State Supreme Court Upholds $1.7-Million Award Against UFW

In a severe setback for the United Farm Workers, the state Supreme Court on Thursday let stand a $1.7-million award against the union for damages resulting from a violent 1979 strike against an Imperial Valley grower.

The justices, in a brief order, declined to review a state appellate court ruling in February that upheld the award, believed to be one of the largest of its kind against a labor organization. Only Justices Stanley Mosk and Allen E. Broussard voted to hear the union’s appeal--two short of the required number.

UFW attorneys had contended that the union should not be liable for crop losses and other strike-related costs incurred by the grower. They said the award, made by an Imperial County judge, threatened “economic ruin” for the organization.

Dianna Lyons, an attorney for the union, called Thursday’s action “extremely disappointing” and said the ruling will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Unquestionably, this award is going to be devastating,” she said. “We can only hope that as in times past, there will be enough people in California and around the country who will care enough to help avoid the destruction of the union that the growers no doubt have hoped for.”

Lyons also said the decision would inhibit the collective bargaining process and the right to strike. “We talk about decisions having a chilling effect on the exercise of lawful rights,” she said. “What we have here is not a chill, but a major blizzard.”

The action, however, was welcomed by Marcelle E. Mihaila, a San Diego attorney representing the grower in the case, Maggio Inc. “This decision is important because it basically says a labor union that violates the law will be held accountable,” Mihaila said. “Hopefully, now we can finally collect the judgment.”

Maggio’s attorneys had urged the high court to reject the union’s appeal, citing the trial judge’s finding that there was clear evidence UFW strikers engaged in violent and illegal acts during the six-month strike. The grower called union warnings of financial calamity “a sham,” noting the UFW said in earlier court proceedings it was solvent and could pay the award in full.

When it was issued in 1986, the award was the biggest against the UFW. Three years ago, a $5.4-million judgment was rendered against the union by a Yuma, Ariz., jury for an illegal secondary boycott. That award was recently reversed by an Arizona appeals court and an appeal by the grower in the case now is before that state’s Supreme Court.

The UFW began the Imperial Valley strike in January, 1979, against eight growers, including Maggio, one of California’s largest producers of lettuce, broccoli and carrots.

There were widespread incidents of violence attributed to both sides in the dispute. One striker was killed by an unknown attacker, and other pickets were wounded by gunfire. There were instances--acknowledged by the union--in which UFW pickets threw rocks, blocked fields, overturned vehicles and carried sticks, slingshots and other objects as weapons. Growers said pickets threatened to kill replacement workers.

Maggio sued the UFW, seeking damages for crop losses, property damage, security expenses and other costs the grower said arose from the union’s illegal activity. More than 150 witnesses testified at an 11-month trial. The grower presented videotapes showing strikers rushing into the fields waving clubs and throwing stones at workers and vehicles.

Imperial County Superior Court Judge William E. Lehnhardt ruled in May, 1986, that the union was liable for $1.7 million in damages--a figure that with interest now amounts to $2.4 million. The judge found that the UFW engaged in repeated illegal acts, creating a “climate of violence” that prevented the grower from recruiting enough workers to successfully harvest its crops. The union later placed $2.5 million in a trust account as a bond while it appealed the judgment.

In February, a state Court of Appeal in San Diego upheld all but a small fraction of the award, concluding there was “substantial evidence” to support Lehnhardt’s finding that union leaders instigated illegal activity.

The appeals panel, in a 55-page opinion by Appellate Justice Daniel J. Kremer, also rejected the union’s claim that it was not liable for losses resulting from an “ordinary business risk” the grower assumed when it refused to come to terms with the UFW. While damages may not be awarded for losses from a lawful strike, the damages awarded in this case resulted from illegal conduct and thus were valid, the panel said.

In its appeal to the high court, UFW lawyers said the union was being wrongly held responsible for losses by a grower without sufficient proof the losses were caused by illegal strike actions. Maggio’s losses were attributable to inefficiencies resulting from its use of the untrained workers who replaced strikers in the fields, the UFW said.