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