Rivcom Corp. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.

• Decision Date: 17 October 1983
• Docket Number: AFL-CI,S.F. 24520,R
• Citation: 34 Cal.3d 743,670 P.2d 305,195 Cal.Rptr. 651
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 670 P.2d 305, 100 Lab.Cas. P 55,458 RIVCOM CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent; UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA,eal Party in Interest.

Page 651

195 Cal.Rptr. 651

34 Cal.3d 743, 670 P.2d 305, 100 Lab.Cas. P 55,458

RIVCOM CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Real Party in Interest.

S.F. 24520.

Supreme Court of California,

In Bank.

Oct. 17, 1983.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 16, 1983.

Thomas E. Campagne, Thomas M. Giovacchini, Fresno, for petitioners Rivcom Corp. and River Bend Farms.

Gerald Lee Tahajian, Fresno, for petitioner Triple M Farms.

Manuel M. Medeiros, Nancy C. Smith, Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., Sacramento, for respondent.

Marco E. Lopez, Carlos M. Alcala, Francis E. Fernandez, Carmen Flores, Keene, Jerome Cohen, Sanford N. Nathan, Tom Dalzell, San Francisco, Dianna Lyons, United Farm Workers, Sacramento, for real parties in interest.

GRODIN, Justice.

Rivcom Corporation (Rivcom), its parent Riverbend Farms, Inc. (Riverbend), and Triple M. Farms, Inc. (Triple M) petition for review of a decision of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (Board) that the first two companies (collectively the growers) committed acts prohibited by section 1153, subdivisions (a), (c), and (e) of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975 (ALRA or Act) (Lab. Code, § 1140 et seq.). The findings under subdivisions (a) and (c) ¹ are that the growers, as new operators of a large citrus farm in Ventura County, sought to avoid unionization by replacing the resident union-affiliated employees of the farm's previous owner with nonunion workers, and by evicting the resident employees from their labor-camp housing. The Board also upheld allegations that the growers violated subdivision (e) by refusing to bargain in good faith with the United Farm Workers of America (UFW), the certified representative of the predecessor employees. ² The remedy imposed includes broad cease-and-desist and bargaining orders, combined with reinstatement, backpay, and make-whole relief.

We must decide, among other things, what deference is due the Board when it infers from circumstantial evidence that refusal to hire a predecessor's workers was prompted by a prohibited antiunion motive. We conclude that substantial evidence on the whole record supports the Board's decision here. We also reject the petitioners' remaining contentions. Therefore, we enforce the Board's order.

1. Facts.

Rivcom Ranch, formerly known as Rancho Sespe, lies near Santa Paula in Ventura County. The property includes some 4,300 acres, about 1,500 of which are devoted to its principal crops, citrus and avocadoes. Between 1973 and January 1979 the ranch was owned by PIC Realty Company (PIC), a subsidiary of Prudential Insurance Company.

National Property Management Systems, Inc. (NPMS) supervised farming operations under contract with PIC. NPMS employed a year-round agricultural workforce living in labor-camp housing on the premises. The resident employees numbered as many as 140. Most had worked on the ranch for a considerable period, some as long as 10 years. There was evidence that its recent operations had not been profitable.

On May 9, 1978, the UFW won a representation election among the ranch workers. The union was certified on May 17 as the bargaining representative of all agricultural employees of "Rancho Sespe."

In the same year, a group of investors began negotiations to buy the ranch. Newport Properties, Inc. (Newport) was organized for this purpose. The investors eventually decided to lease the ranch for farming purposes to Larry Harris, president and principal shareholder of Riverbend. That company operated as a packer and marketer of citrus for many Ventura County growers. Harris was interested in the ranch primarily as a source of crops for Riverbend's packing operation.

Harris testified he toured the property early in January 1979, saw the need for drastic operational changes, and decided that the current workers should not be rehired because they would resist change. He admitted he became aware "sometime in 1978" that the UFW had won an election among the ranch employees.

On January 16, 1979, PIC sold Rancho Sespe to Paraships Builders, which immediately conveyed it to Newport. Newport, in turn, leased the land to Rivcom, a wholly owned subsidiary of Riverbend. The annual rent was to be at least equal to Rivcom's "net profit" from farming operations, up to $1.675 million.

On the day of the sale, an NPMS official informed the Rancho Sespe employees that their jobs were terminated. Within the next two days, Rivcom served 30-day eviction notices on the workers. ³ Rivcom quickly obtained nonunion agricultural employees from Triple M, a statewide labor supplier with which Riverbend had a longstanding relationship. The number of farmworkers hired was far fewer than that NPMS had employed. None of the former Rancho Sespe workers was considered for reemployment.

On January 18, Emilio Huerta, a UFW agent, telephoned Harris' lawyer, Thomas Campagne. Campagne told Harris that Huerta had demanded recognition of the union, reinstatement of all the displaced employees, withdrawal of the eviction notices, and immediate bargaining about operational changes and a permanent contract. On January 19, the UFW sent Rivcom a mailgram containing essentially the same demands; Rivcom simultaneously received in the mail a copy of unfair labor practice charges filed with the Board.

Harris testified he was confused about receiving demands and charges at the same time. He ordered Campagne to respond to Huerta. Campagne's letter, dated January 19, addressed the recognition issue only. It urged that the prior UFW certification was not binding on Rivcom, and that Rivcom's recognition of the union might violate subdivision (f) of section 1153. ⁴ No mention was made of the hiring and eviction matters.

On January 31, about 60 former Rancho Sespe employees walked together to the ranch office. Some carried signs saying "We want our jobs." A delegation went in and asked to speak to Harris. After a few minutes, a security guard told them Harris would talk to them outside. The group waited in the rain for about 30 minutes. A deputy sheriff, Juan Mendez, then requested that they leave the property. The group's leader, Jaime Zepeda, asked Mendez, who had experience in labor relations, to relay a message to Harris. After talking with Harris, Mendez told the workers Harris did not wish to speak with them, and they dispersed. ⁵

On February 5, Harris received a letter from the UFW dated February 1. It recited that "[t]he former employees of ... Rancho Sespe," including some 140 persons named on an attached list, "hereby apply for employment with Rivcom ...." The letter made no additional demands. It simply declared that, by making application, the employees "do not waive ... seniority or other rights." A second unfair labor practice charge filed by the UFW was served on Rivcom the same day.

2. The Refusal to Hire.

The Board adopted the conclusion of the administrative law officer (ALO) that the growers violated subdivisions (a) and (c) of section 1153 when, in order to avoid unionization and collective bargaining, they replaced the UFW-affiliated former Rancho Sespe employees with nonunion workers. That determination is attacked on numerous grounds.

Subdivisions (a) and (c) correspond respectively to section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). (29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)(1), (3).) As our statute contemplates, we rely where appropriate on "applicable" NLRA precedent. (See § 1148; Highland Ranch v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 848, 855-856, 176 Cal.Rptr. 753, 633 P.2d 949; Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 392, 412-413, 128 Cal.Rptr. 183, 546 P.2d 687.)

It is an unfair labor practice for an employer "[t]o interfere with, restrain, or coerce" employees in the exercise of their organizational rights (ALRA, § 1153, subd. (a); NLRA, § 8(a)(1)) or "[b]y discrimination in ... hiring or tenure, ... to ... discourage membership in any labor organization." (ALRA, § 1153, subd. (c); NLRA, § 8(a)(3).) While the owner of a business has broad power to restructure its operations and hire his own workers, he violates the Act if he discriminates against union applicants on the basis of antiunion animus. (Howard Johnson Co. v. Hotel Employees (1974) 417 U.S. 249, 261-262, and fn. 8, 94 S.Ct. 2236, 2243, and fn. 8, 41 L.Ed.2d 46; NLRB v. Burns Security Services (1972) 406 U.S. 272, 280-281, fn. 5, 287-288, 92 S.Ct. 1571, 1578-1579, fn. 5, 1582, 32 L.Ed.2d 61; Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board (1941) 313 U.S. 177, 185-186, 61 S.Ct. 845, 848, 85 L.Ed. 1271; N.L.R.B. v. Foodway of El Paso (5th Cir.1974) 496 F.2d 117, 119-120.)

The growers do not dispute these settled principles. They argue, however, that the record here cannot support the charges.

At the outset, the growers invoke the general rule that an employer commits no unfair labor practice by rejecting offers to work which are absolutely conditioned on terms he need not accept. (See, e.g., Packing House and Indus. Services v. N.L.R.B. (8th Cir.1978) 590 F.2d 688, 696; Sawyer Stores, Inc. (1971) 190 N.L.R.B. 651, 656.) They argue that the Rancho Sespe workers' attempts to apply through the UFW were improperly conditioned on demands for union recognition, collective bargaining, and "all-or-none" reinstatement of the displaced employees.

The Board concluded that the UFW reinstatement applications were not conditional, since any "demands" were nothing more than negotiating ploys. It was not clear, said the Board, that every applicant would really refuse to work unless the growers agreed to the unwarranted terms. ⁶

We need not tarry over the Board's reasoning. Deficient applications are no legal justification for a refusal to hire if proper, timely offers to work would also have been rebuffed. (Packing House and Indus. Services, Inc., supra, 590 F.2d at pp. 695-696; Piasecki Aircraft Corporation v. N.L.R.B. (3d...