Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board, 225 Cal. Rptr. 3d 517

Background

Gerawan Farming employed thousands of agricultural workers; in a 1992 secret election the Board certified the United Farm Workers (UFW) as exclusive bargaining representative. No decertification election occurred thereafter.
After a long lull in union activity (1995–2012), UFW renewed bargaining demands in 2012; negotiations failed and UFW invoked the ALRA’s mandatory mediation and conciliation (MMC) process. Mediator Matthew Goldberg issued reports that the ALRB adopted as a final order in 2013.
Gerawan petitioned for judicial review, arguing the MMC statute (Lab. Code §1164 et seq.) is unconstitutional (substantive due process, equal protection, and unlawful delegation) and that UFW had abandoned its representative status, so could not invoke MMC. The Court of Appeal held the MMC statute facially unconstitutional (equal protection and delegation) and that abandonment is a defense to MMC.
The California Supreme Court granted review to resolve conflicts with prior appellate authority and to decide whether an employer may raise abandonment against an MMC request.
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal: it rejected Gerawan’s constitutional challenges and held employers may not refuse to bargain or block MMC by asserting union abandonment; certified unions remain representatives until employees decertify them or the union is unwilling/unable to represent.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Is compulsory interest arbitration (MMC) in private agricultural labor unconstitutional under substantive due process?	Gerawan: Private employers cannot be compelled into interest arbitration; it violates liberty of contract.	ALRB/UFW: No precedent bars MMC in agriculture; NLRA preemption concerns differ for agricultural workers.	Rejected: No basis to find compulsory interest arbitration categorically violates substantive due process.
2. Does the MMC statute facially violate equal protection by imposing individualized, unequal contractual terms?	Gerawan: MMC creates individualized laws for each employer — a class-of-one equal protection violation.	ALRB/UFW: MMC furthers rational legislative goal (facilitating first contracts); statutory factors and review channel discretion.	Rejected: MMC survives rational-basis review; not facially invalid under equal protection.
3. Does the MMC statute unconstitutionally delegate legislative power to mediators?	Gerawan: Mediator may impose binding terms without adequate standards or safeguards.	ALRB/UFW: Legislature set purpose, preconditions, nonexclusive factors, and provided administrative and judicial review.	Rejected: Legislature made fundamental policy choices, provided meaningful standards and safeguards; no unlawful delegation.
4. May an employer defend against an MMC request by claiming the certified union abandoned its status?	Gerawan: Long absence (1995–2012) forfeited UFW’s representative status; abandonment is a defense to MMC.	ALRB/UFW: Under ALRA a certified union remains representative until employees decertify it or the union disclaims/ceases to exist; employer cannot unilaterally assert abandonment.	Rejected: Employer may not raise abandonment as a defense to MMC; certification continues until decertification or union incapacity.

Key Cases Cited

Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.3d 392 (Cal. 1976) (establishing ALRA’s purposes and ALRB authority)
J. R. Norton Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 26 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1979) (discussing employer delay’s adverse effects on union support)
Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 17 Cal.3d 129 (Cal. 1976) (delegation doctrine and administrative standards)
Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo, 12 Cal.3d 608 (Cal. 1974) (upholding compulsory interest arbitration in public employment context)
Montebello Rose Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 119 Cal.App.3d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) (certified-until-decertified rule under ALRA)
F & P Growers Assn. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 168 Cal.App.3d 667 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (employer may not refuse to bargain based on good-faith doubt of union majority)
Hess Collection Winery v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 140 Cal.App.4th 1584 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (upholding MMC constitutionality; contains a contrary dissent relied on below)
Wolff Co. v. Industrial Court, 262 U.S. 522 (U.S. 1923) (early due process/ liberty-of-contract decision cited by petitioner)
Labor Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1937) (statutory limits on arbitration under NLRA discussed)
Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (U.S. 2008) (limits on class-of-one equal protection claims in discretionary contexts)