BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1389 Page A Date of Hearing: May 6, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT Roger Hernández, Chair AB 1389 (Patterson) - As Amended May 4, 2015 SUBJECT: Agricultural Labor Relations Act SUMMARY: Makes a number of changes to the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA), including changes to provisions of existing law related to mandatory mediation. Specifically, this bill: 1)Provides that it is an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents to "abandon or fail to represent" the bargaining unit for a period of three years or more. 2)Requires the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) to decertify a labor organization that violates this provision. 3)Provides that members of the bargaining unit shall be considered parties for purposes of existing law related to mandatory mediation and shall be entitled to attend all meetings scheduled by the mediator. 4)Provides that an order issued by the mediator, the ALRB, or the court that would impose the terms of binding mediation AB 1389 Page B shall not take effect or be enforceable until it is approved by a majority of the agricultural employees of the bargaining unit affected by the order. 5)Makes other technical changes. FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown COMMENTS: This bill is sponsored by the author and raises several issues that have been the subject of a recent dispute between the United Farm Workers (UFW) and Gerawan Farming, Inc. According to the author, this bill is necessary because this recent case illustrates that the current process under the law is "broken." BRIEF BACKGROUND ON THE AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT Collective bargaining rights of private sector employees generally fall under the exclusive purview of federal labor law under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). However, Section 2(3) of the NLRA explicitly excludes "agricultural laborers" from the protections of the federal law. Therefore, in 1975, the California Legislature passed the ALRA guaranteeing certain rights to California farm workers. The purpose of the ALRA is to "ensure peace in the agricultural fields by guaranteeing justice for all agricultural workers and stability in labor relations." The ALRA states that it is the policy of the State of California to encourage and protect the right of farm workers to act together to help themselves, to engage in union organizational AB 1389 Page C activity and to select their own representatives for the purpose of bargaining with their employer for a contract covering their wages, hours, and working conditions. The ALRA prohibits employers from interfering with these rights, protects the rights of workers to be free from restraint or coercion by unions or employers, and it prohibits unions from engaging in certain types of strikes and picketing. The agency established to implement the ALRA is the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB), which functions in two primary manners. First, the ALRB determines and implements, through secret ballot elections, the right of agricultural employees to choose whether or not they wish to be represented by a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining with their employer. Second, the ALRA gives authority to the ALRB to investigate, process and take to trial employers or unions who engage in actions which the Act describes as "unfair labor practices." BACKGROUND ON THE AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The ALRB's authority is divided between a Board composed of five members and a General Counsel, all of whom are appointed by the Governor and subject to confirmation by the Senate. Together, they are responsible for the prevention of those practices which the Act declares to be impediments to the free exercise of employee rights. When a charge is filed, the General Counsel conducts an investigation to determine whether an unfair labor practice has been committed. If he or she believes that there has been a violation, he or she issues a complaint. The Board provides for a hearing to determine whether a respondent has committed the unfair labor practice alleged in the complaint. AB 1389 Page D Under the statute, the Board may delegate, and in practice has delegated, its authority to hear such cases to Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) who take evidence and make initial recommendations in the form of written decisions with respect to issues of fact or law raised by the parties. Any party may appeal any of the findings, conclusions or recommendations of the ALJ to the Board, which then reviews the record and issues its own decision and order in the case. Parties dissatisfied with the Board's order may petition for review in the Court of Appeal. Attorneys for the Board defend the decisions rendered by the Board. If review is not sought or is denied, the Board may seek enforcement of its order in superior court. When a final remedial order requires that parties be made whole for unfair labor practices committed against them, the Board has followed the practice of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in holding supplemental proceedings to determine the amount of liability. These hearings, called compliance hearings, are also typically held before ALJs who write recommended decisions for review by the Board. Once again, parties dissatisfied with the decision and order issued by the Board upon review of the ALJ's decision may petition for review of the Board's decision in the Court of Appeal. If the court denies the petition for review or orders the Board's order in a compliance case enforced, the Board may seek enforcement in superior court. In addition to the Board's authority to issue decisions in unfair labor practice cases, the Board, through personnel in various regional offices, is responsible for conducting elections to determine whether a majority of the employees of an agricultural employer wishes to be represented by a labor organization or, if the employees are already so represented, to determine whether they wish to continue to be represented by that labor organization, a rival labor organization or no labor organization at all. Chapter 5 of the ALRA empowers the Board to direct an election provided that Board investigation reveals AB 1389 Page E the existence of a bona fide question concerning such representation. Because of the seasonal nature of agriculture and the relatively short periods of peak employment, the Act provides for a speedy election process, mandating that elections be held within seven days from the date an election petition is filed, and within 48 hours after a petition has been filed in the case of a strike. Any party believing that an election ought not to have been conducted, or that misconduct occurred which tended to affect the outcome of the election, or that the election was otherwise not fairly conducted, may file objections to the election. The objections are reviewed by the Board's Executive Secretary, who determines whether they establish a prima facie case that the election should not have been held or that the conduct complained of affected its outcome. If such a prima facie case is found, a hearing is held before an Administrative Law Judge acting in the capacity of an Investigative Hearing Examiner to determine whether the Board should refuse to certify the election as a valid expression of the will of the employees. The Investigative Hearing Examiner's conclusions may be appealed to the Board. Except in very limited circumstances, court review of any decision of the Board in representation matters may be had only in connection with an order in an unfair labor practice case which is based upon the Board's certification. BRIEF BACKGROUND ON MANDATORY MEDIATION UNDER THE ALRA The most significant legislative change to the ALRA occurred in 2002 when Governor Davis signed two companion pieces of legislation, SB 1156 and AB 2956. As a result of those bills, effective January 1, 2003, the ALRA was amended to provide for AB 1389 Page F mandatory mediation in selected circumstances where the parties have been unable to reach a collective bargaining agreement. Under that process, the mediator attempts to help the union and the employer reach agreement on a contract, but if that is not successful, the mediator issues a report that contains the terms of a contract. The mediation process applies only if the employer has employed 25 or more agricultural employees during any calendar week in the year preceding the filing of the request for mediation. If the union was certified after January 1, 2003, the mediation process may be triggered where at least 180 days have elapsed after the initial demand to bargain. If the union was certified before January 1, 2003, the process may be triggered 90 days after a renewed demand to bargain, and where the following conditions are met: (1) the parties have failed to reach agreement for at least one year after the union made its initial demand to bargain; (2) the employer has committed an unfair labor practice; and (3) the parties have not previously had a binding contract between them. While the provisions of the mediation process have undergone some changes, 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: 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 AB 1389 Page G 3) The parties have not previously had a binding contract between them. Assuming the above requirements are met, 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: 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 may petition for a writ of review in the AB 1389 Page H court of appeal or the California Supreme Court. The law provides that review by the court shall not extend further that to determine whether any of the following occurred: 1)The ALRB acted without, or in excess of, its powers or jurisdiction. 2)The ALRB has not proceeded in the manner required by law. 3)The order or decision of the ALRB was procured by fraud or was an abuse of discretion. 4)The order or decision of the ALRB violates any right of the petitioner under the state or federal constitutions. BRIEF BACKGROUND ON THE DISPUTE BETWEEN UFW AND GERAWAN FARMING, INC. As discussed above, this bill raises several issues that have been the subject of a recent dispute between the United Farm Workers (UFW) and Gerawan Farming, Inc. This dispute has been complex and contentious, but a very brief summary is as follows. After a contentious organizing drive and election, the ALRB certified the UFW as the collective bargaining representative of the Gerawan employees in July 1992. AB 1389 Page I What happened next is a matter of dispute between the parties. According to Gerawan, "More than two years later, the UFW responds to Gerawan by sending a boilerplate proposal without any economic proposal. A brief meeting is held during which Gerawan requests a proposal that would be relevant to Gerawan's operations and include economic provisions. The UFW agrees to do so, but never does."<1> Gerawan states that after only one bargaining session in 1994, "the UFW disappeared, abandoning workers for nearly two decades. It did not seek to renew its certification as required by law, nor did the union make an effort to contact Gerawan or to represent the workers. The UFW took no access to communicate with our workers. The UFW did not collect dues or fees from our workers. It filed no grievance or complaint against Gerawan during this 20-year absence."<2> UFW states<3> that during the summer and fall of 1994, it worked with the elected negotiating committee composed of Gerawan --------------------------- <1> http://www.prima.com/summary-of-history/pdfs/Summary_of_History_A pril-9-2015-2.pdf <2> http://www.prima.com/learn-the-facts.php <3> http://www.ufw.org/_board.php?mode=view&b_code=gerawan_news&b_no= 15311&page=2&field=&key=&n=22 AB 1389 Page J workers and consulted with the workers on developing a comprehensive bargaining proposal that was submitted to the company in November 1994. According to UFW, in a meeting with the company in early 1995, "Gerawan signals it will never sign a contract acceptable to UFW. That ends the session. No more meetings are held."<4> From 1995 to 2002, UFW states that "Gerawan workers and UFW continue working to improve their working conditions, all while the ALRB stops enforcing the law."<5> Between 2001 and 2002, UFW states that it "works with farm workers from across the state, including Gerawan workers, for development and passage of [the] Mandatory Mediation law. Farm workers from across the state, including Gerawan workers, march on the state capitol, urging the Governor to sign the bill into law."<6> According to the UFW, in May 2004, at the request of the Gerawan workers, it launched a new campaign to re-organize the Gerawan workers and opened a union office in the Fresno County town of Reedley to aim in that effort.<7> According to the UFW, in October 2012, it sent a request for negotiations to the company. Despite numerous bargaining --------------------------- <4> Id. <5> Id. <6> Id. <7> Id. AB 1389 Page K sessions between January and July or 2013, UFW states that the company refused to agree to a collective bargaining agreement with the union and the worker-led negotiating committee. Therefore, the UFW filed a request for mandatory mediation on March 29, 2013.<8> The mediator issued a report (contract) to the ALRB in September 2013. In October 2013, the ALRB ordered the mediator's report back to him to address a number of issues. The contract was finalized by the ALRB in November 2013, but according to the UFW has not been implemented by the company.<9> The company, on the other hand, states that it challenged the contract in court, which was denied but is now on appeal to the Court of Appeal for the Fifth District.<10> "We and our employees are challenging that so-called contract in court?The "contract" imposed on Gerawan and its employees is subject to review now before the 5th District of Appeal."<11> A number of complaints have been issued by the ALRB, making various allegations against the company in this case. In addition, numerous legal challenges have been filed related to --------------------------- <8> Id. <9> Id. <10> http://www.prima.com/summary-of-history/pdfs/Summary_of_History_A pril-9-2015-2.pdf <11> http://www.prima.com/summary-of-history/pdfs/There_Is_No_Contract _Setting_the_Record_Straight_4-12-15.pdf AB 1389 Page L the use of the mandatory mediation process and the conduct of the parties and the ALRB in this case, including the challenges described above, many of which are still pending before the ALRB and the courts. These include legal challenges to the constitutionality of the mandatory mediation statute and individual civil rights claims. In addition, two decertification petitions were filed seeking to decertify UFW as the collective bargaining representative. The first petition was dismissed by the ALRB regional director in September 2013. A second petition was filed in October 2013, which was also dismissed by the regional director. However, in November 2013, the ALRB vacated the regional director's dismissal and ordered an election to be held. A decertification election was held in November of 2013. However, the election results were impounded by the ALRB pending investigation of unfair labor practice charges and election challenges. That matter is still still pending, with hearings having been completed in March 2015. According to an update provided by the ALRB to committee staff: "The consolidated election objection/ULP hearing in Gerawan Farming, Inc., Case No. 2013-RD-003-VIS, ran from September 29, 2014 to March 12, 2015, 105 hearing days. The post-hearing briefs are currently due May 15, 2015 assuming no further