BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 25|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 25
Author: Steinberg (D)
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE : 3-1, 3/13/13
AYES: Lieu, Leno, Lara
NOES: Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Padilla
SUBJECT : Agricultural labor relations: contract dispute
resolution
SOURCE : United Farm Workers
DIGEST : This bill removes the limitations on which collective
bargaining negotiations between labor organizations and
agricultural employers qualify for mandatory mediation, as well
as provides that the mandatory mediation must be implemented
while appealed.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1. Provides for a secret ballot election process for
agricultural workers where a petition has been submitted, as
specified, asking for the opportunity for workers to decide
whether to select a particular union as their collective
bargaining representative.
CONTINUED
SB 25
Page
2
2. Requires that the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB)
follow applicable precedents of the National Labor Relations
Act.
3. Provides for a mandatory mediation process for negotiating a
collective bargaining agreement between an agricultural
employer and a certified labor organization any time after:
A. 90 days after a renewed demand to bargain by a labor
organization or agricultural employer certified before
January 1, 2003;
B. 90 days after an initial demand to bargain by a labor
organization or agricultural employer certified before
January 1, 2003; or
C. 60 days after the ALRB certified a labor organization,
or rejects a decertification election, due to employer
misconduct.
4. Specifies that the mandatory mediation process only applies
to agricultural employers of 25 or more employees.
5. Provides that within 60 days after the ALRB issues a final
order on the mediation, either the agricultural employer, the
labor organization, or the ALRB may file an action to enforce
the mediation agreement in superior court. No stay on a
final order of the ALRB can be issued unless the court finds
all of the following conditions are met:
A. The appellant has demonstrated that he/she will be
irreparably harmed by the implementation of the ALRB's
order, and
B. The appellant has demonstrated a likelihood of success
on appeal.
6. Provides the above-discussed mandatory mediation process can
occur only if all of the following conditions are met:
A. The parties have failed to reach agreement for at least
one year after the date on which the labor organization
made its initial request to bargain;
CONTINUED
SB 25
Page
3
B. The employer has committed an unfair labor practice,
and
C. The parties have not previously had a binding contract
between them.
This bill:
1. Strikes out the specified conditions, allowing for a
mandatory mediation process upon the tolling of the
timelines, irrespective of bargaining history.
2. Strikes out the requirement that, for collective bargaining
negotiations certified before January 1, 2003, the mandatory
mediation process would only start for a renewed demand to
bargain.
3. Extends the mandatory mediation provisions to a successor
agricultural employer who purchases all or part of an
agricultural employer who had an obligation to bargain.
4. Provides that an agricultural employer or labor organization
may file an order to enforce a mandatory mediation order from
the ALRB even if a party seeks appellate review of the
decision.
5. Requires that the ALRB's order must be implemented while an
ALRB review is pending.
6. Provides that a court may only issue a stay if:
A. The appellant has demonstrated by clear and convincing
evidence that he/she will be irreparably harmed by the
implementation of the ALRB's order, and
B. The appellant has demonstrated by clear and convincing
evidence a likelihood of success on appeal.
7. Requires the court deciding the stay shall provide written
findings and analysis supporting the decision to grant a
stay.
Background
CONTINUED
SB 25
Page
4
The mandatory mediation process . The mandatory mediation
process was created by two bills, SB 1156 (Burton), Chapter
1145, Statutes of 2002, and AB 2596 (Wesson), Chapter 1146,
Statutes of 2002. While the provisions of the mediation process
have undergone some minor tweaks, the mediation process provided
under existing law remains largely unchanged. Principally, the
limitations on when an agricultural employer or a labor
organization can ask for the mandatory mediation process remain
the same.
They are:
1. The parties have failed to reach agreement for at least one
year after the date on which the labor organization made its
initial request to bargain;
2. The employer has committed an unfair labor practice, and
3. The parties have not previously had a binding contract
between them.
Assuming the above-requirements are met and the above-discussed
timelines are past, a request for mandatory mediation triggers a
specific process. The ALRB must immediately issue an order
directing both parties to meditation and asks the California
State Mediation and Conciliation Service for a list of nine
mediators who have experience in labor mediation. Both parties
select a mediator from the list; if they cannot agree, they
strike names from the list until a mediator is selected by the
process of elimination. The costs of the mediation process are
borne equally by both parties.
Upon appointment, the mediator schedules a 30 day period for
mediation, which can be extended if necessary. If issues are
outstanding after the 30 day period, the mediation process is
considered exhausted. Within 21 days, the mediator issues the
final terms of a collective bargaining agreement, including
issues in dispute by the parties. If the mediator decides
issues in dispute, the mediator must explain the basis for his
or her ruling. Within seven days of the ruling, either party
may appeal a mediator's decision to the ALRB. The ALRB may only
review the mediators decision if:
CONTINUED
SB 25
Page
5
1.The mediator's decision goes beyond wages, hours, and working
conditions of employment;
2.The mediator's decision is based on clearly erroneous findings
of material fact; or
3.The mediator's report is arbitrary or capricious.
