BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 25
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 25 (Steinberg)
As Amended June 19, 2013
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :23-10
LABOR & EMPLOYMENT 4-2 JUDICIARY 6-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Roger Hernández, Chau, |Ayes:|Wieckowski, Chau, |
| |Gomez, Holden | |Dickinson, Garcia, |
| | | |Muratsuchi, Stone |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Morrell, Gorell |Nays:|Wagner, Gorell, |
| | | |Maienschein |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Makes various changes to the mandatory mediation
procedures of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA).
Specifically, this bill :
1)Deletes the requirement of existing law that, for labor
organizations certified after January 1, 2003, the mandatory
mediation process would only apply for an initial request to
bargain.
2)Provides that an agricultural employer or labor organization
may file an order to enforce a mandatory mediation order from
the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) even if a party
seeks appellate review of the decision.
3)Requires the parties to implement the terms of the ALRB's
order while a petition for a writ of review is pending.
4)Provides that a court may only issue a stay of an ALRB order
unless it finds and states in its initial findings that:
a) The appellant has demonstrated by clear and convincing
evidence that he or she will be irreparably harmed by
implementation of the order; and
b) The appellant has demonstrated by clear and convincing
evidence a likelihood of success on appeal.
SB 25
Page 2
5)Provides that a court granting a stay of an ALRB order shall
provide written findings and analysis supporting the decision.
6)Deletes the limitation that a demand to bargain under the
mandatory mediation process for labor organizations certified
prior to January 1, 2013, can only occur if the parties have
not previously had a binding contract between them.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS : This bill, sponsored by the United Farm Workers
(UFW), proposes to make a series of changes to the mandatory
mediation process that was added to the ALRA in 2002. The
mandatory mediation process was enacted 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 changes, the mediation
process provided under existing law remains largely unchanged.
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 allows for a
neutral third party to oversee the negotiations and ensures 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 required to follow 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
SB 25
Page 3
for staying the mediator's decision. Additionally, this bill
requires the parties to follow the mediation decision while the
appeal is pending.
The UFW states the following in support of this measure:
[This bill] honors the results of secret ballot
elections by allowing for binding mediation to resolve
collective bargaining disputes for the duration of the
union's certification following a secret ballot
election.
Adopted into law 2002, the original binding mediation
law for first contracts has worked. Decades-long legal
maneuvering and delay has been replaced by collective
bargaining agreements covering thousands of California
farm workers. Those contracts have raised wages,
halted arbitrary and inhumane treatment, and stopped
sexual harassment.
However, as first contracts expire some employers are
refusing to negotiate new ones. D'Arrigo Farms
delayed signing a first contract for 32 years
following a secret ballot election won by farm
workers. The company has refused to enter into a new
contract since 2010?
?[This bill] also addresses an enforcement loophole in
the 2002 law that has been identified by the ALRB. In
some specific cases, the ALRB is unable to enforce a
mediator's decision or to implement new wages. This
past summer, a mediator imposed a first contract at
Ace Tomato - a farm where farm workers first voted for
the union in 1989. This first contract gave workers
wage increases, workplace protections, and the ability
to resolve disputes through grievance and arbitration
procedures. Yet, even after two decades of legal
maneuvers by Ace, when workers requested that the ALRB
enforce the contract that Ace was refusing to
implement, the ALRB concluded that it does not have
the power to enforce the contract. As the ALRB wrote:
'?there is no legal mechanism through which the
Board can seek to enforce its decision at this
SB 25
Page 4
time. A statutory amendment is needed to afford
that authority to the Board where, as here, it is
warranted.'
Opponents contend that, by expanding the application of the
mediation process to include all future collective bargaining
agreement negotiations, this bill replaces negotiations between
labor and management in agriculture by continuously repeating
third-party intervention in setting the terms and conditions of
employment. They contend that this negates any possibility of
fostering labor and management cooperation in future
negotiations by providing incentive for one party to simply hold
on its positions until mediation can be commenced in the
relatively short time periods provided for.
In addition, opponents claim that this bill would continuously
take away the important right of agricultural employees to have
the opportunity to review and vote on whether to ratify
negotiated collective bargaining agreements. They note that
this past year has included several situations in which a
certification of a labor organization had been left dormant by
the labor organization for years or even decades, only to be
utilized to apply the mediation provisions to obtain collective
bargaining agreements without allowing employees any opportunity
to decide whether they wished to be represented by the labor
organization that had forgotten them for decades, or to ratify
any collective bargaining agreement that might be ultimately
imposed upon them. Opponents conclude that this bill prevents
employees from ever having an opportunity to decide their own
fate due to the limitations on when an election can be conducted
under the ALRA.
Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091
FN: 0001406