Jasmine Vineyards, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

Citations: 113 Cal. App. 3d 968; 170 Cal. Rptr. 510; 1980 Cal. App. LEXIS 2604Docket: Civ. 3670

Court: California Court of Appeal; December 23, 1980; California; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jasmine Vineyards, Inc., an agricultural employer, sought judicial review of a final order from the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) that found the company guilty of unfair labor practices during an organizing campaign for the United Farm Workers (UFW). The Board determined that Jasmine engaged in discriminatory actions by enforcing a no-solicitation policy favoring the Teamsters Union, soliciting employees to sign Teamster authorization cards, and threatening employees regarding potential consequences if they joined the UFW or if the UFW won the upcoming election.

As a result, the Board ordered Jasmine to cease these unfair practices and mandated affirmative actions, including allowing unrestricted access for UFW organizers during future organizing campaigns, and requiring Jasmine to inform employees of their rights under the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA) through posted and distributed notices in appropriate languages.

The events leading to this order occurred in August and September 1975, during which Jasmine had an existing collective bargaining agreement with the Teamsters. Although the Teamsters were allowed to visit Jasmine properties for union activities, Jasmine denied similar access requests from the UFW, treating its organizers as trespassers while permitting Teamster agents free access. Additionally, prior to a representation election scheduled for September 17, 1975, Jasmine executives allegedly made remarks to employees concerning the potential outcomes of the election favoring the UFW. Following a remand from the court, the Board modified certain aspects of its cease and desist order and remedies.

The Board concluded, with Chairman Brown dissenting, that a meeting took place after the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA) was enacted. It determined that Martin's comments were protected as free speech under Labor Code section 1155, while Vincent Zaninovich's comments were classified as threatening and unprotected. Two employees provided testimonies about separate conversations with Zaninovich prior to the election, with Santana Piniero recalling Zaninovich's statement implying that Piniero would be fired if he or his family supported the United Farm Workers (UFW). Maria Aleman testified that Zaninovich expressed fear of having to remove the vines if the UFW won the election. The Board found these statements constituted unlawful threats, violating section 1153, subdivision (a). Additionally, Piniero recounted that Zaninovich solicited him to sign a Teamsters authorization card on at least two occasions, a request Zaninovich did not fully recall.

The summary also addressed Jasmine's arguments regarding the Court of Appeal's review process, the constitutionality of the ALRA, and the applicable standard for evaluating evidence. The document clarifies that under Labor Code section 1160.8, the Board's factual findings are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence from the entire record. The court must consider all evidence, including that which contradicts the Board's decision. The excerpt references the precedent set in Tex-Cal Land Management, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. and Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Bd., emphasizing that while courts may review Board decisions, they must respect the Board's specialized expertise and findings unless the supporting evidence is not substantial.

In Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Bd., it is established that the determination of witness credibility lies with the Board and is not subject to court review unless the testimony is inherently improbable. The record contains sufficient evidence for the Board to conclude that Jasmine discriminated against the UFW in favor of the Teamsters regarding its no-solicitation policy. Jasmine's claim that UFW organizers were trespassers while Teamster agents were not is contradicted by evidence showing Teamsters were allowed to distribute leaflets without challenge, while UFW organizers were actively barred from engaging employees. Precedent indicates that it is an unfair labor practice for employers to favor one union over another in granting access to employees.

The timing of antiunion threats made by Vincent Zaninovich is contested, particularly concerning the box shed incident. Despite dissent from Chairman Brown, there is direct testimony placing the incident after the ALRA's effective date, supported by circumstantial evidence, allowing reasonable inferences for the Board's finding. Jasmine's challenge centers on the credibility of witnesses, but the testimony meets the substantial evidence standard.

Additionally, the Board found that Jasmine, through Zaninovich, solicited employees to sign Teamster authorization cards. Jasmine does not dispute the sufficiency of this evidence but argues the solicitation was minimal. However, Zaninovich's admission of soliciting an employee implies a violation of the ALRA, and the Board determined the solicitation was neither isolated nor insignificant based on the evidence presented.

The Board's remedies, as outlined in its supplementary decision and revised order on remand, are deemed authorized by the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA) and are to be enforced. Following a court remand on December 7, 1979, the Board was instructed to reassess the expanded access remedy in light of evolving circumstances, including the relevance of dated provisions and the current workforce's composition. The court specifically directed the Board to evaluate the appropriateness of remedies including the mailing of notices to employees from August 28 to September 17, 1975, and to reconsider the cease and desist order's scope.

On April 7, 1980, the Board filed a revised order, confirming that expanded access remains a suitable remedy for employer interference with employee-union communications. The Board recognized that current employees might be aware of prior illegal actions and that providing the United Farm Workers (UFW) with access is vital for facilitating union organization, aligning with the governmental goal of promoting collective bargaining. The Board modified its initial order, allowing the UFW access to employer premises at a rate of two organizers for every 15 employees for a year following the order's issuance. Furthermore, the Board reaffirmed that mailing notices to affected employees is an effective way to mitigate the employer's unlawful actions and inform employees of their rights under the ALRA.

Employees employed at the time of an unfair labor practice are considered interested parties and must be notified of the proceedings' outcome. The NLRB mandates that former employees also receive notice to ensure all affected parties are informed, which supports the objectives of the Act by mitigating the lasting impacts of unfair labor practices. This notification can encourage employees to exercise their rights, as stated in California Labor Code 1140.2, which emphasizes the protection of agricultural employees' rights to association and self-organization.

In a supplemental decision, the Board reviewed the requirements for posting and educating employees about their rights under the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA). Despite employee turnover, the Board upheld the necessity for remedial measures, including reading a notice to current employees and conducting a Q&A session during paid company time. This approach is deemed essential due to the high levels of illiteracy among agricultural workers and the challenges of communication in agricultural settings, where workers do not gather in fixed locations or times. Conducting these readings on company time is critical to ensure comprehensive dissemination of information, as agricultural employees often do not have a common place or time for breaks and may take lunch in isolated settings. The Board concluded that alternative methods, such as reading the notice outside of work hours, would significantly hinder the effectiveness of communication with employees.

Complications arise in communicating with agricultural employees due to inherent challenges in the setting and additional factors such as family obligations and transportation issues that hinder attendance at informational sessions outside of work hours. Reading notices during breaks penalizes employees by reducing their rest time and potential earnings, particularly for piece-rate workers. The monetary costs to the respondent of remedying unfair labor practices do not justify avoiding responsibility. The Supreme Court has established that the burden of remedying these practices lies with the wrongdoer, not the affected employees. Imposing the requirement for employees to utilize nonwork time to receive information about their rights constitutes an undue burden. The reading of notices serves to mitigate the consequences of the respondent's violations and is part of their obligation to restore the status quo. The Board has significant discretion in determining remedies that align with the act's purpose of protecting employees’ rights against employer interference. Courts should only intervene if remedies exceed the Board's authority. Although the respondent argues that having a Board representative read the notice and facilitate a Q&A session during company time is punitive, the brief nature of the reading and the presumption of impartiality from Board representatives suggest that this approach is reasonable and does not undermine the integrity of the agency in fulfilling its policy mandates.

The Board, upon remand, reconsidered its previous broad cease and desist order in light of Labor Board v. Express Pub. Co. and its own decision in M. Caratan, Inc. It determined that such orders should only be issued when a respondent shows a tendency to violate the act or engages in widespread misconduct demonstrating a disregard for employees' rights. The Board found that the petitioner's actions did not warrant a broad order and thus modified it to specifically prohibit interference with employees' organizational rights related to the unfair labor practices committed by the petitioner. A decree will enforce the Board's revised order dated April 3, 1980.

Judge Hopper concurred with the decision. Judge Brown, while agreeing with the evidence supporting the Board's conclusions about the unfair labor practices and the remedies imposed, dissented on certain aspects of the remedial order. He concurred with most of the remedies but expressed concerns about the requirement in paragraph 2(e) that the employer pay for time spent by non-employees during a meeting to read the notice and for the subsequent Q&A period. Brown acknowledged that the remedies were based on typical agricultural employment conditions, noting the potential for unique circumstances that might not justify automatic imposition of the remedies if evidence showed different conditions existed in a specific case.

