Split High Court Endorses Appeals of ALRB Orders

In a victory for growers, the California Supreme Court held Monday that farm companies may appeal and temporarily block court orders enforcing decisions by the state Agricultural Labor Relations Board.

The justices, by a 4-3 vote, rejected contentions by the ALRB and the United Farm Workers union that permitting such appeals would allow employers found guilty of unfair labor practices to avoid prompt compliance with board-ordered remedial measures.

The decision also brought the first significant split among the three new justices appointed to the court by Gov. George Deukmejian. Justice John A. Arguelles, one of the new appointees, joined in a dissent with Justices Stanley Mosk and Allen E. Broussard.

Second Split Vote

Since the new justices took office in March, the court has been unanimous in 12 of 13 rulings, dividing only in a 4-3 decision over the proper penalty to impose in a lawyer discipline case.

In Monday’s ruling, two of the new Deukmejian appointees, Justices David N. Eagleson and Marcus M. Kaufman, joined with Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas and Justice Edward A. Panelli, two previous Deukmejian appointees, to form the majority.

Under Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird, who with two other justices was ousted by voters last fall, the court had generally been sympathetic to farm workers’ interests and frequently upheld the ALRB.

Nancy C. Smith, deputy solicitor for the ALRB, expressed disappointment with the ruling, saying it raised “the potential” for additional delay in enforcing steps against unfair labor practices.

The firm involved in the case before the court has since gone bankrupt, and there is doubt the remedial order against it can be enforced, she said.

‘Frivolous’ Appeals

Smith, discussing the ruling’s impact on other cases, noted that the issues in such appeals are limited to the enforcement process--not the allegations--and that the court had pointed out Monday that growers who file “frivolous” appeals only to win delays could be assessed monetary damages.

Richard J. Papst of Bakersfield, attorney for Tex-Cal Management Inc., the employer in the case, welcomed the ruling and voiced doubt that it would open the way for frequent or time-consuming appeals.

“When you take an appeal, you’re going to have to make sure you’re on solid ground,” he said. “Also, there’s no basis for saying that when there is an appeal, it’s going to endlessly drag out the proceedings.”

Papst, asked about the split among the Deukmejian appointees on the court, added: “This just shows there’s really no firm mind-set here; it shows the people appointed by the governor have a mind of their own.”

Attorneys for the farm workers’ union could not be reached for comment.

The case before the court represented a complex test of the ALRB’s aim to obtain prompt resolution of farm labor disputes against the grower’s assertion of the right to due process in an appeal.

In November, 1982, the ALRB found that Tex-Cal, which farmed 7,000 acres in Tulare and Kern counties, had violated state labor relations statutes by contracting out work without giving notice to employees and by firing some workers who protested working conditions.

The board ordered the grower to stop making unilateral changes in working conditions and to reinstate discharged workers with back pay.

As authorized by statute, Tex-Cal sought review of the board’s finding by the state Court of Appeal in Fresno. The firm then withdrew its petition, making the board ruling final.

Next, the board went to a Tulare County Superior Court, charging that Tex-Cal was refusing to comply with the ALRB remedial order. The Superior Court ordered the employer to comply, but the firm filed notice that it would appeal the enforcement order to the Court of Appeal.

The board argued that the enforcement order could not be appealed, but the Superior Court said that it could and ruled that the board’s order was automatically blocked while the employer challenged the order in the higher court.

The appellate court upheld the order but ruled that it could have been appealed. The ALRB, backed in a “friend of the court” brief by the farm workers, took the issue to the state Supreme Court, warning that allowing such challenges to enforcement orders would frustrate the prompt resolution of farm labor disputes.

In Monday’s ruling, the majority, in an opinion by Panelli, expressed sympathy for the need for prompt action in farm labor cases.

The court concluded, however, that state statutes clearly allow appeals if the appeals are limited to whether the enforcement order is procedurally correct and whether the employer is or is not complying with the order.