SACRAMENTO – A federal appeals court last week has taken the highly unusual step of finding a U.S. constitutional cause of action in a challenge to a California state law – the latest wrinkle in a long-running and bitter dispute between a farm workers’ union and two large Central Valley fruit growers.

The California Legislature approved a law last year that was designed to protect the state’s businesses after two court decisions left them open to unforeseen liabilities regarding the minimum wage. The measure, Assembly Bill 1513, passed by solid majorities, was a sign of concern about broad economic harm if companies who had acted in good faith were forced to pay various fines for some commonly accepted payment practices.

This legislative overhaul of the state’s wage-and-hour law waived all penalties if, by this Thursday, the companies paid their piece-rate workers back wages for any unpaid rest periods. The legislation would have been largely noncontroversial, except that it included carve-outs for two Fresno-based fruit growers – Fowler Packing Co. and Gerawan Farming. In other words, the law apparently applied to every California business, except for these particular companies, both of which had run afoul of a union.

According to AB1513’s language, the bill does not apply to “Claims for paid rest or recovery periods or pay for other nonproductive time that were made in any case filed prior to April 1, 2015, when the case contained by that date an allegation that the employer has intentionally stolen, diminished, or otherwise deprived employees of wages through the use of fictitious worker names or names of workers that were not actually working.” That portion exempts the two companies because of an allegation made in a lawsuit.

These two firms allege that they were exempted from the benefits of the new law because the UFW had threatened to otherwise oppose the legislation, according to a Sacramento Bee report. The measure, by the way, was pushed through at the end of the legislative session as a “gut-and-amend” deal – language was stripped out of an existing bill and replaced at the last minute with new language. Such bills circumvent requirements for a full set of hearings and legislative vetting.

The district court dismissed the companies’ complaint. But in the recent ruling, the U.S. 9^th District Court of Appeals partially reversed that decision and sent it back for further review.

Although the written opinion is still forthcoming, this is a significant ruling that focuses attention on the concept of equal protection, which was the main allegation made in the lawsuit. As their complaint argued, a key section of the law “not only arbitrarily excludes and punishes one employer based solely on an unproven allegation. It arbitrarily includes and protects employers, alleged to have used ghost workers, so long as they were sued after April 1, 2015. … (T)he ghost worker allegation carve-out is simply a mechanism to subject Fowler to disparate and punitive legislative treatment based solely on an allegation of wrongdoing.”

The appeals court, however, rejected the farms’ claim that the law had violated “bill of attainder” provisions in the U.S. Constitution. That refers to an act by any legislature that inflicts punishment without the protections of due process or judicial review – i.e., “trial by legislature.”  The plaintiffs had argued that the California Legislature exempted those companies based on some union allegations and was a form of punishment against them, in that it singled out Fowler and Gerawan, and did so without any legitimate, non-punitive purpose.

“By denying those employers the protection that every other employer enjoys, the Legislature essentially adjudged them to be guilty of egregious conduct. But the Constitution does not give legislatures the power to determine guilt, it grants that authority to courts,” explained the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Wencong Fa, in a column in the San Francisco Daily Journal. The foundation had filed an amicus brief on behalf of the companies and several farm organizations including the California Farm Bureau and Western Grower.

The Fowler and Gerawan labor disputes have been a long-running California saga. The UFW has had a variety of disputes with Fowler. In the Gerawan situation, the company says the UFW had re-emerged at the farm after a long hiatus, claiming to be the rightful representative of the farm workers there. The state Agricultural Labor Relations Board had refused to even count the ballots in a union de-certification election there – and imposed a seemingly unwanted contract on workers there. It’s become a national news story and litigation continues.

AB1513 was supported even by some agricultural organizations because of the advantages it provides to the industry in general. There’s little disagreement it was the result of tough negotiations – a point the Brown administration has made in support for the law. But that doesn’t mean Fowler and Gerawan don’t make a valid argument. The new law could be of overall benefit to most California agricultural companies while still unfairly singling out two companies involved in disputes with one of the groups involved in those negotiations.

The official Assembly bill analysis puts the issue in perspective: “Supporters argue that this bill is a fair compromise for both employers and workers, addressing a situation where there was a significant development in case law. … Opponents argue that these arbitrary provisions set forth a troubling precedent that represents political targeting that sacrifices some companies to continued legal exposure in exchange for legal protections afforded to others.”

Fowler and Gerawan asked the state to suspend enforcement of this week’s deadline pending the outcome of the case as the federal courts take the rare step of reviewing a constitutional challenge to piece of state legislation. 

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

On Dec. 16, Gerawan filed a constitutional challenge against the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, with the United Farm Workers of America as a “Real Party of Interest.” It was filed with the California Court of Appeal, Fifth District in Fresno, against the ALRB’s invocation of the California’s Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation Statute. The statute was signed into law by Gov. Gray Davis in 2002.

This was part of wrangling with the United Farm Workers Union that began in Oct. 2012, when the union insisted that a collective bargaining agreement covering Gerawan workers be reactivated — even though there had been no union involvement with the workers since 1995. Some of the workers then began a process for a vote to decertify the union.

A vote on the decertification was held on Nov. 5, 2013. But On Nov. 19, 2013, the results of the vote were held up by the ALRB, which claimed a large number of the ballots were ineligible. In an email to CalWatchdog.com, ALRB Executive Director J. Antonio Barbosa also charged “misconduct, that allegedly affected the outcome of the election.”

The ALRB chose an arbitrator to decide the matter, leading to Gerawan’s court filing.

Pleading

In its court pleading, Gerawan charged:

“MMC is a compulsory arbitration process under which a mediator acting as an arbitrator dictates the terms of a CBA [collective bargaining agreement] between a grower and a union. The MMC Statute authorizes the Board to adopt the mediator’s report as a final order. The employer has no right to opt-out of this process. The employees have no right to ratify or reject the ‘contract’ imposed upon them, which here would require them to pay union dues or fees or lose their jobs. 

“The MMC Statute empowers one man – here, labor mediator Matthew Goldberg – to write a complex and massive ‘agreement’ between two private parties that would let it have the force of law….“

“This procedure has no counterpart under federal labor law, which expressly forbids the imposition of contractual terms or concessions upon a private employer or a labor organization.”

Overall dispute with the ALRB

This is part 2 of a series on the ALRB. Part 1 is here.

Genevieve Shiroma, chair of California’s Agricultural Labor Relations Board, which oversees the relationship between farms and farm workers, grew up the daughter of a farm worker in San Joaquin County.

Staying close to her farm roots, according to AllGov California she earned her “associate of arts degree in math and science from San Joaquin Delta College in 1974.” After which she trekked only 70 miles away and in 1978 earned her bachelor of science degree in Materials Science and Engineering from the University of California, Davis, one of the state’s premier agricultural schools. She then joined CARB “as an air quality engineer. She worked there for 21 years, eventually becoming chief of the Air Quality Measures Branch.”

It was a natural step for her to chair the board itself, a post Gov. Gray Davis appointed her to in 1999. That position expired in 2005. In 2006, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed her as a regular board member. And in 2011, Gov. Jerry Brown again appointed her as chair, making her the longest-serving current member of the ALRB.

ALRB

The five-member board was created in 1975 to implement the Agricultural Labor Relations Act, which Brown signed into law that year. The board’s authority is divided between the five board members and a General Counsel, all appointed by the governor. The ALRA stipulates: 

“It is hereby stated to be the policy of the State of California to encourage and protect the right of agricultural employees to full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, to negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment, and to be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor….”

According to its website, the ALRB is:

1. “[R]esponsible for the prevention of those practices which the Act declares to be impediments to the free exercise of employee rights…”

2. “[R]esponsible for conducting elections to determine whether a majority of the employees of an agricultural employer wishes to be represented by a labor organization, whether they wish to continue to be represented by that labor organization, a rival labor organization or no labor organization at all.”

SMUD

In 1998, voters first elected Shiroma to the board of the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District, where she currently is vice president. The board elected her its president in 2002, 2006 and 2010. Currently she serves as its vice president.

Someone in a political position not surprisingly gets involved in politics. In local Sacramento politics, even more than in California, the Democratic Party dominates. She is a sponsor of the Harry S. Truman Democratic Club.

In 2006, as president of the board Shiroma led the battle for Measure L, which would have allowed the public utility to annex some of Pacific Gas & Electric’s private property in Yolo County. It lost, 61 percent to 39 percent.

Electric Utility Week reported on Nov. 13, 2006:

“SMUD’s initiative on the November 7 ballot would have allowed the muni to annex about 70,000 PG&E customers in Yolo County in Northern California. PG&E spent more than $10 million to defeat the annexation, while the pro-annexation campaign spent about $1 million.”

The pro-annexation campaign was called SMUD Customers Say YES to Low Rates, and was led by Shiroma and other SMUD board members. The Sacramento Bee reported on Jan. 2, 2006:

“The group has hired political consultant Richie Ross, Shiroma said Friday.”

Ross is one of the most influential strategists in Sacramento. A strike organizer for United Farm Workers longtime President Cesar Chavez, Ross now is a registered lobbyist for the UFW, whose cases go before the ALRB.

(The Electric Utility Week and Bee articles no longer are online, but copies of them are in this document.)

Looking into the ALRB

One case involving the UFW now before the board concerns the farm employees of Gerawan Farming, one of the Central Valley’s largest growers of peaches, plums, nectarines and grapes. As I have reported in a series of articles, the workers have been fighting off unionization by the UFW.

Briefly, the Gerawan Farming workers have spent months protesting the UFW takeover attempt. The UFW has maintained that a unionization vote by the workers more than 20 years ago still is binding, and the workers must begin paying union dues.

The farm workers, led by farm worker Silvia Lopez, have insisted that the union has done nothing at all for more than two decades. Lopez personally led a petition drive for a decertification vote.

In response, the ALRB charged the company, Gerawan Farming, with circulating the petition among its employees. However, Lopez and other employees insist that they, not Gerawan, circulated the petitions. Based in part on the publicity from my articles, the ALRB conceded and granted the farm workers the right to vote on the union contract.

Considering Shiroma’s background and the controversies before the ALRB, I emailed her some questions. She graciously replied.

Q & A

Here is my inquiry to Shiroma, with the verbatim questions and answers:

“I am submitting the following questions and will follow up with a phone call.

“This Los Angeles Times article (below) mentions that Fresno area farming owner Dan Gerawan filed a complaint against the Board for members having accepted outside income when the law prohibits ALRB board members from receiving outside income.

“http://articles.latimes.com/2004/nov/11/local/me-boards11/2

“Though the primary target of the complaint appeared to be Board Member Daniel Zingale, the article mentions that you were also receiving outside income.

“The LATimes said: ‘Gerawan said he has his own attorney general’s opinion affirming the constitutionality of a ban on board members working at outside jobs. He is using that opinion in pursuing his case against Zingale. Zingale is not the only Agricultural Labor Relations Board member with outside employment. Bustamante works as a public relations consultant, and Shiroma is an elected member of the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District.’

“I have these questions:

Q 1: “Were you in fact receiving income outside of your ALRB position at that time? If so, please describe the type and amount of income.
”

Shiroma: “No, I have not and do not receive outside income since first being appointed to the Board in 1999.”

Q 2: “If so, did you stop receiving that income? ”

Shiroma: “See response to 1. above.”

Q 3: “And, if so, did you stop receiving that income subsequent to Dan Gerawan’s complaint?
”

Shiroma: “See response to 1. above.”

Q 4: “Finally, do you feel that Gerawan’s complaint, and its impact on ALRB board members, could in any way prejudice a member about matters related to Gerawan or its employees?

Shiroma: “No.”

Q 5: “Also, in these Board minutes

http://www.alrb.ca.gov/content/pdfs/meetings/minutes/2005/minutes050405.pdf

you and current board member Cathryn Rivera-Hernande voted to allow up to $50,000 to be spent for the legal defense of Board Member Zingale for having accepted outside income, in violation of state law (which both he, the Attorney General, and the governor admitted he was doing).

“In hindsight, as the Chairwoman of ALRB, then and currently, do you feel this was a proper expenditure of public funds?”

Shiroma: “Yes. Government Code 995 provides that, upon the request of an employee or former employee, a public entity shall(emphasis added) provide for the defense of any civil action or proceeding brought against him, in his official or individual capacity or both, on account of an act or omission in the scope of his employment as an employee of the public entity.”

Q 6: “Shouldn’t Zingale have paid for this himself?”

Shiroma: “See above.”

Q 7: “Finally, given that Dan Gerawan indirectly caused this expenditure approved by you and Board Member Rivera-Hernandez, do you still feel that the ALRB of Directors can act without bias in matters related to Gerawan?”

Shiroma: “Yes.”

————-

Update: Shiroma’s positions on AB 32 and Proposition 23 are reported here.

In 2011, Gov. Jerry Brown appointed Martha Guzman-Aceves deputy legislative secretary for agriculture, environment and natural resources. Before that, she was a founding partner of Cultivo Consulting, which says it engages in lobbying, political campaigning and community organizing in California. It's a lobbying and outreach firm specializing in social, economic and environmental justice.

She also was listed on 2011 tax returns (pictured nearby) as president and CEO for Communities for the New California Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) organization “committed to achieving environmental, economic, and socially just public policy for working class families in the rural areas of California.”

Her biography says she “previously served as the Legislative Coordinator for the United Farm Workers (UFW) AFL-CIO covering a range of labor and environmental issues. She worked for the UFW for five years in both their political and research departments.”

Alegria De La Cruz was appointed by Brown on Dec. 13, 2011 as Regional Director for the Agricultural Labor Relations Board.  She was Guzman-Aceves’ partner in the CNC Education Fund. She previously worked for the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment as a staff attorney. Prior to the center, De La Cruz worked for the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation as a staff attorney.

Farm workers appealed to Gov. Brown

I spent four hours earlier this month with nearly 700 farm workers protesting the state forcing them to join the United Farm Workers union. They made an appeal to the governor at his office.

Silvia Lopez, leader of the farm workers' group, thought Brown invited her and five other farm workers to meet with him. Instead, Brown sent them Guzman-Aceves, who as noted above was a former UFW official.

At the end of the meeting, Guzman-Aceves offered to contact Silas Shawver, the Visalia representative for the Agricultural Labor Relations Board. This frustrated and angered the farm workers. They said Shawver has been instrumental in forcing the UFW on them. Guzman-Aceves offered no other help.

Shawver used to be an attorney with California Rural Legal Assistance. Guzman-Aceves also worked for CRLA, as did her associate, Alegria De La Cruz. So did Jennifer Hernandez, Guzman-Aceves' partner in Cultivo Consulting.

Shawver is godfather to De La Cruz’s child, according to a story on the Western Growers website. And Shawver worked with De La Cruz at the CLRA as staff counsel, specializing in wage claims against agricultural employers. Shawver now works for the ALRB as Regional Director in Visalia.

After the meeting with Guzman-Aceves in the governor's office, the farm workers told me they felt they'd been railroaded. Silvia Lopez said, “They never planned on listening to us.”

Martha Guzman-Aceves

I dug out more information on Guzman-Aceves. Her biography says, “Martha is co-founder of Communities for a New California, a 501(c)(4) [sic], and Cultivo Consulting, a political consulting partnership.”

Under CNC's umbrella are the Communities for a New California Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) charity; the Communities for a New California Inc., a 501 (c)(4) charity; and the Communities for a New California Fresno-Tulare Independent Expenditure Committee. According to federal regulations, an independent expenditure is “an expenditure by a person for a communication expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate that is not made in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or their agents, or a political party committee or its agents.”

However, while Guzman-Aceves has served as a public official in the Brown Administration, CNC lobbied the Legislature and governor’s office on various issues, including AB1081, federal immigration policy enforcement. AB1081's bill analysis shows CNC listed among the supporters.

Communities for a New California

Guzman-Aceves signed the IRS tax return for Communities for a New California Education Fund as CEO on Feb. 29, 2012. Click on the picture at right to see her signature. The full tax return can be seen at this link. But according to the 2011 California Environmental Scorecard of the California League of Conservation Voters, she was appointed “early in his term” in 2011, the prior year, as Brown's “Deputy Legislative Secretary for Agriculture.”

She used a residential address located in a Sacramento neighborhood on the non-profit IRS form, which is on the Guidestar rating website for CNC.

And someone at the CNC received $14,740 for “travel, meetings and auto” expenses, the IRS tax return reported.

On the IRS form, CNC has a public charity status and checked off the box indicating that it receives a substantial part of its support from the government.

Cultivo Consulting

The bio on the Cultivo Consulting website  reads:

“We have fifteen (15) years [sic] experience in lobbying, political campaigning, and community organizing across the state of California. Our commitment is to ensure that non-profit and community organizations are able to move an effective and successful policy agenda at all levels, providing comprehensive project management, lobbying, strategic advising, facilitation and coalition building services. We believe in promoting policies that are socially, economically and environmentally just. Headquartered in Sacramento with an additional office in Los Angeles, California, Cultivo Consulting provides the solution to your statewide organizational policy needs.”

The bio for Jennifer Hernandez on the website says the firm was started in 2008 and reads:

“Currently Jennifer is a Partner with Cultivo Consulting, a consulting firm started in 2008 aimed at helping nonprofits and community organizations participate in public policy shaping from the local to state levels.”

Hernandez also worked for the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, “where she coordinated efforts with the Poder Popular Program, a project funded by the California Endowment.” “Poder Popular para la Salud del Pueblo” means “The Power of the People for the Health of the Community,” and was “a community organization designed to empower agricultural workers.”

“In the 2004 Presidential Election cycle, Jennifer worked with Voices for Working Families, the second largest 527 [tax-exempt organization] that cycle, which conducted voter education, registration, mobilization, and voter protection activities in communities of color in seven battleground states,” the Zoominfo.com bio says.

The Cultivo website still maintains a web page for Guzman-Aceves — but there is no actual reference to her on the web page. See the nearby picture, which was captured at 8 am on Oct. 11, 2013. Notice the URL in the upper left-hand corner, which includes her name: http://cultivoconsulting.com/leadership/martha_guzman-aceves.html

However, the text of the page reads:

“LEADERSHIP PROFILES
“We're sorry, but there is an error with your selection.”

The phone number still listed on the website also is revealing: 916.524.2241.

A tracer report shows the phone number rings to a cell phone owned by Guzman-Aceves, where a voice mail message recorded by a child says, “Hi. You’ve reached Martha Guzman-Aceves. Please leave her a message.”

CRLA and community for a new CA connections

Listed as officers of CNC on the IRS Form 990, along with Guzman-Aceves, are Jennifer Hernandez, Alegria De La Cruz, Phoebe Seaton and Charles S. Eaton. Guzman-Aceves, Hernandez, Seaton and De La Cruz all worked at CRLA.

Seaton is an attorney with the CLR, and is listed as the Communities for a New California Education Fund, Board of Directors Secretary. Seaton also was listed in a CRLA Annual Report as the Community Equity Initiative Program Director. The CEI's “goals are to eliminate infrastructure inequity in disadvantaged, unincorporated communities.”

Eaton is a Ph.D. candidate at UC Berkeley. He wrote “Stronger Together in Fresno” in the collection, “In Critical Solidarity,” and “Student Unionism and Sustaining Student Power.”

Silvia Lopez is a quiet, thoughtful 15-year Gerawan Farming employee, and the de facto leader of thousands of Central Valley farm workers who have been protesting for nearly a year to oust the United Farm Workers union from the farming company.

Seven hundred Gerawan farm workers took a day off without pay and descended on Sacramento Wednesday to attend a meeting at the Agricultural Labor Relations Board.  Then they walked to the State Capitol to meet Gov. Jerry Brown.

Six of the farm workers tried to ask Brown to intervene with the ALRB to allow them to vote on whether to keep or oust the UFW from Gerawan Farming.

“Jerry Brown, we want an election at Gerawan Farming,” Lopez said, as she approached the governor’s office.

While waiting in the Capitol hallway outside, one of Brown’s employees poked her head out and asked, “Are you guys with the UFW?”

“No, we are against the UFW,” Lopez said. “We are farm workers with Gerawan Farming. And I am Silvia Lopez.”

But the governor didn’t respond. Instead, to talk with the workers, he sent Martha Guzman-Aceves, the Deputy Legislative Secretary for agriculture, environment and natural resources.

From Guzman-Aceves, Brown's negative message was loud and clear. She is a former Legislative Coordinator for the United Farm Workers, AFL-CIO. She was co-founder of three non-profit organizations under the name, the Communities for a New California. It describes itself as “committed to empowering underrepresented communities in California’s Central Coast, San Joaquin Valley and South East Desert. CNC works to promote economic prosperity, community health, and accessible and accountable government with election and policy campaigns. CNC organizes communities around the issues that matter most to them through localized direct education activities, earned media, and training.”

Meeting

The meeting with Guzman-Aceves lasted 45 minutes, during which Lopez told the story reiterating that the workers don’t want and don’t need the UFW at Gerawan Farming. She told Guzman-Aceves how she personally collected 90 percent of the workers’ signatures, but they were rejected by the ALRB.

The workers recounted the UFW harassment, and showed Guzman-Aceves Lopez’s swollen wrist.

Guzman-Aceves said she would call the ALRB area representative in Visalia. But Lopez said that would do nothing, as ALRB’s Visalia regional director, Silas M. Shawver, is the official who rejected the signatures, and has fought them every step of the way.

“Would you not like me to call him?” Guzman-Aceves asked.

Lopez explained again that they were there seeking intervention from the governor. “There’s no recourse for us. That’s why we are here,” she said. “We just want an election.”

But as Guzman-Aceves stood up to indicate the end of the meeting, Silvia Lopez shook her head and said, “Jerry Brown is not coming.”

UFW response

“The ALRB issued a 12-page report which dismissed the workers' petition,” said UFW communications director, Maria Machuca, when I called her. “It was just a small group, the petition, and included forgeries and company involvement, which is illegal.”

“The ALRB invalidated the Gerawan decertification petition based on illegal employer involvement,” Machuca added in an email following my call. “In its review of the petitions signed by employees, the ALRB found a substantial number of forged signatures.  Nothing demonstrates more disrespect for employees than forging their signatures on a legal document.”

The ALRB decision Machuca referred to was issued Sept. 25. “This Petition is invalid because is has not been accompanied by an adequate showing of interest,” the decision said. “In addition, the Petition is being dismissed because there is no reasonable cause to find the Petition presents a genuine question of representation.”

Ironically, because the workers were not represented by a union, they could not petition to get rid of the union.

Coming to Sacramento

Earler in the day, Lopez led 700 polite workers holding signs that said, “No UFW,” “Our Jobs, Our Choice,” and “Let us Vote.”

Despite the calm crowd, Lopez pointed out UFW infiltrators. Lopez told me she had an encounter with a couple of UFW representatives as the group’s seven buses arrived and parked on 10th Street in front of the Capitol. One of the UFW men grabbed and twisted her wrist and demanded to know who paid for the buses.

Lopez said the UFW men then tried to get the bus drivers to tell them who paid for the buses. Getting nowhere, they called some of the workers — excuse the word, but it's important to quote it directly — “wetbacks,” and threatened to call immigration law enforcement.

