Arnaudo Brothers v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
F072420
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 7, 2017Background
- Arnaudo Bros. (Grower) employed seasonal agricultural workers and had a certified United Farm Workers (UFW) bargaining representative dating to 1977; bargaining occurred through ~1981–82 but then ceased for ~30 years.
- In Aug. 2012 UFW sought to renew bargaining and requested extensive employee and business information; Grower delayed and disputed the union's representative status.
- UFW filed unfair labor practice charges (refusal to bargain and failure to provide information); Board proceedings followed, including mandatory mediation and a blocked decertification petition.
- At an evidentiary hearing Grower asserted the union had "disclaimed" interest in representing the unit in the early 1980s (based on testimony that a union negotiator said "We're through with you").
- The ALJ and the Board rejected Grower’s disclaimer defense (finding any purported statement ambiguous) and ordered make-whole relief for employees for the refusal-to-bargain period; Grower sought appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Grower) | Defendant's Argument (UFW/Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an oral statement in early 1980s constituted an unequivocal disclaimer of union representation | The alleged statement ("We're through with you")—together with decades of inactivity—establishes an effective, unequivocal disclaimer relieving Grower of duty to bargain | The statement was ambiguous as to referent and did not address representation; subsequent union conduct and NLRB precedent require a clear, unambiguous disclaimer | Court: Statement was ambiguous ("you" could mean individual or employer); Board correctly applied the clear-and-unequivocal test and properly rejected the disclaimer defense |
| Whether subsequent union inactivity can convert an ambiguous oral statement into an effective disclaimer | Subsequent consistent conduct (30 years inactivity) may be considered to clarify and support a disclaimer | Precedent allows subsequent inconsistent conduct to negate a disclaimer, but not for converting ambiguity into an unequivocal disclaimer | Court: Federal precedent does not permit converting an ambiguous disclaimer into an effective one by reliance on later inactivity; Board correctly treated subsequent conduct only to rebut an otherwise unequivocal disclaimer |
| Whether make-whole relief was appropriate despite Grower’s litigation of the disclaimer issue | Litigation of a unsettled legal question (given long union inactivity and factual uncertainty) furthered public interest; awarding make-whole was improper | Employees should not bear financial risk of employer’s choice to litigate rather than bargain; Board discretionary authority supports make-whole here | Court: Reversed make-whole award — Board erred by failing to weigh employees’ freedom-of-association rights (current employees’ choice) and by ignoring that adjudication of the disclaimer issue served public interest and clarity in the law |
| Standard and burden for proving disclaimer of interest | Employer bears burden to prove an unequivocal disclaimer; but where ambiguity exists, consider surrounding and subsequent conduct | Board/UFW: same burden rule; subsequent inconsistent conduct negates disclaimer | Court: Agreed on burden and standard; defined "clear and unequivocal" as unambiguous and affirmed Board’s approach on burden and treatment of subsequent conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Montebello Rose Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 119 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App.) (duty to bargain continues beyond initial one-year bar)
- J.R. Norton Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 26 Cal.3d 1 (Cal.) (limits on automatic make-whole relief; agency cannot expand statute)
- F & P Growers Assn. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 168 Cal.App.3d 667 (Cal. Ct. App.) (standard for awarding make-whole relief — weigh public interest in litigation against harm to employees)
- Dycus v. N.L.R.B., 615 F.2d 820 (9th Cir.) (union may disclaim by unequivocal, good-faith statement; inconsistent conduct can negate disclaimer)
- Triple E Produce Corp. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 35 Cal.3d 42 (Cal.) (agency may diverge from federal precedent only when agricultural context justifies it)