United Farm Workers National Union v. Babbitt

UNITED FARM WORKERS NATIONAL itself

UNION behalf of and its al., members, Plaintiffs, et BABBITT, of the State

Bruce Governor Arizona, al., Defendants, et Federation, an Bureau Farm

Arizona al., Corporation, et

Intervenors. PHX-CAM. No. 72-445

Civ. Court, District

United States

D. Arizona. 20, 1978.

April

MUECKE, Judge: District STATEMENT OF THE CASE Plaintiffs filed action for declaratory injunctive together relief with appli- cation for a three-judge court under the provisions 1343, U.S.C. U.S.C. and 28 U.S.C. et seq., seek- ing to have Agricultural Arizona’s Employ- (AERA), ment Relations Act A.R.S. §§ seq., et declared unconstitutional. Plaintiffs in this action are the United Farm Workers National (U.F.W.), Union on members; behalf of itself and its Gustavo Gutierrez, agent of the U.F.W. in the Arizona; State Ruben Alaniz and Matil- Varela, workers, da farm on behalf of workers; themselves and all other farm Rose, Wendy an individual supporter of the U.F.W., behalf of herself and all other similarly supporters. situated U.F.W. Babbitt, Defendants are Bruce Governor Arizona; Sota, State Jack La General; Acting Attorney Bert Fleming, Treasurer; Raymond Long, Finance Com- missioner; Blake, Borce, Gene William S. Montgomery, Walton, Jack Keith Jack McManus, Sanders, Milton G. individually and as members of the Agricultural Arizona Board; Bond, Relations and Theresa in her capacity as Executive Secretary of the Board. Federation, Arizona Farm Bureau Grape Association, Arizona Growers Association,

Vegetable Growers all being corporations; and the Yuma Citrus Association, Shipper’s an unincorporated as- Michael W. L. McCrory, Angeles, Los sociation, sought granted all and were in- Cal., plaintiffs. tervention in the suit on November 1973. Rutkowski, James Foundation, ACLU Cal, Angeles, Los for Farm Workers. ask this Plaintiffs Court to find that Jr., Ariz., John A. La Atty. Sota Gen. of Employment Agricultural Relations Act Jennings, Salmon, Phoenix, Ariz., & Strouss (AERA) rights violates constitutional for intervenors-applicants. plaintiff U.F.W. and its members Gibney, Counsel, William A. Gen. Agri- restricting the exercise of their constitu- Bd., Phoenix, cultural Labor Relations tional in several broad areas. Ariz., for defendants. Provisions of the United States Constitu- AND ORDER OPINION claim are plaintiffs tion which violated KILKENNY, Before the Act are the First and Fourteenth Judge, Circuit MUECKE, respect specific provi- CRAIG and Judges. District Amendments point, impose is al- As to this last defendants Act, sions assem- speech and admissibility freedom of too a view on the leged violate restrictive equal protec- and the due submitted in bly the evidence and character of of the Constitution. tion clauses Rules this case. Under Evidence, much 704 of the Rules of Federal arguments deal plaintiffs’ particular, relied experts upon the of testimony of the as and at least issues separate with nine as parties either of the by both is admissible of support of the AERA many provisions by experts in type reasonably relied unconsti- that the AERA is their contention opinions or particular forming field in the statutory the Those issues and tutional. the of (1) subject, 23- the or of kind with are: A.R.S. inferences on § dealt with the trier (7) dealing knowledge that assists 1385(B)(6) [generally specialized and prac- determining issue, as an unfair labor secondary boycotts of fact facts ulti- 1885(B)(8) tice]; (2) [publicity A.R.S. mate or otherwise. 23— regard- consumer directed at the ultimate be the pertinent example opin- A would product as ing nonuse of expressed the of by experts ions both sides (3) 23- practice]; A.R.S. § unfair to time periods expected as as an picketing 1385(B)(12) [recognitional Act, operation provisions of the of various 23-1389 (4) A.R.S. practice]; unfair labor seasons, length growing grow- the of facts pro- and election [employee representation ing experiences out of personal cedures]; (5) 1385(C) by A.R.S. § [access 23— unions, operation the organizing property]; union to workers on e., statutes, National Labor analogous i. the stitch- (6) 23-1382(1) A.R.S. § [exclusion Agricultural the California Relations Act or AERA]; (7) ers and from A.R.S. haulers Labor Relations Act. 23-1384, 23-1385(D) 23-1385(B)(ll), §§ from “management rights” e., point, testimony as i. Again to this last [elimination (8) bargaining process]; A.R.S. §§ analogous concerning of the stat operation 23-1393(B) pro- 1385(B)(13), and utes, [restriction to this what is admissible as line striking picketing]; hibition and against opinion is the as testimony expert not an (9) and 23-1392 finally, A.R.S. § [criminal legal particular provi the effect of the the penalties Act], for violation of AERA, rather, given par of the but sion interpretation provision, hypo ticular disputed The defendants have the uncon- legal if as to you thetical will the effect of AERA stitutional effects of the as claimed expert of the as to provision, opinion plaintiffs, argued and by consistently have practical interpreta effect of such an challenge present justici- this fails claim, experience able as tion based and substantiality previous both on his plain- questions presented by legal premise federal is expertise admissible if tiffs, case or argue and because on is accepted which the based question is controversy presented the Court. ques if a by hypothetical the court. Even They also ask this Court abstain asked, it is obvious tion as such is not but case. become clear in deciding this As will on a opinion expert that the based decision, the doctrine of abstention statutory provi interpretation certain applicable to this case. sion, accepts appro court interpreta priate interpretation, then all testi- Defendants further claim that testimony opinion and based resultant mony by and other evidence received admissible. Bur interpretation on this day of a four non- during Court course Northern, Boxberger, Inc. lington v. jury trial on and January 1975); (9th F.2d 286-87 Cir. United rejected should be this Court etc., District 404 F.2d School conjectural and States completely immaterial and 1125, 1134-35 (7th 1968); Cir. Confederated than consisting legal conclusions rather Springs testi- Tribes of Warm Reservation opinions factual evidence —even given experts. States, mony defendants’ own United 177 Ct.Cl. 184 made during day postponement four presented jurisdiction Evidence relative was introduced question trial until after the trial a reasonable 23-1384, 1385(A)(5), 1385(B)(11), ruling course of so action. we left Arti- §§ 1385(D), 1389, plaintiffs’ claim cle open question III threshold as a the exclusion of stitchers haulers proceed could to a decision on the merits AERA, olds from the sixteen-year jurisdiction once was settled. 