Despite the aggression, Lopez welcomed the men to join her should they change their minds about the UFW.

As to the buses, Lopez told me that they were paid for by a generous donor after he heard her interview on the Ray Appleton radio talk show Tuesday. The buses carried the 700 protesters from the Fresno area to Sacramento.

Agricultural Labor Relations Board

The hundreds of farm workers assembled in front of the Sacramento Convention Center on J Street while Lopez and others met with a representative from the ALRB, located across the street. Lopez said they would not let her into the ALRB board meeting in progress, and instead had her communicate through an ALRB employee.

“The UFW is not offering anything,” Lopez said. “The ALRB is the same — they are just up there,” she said, gesturing 20-story building across the street (pictured nearby).

Lopez was only asking for the opportunity to vote on whether the Gerawan employees would allow the UFW to represent them, or not. The ALRB has denied this request, despite the 3,000 signatures Lopez collected for a petition to decertify the union and allow them to continue working as non-union employees.

UFW and ALRB

In order to breathe new life into the moribund union, many in the farming community claim the ALRB and UFW have joined forces to boost the union by targeting one of the biggest non-union farming operations in the state. Should they succeed in unionizing Gerawan Farming employees, adding the 5,000 farmworkers would double union membership, and certainly boost the ALRB’s status.

The UFW is a shadow of what it once was. With approximately only 3,300 union members, the UFW needs money and members to survive. Earlier in the year, I wrote about Senate Bill 25, a bill by Sen. President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, targeting six of the largest non-union farming operations in the state.

Gerawan Farming’s story depicts a state government seeking to encroach on private sector business. Owner Dan Gerawan told me in August, if SB25 was signed into law, he could lose his business and thousands of his workers could lose their jobs.

He said the real motive behind SB25 was to target his 5,000 workers, as well as other large farming companies’ workers, to force them into the UFW in order to immediately double the union’s size. SB25 was not passed this year, but will be taken up next year.

Gerawan Farming

The UFW won an election to represent Gerawan Farming's workers 23 years ago. But after only one bargaining session, the union disappeared and wasn’t heard from for more than 20 years.

Last October, the union reappeared to impose a contract on Gerawan Farming and its employees — without a new vote of the workers.

Every Gerawan worker said the company offers the highest paying employment package in the industry; the workers don’t need or want the union.

Belen Lopez, Silvia’s daughter, said she goes to college and was working as a cashier for $8.00 per hour. But she quit that job and went to work in quality control at Gerawan Farming, starting at $10.00. Belen said Gerawan pays bonuses and allows her a flexibility to meet her school schedule. She and the other workers said Gerawan Farming allows all the time off they need, and allows the workers to decide among themselves who works, as long as the production needs are met.

The right to vote

“Government, we are here of our own free will,” yelled one farm worker as he stood in front of the ALRB building, looking up to the 19th floor. “We are here and we want the right to vote!”

“We don’t want the union — we want the right to vote. We want to be heard!” Silvia Lopez yelled into the microphone.

Lopez said she personally gathered more than 1,100 workers’ signatures in only three days. And it’s not an easy task. Signature gatherers must wait until workers are on break to even approach them, and use the time to explain the petition and get signatures. She eventually gathered more than 2,800 signatures, but the ALRB denied most of them, claiming the signatures were forged, as I wrote in “Farm workers fight UFW unionization.”

The labor union boasted 50,000 members by the end of the 1970s. But according to the UFW’s last Labor Organization Annual Report filed with the U.S. Department of Labor, as of Dec. 31, 2012 the union had only 4,443 members. So it has declined by more than 90 percent. By contrast, today the California Teachers Association lists 325,000 members.

In order to breathe new life into the union, many in the farming community claim the ALRB and UFW appear to have joined forces to reverse their misfortune by targeting one of the biggest non-union farming operations in the state. Should they succeed in unionizing Gerawan Farming employees, adding the 5,000 farmworkers would double union membership, and certainly boost the ALRB’s status.

