 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
United Farm Workers of America v. Dutra Farms9/27/2000
As modified October 25, 2000. There is no change in judgement. The petition for rehearing is denied.
UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS AND RESPONDENTS,
V.
DUTRA FARMS ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.
(Santa Cruz County Super.Ct.No. 133191)
Attorney for Defendant and Appellant Dutra Farms: Terrence R. O'Connor Attorneys for Defendant and Appellant Clint Miller Farms, Inc. Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff, Tichy and Mathiason and Randolph C. Roeder, Philip L. Ross and Tracy L. Parola Terrence R. O'Connor Attorney for Amicus Curiae in support of Defendants and Appellants: Robert P. Roy Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Respondents: Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Berzon & Rubin and Stephen P. Berzon and Scott A. Kronland Marcos Camacho and Annabelle G. Cortez
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Elia, J.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
The United Farmworkers of America, AFL-CIO and associated individuals ("UFW") sued appellants Dutra Farms and Clint Miller Farms for unfair business practices and for violating Labor Code section 1155.4, subdivision (c) (hereafter section 1155.4(c)). The UFW moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, entered judgment for the UFW, and declared that appellants violated section 1155.4(c). The court also enjoined appellant Clint Miller Farms from violating the statute in the future.
On appeal, the main issue is the applicability of section 1155.4(c). In essence, section 1155.4(c) prohibits agricultural employers from giving anything of value to employee groups for the purpose of causing such employee groups to influence other employees regarding their collective bargaining rights. Like the trial court, we conclude that section 1155.4 applies to these circumstances. We will therefore affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The undisputed facts are as follows.
In 1996, the UFW announced an ongoing campaign to organize strawberry pickers into a union. Subsequently, the "Pro Workers Committee" (PWC) was formed to oppose the UFW. Several Miller employees and several Dutra employees participated in the initial PWC meetings. In January 1997, PWC changed its name to Ag Workers of America (AWA). AWA incorporated as a non-profit corporation. Its president, vice president, secretary and treasurer were all either Miller or Dutra employees. In June of 1997, AWA was, in essence, replaced by the Agricultural Workers Committee (the AWC), a non-profit corporation with the same officers, address, telephone numbers, and logo as the AWA.
Hereafter, we refer to PWC, AWC, and AWA as "the Committee."
The Committee "held weekly evening meetings during the growing season in a rented hall in Watsonville, held smaller board meetings, and organized public activities such as marches and demonstrations." One such march, held in August 1996, included thousands of farm workers from at least fourteen employers other than Miller or Dutra. Employees of "dozens" of different agricultural employers "belonged to" the Committee "and/or" actively participated in its activities.
Dutra paid $1,163 for rental of portable toilets used in the August 1996 march. On two occasions in early 1997, Miller donated $250 to the Committee, for a total contribution of $500.
The UFW then sued Dutra, Miller, and others for violating section 1155.4(c). The UFW also alleged that appellants' violation of section 1155.4 constituted an unfair business practice. (Bus. & Prof. Code, ยง 17200.) T
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|