extensions of time to file the briefs are presented. One AB 1389 Page M request by the General Counsel was received and granted. Once the post-hearing briefs are received, the assigned judge has 30 days to issue his decision (Title 8, California Code of Regulations, section 20279). In this case, however, the hearing was extraordinarily long (105 days), involved the testimony of 130 witnesses, and includes in excess of 20,000 pages of transcripts. While we cannot say with any certitude when the ALJ decision will issue, it appears reasonable to assume that the ALJ may take between 60-90 days for his decision. Once his decision issues, the parties will have the right to file exceptions to his decision (normally 20 days but possibly longer here) and reply briefs (normally 10 days but possibly longer here). Again, due to the length of the proceeding and the complexity of the issues that may be presented, it also appears reasonable that the Board may take between 30-60 days to issue its decision. To be sure, these are all approximations and the length of time for the decisions will depend on issues presented to the judge and ultimately to the Board. The Board is making this its highest priority and is striving to issue the decision at its earliest opportunity." SPECIFIC CHANGES PROPOSED BY THIS BILL This bill proposes to make three general changes to the existing law. Each of these proposed changes will be addressed in turn. AB 1389 Page N Unfair Labor Practice and Decertification for "Abandonment" Existing law under the ALRA defines a number of "unfair labor practices" of conduct by employers or labor organizations. This bill would provide that it is an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents to "abandon or fail to represent" the bargaining unit for a period of three years or more. The bill does not currently define the term "abandon or fail to represent." In addition, this bill requires the ALRB to decertify a labor organization that violates this provision. Party Status and Participation in Mandatory Mediation Process As discussed above, effective January 1, 2003, the ALRA was amended to provide for mandatory mediation in selected circumstances where the parties have been unable to reach a collective bargaining agreement. Under that process, the mediator attempts to help the union and the employer reach agreement on a contract, but if that is not successful, the AB 1389 Page O mediator issues a report that contains the terms of a contract. This bill would amend the law to provide that members of the bargaining unit shall be considered parties for purposes of existing law and shall be entitled to attend all meetings scheduled by the mediator. These issues have been the subject of matters before the ALRB in recent years, arising specifically in the context of the dispute between the UFW and Gerawan Farming, Inc. First, with respect to employee participation as "parties" for purposes of the mandatory mediation process, in July 2013 an individual Gerawan employee filed a petition seeking to intervene as a party in the mandatory mediation proceedings. The ALRB dismissed the petition. The ALRB's case summary<12> states the following: "The Board dismissed Garcia's petition for intervention. The statutes and regulations governing MMC provided no mechanism -------------------------- <12> ALRB case summaries each state that they are "furnished for information only and is not an official statement of the case or of the ALRB." AB 1389 Page P for third party intervention. The issue of whether an individual employee could intervene in MMC proceedings was one of first impression. While the Board found that it may look to authorities governing intervention in other contexts for guidance, because MMC is quasi-legislative rather than quasi-judicial in nature, it would follow those authorities only insofar as they were consistent with the purpose and structure of MMC. The Board noted that in representation and unfair labor practice cases under the ALRA and National Labor Relations Act (the "NLRA"), the ALRB and National Labor Relations Board (the "NLRB") generally declined to permit intervention by individual employees. With respect to Board Regulation 20130, the Board found that Garcia did not meet the definition of a "party" under that regulation and, in any event, the regulation was definitional in nature and did not purport to set forth rules for intervention. The Board also found that, even if it were to apply the CCP § 387 standard, intervention would not be appropriate. Garcia did not have a special interest in the outcome of the MMC proceedings that differentiated him from any other bargaining unit member. Even if he did have "an interest" in the case, granting intervention is discretionary and Garcia's interest was represented by the UFW, which was certified as bargaining representative and owed a duty of fair representation to Garcia and his fellow employees. Intervention would also be inconsistent with the structure and functioning of MMC. The statutes and regulations governing MMC consistently refer to "the parties" as the relevant actors in the process. If any employee could intervene in MMC, the process could become unworkable and it would be inconsistent with the union's AB 1389 Page Q status as bargaining representative."