Union Debate in Wine Country

About a dozen farmworkers from the Gallo of Sonoma winery sat around the picnic tables of a park on a warm harvest evening, getting a pep talk from a United Farm Workers organizer.

“Accion!” -- We need action -- the organizer said, laying out plans for an upcoming march.

Workers at Gallo of Sonoma voted a decade ago to join the UFW, but it’s been a rocky relationship.

It took six years for workers to get a contract, which expired last November, and there has been little progress on reaching a new agreement. The union was challenged with a decertification vote 18 months ago, but the result has been tied up in legal proceedings because of UFW charges of Gallo misconduct.

The dispute is being closely watched in wine country, where unions have struggled to gain a foothold.

Some Gallo of Sonoma workers, such as the laborers who gathered in the Windsor park recently, say they need the protection of collective bargaining.

“We want to be represented by a union,” Domingo Garcia said through an interpreter, “so you can avoid having your rights violated.”

A few miles away, the Gallo worker who helped organize the decertification vote was fervent in his disdain for the union. “The union does nothing but lie to us,” Gallo pump operator Roberto Parra said. “They do nothing but promise.”

Statewide, UFW efforts led to California’s 1975 law protecting farmworkers’ right to join a union, but today less than 10% of the state’s estimated 400,000-plus farmworkers are covered by union contracts.

Labor analysts cite a number of reasons working against unionization, including the rise of illegal immigration, which has given employers the option of dipping into a pool of cheap labor, and political shifts in the state.

The UFW has contracts with some wineries, including the Charles Krug Winery in St. Helena, but was recently ousted from the Sonoma-Cutrer winery.

Philip Martin, a UC Davis professor and author of “Promise Unfulfilled,” a book about agricultural labor relations, sees it as a paradox that the UFW hasn’t made more advances in wineries.

“Napa and Sonoma are really agri-tourism. People pay to come there and they often buy the product there. In theory, UFW should have a lot of clout,” he said. “I think the mystery has always been why they haven’t been more successful.”

In 1994, when the UFW was voted in at Gallo of Sonoma, a branch of Modesto-based wine giant E. & J. Gallo, it was considered a signal victory for the union.

Parra was among those voting yes and initially was a big supporter of the union. But over time, he became disenchanted with the negotiating process, saying union leaders seemed mostly concerned with old political grievances.

When the contract finally was signed, his wages went up just 10 cents, to $10.20 an hour, Parra said. More important, he said, his medical benefits aren’t as good now as they were before the contract.

Parra, who like the other workers spoke through an interpreter, said organizers didn’t do a good job of spelling out the agreement.

“They should explain them exactly and in great detail to the workers -- what are you going to gain from this and what are you going to lose. But oh, no. They do nothing but promise,” he said.

Union President Arturo Rodriguez defended the contract, saying the union won pay advances for temporary workers as well as year-round employees.

Gallo has agreements with unions representing other workers, such as bottlers and glass molders, and Rodriguez thinks the problem is that “Gallo has decided that farmworkers are not deserving enough to receive the kind of wages and benefits and respect that other workers at their company receive.”

The company, on the other hand, points to those agreements as proof Gallo can cooperate with unions and says it’s the UFW that has problems.

“This is an issue between the workers and their union,” company spokesman John Segale said. “Our record and support for workers and their right to union representation stands on its own.”

Against the backdrop of the contract clash, the decertification fight has played out.

An administrative law judge ruled this summer that the never-tallied election should be thrown out, concluding that two foremen working for labor contractors hired by Gallo unlawfully “assisted, supported and encouraged” the effort to oust the UFW.

Gallo appealed to the state’s Agricultural Labor Relations Board, which is expected to issue a decision soon.