MONTEREY (California) HERALD

November 29, 2006

Binding mediation in farm labor upheld

Salinas union calls case 'David and Goliath story'

By LARRY PARSONS

Herald Staff Writer

A Salinas union representing 1,200 farmworkers is claiming a major victory in a court case that challenged a four-year-old state law that empowers outside mediators to resolve agricultural contract disputes.

The law was signed by then-Gov. Gray Davis in September 2002 to the delight of farm labor groups but over vehement opposition from farm industry groups. At the time, one farm industry group said binding mediation could kill the state's No. 1 industry.

The law was the first major change to the 1975 Agricultural Labor Relations Act, which first gave California farmworkers the right to organize and bargain collectively with farm employers.

After the new law took effect, the battle over binding mediation moved from the Legislature to the courts.

The major test case grew out of four years of fruitless contract talks from 1999 to 2003 between workers represented by United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1096 of Salinas and a Napa County winery.

The Hess Collection Winery, seeking to get the law thrown out, was joined by several leading farm groups, including the state Farm Bureau Federation and Western Growers Association. On the other side, the United Farm Workers Union joined the United Food and Commercial Workers in defending the law.

In July, the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento, in a 2-1 decision, ruled against the winery and farm groups. The court upheld the law and a mediator's decision on the winery workers' contract.

The state Supreme Court declined to hear the case, said Randall Roeder, a San Francisco attorney for the winery. He declined further comment Tuesday.

In a news release this week, the United Food and Commercial Workers said the case represented "not only a fight between the UFCW and Hess Collection, but (with) the ag industry in California -- it's a David and Goliath story."

Pete Maturino, president of Local 1096, said, "You're taking on the whole industry." Maturino said he was uncertain the law would be upheld by the appeals court.

"Everybody... thought it was going to go down," he said.

Instead, the appeals court decision upholding the law, along with the state Supreme Court's decision earlier this month not to review that decision, is an important victory for "us or any other union out there organizing and trying to negotiate a first-time contract," he said.

So far, Maturino said the law hasn't been widely used in contract disputes. But the Salinas union recently used the binding-mediation rule to secure a new contract for union workers at a Fresno County dairy, he said. And another contract dispute is in mediation.

"It's a vehicle... to sit down and negotiate something equitable for both parties," Maturino said.

Jim Bogart, president of the Grower Shipper Association of Central California, said he was disappointed by the decision. The Salinas association was one of the farm organizations that filed arguments against the law in the winery case.

"My reaction is that I don't like an outside third party deciding what is going into a contract between two other parties," Bogart said.

But Bogart said the court decision, unless overturned, may make binding mediation a fact of life in farm labor contract negotiations.

"It's there, but it hasn't been used that frequently," he said. "It could be that they have been able to negotiate contracts, or it may be the unions haven't utilized this tool."

Bogart agreed the issue was very hot a few years ago for the state's farm industry. But other issues have moved past it on the front burner.

"It's always been a contentious issue, but is it a burning issue now like food safety or immigration? No," Bogart said.

A spokesman for the Western Growers Association said no staff members were available Tuesday to discuss the court ruling.

Dan Kranz of the state Farm Bureau said he wasn't aware of any other court cases over the mediation law. He, too, said the law hasn't been applied very often.

"I don't know of any other cases, other than this one, that has gone through the system," Kranz said.

The winery still could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. But Maturino said that's unlikely because the winery has agreed to put the mediator's contract into effect this week.

Danielle Leonard, an attorney for the United Food and Commercial Workers, said the U.S. Supreme Court probably wouldn't hear the case because the mediation law "is such a state-specific statute."

The winery has until Dec. 13 to file for U.S. Supreme Court review. An attorney for the winery didn't return a phone message.