<13> Second, regarding participation in mandatory mediation proceedings, the same petition filed above raised issues regarding whether the petitioner and other employees, as well as members of the public, had a First Amendment right of access to mandatory mediation proceedings between Gerawan and the UFW. The ALRB's case summary describes the decision as follows: "The Board held that there was no right of access under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Applying the "experience and logic" test from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California (1986) 478 U.S. 1, the Board held that MMC proceedings are more like labor contract negotiations and that there is no tradition of labor negotiations being open to the public, nor did public access play a significant positive role in the functioning of MMC or any type of labor contract negotiation. The Board held that there was no right of public access under Article I, Section 3 (b) of the California Constitution because Article I, Section 3(b) had little impact on the construction of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, which applies to meetings of state bodies. MMC proceedings are not meetings of state bodies."<14> --------------------------- <13> Gerawan Farming, Inc. (United Farm Workers of America), 39 ALRB No. 11 (July 2013). <14> Gerawan Farming, Inc. (United Farm Workers of America), 39 ALRB No. 13 (August 2013). AB 1389 Page R Ratification of Mediated Terms As discussed above, under existing law the mediator attempts to help the union and the employer reach agreement on a contract, but if that is not successful, the mediator issues a report that contains the terms of a contract. This bill provides that an order issued by the mediator, the ALRB, or the court that would impose the terms of binding mediation shall not take effect or be enforceable until it is approved by a majority of the agricultural employees of the bargaining unit affected by the order. In other words, this bill would require a mediator's contract to be ratified by a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: AB 1389 Page S The author states the following in support of this bill: "Existing law currently allows unlimited time for the [mandatory mediation] process to be initiated-allowing labor organizations who had abandoned workers for decades to initiate a forced contract with or without worker approval years after a certification of representation had been won. Existing law does not provide the opportunity for worker's themselves to participate and provide input throughout the [mandatory mediation] process, nor the opportunity to ratify the terms of their contract. The opportunity to approve or disapprove with the terms of a contract is common practice for collective bargaining agreements that are negotiated by labor organizations in other industries, as a labor organization has the duty of fair representation of their workers. The [mandatory mediation] process is unique to only the agricultural industry and has been used nine times in California. In other sectors, employees and employers must negotiate a contract that is mutually agreeable to both parties. Only within the agriculture sector in California can a government entity force a contract on a group of employees through the use of the [mandatory mediation] process. This unprecedented amount of government power over workers is not shared by workers in other sectors. In practice, the mandatory mediation and conciliation process does a disservice to the very people that a collective bargaining agreement is sought to help- the day to day AB 1389 Page T laborers of the agriculture industry. It allows an unelected Board to create and enforce provisions of a contact that working people may not want or could further the financial burdens or actually worsen workplace conditions. Furthermore, it actually undermines that very definition of a collective bargaining agreement by there being no actual agreement between the parties-it is a forced resolution. In at least one of the three open cases pending resolution before the ALRB, there is a breakdown of trust between the workers and the union representatives. Under the rights and provisions laid out in the Agricultural Labor Relations Act, employees at Gerawan Farming, Inc. held an election to decertify from their union, yet the results of the election are not being released by the ALRB. Existing law that allows a labor organization to initiate a [mandatory mediation] process after decades of abandonment is unfair to the workers, many of whom were not present when the original certification election was held over twenty years ago. For the laborers at Gerawan and other farms, the voice of the worker is not represented during the [mandatory mediation] process. It is crucial that the workers have the opportunity to vote up or down a government-created contract between the employer and the union." A coalition of agricultural employers supports this bill, arguing that it makes a number of common sense changes to the ALRA and reflects lessons that have been learned from recent cases involving the mandatory mediation process. Finally, numerous individuals have submitted form letters that AB 1389 Page U state, among other things, that "[b]rave farm workers throughout California continue to be on the losing end of an unfair and unjust process that allows labor contracts to be forced upon them without their involvement or approval. Without the right tools, workers will continue to be cast aside by the very agency that claims to protect them." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION UFW opposes this bill, arguing that it would conflict with and undermine the ALRA, decades of ALRB precedent and California court decisions, as well as subject farm workers to further intimidation and abuse from employers by requiring further delay on the outcome of a secret ballot state-certified election. Specifically, UFW states the following: "Before binding mediation became law, farm workers waited years while negotiations for union contracts dragged on without hope of progress. Of the 428 companies where farm workers voted for the UFW in secret ballot elections since 1975, only 185 have signed union contracts. AB 1389 Page V Enforcement in the '80s and '90s by the ALRB to bring employers to the bargaining table was almost non-existent and even the California Supreme Court found that bad faith bargaining became the rule rather than the exception. And, there continues to be no evidence of a union's lack of good faith to bargain following an election where farm workers voted to be represented by a union. [This bill] destroys any progress made in getting employers to the table. The National Labor Relations Act and state and federal law do not impose ratification requirements on collective bargaining contracts for any other group of workers. In fact, case law clearly holds that: "[t]he Act imposes no obligation upon a bargaining agent to obtain employee ratification of a contract it negotiates on their behalf." North Country Motors, Ltd. (1964) 146 NLRB 671, 674; see also, Teamsters v. NLRB (D.C. Cir. 1978) 587 F.2d 1176, 1182 ("The Labor Act does not require a union to accord its rank-and-file members the right to ratify a collective bargaining contract which it has negotiated."). Ratification is an internal union matter, which is not subject to interference by an employer or outside parties. Martin J. Barry Co. (1979) 241 NLRB 1011, 1013. In fact, the ratification requirements that [this employer] asks this Court to impose on the [mandatory mediation] statute would diminish the "statutory rights" the Legislature "has AB 1389 Page W bestowed on union as exclusive bargaining representatives both in the negotiation of labor contracts and in the governance of [their] internal affairs?" Beatrice/Hunt-Wesson, Inc. (1991) 302 NLRB 224, 226. [This bill] conflicts with Labor Code section 1160.2 which limits the statute of limitations to conduct occurring within six months of the filing of the charge: "No complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the board?" Lab. Code § 1160.2. [This bill] conflicts with decades of ALRB precedent and California court decisions affirming that the only way for a union to be decertified is through a secret ballot election. See, e.g., Adamek & Dessert, Inc. v. ALRB (1986) 178 Cal. App. 3d 970 ("under the ALRA, once a union is certified as the bargaining representative for a company's employees, the company has a duty to bargain with the union until the union is decertified through a second election.") In fact, the ALRB and courts have clearly decided that employers may not play any part in deciding whether a union continues to represent employees or not. See F&P Growers Assn. v. ALRB (1985) 168 Cal. App. 3d 667, 672 ('"the Legislature's purpose in enacting the ALRA was to limit the employer's influence in determining whether or not it shall bargain with a particular union;" purpose of ALRA is "to provide employees, and not employers, a method for changing unions" through secret ballot elections). AB 1389 Page X Finally, this bill undermines principles rooted in our Democracy and in traditional labor law that a union acts in a representative capacity and is authorized by its election victory to represent the individual members of the bargaining unit." REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support African American Farmers of California Agricultural Council of California Allied Grape Growers Association of California Egg Farmers California Association of Winegrape Growers California Bean Shippers Association California Chamber of Commerce AB 1389 Page Y California Citrus Mutual California Farm Bureau Federation California Fresh Fruit Association California Grain and Feed Association California Pear Growers Association California Seed Association California Wheat Growers Association California Women for Agriculture Family Winemakers of California Grower Shipper Association of Central California Grower Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties National Federation of Independent Business AB 1389 Page Z National Hmong American Farmers Nisei Farmers League 187 Individuals Pacific Egg and Poultry Association Ventura County Agricultural Association Western Growers Association Western United Dairymen Opposition California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation United Farm Workers of America AB 1389 Page A Analysis Prepared by:Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091