Sentinel staff report

Watsonville - The Coastal Berry Farmworkers committee said Monday it will appeal the validation of the election it won in July.

On Thursday, the state Agricultural Labor Relations Board invalidated the union election at Coastal Berry Co. because 152 workers in Oxnard were not notified of the vote.

Those workers were left off the list by Coastal Berry.

The committee said Monday that the ALRB nullification was "political" and vowed to challenge it, or hold another election next year.

The Coastal Berry Farmworkers Committee and the UFW both have attempted to represent some 1,500 workers at the strawberry farm. Coastal Berry owner David Gladstone also complained about the committees tactics, prompting the investigation that led to the nullification.

UFW officials have contended that the AWA and the AWC were essentially the same organization, fronting the growers, but representatives of the organizations have maintained they were legitimate labor unions.

In August 1997, the UFW filed suit in Santa Cruz County Superior Court against the AWA, the AWC, Jim Dutra Farms; Dutra Farms foreman Virgilio Ypez; Miguel Ramos Farms; and AWC manager Antonio Perez, claiming their activities had violated state labor law.

Fresno lawyer Ron Barsamian, who is defending the AWC in the continuing lawsuit, said in January that the group had not received industry money. After a court hearing, he said, "The AWC is neither supported nor financed by growers."

Barsamian repeated Monday that his client was not financed by growers since most of the money went to the AWA, not the AWC.

He also said the contributions were not part of any concerted effort.

"Some growing companies purchased hats, T-shirts, and buttons," he said. "All kinds of people brought that stuff. We made that clear the first day in court."

Barsamian said he wondered why the UFW was continuing with the litigation since his committee was bankrupt.

"Literally, the UFW wanted to slam the door shut on the farm workers' First Amendments rights and basically they did," he said.

Werlwas said that, despite Barsamian's position, the AWA and the AWC were one and the same.

"It's ridiculous to be claiming they are separate organizations," she said. "They had the same officers, the same address, the same business card, the same logo, and the same T-shirts.

"The committee has shown a clear pattern of constantly changing its name but keeping up the same activities. We are concerned with making sure it doesn't continue this pattern of reinventing itself every six months."

Werlwas said UFW lawyers have identified other contributors to the AWA and the AWC but cannot identify them until they are official defendants in the lawsuit.

"The growers want to keep that a secret and we are asking the court to deny this request," Werlwas said. "We have been telling the court that these committees have been telling everyone in Santa Cruz and the rest of the world that they are ordinary farmworkers when, in fact, were created and funded by agri-business to oppose the UFW's organizing drive."

Defendant Antonio Perez, who became the AWC's manager in July 1997, said Monday that he could not comment on whether the committee had received illegal contributions.

"They always say you are innocent until proven guilty," Perez said. "I would rather not comment on that. They are suing me as an individual and that pretty much stops me from saying anything."

Werlwas said it was difficult for the UFW to obtain the bank records it needed to prove its contention because a committee representative testified that their financial records had been lost. Eventually, the UFW was able to obtain the records by subpoenaing the Bank of America, the lawyer said.