The reading requirement for agricultural employees is justified by the illiteracy of the workforce and challenges in assembling employees outside of work hours. If evidence shows that illiteracy is not a significant issue and employees can be gathered conveniently, the requirement may not be warranted. However, in this case, the petitioner failed to provide proof of differing conditions from those identified by the Board. The Board relied on its expertise regarding general agricultural conditions to support its order.

Additionally, the order mandates that the employer pay for the time of all current employees, including those not present during the unfair labor practices, to attend a reading of the notice and an open-ended educational session. The Board argues this requirement is justified under the Labor Code, as it informs employees of their rights and the outcomes of unfair labor practice proceedings, thereby protecting their organizational rights. The Board cites a previous decision indicating that requiring employees to use nonwork time for such information places an undue burden on them, especially since the illegal conduct occurred within the employment context. The reading serves to mitigate the consequences of the employer's violations, making it appropriate for the employer to bear the associated costs.

Furthermore, the Board recognizes that employee turnover may mean some workers present during the reading were not employed during the infractions. However, it asserts that these workers likely have knowledge of the employer's misconduct through informal communication with other employees.

Current workers who were not employed during the misconduct are aware of the employer's unfair labor practices. Their presence during the reading of the misconduct is deemed necessary to mitigate the effects of the respondent's actions. In contrast, employees not present during the illegal practices are unaffected in terms of the employment relationship, and there are no consequences to remedy or status quo to restore for them. The requirement for the employer to compensate these uninvolved individuals for their time at the reading is based on a vague theory of dispelling the misconduct's effects and preventing future violations, suggesting a punitive intent. Such payments can only be justified by the educational value imparted to employees about their rights under the act. 

The analogy is drawn to a scenario where an employer is mandated to fund educational courses on employee rights for all agricultural workers, which would be considered an abuse of discretion. The dissent argues that the act or prior legal authority does not empower the board to mandate employers to educate their employees or the general labor population at significant cost. Past cases cited by the Board, such as NLRB v. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co., involved remedies for specific losses due to labor disputes and do not support the current requirement. Other cases referenced support reading requirements based on employee literacy but do not justify requiring employers to pay for the time of those not employed at the time of the misconduct or for educational seminars not confined to the notice content.

Disagreement exists with the principal opinion regarding Jasmine's claim that the reading requirement is economically burdensome and punitive. It is argued that the process of gathering employees from various locations, reading the notice in multiple languages, and addressing questions in those languages would require significantly more time than suggested. There is skepticism about the presumption of impartiality from the Board and its representatives, as well as their efficiency in addressing employee inquiries. The critique extends to the Board's failure to tailor remedies to the severity of unfair labor practices; unlike the NLRB, which customizes remedies according to the specifics of each case, the ALRB tends to apply standardized remedies without consideration for the seriousness of the violations. This approach can result in disproportionate consequences for employers, who may face the same penalties regardless of the nature or number of unfair practices committed. This position is at odds with the principles established in J.R. Norton Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., which advocates against automatic imposition of remedies. 

Further context is provided regarding the Teamsters' election results and subsequent withdrawal of their certification petition, leading to the election being declared null and void. Notable changes in circumstances are highlighted, such as the current competition landscape between unions and the enhanced understanding of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act and related regulations among employers and workers. Lastly, details concerning the prescribed notice to employees are included, which outlines the Board's finding of interference with workers' rights to unionize.

Employees have the right to organize, join unions, engage in collective bargaining, and select their representatives. They may act collectively to negotiate contracts and support one another, or choose not to participate in these activities. Employers are prohibited from threatening employees with job loss to deter union involvement, preventing union organizers from accessing their property when legally permitted, or altering working conditions or benefits due to union activities. This notice, issued by Jasmine Vineyards, Inc., is in compliance with California law, which emphasizes the protection of agricultural employees' rights to self-organization and collective bargaining without employer interference. The document also references a legal precedent, Tex-Cal Land Management, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., which discusses modifications to prior orders regarding reinstatement and notice reading, although the specifics of the case and its implications on current practices were not deemed significant by the author.