Gerawan Farming

The UFW won an election to represent Gerawan Farming’s workers 23 years ago. But after only one bargaining session, the union disappeared and wasn’t heard from for more than 20 years.

Last October, the union reappeared to impose a contract on Gerawan Farming and its employees — without a vote of the workers.

Silvia Lopez

“We don’t want the union,” said Silvia Lopez in a recent radio interview on Fresno’s KMJ radio station with host Ray Appleton. “Why is that so hard to get?”

Lopez, a 15-year employee of Gerawan Farming, is one of hundreds of farm workers who protested the ALRB and United Farm Workers recently.

Lopez said their primary issue with the United Farm Workers union is the 3 percent deduction the union will take out of their paychecks for dues. For a majority of the Gerawan Farming workers, union dues have never been taken out of their paychecks before. Lopez said the union is coming after them because of the union agreement in 1990, but she said a contract was never drawn up.

“The union just came in and said they would charge us to represent us,” Lopez told Appleton. “I was worried. Where have you been?” she said she asked. “We don’t need them. We are waiting for someone to help. No one is helping. Where is Jerry Brown? Who is going to defend our rights?”

Lopez said she collected the workers’ signatures herself, crew by crew, as she counted the employees. “I wrote down everything. I know the employees of Gerawan,” Lopez said.

When the ALRB said the signatures were no good, Lopez said she was angry. “That’s a lie. I know ALRB and they’re lying,” Lopez said. “I counted those signatures. I know I turned in 90 percent of the signatures. If the union comes into our company, we are going to quit. We won’t pay 3 percent to the UFW. I don’t like the UFW. They don’t offer the benefits they promise.”

Lopez added, “Why are they scared of an election?”

Help farm workers

Farm employees from Gerawan Farming have been trying to get out the UFW since October 2012. The employees recently petitioned the ALRB for a vote, but it sided with the UFW to block the employees from even being able to vote on keeping or booting the UFW.

After circulating a petition collecting workers’ signatures to decertify the UFW, the ALRB rejected workers’ petition last week. The ALRB claimed the workers’ petition lacked valid signatures and even accused  the workers who organized the petition of forging signatures.

“What Would You Do?” the Help Farm Workers website asks. “What would you do if representation were forced on you without your right to vote on it? What if that representation carried with it a dues tax on every dollar you earned?

“This is what faces the workers at Gerawan Farms unless the California ALRB honors their right to a fair and free election.”

ALRB

Adding insult to injury, ALRB’s Visalia regional director Silas M. Shawver has accused Gerawan Farming of circulating the petition seeking the decertification election, according to the Fresno Bee.

” ‘There is no doubt that there are Gerawan workers who genuinely want to decertify the union at their workplace,’ the ruling states,” reported the Bee. “However, ‘the evidence shows that a majority of the current employees at Gerawan have not expressed interest in decertifying the union.’”

The recent ruling came following Gerawan employees’ rallies in front of ALRB offices in Visalia and Kerman, demanding, “Let us Vote.”

“In a letter to Silas Shawver, regional director of the ALRB, Gerawan noted that Shawver’s math just doesn’t add up: more than 2,000 signatures from Gerawan employees were filed asking for a decertification vote, yet only 1,300 were needed and just 100 were deemed invalid,” the Help Farm Workers website said.

A Gerawan Farming statement on the Help Farm Workers website explained:

“We believe the Petitioner and the potential voters have a right to know the signature count. Otherwise, it appears that the decision about whether to dismiss or not dismiss a petition is an arbitrary one not based on a fair and careful assessment of whether there is reasonable cause to believe there is a bona fide question of representation,” the statement said.

“Gerawan reminded the ALRB that, at Gerawan’s request, the agency officials personally met with over 2,100 Gerawan employees before the election. The Board’s agents, including Mr. Shawver, visited the farm so they could inform the workers of their right to ask for an election. “When the ALRB hides the actual signature count, as you have done, it certainly creates reason for suspicion that something is just not right.”