Pasillas v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
| Decision Date | 24 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | R,P,AFL-CI,AFL-CIO and S |
| Citation | 156 Cal.App.3d 312,202 Cal.Rptr. 739 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Severo PASILLAS, Petitioner, v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA,un Harvest, Inc., Real Parties in Interest. UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA,etitioner, v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Severo PASILLAS, Juan Martinez, Odis Scarbrough, Mann Packing Company, Inc., and Sun Harvest, Inc., Real Parties in Interest. UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA,etitioner, v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Maria Guadalupe NAVARRO, Real Party in Interest. Maria Guadalupe NAVARRO, Petitioner, v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA,eal Party in Interest. UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA,etitioner, v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Odis SCARBROUGH, Real Party in Interest. A021137, A021199, A021200, A021202 and A022544. |
A. Roger Jeanson, Haas & Najarian, San Francisco, Robert F. Gore, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Springfield, Va., Dianna Lyons, Sacramento, Federico G. Chavez, Keene, Daniel Garcia, Wendy Sones, UFW Legal Dept., Appellate Div., Sacramento, for Severo Pasillas, Maria Guadalupe Navarro, and United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO.
Ronald A. Zumbrun, Robin L. Rivett, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, for Odis Scarbrough and Maria Navarro real parties in interest.
Manuel M. Medeiros, Sol., Daniel G. Stone, Chief Deputy Sol., Cathy Christian, Deputy Sol., A.L.R.B., Sacramento, for respondent Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
In these consolidated cases, we consider the extent of a union's authority under the Agricultural Labor Relations Act () 1 to compel a worker's discharge from employment, pursuant to a "union security" provision of a collective bargaining agreement, for the worker's failure to maintain union membership in good standing. We granted the petitions of Severo Pasillas, Maria Navarro and the United Farm Workers of America (UFW or Union) to review the decisions of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB or Board) in three related cases arising out of the Union's suspension or expulsion of four member workers for crossing picket lines to work during 1979 strikes called after expiration of prior collective bargaining agreements but before new agreements had been reached. Pursuant to union security provisions in the new agreements, the workers were fired by their employers at Union request.
Petitioners Pasillas and Navarro, along with two other workers, Juan Martinez and Odis Scarbrough, were all UFW members in good standing and were working for employers who were parties to collective bargaining agreements containing union security provisions. In December of 1978, those agreements expired without new agreements having been reached. 2 Navarro worked as a lettuce wrapper for Growers Exchange, Inc. (sometimes called the El Toro Company); Martinez worked as a broccoli cutter for Mann Packing Company, Inc.; and Scarbrough worked as a tractor driver for Sun Harvest, Inc. (formerly InterHarvest, Inc.), which was also Pasillas' most recent employer. (See fn. 2, ante.)
In January 1979, the UFW called strikes at Sun Harvest, Inc. (Sun Harvest) and Growers Exchange, Inc. (Growers Exchange). There were occasional work stoppages at Mann Packing Company, Inc. (Mann Packing), Martinez's employer, but no formal strike was called. Pasillas, Navarro and Scarbrough each initially respected the strikes but later crossed picket lines and returned to work before the strikes were settled. Martinez joined in all work stoppages at Mann Packing but was later accused of having crossed picket lines to work at Growers Exchange. None of the workers sought to resign from union membership.
The strikes against Sun Harvest and Growers Exchange were settled, and new collective bargaining agreements were signed with all three employers (including Mann Packing) in September and December of 1979. Each new agreement contained a union security provision which conditioned a worker's employment on his maintaining union membership in good standing. 3 The four workers continued working for their respective employers after the new contracts took effect.
Thereafter, each worker was charged with violating union prohibitions against strikebreaking 4 and each was found guilty as charged in separate disciplinary proceedings. The discipline imposed was a two-year suspension of Navarro's membership and outright expulsion for the others. By successful internal appeals to the UFW's National Executive Board (NEB), Scarbrough and Martinez had their expulsions reduced to two-year and one-year suspensions, respectively. An attempted appeal by Navarro was rejected by the NEB as untimely, and Pasillas did not file an appeal. Following each worker's suspension or expulsion--and NEB appeal, if any--notice of each worker's "bad standing" was given to his or her employer, and the workers were thereupon terminated from employment pursuant to the union security provisions in the new collective bargaining agreements.
Only Scarbrough proceeded to the next internal union appeal level, the Public Review Board (PRB). 5 Finding that the Union had failed to demonstrate the membership of persons voting at Scarbrough's trial and had failed to provide a complete trial record, the PRB overturned both the trial and NEB decisions and restored Scarbrough to full union membership. Due to delay caused largely by the apparent loss of Scarbrough's first PRB appeal notice filed in May 1980, the PRB decision and Scarbrough's subsequent reinstatement did not occur until May 1981.
Meanwhile, Scarbrough and the other workers each challenged his or her discharge by filing unfair labor practice charges against the Union (§ 1154, subds. (a)(1) and (b)). Pasillas and Martinez filed charges against their employers as well (§ 1153, subds. (a) and (c)). The Board ordered the charges of Pasillas, Scarbrough and Martinez consolidated, and Navarro's case proceeded separately.
Hearings on the consolidated cases were held in April of 1981 before an administrative law judge (ALJ), and the ALJ's written decision was filed on the following October 9th. The ALJ concluded that, although the Union had power to suspend and hence cause the discharge of its members for strikebreaking, each charging party had been denied due process in the course of the disciplinary proceedings. The discharges were therefore held improper and all unfair labor practice charges were sustained. The ALJ ordered make-whole remedies, retroactive union membership in good standing and immediate offers of reinstatement for all charging parties.
On May 4, 1982, at a prehearing conference before an ALJ in Navarro's case, both sides waived an ALJ hearing and submitted the matter directly to the Board on stipulated facts and certain other documentary evidence, pursuant to Board regulation. (Cal.Admin.Code, tit. 8, § 20260.)
Board review of the ALJ decision in the consolidated cases of Pasillas, Scarbrough and Martinez culminated in a decision and order dated December 30, 1982. A majority of the Board upheld the ALJ's disposition as to Martinez, concluding that he was denied a fair hearing. 6 As to Scarbrough, the Board agreed with the ALJ that a September 1979 layoff caused by the Union constituted a violation of the Act. However, the Board dismissed allegations concerning his subsequent January 1980 discharge from employment in light of remedial actions already taken by the Union and declined to maintain jurisdiction over the matter. Portions of the consolidated complaint relating to Pasillas were dismissed by the Board for his failure to adequately exhaust internal union procedures. 7
By a supplemental decision and order of April 15, 1983 (9 A.L.R.B. No. 17), the Board modified its prior decision as to Scarbrough after granting his motion for reconsideration. The Board reversed its position on the January 1980 discharge and accordingly issued a remedial order. Noting that Scarbrough had recently died, the Board ordered his estate entitled to backpay.
The Board issued its decision in Navarro's case (8 A.L.R.B. No. 104) on December 30, 1982, the same day as its decision in the consolidated cases. Concluding that the strikebreaking charges against Navarro were preferred well beyond the 60-day time period specified in the UFW Constitution (art. XVIII, § 4) and that extensions of time authorized by UFW President Cesar Chavez were ineffectual, the Board found a violation of Navarro's right to due process in the disciplinary proceedings and, due to the gravity of the violation, excused her failure to exhaust internal union procedures. The Board ordered retroactive restoration of union membership and reinstatement to employment, plus make-whole remedies.
On January 28 and 31, 1983, timely petitions were filed for review of the Board's two December 30, 1982 decisions. Pasillas and Navarro each petitioned in their respective cases, and the Union cross-petitioned in both cases (8 A.L.R.B. No. 103, 8 A.L.R.B. No. 104). Neither Martinez nor representatives of Scarbrough sought review. On May 16, the Union petitioned for review of the Board's supplemental decision of April 15, 1983 (9 A.L.R.B. No. 17). (§ 1160.8.) We denied respondent Board's motion to dismiss Navarro's petition (see fn. 12, post ). The five petitions were consolidated for review; we issued writs of review on January 18 and 26, 1984.
Preliminary to addressing several of the various issues presented herein, it is important to examine the language and history of the Act as it relates to the use of union security provisions.
The ALRA was enacted in 1975 to fill a long-standing void left by the National...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beltran v. State of Cal.
...No. 103 (1982). All plaintiffs sought review of the ALRB's decision by the California Court of Appeal. That court rendered a decision in Pasillas' appeal on May 24, 1984. The court rejected Pasillas' constitutional claim on the basis that there was no state action. Pasillas v. ALRB, 156 Cal......
-
Breaux v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
...(Holderby v. Internat. Union etc. Engrs. (1955) 45 Cal.2d 843, 846, 291 P.2d 463; cf. Pasillas v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 312, 356-357, 202 Cal.Rptr. 739.) And so far as potentially relevant to a dispute under the Act, it is the similarly "jurisdictional" rule......
-
Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd.
...compels the use of union security agreements, leaving the parties free to accept or reject them ( Pasillas v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 312, 344, 202 Cal.Rptr. 739 ), Barsamian admitted he was not aware of any open shop UFW contract in California.19 Gerawan asse......
-
Beck v. Communications Workers of America (C.W.A.)
...92 S.Ct. 77, 30 L.Ed.2d 116 (1971); Price, No. H-84-1221, slip op. at 11 (D.Conn. April 11, 1985); Pasillas v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board, 202 Cal.Rptr. 739 (Cal.App. 1. Dist.1984) (following Kolinske and Reid in finding Hanson not to control state action question for state labor la......