P & M Vanderpoel Dairy v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd.
| Decision Date | 08 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | F077513 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | P & M VANDERPOEL DAIRY, Petitioner, v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent; JOSE NOEL CASTELLON MARTINEZ, Real Party in Interest. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINIONORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of review. Mary Miller Cracraft, Administrative Law Judge.
Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, Howard A Sagaser, Ian B. Wieland and Charles P. Hamamjian for Petitioner.
Santiago Avila-Gomes, Todd M. Ratshin and James E. Coffey for Respondent.
No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo- In our 2015 opinion relating to this case, we upheld a decision by the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (the Board) that petitioner P & M Vanderpoel Dairy (P & M) committed an unfair labor practice by firing several dairy workers who had jointly requested a pay raise.1 The Board's decision as affirmed by this court included a remedial order that P & M reinstate the dismissed workers and make them whole for all wages and other economic losses suffered as a result of their unlawful dismissals. Since that time, the parties have informally resolved all backpay issues regarding the fired workers except as to one worker—namely, Jose Noel Castellon Martinez (Martinez). To resolve the remaining dispute as to the backpay owed to Martinez, subsequent evidentiary proceedings were held before an administrative law judge (ALJ) who made specific findings. In 2018, the Board affirmed the ALJ's decision and findings, with one minor revision, and concluded that P & M owed Martinez backpay in the sum of $20,707, plus interest and excess tax liability. The Board's decision on the amount of backpay owed to Martinez is reported at P & M Vanderpoel Dairy (2018) 44 ALRB No. 4 (hereafter 44 ALRB No. 4).
On petition for review to this court, P & M challenges the Board's decision in 44 ALRB No. 4, arguing among other things that substantial evidence did not support the backpay findings and that the Board failed to follow the law or denied a fair hearing to P & M. We find P & M's arguments unpersuasive. Because substantial evidence supported the findings of the Board on the amount of backpay owed to Martinez, and the Board's remedy was not shown to be an attempt to achieve ends other than those whichfairly effectuate the remedial policies of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA), the decision of the Board in 44 ALRB No. 4 is hereby affirmed.2
P & M is a dairy located in Tipton, California, owned primarily by Michael Vanderpoel. At the time of the relevant events, Michael Vanderpoel's son, Matthew, helped manage the day-to-day operations of the dairy and supervised some of the dairy workers.
In 2013, Martinez filed an unfair labor practice charge against P & M, alleging that P & M violated the ALRA when Michael Vanderpoel fired him and four other dairy workers on April 17, 2013, for engaging in protected concerted activity. In early 2014, an ALJ conducted evidentiary hearings and issued a recommended decision in which he found that P & M violated section 1153, subdivision (a) of the ALRA by discharging Martinez and four other dairy workers or "milkers" for jointly requesting a $1.00 per hour wage increase from $8.00 to $9.00 per hour. After the Board's General Counsel and P & M filed separate exceptions, the Board reviewed the ALJ's findings and conclusions. On August 28, 2014, the Board issued a decision affirming the ALJ's factual findings and legal conclusions and adopting the ALJ's recommended order. The Board's decision on that matter was reported at P & M Vanderpoel Dairy, supra, 40 ALRB No. 8 (hereafter 40 ALRB No. 8). In that decision, the Board ordered P & M to reinstate the dairy workers and make them whole for all wages and other economic losses suffered as a result of their unlawful dismissals.
P & M sought review of 40 ALRB No. 8 to this court, and in a nonpublished decision issued in 2015, we affirmed the Board's decision. (P & M Vanderpoel Dairy v.ALRB, supra, F070149.) In 2016, the California Supreme Court denied P & M's petition for review, and the United States Supreme Court denied P & M's petition for writ of certiorari. (See P & M Vanderpoel Dairy v. ALRB, review den. Jan. 27, 2016, S230401, cert. den. ___ U.S. ___ .)
After P & M's judicial challenge of the Board's findings proved unsuccessful, the Board's Regional Director sought full compliance with the Board's remedial order set forth in 40 ALRB No. 8 requiring that P & M make the dismissed dairy workers whole.
A Notice of Hearing and Backpay Specification (the backpay specification) was issued by the Board's Regional Director. The backpay specification noted that the parties had reached agreement on the amount of backpay due to four of the five dismissed dairy workers. However, the parties were unable to resolve the amount of backpay due to Martinez under the Board's order, and therefore a hearing on that issue was necessary. The backpay specification further stated that "[t]he backpay liability period" for Martinez "began on April 17, 2013 and ended on October 21, 2016." April 17, 2013 was the date of termination, and October 21, 2016 was the date that P & M made an unconditional offer of reinstatement to Martinez. This period is referred to as the backpay period.
In accordance with a Board regulation (see Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 20291), the backpay specification included information on the methodology, figures, and calculations utilized in making computations for gross backpay, interim earnings, net backpay, interest, and excess tax liability. According to the backpay specification, the gross backpay figure for Martinez was calculated using a representative employee who worked similar hours and days at P & M prior to Martinez's termination, and the net backpay figure was calculated by deducting Martinez's interim earnings from other employment during the backpay period. The net backpay allegedly due to Martinez was $23,094, plus interest ($2,643) and excess tax liability ($1,666). An amendment to the backpayspecification was later issued by the Regional Director, which increased Martinez's interim earnings by $887, thereby decreasing the net backpay figure by that amount.
After the issuance of the backpay specification by the Regional Director, the parties entered a formal settlement agreement which provided the amount of backpay that would be paid by P & M to the four dairy workers other than Martinez. The Board approved the settlement. As noted, no settlement was reached concerning Martinez. P & M filed an answer and an amended answer to the backpay specification, contesting the backpay amount assertedly owed to Martinez and the factual basis for determining the amount due.
On October 31, 2017, an evidentiary hearing was held before the ALJ to determine the amount of backpay owed by P & M to Martinez. At the ALJ hearing, attorneys for the General Counsel sought to show the calculations and methodology used in the backpay specification, as amended, resulted in a reasonable and appropriate estimate of the amount due to remedy the unfair labor practice committed against Martinez.3 P & M was likewise represented by legal counsel at the ALJ hearing, and it sought to establish among other things that Martinez did not mitigate his damages by diligently pursuing dairy work. On December 15, 2017, the ALJ issued its written decision. The ALJ found that Martinez adequately mitigated his damages by seeking comparable employment opportunities during the backpay period. Further, the ALJ found that the backpay calculations advocated by the General Counsel were reasonable under all the circumstances. Accordingly, the ALJ recommended that P & M be ordered to comply with the terms of the backpay specification as amended.
P & M filed exceptions to the ALJ's decision, and the matter proceeded to the Board for review. After considering the entire record, the Board issued its decision in 44 ALRB No. 4, affirming the ALJ's findings of fact and legal conclusions, in part, with a minor modification decreasing Martinez's net backpay award by $1,500 due to interim earnings not included in the backpay specification. Accordingly, the Board ordered in 44 ALRB No. 4 that P & M shall pay Martinez backpay in the amount of $20,707, plus interest and excess tax liability as calculated under applicable precedent.
P & M filed a petition requesting our review of the Board's decision in 44 ALRB No. 4, pursuant to Labor Code section 1160.8. P & M's petition challenged the validity of the Board's backpay decision on several grounds. We notified the parties that the matter would be reviewed by this court.
When the Board finds an unfair labor practice and imposes a remedy such as backpay, judicial review of the Board's decision is available by filing a petition for review under Labor Code section 1160.8. (Lab. Code, § 1160.8.)4 (Arnaudo Brothers, L.P. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1213, 1225 (Arnaudo Brothers).) If such material errors are found, the court may "make and enter a decree enforcing, modifying and enforcing as so modified, or setting aside in whole or in part, the order of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial