at 375.
Plaintiff Silvia Lopez is an employee of Gerawan. Compl. ¶ 1. The UFW has represented Gerawan employees since 1992. Id. at ¶ 7. According to Plaintiff, the UFW "did absolutely nothing" on behalf of Gerawan employees between 1995 and 2012. Id. at ¶ 26. In October 2012, UFW sent a letter to Gerawan "requesting negotiations." Id. at ¶ 27. In November of 2012, Gerawan agreed to negotiate in good faith. Id. In March 2013, the UFW invoked the Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation process under Section 1164 of the California Labor Code, and the ALRB compelled the parties to arbitrate theirbargaining disagreements. Id. at ¶ 28. The Board adopted the mediator's report harmonizing the parties' positions in November of 2013. Id. at ¶¶ 29-30. Gerawan challenged the ALRB's initial order to arbitrate the contract in state court, where the case is still pending. Id. at ¶ 31.
Meanwhile, Gerawan employees seeking to disassociate from the UFW began organizing among themselves. Id. at ¶ 32. On September 18, 2013, employees submitted a petition to conduct a decertification election. Id. Defendant Silas Shawver (Shawver), Regional Director of the Visalia Regional Office of the ALRB, denied the petition on September 26, 2013, due to an insufficient number of signatures. Id. at ¶ 33. Employees submitted a second petition on October 25, 2013. Id. at ¶ 34. Shawver denied this petition as well, but the Board overturned his decision. Id.
On October 31, Shawver issued a decision to block the election. Id. at ¶ 36. The ALRB overturned this decision and ordered the decertification election to be held on November 5, 2013. The Board issued the decision as an administrative order (the Order), which was signed by Defendants Shiroma and Rivera-Hernandez, as well as then-ALRB member Herbert O. Mason (who is not a party to this action). Compl. ¶ 24, Ex. A. In the same order, the Board ordered the ballots for the election impounded pending resolution of any related labor complaints and any election challenges. Id.
Prior to the election, the UFW challenged the employment status of individuals on several crews. Id. at ¶ 38. Shawver segregated challenged voters and had them sign declarations. Id. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial