BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 25| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNFINISHED BUSINESS Bill No: SB 25 Author: Steinberg (D) Amended: 8/21/14 Vote: 21 SENATE LABOR & INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE : 3-1, 3/13/13 AYES: Lieu, Leno, Lara NOES: Wyland NO VOTE RECORDED: Padilla SENATE FLOOR : 23-10, 5/6/13 AYES: Beall, Block, Calderon, Corbett, Correa, De León, DeSaulnier, Evans, Hancock, Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Leno, Lieu, Liu, Monning, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Roth, Steinberg, Wright NOES: Anderson, Cannella, Emmerson, Fuller, Gaines, Huff, Knight, Nielsen, Walters, Wyland NO VOTE RECORDED: Berryhill, Galgiani, Lara, Wolk, Yee, Vacancy, Vacancy ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not available SUBJECT : Agricultural labor relations: contract dispute resolution SOURCE : United Farm Workers DIGEST : This bill makes various changes to the mandatory mediation procedures of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA), as specified. CONTINUED SB 25 Page 2 Assembly Amendments narrow the bill by removing the expanded definition of agricultural employer and removing the provision which permitted the filing of a declaration without having to meet the condition that the parties have not previously had a binding contract between them. ANALYSIS : Existing law: 1. Provides for a secret ballot election process for agricultural workers where a petition has been submitted, as specified, asking for the opportunity for workers to decide whether to select a particular union as their collective bargaining representative. 2. Requires that the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) follow applicable precedents of the National Labor Relations Act. 3. Provides for a mandatory mediation process for negotiating a collective bargaining agreement between an agricultural employer and a certified labor organization any time after: A. 90 days after a renewed demand to bargain by a labor organization or agricultural employer certified before January 1, 2003; B. 90 days after an initial demand to bargain by a labor organization or agricultural employer certified before January 1, 2003; or C. 60 days after the ALRB certified a labor organization, or rejects a decertification election, due to employer misconduct. 4. Specifies that the mandatory mediation process only applies to agricultural employers of 25 or more employees. 5. Provides that within 60 days after the ALRB issues a final order on the mediation, either the agricultural employer, the labor organization, or the ALRB may file an action to enforce the mediation agreement in superior court. No stay on a CONTINUED SB 25 Page 3 final order of the ALRB can be issued unless the court finds all of the following conditions are met: A. The appellant has demonstrated that he/she will be irreparably harmed by the implementation of the ALRB's order, and B. The appellant has demonstrated a likelihood of success on appeal. 6. Provides the above-discussed mandatory mediation process can occur only if all of the following conditions are met: A. The parties have failed to reach agreement for at least one year after the date on which the labor organization made its initial request to bargain. B. The employer has committed an unfair labor practice. This bill: 1.Requires that the ALRB's order must be implemented while an ALRB review is pending. 2.Provides that a court may only issue a stay if: A. The appellant has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that he/she will be irreparably harmed by the implementation of the ALRB's order. B. The appellant has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence a likelihood of success on appeal. 1.Requires the court deciding the stay of ALRB order to provide written findings and analysis supporting the decision to grant a stay. Background The mandatory mediation process . The mandatory mediation process was created by two bills, SB 1156 (Burton, Chapter 1145, Statutes of 2002) and AB 2596 (Wesson, Chapter 1146, Statutes of 2002). While the provisions of the mediation process have undergone some minor tweaks, the mediation process provided CONTINUED SB 25 Page 4 under existing law remains largely unchanged. Principally, the limitations on when an agricultural employer or a labor organization can ask for the mandatory mediation process remain the same. They are: 1. The parties have failed to reach agreement for at least one year after the date on which the labor organization made its initial request to bargain. 2. The employer has committed an unfair labor practice. 3. The parties have not previously had a binding contract between them. Assuming the above-requirements are met and the above-discussed timelines are past, a request for mandatory mediation triggers a specific process. The ALRB must immediately issue an order directing both parties to meditation and asks the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service for a list of nine mediators who have experience in labor mediation. Both parties select a mediator from the list; if they cannot agree, they strike names from the list until a mediator is selected by the process of elimination. The costs of the mediation process are borne equally by both parties. Upon appointment, the mediator schedules a 30 day period for mediation, which can be extended if necessary. If issues are outstanding after the 30 day period, the mediation process is considered exhausted. Within 21 days, the mediator issues the final terms of a collective bargaining agreement, including issues in dispute by the parties. If the mediator decides issues in dispute, the mediator must explain the basis for his/her ruling. Within seven days of the ruling, either party may appeal a mediator's decision to the ALRB. The ALRB may only review the mediators decision if: 1.The mediator's decision goes beyond wages, hours, and working conditions of employment; 2.The mediator's decision is based on clearly erroneous findings of material fact; or CONTINUED SB 25 Page 5 3.The mediator's report is arbitrary or capricious. If none of the above conditions exists, the mediator's report becomes the final order of the ALRB. If one or more of the above conditions exists, then the mediator mediates the process again. If, after issuing a new decision, a party believes that the mediator is corrupt, then a new mediator would be called in. Finally, either party could ask for a stay from a court. A stay would be granted if the court believed that the mediator's decision would cause irreparable economic harm and the appeal had a strong chance for success. Prior legislation . SB 126 (Steinberg, Chapter 697, Statutes of 2011) reformed the ALRA to provide explicit authority to the ALRB for bargaining orders, to provide explicit timelines for election challenges and to strengthen mandatory mediation requirements. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No SUPPORT : (Verified 8/29/14) United Farm Workers of America (source) AFSCME California Chiropractic Association California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union California Conference of Machinists California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO California Professional Firefighters California School Employees Association California Teamsters Public Affairs Council Engineers and Scientists of California International Longshore and Warehouse Union Monterey Bay Central Labor Council North Bay Labor Council Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21 San Francisco Labor Council San Mateo Labor Council State Building and Construction Trades Council Teamsters Union, Local 890 UNITE HERE! United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Western States Council Utility Workers Union of America, Local 132 CONTINUED SB 25 Page 6 OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/29/14) Agricultural Council of California Agricultural Personnel Management Association Allied Grape Growers American Pistachio Growers California Association of Cattlemen California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers California Association of Wheat Growers California Association of Wine Grape Growers California Bean Shippers Association California Cattelmen's Association California Chamber of Commerce California Citrus Mutual California Cotton Ginners Association California Cotton Growers Association California Dairies, Inc. California Farm Bureau Federation California Grain and Feed Association California Grape and Treefruit League California Peach Growers Association California Pear Growers Association California Seed Association California State Floral Association California Tomato Growers Association Family Winemakers of California Far West Equipment Dealers Association Friant Water Authority Nisei Farmers League Palm Desert Area Chamber of Commerce Raisin Bargaining Association San Gabriel Valley Regional Chamber Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce Southwest California Legislative Council Ventura County Agricultural Processors Association Western Agricultural Processors Association Western Growers Association Western United Dairymen ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The bill's sponsor, United Farm Workers of America, states: [This bill] honors the results of secret ballot elections by CONTINUED SB 25 Page 7 allowing for binding mediation to resolve collective bargaining disputes for the duration of the union's certification following a secret ballot election. Adopted into law 2002, the original binding mediation law for first contracts has worked. Decades-long legal maneuvering and delay has been replaced by collective bargaining agreements covering thousands of California farm workers. Those contracts have raised wages, halted arbitrary and inhumane treatment, and stopped sexual harassment. However, as first contracts expire some employers are refusing to negotiate new ones. D'Arrigo Farms delayed signing a first contract for 32 years following a secret ballot election won by farm workers. The company has refused to enter into a new contract since 2010. [This bill] also addresses an enforcement loophole in the 2002 law that has been identified by the ALRB. In some specific cases, the ALRB is unable to enforce a mediator's decision or to implement new wages. This past summer, a mediator imposed a first contract at Ace Tomato - a farm where farm workers first voted for the union in 1989. This first contract gave workers wage increases, workplace protections, and the ability to resolve disputes through grievance and arbitration procedures. Yet, even after two decades of legal maneuvers by Ace, when workers requested that the ALRB enforce the contract that Ace was refusing to implement, the ALRB concluded that it does not have the power to enforce the contract. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents contend that, by expanding the application of the mediation process to include all future collective bargaining agreement negotiations, this bill replaces negotiations between labor and management in agriculture by continuously repeating third-party intervention in setting the terms and conditions of employment. They contend that this negates any possibility of fostering labor and management cooperation in future negotiations by providing incentive for one party to simply hold on its positions until mediation can be commenced in the relatively short time periods provided for. In addition, opponents claim that this bill continuously takes away the important right of agricultural employees to have the opportunity to review and vote on whether to ratify negotiated CONTINUED SB 25 Page 8 collective bargaining agreements. They note that this past year has included several situations in which a certification of a labor organization had been left dormant by the labor organization for years or even decades, only to be utilized to apply the mediation provisions to obtain collective bargaining agreements without allowing employees any opportunity to decide whether they wished to be represented by the labor organization that had forgotten them for decades, or to ratify any collective bargaining agreement that might be ultimately imposed upon them. Opponents conclude that this bill prevents employees from ever having an opportunity to decide their own fate due to the limitations on when election can be conducted under the ALRA. PQ/JA:k 8/29/14 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED