Comite Organizador De Trabajadores Agricolas v. Levin

Citations: 212 N.J. Super. 362; 515 A.2d 252; 1985 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1674

Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division; October 2, 1985; New Jersey; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The legal action involves a labor union, Comité Organizador De Trabajadores Agricolas (COTA), seeking recognition and collective bargaining rights from defendant Saul Levin, a farmer in New Jersey, whose employees predominantly support the union. The case began on August 9, 1985, when COTA and 15 employees filed a complaint, requesting court orders for recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent and an injunction against harassment of employees. The court issued an order to show cause and restrained defendants from interfering with employees during the proceedings.

During a court session, it became evident that the defendants did not consent to the union's recognition. The court emphasized the necessity for defendants to have legal representation and facilitated the presence of an associate attorney. On the return date, August 16, 1985, the defendants appeared without counsel. After hearing from the employees, who affirmed their desire for union representation, the court ordered the defendants to recognize COTA. Isaac Levin's refusal prompted the court to threaten commitment to jail until they complied, though the court later released them, urging them to seek legal counsel.

On August 22, 1985, after the defendants continued to refuse recognition, COTA filed a new order to show cause for contempt. This matter was postponed for further proceedings until September 4, 1985, at which time the defendants were represented by attorney Rushton Ridgway.

Defendant Saul Levin successfully argued for the dismissal of his father, Isaac Levin, from the case based on Isaac's non-involvement in the farm's ownership or management. Despite a prior evidentiary hearing, the Court decided to hold another hearing due to Saul's new representation by counsel. Following testimony from one witness, Saul proposed an election by the State Board of Mediation, which was one of the relief options in the complaint and had the plaintiffs' consent. The Court facilitated this by scheduling an election for September 27, 1985, but it was postponed due to a hurricane. The election was ultimately held on September 29, 1985, resulting in a unanimous vote (14-0) in favor of the union, COTA. Subsequently, the Court ordered Saul to recognize COTA as the exclusive bargaining agent for his employees and to engage in good faith bargaining.

Saul acknowledged the constitutional right of private sector employees to organize and bargain collectively but contested the Court's authority to compel him to bargain in good faith, claiming that the order was improper. This issue is the central focus of the case. The rights of labor organizations in New Jersey are derived from constitutional law, specifically Article I, paragraph 19 of the New Jersey Constitution, which guarantees the right to organize and bargain collectively for private employees. The Court referenced the precedent set in Johnson v. Christ Hospital, which established that employers are obliged to bargain in good faith with employee representatives. This obligation includes recognizing the unique nature of the enterprise and the public interest involved.

Accepting the defendant's interpretation of Article I, paragraph 19, which suggests that it imposes no obligation on employers to engage in collective bargaining, undermines the rights of employees guaranteed by the New Jersey Constitution. Historical context from the Constitutional Convention reveals that the framers intended to ensure employee rights, including the necessity for employers to bargain collectively. Testimony from Thomas Parsonnet of the New Jersey State Federation of Labor emphasized the need for economic pressure to compel employers to negotiate, highlighting the importance of good faith bargaining. The argument that employers are not required to negotiate is inconsistent with the Constitution, which affirms the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining. The court concludes that employees' organization is meant for substantive negotiations, not merely for social gatherings. Therefore, the court orders the defendant to formally recognize the COTA and engage in good faith collective bargaining with its representatives.