Merrill Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.

• Decision Date: 12 December 1980
• Docket Number: R,AFL-CI
• Citation: 169 Cal.Rptr. 774,113 Cal.App.3d 176
• Parties: , 94 Lab.Cas. P 55,346 MERRILL FARMS, Petitioner, v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA,eal Party in Interest. Civ. 48018.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 774

169 Cal.Rptr. 774

113 Cal.App.3d 176, 94 Lab.Cas. P 55,346

MERRILL FARMS, Petitioner, v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Real Party in Interest.

Civ. 48018.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, California.

Dec. 12, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 9, 1981.

Hearing Denied March 13, 1981.

Arnold B. Myers, William H. Stoffers, Abramson, Church & Stave, Salinas, for petitioner.

Ellen Lake, Chief of Litigation, Manuel M. Medeiros, Asst. Chief of Litigation, Daniel G. Stone, Suzanne Vaupel, Sacramento, for respondent.

Marco E. Lopez, Carlos M. Alcala, Francis Fernandez, Carmen Flores, Federico Chavez, Ellen J. Eggers, Keene, Dianna Lyons, Daniel A. Garcia, Sacramento, for real party in interest.

SCOTT, Associate Justice.

Merrill Farms petitioned for review of an Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) order finding that it had committed unfair labor practices by making threats which interfered with, restrained, and coerced Merrill Farms employees in the exercise of their rights under the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA). (Lab.Code, §§ 1140-1166.3.) ¹

Merrill Farms is an agricultural employer subject to the provisions of the ALRA. It is principally engaged in the growing of lettuce, asparagus, broccoli and other vegetables. The alleged unfair labor practices arose out of statements made by a foreman employed by Merrill Farms, prior to an election to determine if the real party, United Farm Workers of America (UFW) would be certified as the bargaining agent for Merrill Farms' employees.

An election to choose whether to be represented by the UFW was conducted among the employees of Merrill Farms on August 25, 1978. The UFW failed to receive sufficient votes to be certified as the bargaining representative of Merrill Farms' employees. Subsequently, on September 26, 1978, the ALRB issued a complaint based on four charges of unfair labor practices filed by the UFW. On February 19, 1979, after hearings, an administrative law officer (ALO) dismissed two of the charges and upheld two of the charges as violations of Labor Code section 1153, subdivision (a). Subsequently, on review, the ALRB dismissed one of the violations found by the ALO. The ALRB affirmed the remaining violation. It is this violation which gives rise to the instant petition for review.

The facts giving rise to the alleged violation are as follows: On June 15, 1978, Pablo Flores, a crew foreman for Merrill Farms, and several employees were eating their lunches inside a company bus. The employees were discussing the pros and cons of unions. Flores, until then not a party to the discussion, spoke from the driver's seat and said that if the union won, the camp would be closed down, as a similar camp was in 1970, and that the employers would use the land to raise cattle and grow grasses. Flores denies making these or any similar statements. Further, Flores testified that he never spoke with any employees regarding unions. Three Merrill Farms employees testified in support of the allegations. One had been a committee member who handed out pro-union leaflets. He overheard the Flores statement. As to its effect on the other employees, he testified that later in the day other employees were talking about what Flores had said. Furthermore, his fellow workers would listen to him before the Flores statement, but thereafter they would not listen. He also testified that prior to the incident no one had refused leaflets, but after the incident they wouldn't take the pro-union leaflets.

Another employee testified to having heard the Flores statement. He also had participated in union organization. He testified that before the Flores statement most of the workers talked about joining the union, but after the statement they didn't. He testified also that prior to the statement fellow employees would accept union buttons, but thereafter they refused the buttons. He admitted, however, that he saw workers of the crew wearing buttons after the Flores statement, and that he heard no other statements made by Flores concerning the organization activities.

A third witness, who had previously been fired by Flores and rehired by direction of another supervisor, testified that he heard the Flores statement. He testified that after the statement workers didn't wear their buttons and when asked why, they refused to answer. This particular witness stated that he was not afraid to wear his buttons, nor was he concerned that the camp would be closed.

Other employees testified on behalf of Merrill Farms to the effect that they were present at the time the alleged statements were made and did not hear them.

After the ALO's decision, Merrill Farms filed exceptions thereto with the ALRB. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1146, the ALRB delegated its authority to a three-member panel. That panel, in the name of the board, considered the record and the decision of the ALO. Based thereon, the board affirmed the rulings, findings and conclusions of the ALO with respect to the one violation involving Pablo Flores. As to the statements of supervisor Flores, the board found as follows: "The ALO concluded that Respondent violated Section 1153(a) of the Act by the conduct of its supervisor, Pablo Flores, on June 15, 1978. During a discussion among the employees in his crew on the merits of the unionization while the crew was eating lunch in a company bus, Flores said that if the union, that is, the UFW, were to come in, Respondent would close the labor camp where the crew lived and change to planting alfalfa and grasses and raising cattle, operations which are less labor intensive. Flores referred to the closing of a Posadas camp in 1970 as an example of what Respondent would do.

"The ALO found that Flores made these statements, and concluded that they were threats which interfered with, restrained and coerced the employees in their exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 1152 of the Act. We agree and hereby affirm the ALO's conclusion that such statements violated Section 1153(a) of the Act."

The nature of our review is delineated in section 1160.8 of the Labor Code, which provides that "The findings of the board with respect to questions of fact if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole shall in like manner be considered conclusive." (Tex-Cal Land Management, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 335, 346, 156 Cal.Rptr. 1, 595 P.2d 579.)

In Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Bd. (1951) 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (cited with approval in Tex-Cal, supra, at p. 346, 156 Cal.Rptr. 1, 595 P.2d 579), ² the United States Supreme Court extensively reviewed the National Labor Relations Act, wherein the same language is found. The court rejected the concept that courts could determine the substantiality of the evidence to support a board's decision merely on the basis of evidence which in and of itself justified it, without taking into account contradictory evidence or evidence from which conflicting inferences could be drawn (at p. 487, 71 S.Ct. at 463). The court stated, "The substantiality of evidence must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight" (at p. 488, 71 S.Ct. at 464). The court went on to say, "The Board's findings are entitled to respect; but they must nonetheless be set aside when the record before a Court of Appeals clearly precludes the Board's decision from being justified by a fair estimate of the worth of testimony of witnesses or its informed judgment on matters within its special competence or both" (at p. 490, 71 S.Ct. at 465).

Petitioner argues that there is no substantial evidence to support the board's finding that their supervisor, Flores, made the statements attributed to him. The evidence was contradictory, with several employees testifying that the statements were made, and Flores denying that he made the statements. Our inquiry need go no further. The issue is one of witness credibility. In such matters as credibility of witnesses the finder of fact will be reversed only in exceptional circumstances. (See N. L. R. B. v. Massachusetts Mach. & Stamping, Inc. (1st Cir. 1978) 578 F.2d 15, 20.) We find no exceptional circumstances here. There is simply a conflict in the testimony which has been resolved against Merrill Farms. There is substantial evidence to support the ALRB's finding that Flores made the statements.

Petitioner next contends that Merrill Farms should not be responsible for Mr. Flores' statements. However, Flores is a supervisor within the meaning of Labor Code section 1140.4, subdivision (j), which defines a supervisor as "any individual having the authority to discharge." Merrill Farms, in their answer to the complaint before the administrative law officer, admitted that Flores was a supervisor within the meaning of the act. There was undisputed evidence that he discharged one of the crew members who ultimately testified at the hearing. Since he is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act by definition, Merrill Farms is responsible for his statements, whether authorized by them or not, and his statements can form the basis of an unfair labor act. The only manner in which the employer can relieve himself of responsibility for the supervisor's statements is to repudiate the statements. (N. L. R. B. v. Big Three Ind. Gas & Equipment Co. (5th Cir. 1978) 579 F.2d 304, 310.) No such disclaimer was made in the instant case. The fact that senior members of the employer's company were unaware of the statements, as contended by them, does not absolve them of responsibility for them. It is, however, a fact to be considered by the board in determining whether an unfair labor practice did in fact occur, as we shall hereinafter discuss.

We next consider whether, in light of the whole record, the statements found by the board to have been made by Flores could reasonably...