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 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 25
Author: Steinberg (D)
Amended: 6/19/13
Vote: 21
SENATE LABOR & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE : 3-1, 3/13/13
AYES: Lieu, Leno, Lara
NOES: Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Padilla
SENATE FLOOR : 23-10, 5/6/13
AYES: Beall, Block, Calderon, Corbett, Correa, De León,
DeSaulnier, Evans, Hancock, Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Jackson,
Leno, Lieu, Liu, Monning, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Roth,
Steinberg, Wright
NOES: Anderson, Cannella, Emmerson, Fuller, Gaines, Huff,
Knight, Nielsen, Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Berryhill, Galgiani, Lara, Wolk, Yee,
Vacancy, Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 43-25, 8/19/13 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Agricultural labor relations: contract dispute
resolution
SOURCE : United Farm Workers
DIGEST : This bill makes various changes to the mandatory
mediation procedures of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act
(ALRA), as specified.
CONTINUED
SB 25
Page
2
Assembly Amendments specify that a party, in filing its request
for mediation, must declare that it has made itself available to
meet and bargain with the other party, at reasonable times and
places during the applicable period, and delete the language
that expands the definition of an agricultural employer to
include subsequent purchasers of an agricultural employer's
business where the original employer had an obligation to
bargain with its workers.
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.
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
CONTINUED
SB 25
Page
3
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.
B. The employer has committed an unfair labor practice.
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. Specifies that a party, in filing its request for mediation,
must declare that it has made itself available to meet and
bargain with the other party, at reasonable times and places
during the applicable period.
3. 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.
4. Requires that the ALRB's order must be implemented while an
ALRB review is pending.
5. Provides that a court may only issue a stay if:
CONTINUED
SB 25
Page
4
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.
B. The appellant has demonstrated by clear and convincing
evidence a likelihood of success on appeal.
6. Requires the court deciding the stay shall provide written
findings and analysis supporting the decision to grant a
stay.
7. 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.
Background
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.
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
CONTINUED
SB 25
Page
5
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/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:
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.
Prior legislation . SB 126 (Steinberg, Chapter 697, Statutes of
2011) reformed the ALRA 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
CONTINUED
SB 25
Page
6
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/26/13) (per Assembly Labor and
Employment Committee analysis - unable to reverify at time of
writing)
United Farm Workers of America (source)
AFSCME
California Chiropractic Association
California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union
California Conference of Machinists
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Professional Firefighters
California School Employees Association
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Engineers and Scientists of California
International Longshore and Warehouse Union
Monterey Bay Central Labor Council
North Bay Labor Council
Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21
San Francisco Labor Council
San Mateo Labor Council
State Building and Construction Trades Council
Teamsters Union, Local 890
UNITE HERE!
United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Western States Council
Utility Workers Union of America, Local 132
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/26/13) (per Assembly Labor and
Employment Committee analysis - unable to reverify at time of
writing)
Agricultural Council of California
Agricultural Personnel Management Association
Allied Grape Growers
American Pistachio Growers
California Association of Cattlemen
California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers
California Association of Wheat Growers
California Association of Wine Grape Growers
California Bean Shippers Association
California Cattelmen's Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Citrus Mutual
California Cotton Ginners Association
California Cotton Growers Association
CONTINUED
SB 25
Page
7
California Dairies, Inc.
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Grain and Feed Association
California Grape and Treefruit League
California Peach Growers Association
California Pear Growers Association
California Seed Association
California State Floral Association
California Tomato Growers Association
Family Winemakers of California
Far West Equipment Dealers Association
Friant Water Authority
Nisei Farmers League
Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce
Raisin Bargaining Association
San Gabriel Valley Regional Chamber
Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce
Southwest California Legislative Council
Ventura County Agricultural Processors Association
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Western Growers Association
Western United Dairymen
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The bill's sponsor, United Farm Workers
of America, states:
[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.
CONTINUED
SB 25
Page
8
[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.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : 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 continuously takes
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 election can be conducted under the ALRA.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 43-25, 8/19/13
AYES: Ammiano, Atkins, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta,
Bradford, Brown, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chesbro, Daly,
CONTINUED
SB 25
Page
9
Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez,
Gordon, Gray, Hall, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones-Sawyer,
Lowenthal, Medina, Mitchell, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian,
Pan, Perea, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Weber,
Wieckowski, Williams, John A. Pérez
NOES: Achadjian, Allen, Bigelow, Chávez, Conway, Dahle,
Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Harkey, Jones,
Linder, Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor, Melendez, Morrell,
Nestande, Olsen, Patterson, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alejo, Buchanan, Cooley, Fox, Frazier,
Levine, V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Salas, Yamada, Vacancy,
Vacancy
PQ:k 8/21/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED