Tri-Fanucchi Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board
225 Cal. Rptr. 3d 545
| Cal. | 2017Background
- Tri-Fanucchi Farms employed seasonal and permanent agricultural workers; the United Farm Workers (UFW) was certified as their exclusive bargaining representative in 1977.
- Over ensuing decades bargaining was intermittent; Tri-Fanucchi previously refused to bargain in 1977–81 and was found to have committed unfair labor practices and ordered to pay make-whole relief in earlier ALRB proceedings.
- Tri-Fanucchi alleges the UFW was inactive for ~24 years and therefore had abandoned representation; in 2012 the company refused a renewed bargaining request, seeking judicial review of the abandonment question.
- The ALRB held as a matter of longstanding Board precedent that inactivity/absence does not constitute abandonment unless the union disclaims interest or becomes defunct, found Tri-Fanucchi committed an unfair labor practice, and ordered make-whole relief under Lab. Code §1160.3.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed rejection of the abandonment defense but vacated the make-whole award, reasoning Tri-Fanucchi’s litigation furthered ALRA purposes by seeking appellate clarification on a novel issue.
- The California Supreme Court affirmed rejection of the abandonment defense (following Gerawan), reversed the Court of Appeal’s vacation of make-whole relief, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tri-Fanucchi) | Defendant's Argument (ALRB/UFW) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer may refuse to bargain because the certified union "abandoned" unit by long inactivity | Long-term union inactivity (24 years) amounts to abandonment, so employer may refuse to bargain and seek judicial determination | ALRA and ALRB precedent preclude unilateral abandonment defense; certification remains until replaced/decertified or union disclaims/defunct | Employer may not unilaterally refuse to bargain on abandonment grounds; abandonment defense rejected (affirmed) |
| Whether make-whole relief under Lab. Code §1160.3 is appropriate where employer litigated in good faith on abandonment theory | Litigation seeking appellate clarification furthered ALRA purposes; therefore make-whole relief should be denied | Board reasonably exercised discretion under F & P Growers to award make-whole relief because litigation did not further ALRA purposes given Board precedent and facts; employees harmed by delay | Court defers to ALRB’s discretionary remedial judgment and reverses Court of Appeal; make-whole relief may stand (remanded) |
| Standard for reviewing employer litigation that delays bargaining (application of F & P Growers / J.R. Norton) | Employer argued appellate review was necessary under J.R. Norton-type concerns when statutory construction unsettled | ALRB: apply F & P Growers balancing test for nontechnical refusals—weigh employer’s asserted public interest in litigation vs harm to employees; Board has broad remedial discretion | F & P Growers standard applies to nontechnical refusals; courts must give deference to ALRB’s discretionary remedy decisions |
| Proper scope of appellate review of ALRB remedial determinations | Court of Appeal treated remedial question as legal and reached de novo conclusion | ALRB’s remedial decisions involve agency expertise and policy balancing deserving substantial deference | Court must limit review; may not substitute its judgment for ALRB’s discretionary remedial determinations (Court of Appeal erred) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., Cal.5th (2017) (ALRA does not allow employer to refuse bargaining based on abandonment)
- J. R. Norton Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 26 Cal.3d 1 (1979) (make-whole relief not per se for technical refusals; require inquiry into employer’s good faith litigation)
- F & P Growers Assn. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 168 Cal.App.3d 667 (1985) (balancing test for awarding make-whole relief in nontechnical refusal cases)
- George Arakelian Farms, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 49 Cal.3d 1279 (1989) (description of purpose and compensatory nature of make-whole remedy)
- Carian v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 36 Cal.3d 654 (1984) (courts must defer to Board’s remedial discretion and not substitute their policy judgments)
- Highland Ranch v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 29 Cal.3d 848 (1981) (Legislature intended broad remedial authority for ALRB)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Bd., 340 U.S. 474 (1951) (agency expertise and deference principles)