Assembly OKs Farm Labor Bill

To shouts of “viva” and an outburst of applause from farm workers in the gallery, the Assembly voted Monday to submit agricultural labor contracts to binding arbitration when talks between unions and growers reach a deadlock.

If signed by Gov. Gray Davis, who has concerns about it, a spokesman said, the bill would mark the first time that the state’s landmark agricultural labor relations law has been amended since it was enacted in 1975.

The bill presents a dicey political challenge for the Democratic governor as he runs for reelection, since he is seeking both to keep organized labor as an ally and to persuade the business community that he is a friend who can be trusted with a second term.

The bill--SB 1736, by Senate leader John L. Burton (D-San Francisco)--was sponsored by the United Farm Workers of America and backed by organized labor.

It was fought by such influential agribusiness organizations as the California Farm Bureau Federation, Agricultural Council of California and Western Growers Assn.

Supporters of the United Farm Workers, founded by the late Cesar Chavez, view binding arbitration as a hammer that would force growers to reach agreements rather than risk having third-party arbitrators impose contracts on them.

The United Farm Workers say that major growers for years have refused to enter into union contracts, even though their employees have voted for the union.

They say growers stall merely by refusing to bargain in good faith.

Last year, Davis and the Legislature agreed to a system of binding arbitration for backstretch workers at race tracks by reclassifying them as “agricultural workers.” In exchange for binding arbitration, track operators were allowed to expand their operations to include Internet and telephone betting.

But the United Farm Workers and their Democratic supporters in the Legislature insisted that farm workers who produce the food for Californians should receive the same binding arbitration benefits as backstretch workers.

Under the bill, a union and grower could seek mediation and conciliation to resolve differences. But if an impasse occurred, either side could petition the state Agricultural Labor Relations Board to appoint an arbitrator who could impose a binding settlement, subject to court challenge.

About 100 agricultural employees in denims and red shirts bearing the black eagle logo of the United Farm Workers filled the Assembly chamber gallery in a show of support for the bill. They applauded and cheered when the bill was approved 49-22 on a nearly party-line vote.

The measure was returned to the Senate where routine approval of technical amendments made in the Assembly is expected. It is then to go to Davis, who has not taken a position on it, said spokesman Russ Lopez.

Lopez said the governor has been “very supportive of farm workers,” but had “some concerns” about the bill and wanted to “see what its impact would be on the business community.”

During an intense debate, Assemblyman Dean Florez of Shafter, a Democrat whose San Joaquin Valley district includes vast agribusiness enterprises, argued that farm workers had been promised by the state’s agricultural labor relations law nearly three decades ago that they would have equal bargaining power with growers at the negotiating table.

But he said, because growers have refused to negotiate contracts with the United Farm Workers, tens of thousands of laborers are denied union wages, benefits and other protection to which they are entitled.

“Today we are trying to fulfill that promise,” Florez told the Assembly, saying that Latino voters are watching. “They are watching the vote today. They want fairness. They want equity,” he said.

However, Assemblyman Robert Pacheco (D-Walnut), who said he had worked as a vegetable picker, said he was “sympathetic to the needs of farm workers. But this bill bothers me.” He complained that, although it applied to agricultural employers, it did not apply to labor contractors hired by employers.