If none of the above conditions exists, the mediator's report
becomes the final order of the ALRB. If one or more of the
above conditions exists, then the mediator mediates the process
again. If, after issuing a new decision, a party believes that
the mediator is corrupt, then a new mediator would be called in.
Finally, either party could ask for a stay from a court. A
stay would be granted if the court believed that the mediator's
decision would cause irreparable economic harm and the appeal
had a strong chance for success.
According to the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee
analysis, this bill seeks to address two principal criticisms of
the existing mediation process: the limited number of
negotiations that qualify for the process and the length of time
for the mediation to become binding. On the first criticism,
proponents argue that, after a labor election result is
certified and a labor representative is elected, the relations
between an agricultural employer and a labor organization remain
tense. Having a mandatory and binding mediation process that
allows for a neutral third party to oversee the negotiations and
ensure that a collective bargaining agreement is completed.
This bill addresses this issue by removing the existing
limitations on who can avail themselves of the mandatory
mediation process.
The second criticism that this bill seeks to address is the
length of time it takes for a mediation decision to become
binding. While the process between the mediator and the ALRB is
straightforward, a court can stay the mediation indefinitely
without explaining the reasoning or without an evidentiary
process that establishes that a party would suffer irreparable
harm. Additionally, parties are not following the terms of the
mediation while the appeal is pending. This bill addresses this
issue by requiring that the court may only stay a mediator's
decision with clear and convincing evidence, and that the court
must provide written findings explaining their reasons for
CONTINUED
SB 25
Page
6
staying the mediator's decision. Additionally, this bill
requires the parties to follow the mediation decision while the
appeal is pending.
Highland Ranch/San Clemente Ranch, Ltd. and the successorship
doctrine . Under Labor Code Section 1148, the ALRB must follow
any applicable precedents of the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) precedent. The United States Supreme Court issued a
landmark decision in John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376
U.S. 543 (1964), which found that the arbitration provisions of
a collective bargaining agreement survive a merger. This
created what is frequently referred to as the "successorship
doctrine" in NLRB precedents. This doctrine, however, has
frequently been revisited by the NLRB under different
administrations.
The ALRB utilized the successorship doctrine in Highland
Ranch/San Clemente Ranch, Ltd. (1979) 5 ALRB No. 54. The use of
this doctrine was upheld by the California Supreme Court in
1981. However, the courts have noted that the use of this
doctrine is complex in the agricultural setting due to complex
ownership and employment operations (Michael Hat Farming Co. v.
Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1992) 4 Cal. App. 4th 1037).
This bill codifies the successorship doctrine.
Prior legislation . SB 126 (Steinberg), Chapter 697, Statutes of
2011, reformed the Agricultural Labor Relations Act to provide
explicit authority to the ALRB for bargaining orders, to provide
explicit timelines for election challenges and to strengthen
mandatory mediation requirements.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
SUPPORT : (Verified 4/11/13)
United Farm Workers (source)
AFSCME, AFL-CIO
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California School Employees Association
Monterey Bay Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO
North Bay Labor Council, AFL-CIO
San Francisco Labor Council
CONTINUED
SB 25
Page
7
San Mateo County Central Labor Council
Teamsters Union Local 890
OPPOSITION : (Verified 4/11/13)
Agricultural Council of California
California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers
California Association of Wheat Growers
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Bean Shippers Association
California Cattlemen's Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Citrus Mutual
California Cotton Ginners Association
California Cotton Growers Association
California Dairies, Inc.
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Grain and Feed Association
California Grape and Tree Fruit League
California Pear Growers Association
California Seed Association
California State Floral Association
California Tomato Growers Association
Far West Equipment Dealers Association
Neisi Farmers League
Ventura County Agricultural Association
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Western Growers Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Proponents argue that this bill
addresses several deficiencies with the Agricultural Labor
Relations Act, which prevent employees from realizing the full
benefits of a collective bargaining agreement. Proponents argue
that this bill addresses the issue of employers refusing to
negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement after the
initial agreement expires by allowing for mandatory mediation to
resolve the dispute. Proponents argue that some employers have
used restructuring as a way to nullify union elections, which
this bill resolves by creating a successor doctrine similar to
what is found in the National Labor Relations Act. Proponents
also note that this bill limits the mediation provisions to
employers of 25 or more employees and both parties can select
the mediator.
CONTINUED
SB 25
Page
8
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents argue that this bill
presents significant challenges for agricultural employers.
Opponents argue that this bill allows a union that was certified
prior to January 1, 2003 to request binding arbitration with an
agricultural employer, even if no attempt was made by the union
to negotiate an initial contract. Opponents also note that this
bill binds successor employers, which the opponents argue could
require an employer to negotiate a union contract due to actions
of a prior grower or owner years prior. Finally, opponents
argue that this will require negotiations years after an initial
certification, which could create the situation that the newly
unionized employees never voted for the union.
PQ:k 4/11/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED