On May 1, 1992, the Agricultural Labor Relations Board ruled on reciprocal allegations by an olive grower and a union that the other had committed unfair labor practices related to the union's right to continue representing employees of the grower. This report has been adapted from a case summary (18 ALRB No. 2) provided by the Board.
Six consolidated charges were made, five against the employer, S & J Ranch, and one against the union, United Farm Workers of America (UFW), AFL-CIO. The employer was alleged to have instigated and/or supported the signing of a decertification petition, unilaterally increased wages and changed other terms and conditions of employment, discriminated against workers who took part in a work stoppage, interfered with and denied access, engaged in surveillance, and assaulted a UFW access taker. The UFW, through S & J employees acting as its agents, was alleged to have engaged in threats and in rock and olive throwing during a work stoppage on October 14, 1989.
ALJ's Decision
The Administrative Law Judge found that S & J unlawfully instigated and supported the decertification petition that resulted in an election on November 3, 1989. She found that the petition was circulated and supported by various agents of S & J, including a supervisor, two labor consultants, and a personnel unit employee. She therefore recommended that the decertification election be set aside.
The ALJ also found that S & J unilaterally implemented a wage increase, despite the UFW's request to bargain, delayed access on several occasions until most or all of the workers had departed, interfered with access by disrupting conversations between workers and access takers, engaged in surveillance of access, and assaulted an access taker who tried to walk past a security guard.
The ALJ found the evidence insufficient to sustain allegations that S & J unilaterally increased the number of toilets in the fields, unilaterally changed olive picking requirements, fired 10 workers due to their participation in the work stoppage, and warned workers that their employment would be jeopardized if they supported the UFW.
The ALJ dismissed the allegations of threats and rock and olive throwing. She concluded it was not shown that any misconduct that occurred was by anyone acting as an agent of the UFW.
Board's Decision
The Board affirmed the dismissal of the allegations against the UFW but did not address the issue of whether those allegedly engaging in misconduct were acting as agents of the UFW. Rather, the Board relied on the ALJ's factual findings, which showed that the evidence was insufficient to establish that any actionable misconduct took place.
The Board affirmed the ALJ's conclusion that agents of S & J circulated and supported the signing of the decertification petition, thereby rendering the petition invalid and requiring that the election be set aside. However, rather than adopting the ALJ's finding that a crew leader who circulated the petition was a statutory supervisor, the Board relied on principles of apparent authority to find that the employees would have reasonably viewed the crew leader as acting on behalf of management.
The Board also adopted the ALJ's conclusions that S & J unilaterally increased wages, interfered with access, and engaged in surveillance. However, the Board reversed determinations concerning two of the alleged incidents of interference with access and the alleged assault on an access taker, finding the evidence insufficient to carry the General Counsel's burden of proof.
Regarding the surveillance violation, the Board held that the fact that the supervisors and guard stayed out of earshot does not preclude finding an unlawful chilling effect on employees' right to communicate with union representatives. The Board agreed with the ALJ that S & J failed to establish a legitimate justification for its observation of access.
Lastly, the Board dismissed several evidentiary exceptions for which S & J failed to provide grounds as required by Regulation 20282(a)(1).
Back to: Contents | LMD Main Page | APMP Home