SACRAMENTO BEE

July 7, 2006

Court backs farm unions

Ruling upholds law allowing arbitrator to impose a contract.

By E.J. Schultz -- Bee Capitol Bureau

Farm labor unions won a major court victory this week that gives them leverage in contract negotiations with growers.

A state appellate court in Sacramento on Wednesday upheld a 4-year-old state law that allows farmworkers to bring in an arbitrator to oversee collective bargaining. In case of an impasse, the arbitrator can impose a contract.

"It is our hope that with this decision the agricultural lobby will cease its virulent resistance to farmworker organizing and more growers will be encouraged to bargain in good faith," said United Farm Workers of America President Arturo Rodriguez in a statement.

Growers, who call the law unconstitutional, said they were disappointed but hoped the decision would be overturned on appeal.

By forcing contracts, the law is "just another hammer held over the heads of the farmers," said Jasper Hempel, executive vice president and general counsel with Western Growers Association.

Farmworkers have long held the right to organize. But unions complain that growers have not bargained in good faith.

Organized labor won a victory in 2002 when the California Legislature passed a law that allows agricultural employers or unions to use independent arbitrators to settle disputes. The law is triggered only during negotiations over an initial contract for a newly unionized employee group.

If a settlement is not reached in 30 days, or in some cases 60 days, the arbitrator can set the terms of the contract. Either party can ask for a review by the state Agricultural Labor Relations Board and state courts.

The law was challenged by Hess Collection Winery in Napa. The winery has about 60 employees represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers union. Contract negotiations dragged on from 1999 to 2003, when an impasse was reached and an arbitrator called in.

Protesting the new law, the company did not show up for the final arbitration hearing. The arbitrator imposed a contract that adopted the union position on all but one of the open issues, according to court documents.

In its complaint, Hess said the 2002 law violated the company's right to due process. The 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento on Wednesday disagreed, ruling 2-1 that the law was needed because farmworkers' power to strike is "illusory."

"The unskilled character of the work, the relatively low wages paid, and the seasonal rather than year-round nature of the work combine to make collective action by employees untenable," Justice Rick Sims said in the majority opinion.

Dissenting, Justice George Nicholson said the law doesn't give the arbitrator enough guidance on standards to use. The law, he wrote, gives power to a "lone private mediator to draft a collective bargaining agreement, virtually by fiat, to govern the relationship of the private employer and employee."

Michael Hoffman, a San Francisco attorney representing Hess, said the company may appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Western Growers' Hempel said that if the ruling stands, it would give unions leverage to "hold out for unrealistically high contract terms." As a result, he said, labor costs might rise.

Marc Grossman, of the UFW, said the ruling will help the union's organization drive. It "gives workers some assurances they will get something when they take the risk of supporting the union," he said. He said farmworkers who unionize get contracts less than half the time.

Before the 2002 law, workers brought claims of bad-faith bargaining to the ALRB, the same process used now for complaints during negotiations for second and subsequent contracts.