“[Justices will] hear arguments over whether the union can require payment from teachers it represents in contract talks. The justices could support the status quo or issue a ruling that only changes payments to CTA. Union leaders everywhere fear, however, a broader decision that would squeeze their own treasuries and diminish public labor’s political clout at all levels of government.”

An order issued by a Sacramento Superior Court judge on Nov. 27 ruled Gerawan Framing did not have to enter into collective bargaining while preparing an appeal. The UFW didn’t even mention this setback on its website.

UFW jumps the gun

While Gerawan Farming was awaiting the results of the Nov. 5 Gerawan employee election to decertify the UFW, the UFW requested a temporary restraining order Nov. 22 to force Gerawan into collective bargaining anyway. This attempt to force unionization on the Gerawan employees was helped along by the  California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, which ordered the collective bargaining, while the Board simultaneously has been sitting on the employee election results.

Gerawan Farming refused to enter into the collective bargaining process pending the allotted 30-days to prepare an appeal. The company has since filed a complaint with the 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 UFW tried to get the state court to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting Gerawan Farming from refusing to abide by the ALRB’s collective bargaining order. The UFW argued, “Otherwise the UFW and the workers will suffer irreparable harm from precisely the automatic stay that the Legislature declined to enact.”

(All of the documents in this case, including the UFW complaint and judge’s order, can be found here. Case number 2013-00153803)

Judge Brown’s explanation

Superior Court Judge David Brown explained in his Nov. 27 decision:

“The review by the court shall not extend further than to determine, on the basis of the entire record, whether any of the following occurred:

“(1) The board acted without, or in excess of, its powers or jurisdiction.

“(2) The board has not proceeded in the manner required by law.

“(3) The order or decision of the board was procured by fraud or was an abuse of discretion.

“(4) The order or decision of the board violates any right of the petitioner under the Constitution of the United States or the California Constitution.”

Legal cherry-picking

The UFW argued that the language within the state law compels the result they were seeking. “They assert the Legislature’s deliberate creation a narrow framework for review of a Mediator’s report by the Board (ALRB), demonstrates a desire to provide farm workers with the benefit of a collective bargaining agreement,” the judge wrote.

The UFW argued that the language of the statute provided that no final order of the Board should be stayed on appeal unless the appellant shows irreparable harm, and a likelihood of success on appeal shows an explicit intent to provide a collective bargaining agreement to agricultural workers without delay.

But the judge didn’t buy the UFW’s legal argument.

“Unfortunately, there are no provisions of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act governing the Mandatory Mediation Process that permit the Agriculture Labor Relations Board to seek temporary relief during the pendency of the 30-day period for seeking appellate review,” the judge said, quoting from a similar 2012 case, Ace Tomato Company Inc., v. United Farm Workers.

Judge Brown explained:

“In Ace, following a Board Decision affirming the mediator’s report, the UFW filed a request for agency action to enforce the anti-stay provision in the Mandatory Mediation Law, alleging that Ace had failed to implement the CBA as ordered, and requesting that the Board go to court to enforce its decision (under Lab. Code § 1164.3(f), either party or the Board may file an action to enforce the Order of the Board),” the Judge wrote. “Immediately thereafter, the Board issued an Administrative Order requesting that Ace provide a response to the UFW’s request for enforcement. Ace provided a response indicating that it intended to file a petition for review in the Court of Appeal of the Board’s decision affirming the mediator, but did not indicate whether it had implemented the agreement. Shortly thereafter, the Board issued another Administrative Order, ordering Ace to state whether it had in fact implemented the CBA.”

“As in unfair labor practice proceedings, the Board’s decisions are not self-enforcing,” the judge said. “Rather, in order to enforce its decisions, the Board must first obtain a judgement.” And judgments are obtained through the Superior Court.

Legislative intent

The judge explained legislative intent should be gathered from the whole legislative act, rather than cherry-picking a few words or isolated parts. He wrote, “Courts should thus construe all provisions of a statute together,… significance being given when possible to each word, phrase, sentence, and part of the act in pursuance of the legislative purpose.”

In other words, the judge told the UFW that words matter, especially in context. “The meaning of a statute may not be determined from a single word or sentence. Its words must be construed in context, keeping in mind the nature and obvious purpose of the statute where they so as to make sense of the entire statutory scheme,” the judge said.

The judge added there was “no legal mechanism by which the UFW could seek to enforce the collective bargaining agreement” at that time.

Judge Brown ruled: “The application is DENIED.”

By Mark Stefanos

Leaders of the Deputy Sheriffs’ Association of San Diego County, a labor organization representing 2,200 law-enforcement officers, toured the California Republican Convention in Sacramento last weekend, attending sessions and meeting with elected officials.

They were an uncommon sight, given California labor leaders’ historic alliance with Democratic candidates and organizations. It is far too soon to see this as significant. But for a Republican Party looking to widen its umbrella after significant losses in the 2012 election cycle, the union’s overture was a reminder that California’s police and fire unions haven’t been as rigidly predictable or ideological as other public-employee unions.

Matt Clay, president of DSASD, said his delegation was received warmly. “We have felt like we’ve been included in the party,” he said. “I feel that we are on the same sheet as the Republicans on an overwhelming amount of issues.”

Union reps have ‘a tall order ahead of them’

But not all were thrilled about DSASD’s presence. Jon Fleischman, veteran GOP official and publisher of the conservative news site Flashreport.org, was skeptical of the labor group’s ability to sync with Republicans’ policy agenda.

“We have 99 percent of our issues in common with law enforcement, but these guys will have a tall order ahead of them if they think they will be able to move our party on the issue of pension reform,” Fleischman said.

Historically, public-safety unions have often walked a fine line between Republican and Democratic affiliation. Firefighters and law enforcement officers tend to be law-and-order conservatives. However, they belong to the public employee unions with the most generous pensions, and those pension systems are more likely to be underfunded at the local and state levels.

On the issue of pension reform, Clay said the Deputy Sheriffs’ Association of San Diego County does not face the same challenges seen in other counties.

“In San Diego, the county is in very good shape fiscally,” he said. “Our public employee retirement fund is very well funded — it’s AAA rated and it should be a model for counties across America. By 2018, it will be paid 100 percent by employee contributions.” Clay added that the fund is currently 80 percent funded and said more than 90 percent of the members of his board of directors are registered Republicans.

Public-safety union support for GOP should be ‘natural’

In San Diego, public safety unions maintain strong relationships with some individual Republican lawmakers, though not the highest-profile GOPers like defeated San Diego mayoral candidate Carl DeMaio. The Deputy Sheriffs’ Association of San Diego County contributed approximately $350,000 to Republican candidates in the last two election cycles, making it among the largest single donors. It gave no money to Democratic candidates.

DSASD leadership had an official convention itinerary which included meals with state Sen. Joel Anderson, a Republican whose district is mostly in east and northeast San Diego County, and Assemblyman Rocky Chavez, R-Oceanside, as well as coffee with Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista. The union officials also were given a tour of the Capitol by Assemblyman Brian Jones, R-Santee.

“Five of my 10 delegates are law enforcement from San Diego. The bottom line is Republicans need to find a way to reach out to groups that, on the natural, should be supporting us,” Jones said. “Let’s face it, the Republican Party in California right now is broken. I saw this as an opportunity to begin a dialogue between the party and law enforcement on areas where we can unite and areas where we can work together.”

‘Not all labor groups are created equal’

Clay echoed this message. “We hope our Republican friends can realize that not all labor groups are created equal and some labor groups are a model for working cooperatively with their employer to help make the pension system sustainable for the future. We want to end this pension issue once and for all.”

On whether labor groups like DSASD would be able to maintain permanent alliances with Republicans, Fleischman remained hesitant. “The idea that someone should retire at the age of 50 and have a public retirement until the day they die is so unsustainable that it’s tragic,” he said. “I’m fine with them being here, we agree on so many issues concerning law enforcement. I suspect the only area for which we’ll find disagreement is on appropriate compensation for their jobs.”