1382(1) 1382(l)(g), was a violation of response Plaintiffs’ to defendants’ Article Equal Protection as well Clause as a III attack is that such attack is not valid similar claim that exclusion those farm because “Stipulation of the En- Regarding who not work for workers did the same Act,” forcement parties, filed calendar previous year from which reflects some seven suits have been was representation elections likewise a vio- against (U.F.W.) filed plaintiff Equal Protection Clause. lation members and based on sections supporters AERA, that as result speech and JURISDICTION enjoined including activities have been questions As result of foundation asked handbilling oral and conversations —on Chavez, witnesses, Stanley Caesar three an ex by parte temporary occasions Lubin, George Campbell, W. James W. hearing. notice or restraining order without accepts Cherry, this Court all four as ex- addition, plaintiffs argue that perts competent give opinions to Board charges against itself has initiated testified. the U.F.W. which resulted in on limitations is opinion It Court that evi- plaintiffs’ rights. Finally, plaintiffs note dence need be considered with respect that in Roy’s Liquor, et a1. v. United Farm 23-1389, provision to A.R.S. of AERA (set Workers forth the said stipulation), dealing “Representations with and elec- apparently jur Board held they had no tions,” respect and with to A.R.S. isdiction to challenges consider to the con 1385(C). However, setting before forth the stitutionality of the Act . findings facts, Court’s as to these the initial From examples by plaintiffs, these cited defendants, by issue raised namely, their and not precisely by controverted defend- allegation that this Court does not have ants, it must be concluded that this case is jurisdiction because there not a substan- not hypothetical, abstract, or generalized. question tial federal or a case or controver- sy presented by plaintiff’s to this Court As the court in Rescue Army said AERA, challenge to will Court, be Municipal settled. (1947), a controversy L.Ed. 1666 case or consistently Defendants in espousing this showing that by injured created one is view, that this not jurisdic- Court does have by operation con- statute’s or that a tion, again have emphasized argu- struction of the statute to avoid the consti- ment that single judge would have had tutional questions impossible. Certainly jurisdiction to dismiss case a challenge for invalidity facial meets the Article III grounds and that this holds true Army Rescue test. more even so with the three-judge court. In addition to those matters contained in The lack jurisdiction motion was ini- the stipulation, there is the matter of the tially by denied the district judge prior to statute, criminal penalty provision of the the empanelling of a three-judge court. which reads as follows: Then the matter remained by unresolved panel § 23-1392. Penalties. plaintiffs’ because of contentions the AERA was invalid on its face as Any person willfully resists, who pre- overbroad vague vents, respect to al- impedes or any interferes with leged infringement rights. of constitutional members of or any agents the board of its This, coupled with the penalty pro- criminal or agencies performance of duties visions and case, complexity pursuant article, or to this who violates vagueness already guilty of a overbroadness provision of this article any fine of not punishable misdemeanor compounded by discussed are dollars, by im- more than five thousand the acts of its the U.F.W. is bound year, more than one prisonment acts so agents per- and whether or not the however, none of Provided, or both. actually authorized or subse- formed “were apply section shall provisions of this controlling.” ratified not be quently shall outside the activities any carried the Act 23-1393(F). Since re- state of Arizona. its agents, pro- stricts the U.F.W. and provi- face of this It appear on would by any vides for violation penalties criminal across AERA that cuts sion subject be to sanc- person, the U.F.W. could Act, just limited covers the entire relationship tions regardless might penalty a criminal area where agent. that it says plain English It acceptable. guess way anyone There is person” and further applies “any apply will whether criminal provision of this “who violates person advance, conduct, any particular it is . misdemeanor .” guilty article is is unconstitutionally clear that the statute define vague adequately pro- and does not variety of Considering the enormous is, therefore, in viola- hibited conduct and Act, fact activities covered of the Four- tion of the due clause (as later) fully will be more discussed Elkins, teenth Amendment. Whitehall First many of these involve and Fourteenth 184, 54, 389 88 19 L.Ed.2d 228 U.S. S.Ct. it is rights, constitutional (1967); Keyishian Regents, v. Board of 385 clearly statutory vague so a 675, 589, 87 17 L.Ed.2d 629 U.S. S.Ct. only guess can intelligence men of common Russell, 11, (1967); Elfbrandt v. 384 U.S. 86 pro meaning. at its can Conduct 1238, (1966); S.Ct. 16 321 NAACP L.Ed.2d certain, clear punished by hibited stat 449, 1163, Alabama, v. 2 357 78 S.Ct. U.S. utes, necessary so precision (1958); v. General Conally L.Ed.2d 1488 “the can know how avoid ordinary person Sullivan, Co., 385, 126, 46 v. 332 269 U.S. S.Ct. unlawful conduct.” U. S. Construction 689, 331, (1948). 297 68 92 L.Ed. (1926). U.S. S.Ct. 70 L.Ed. 322 Even is warranted where scrutiny closer Recently Supreme Court con- U. S. speech. freedom of covers regulation issue in the controversy the case sidered or 195, 86 Kentucky, Ashton v. 384 U.S. S.Ct. a statute. challenge a to criminal context of 1407, (1966). 16 L.Ed.2d 469 739, Bolton, 179, 93 S.Ct. In Doe v. 410 U.S. application penal In an area where (1973), Supreme 201 Court 35 L.Ed.2d protected freedoms statute restrict question addressed the whether licensed against invasion the Fourteenth state Georgia to a anti- physician’s challenge Bill Amendment’s incorporation presented justiciable statute con- abortion Rights, Supreme the U. S. Court been case, there was record troversy. constantly vigilant protective these prose- or pending threatened criminal rights. not enforced cution and the Act had been objectionable vagueness The quality court against plaintiffs. found Still depend upon overbreadth does not reversed the controversy did exist and criminally absence of fair to a ac- notice saying: lower court’s dismissal delegation upon cused or unchanneled against whom is the one physician legislative powers, danger but directly operate in these criminal statutes tolerating, in the area of First Amend- he an abortion that procures the event freedoms, penal existence of ment exceptions statutory not meet the does statute, and im- susceptible sweeping physicians-appel- and conditions. Button, proper application. v. NAACP therefore, di- lants, sufficiently assert 328, 415, 432-3, 338, 371 83 S.Ct. 9 U.S. They detriment. (1963). personal rect threat L.Ed. 405 454 un- to await and and that if so required invalid,

should not be severed and declared sole dergo prosecution the rest criminal Act could stand as it dependent for operation upon relief. Crossen v. its this sec- seeking means of. 833, 839, However, tion. Breckenbridge, 446 F.2d 839-840 sufficient in and of being itself as 1971); Menghini, unconstitutionally v. 339 invalid (6th Poe Cir. and void 986, (Kan.1972). give face to this Court F.Supp. 990-991 jurisdiction and create a or case controver- Throughout arguments their interve- sy- argued nors and defendants have that there controversy case here sintíeno is no or crim- the plaintiffs If are correct in their prosecution inal has been commenced many provisions contentions that against plaintiffs. AERA are unconstitutional and void on face, then a substantial ques federal time, the same as their memorandum At tion exists as to the constitutional reveals, are also aware that were there that are AERA infringed upon by the against criminal cases pending plain- jurisdiction. this Court would have How AERA, tiffs under this Court would hesi- ever, if defendants maintain that sec tate to take for reasons jurisdiction equi- tions of the Act found to be unconstitution ty, comity, and federalism. severable, al are then the remainder of the Yet courts have found case controver- operable Act could stand as law. when challenged sies criminal statutes were Where it is possible separate even before the acts overbroad went into part of a law which unconstitutional from effect there had been enforcement. law, the rest of the the whole law fails. Wounded Knee Legal Defense/Offense S., Lynch 840, 292 54 U. S.Ct. F.B.I., (8th Committee v. 507 F.2d 1281 Cir. (1934); Wallace, L.Ed. 1434 Hill v. 1974); Brannon, Brown v. 399 F.Supp. (1922); 66 L.Ed. 822 Harri- (4th 1975); aff’d 535 Cir. Hjelle F.2d Co., son v. St. Louis & S.F.R. Brooks, (D.Alaska F.Supp. 1974); (1914); L.Ed. Gherma v. Miller, (E.D.N.Y. Stoner v. 377 F.Supp. 177 State, Ariz. 146 P. 494 1974); Students, Associated University of A law is void on face it its if does not aim California at v. Attorney Riverside General specifically at evils within the allowable States, of the F.Supp. (C.D. United 368 control, governmental area of but sweeps Cal.1973); Valley Systems Health City v. of within its ambit other activities that consti- Racine, F.Supp. (E.D.Wis.1973); protected tute an exercise expressive of Louisiana, Mortillaro v. State of rights, (see: associated “The First Amend- F.Supp. (E.D.La.1972). ment Overbreadth Doctrine” 83 Harv.L. significance clear; The of these cases is Rev. (1970).) is, if plaintiffs are persons against A plausible a law as void challenge to whom the particular criminal statute direct- can thus be overbreadth made when ly operates, and whether assert a suf- (1) the protective activity significant ficiently direct personal threat of detri- part of the target, (2) law’s and there ment. satisfactory severing exists ofway There can question be no that the plain- law’s constitutional from its unconstitu- in tiffs present precisely lawsuit are tional applications so as to excise persons those and organizations whose ac- clearly simple step latter in from the tivity the penal designed statute was law’s reach. regulate, and they have asserted a direct having laws these two characteris- threat of personal detriment through both tics, the usual approach of constitutional its past enforcement as well threat adjudication gradually cutting away the — its continued enforcement. aspects unconstitutional by statute It is true invalidating A.R.S. 23-1392 improper applications its the AERA relating penalties severable, by case respond case—does not sufficient- of the United States character Constitution peculiar to the vulnerable ly speech and as- amend- of the freedom by the first violation activities protected and of due sembly provisions law of ment. For an “overbroad” clauses with “hangs [people’s] equal protection here over sort described 23-1393(B) Arnett to be in like of Damocles.” also found violation heads a Sword 134, 231, 94 providing 416 U.S. Kennedy, the Seventh (1974). judges That L.Ed.2d 15 with the rest of by jury to trial rescue those whose con- ultimately will falling inseparabil- Act reason of by protected held is not duct retrospect inoperability apart provi- ity value of enough, “for the a Sword found to be invalid. sions hangs it Damocles is that —not OF FACT pro- deterrent FINDINGS drops.” resulting The speech removed effectively tected is not Turning now facts found regulation if “the would have contours pertinent Court to be to a consideration ease-by-case to be hammered out constitutionality of A.R.S. §§ only hardy enough tested those to risk 1385(C) and 23-1389. prosecution other criminal [or sanctions] agricultural employees The proper scope regula- to determine the directly engaged defined are AERA Pfister, tion. Dombrowski and/or harvest- planting, preparation 479, 487, 14 L.Ed.2d fruits, crops, crops, row tree ing of field solution, then, is to number of field grapes. greatest strike down such an overbroad law alto- em- employed by workers un- gether. may . . This result during peak are ployer employed exception derstood as an to the rule peak period harvest season. This is that not ordinarily permitted individuals are fifty or more of the percent time when litigate parties, third highest agricultural employees number of since individual whose conduct during at time the harvest employed protected by not itself be the first amend- are employed. season ment is on the judicial victory awarded a in Ar- Most claim of law’s potential unconstitutional izona, eighty percent about seventy-five applications persons to the conduct of each year, of the total worked man-days before court. American Constitution- harvesting employed growing Law, Tribe, The Founda- al Laurence H. Major crops vegetables. seasonal fruits and Press, 1978. lettuce category (approxi- in this include twenty (approxi- citrus mately percent), LAW OF CONCLUSIONS grapes and de- mately twenty-two percent), many- After consideration of the ten trees five to (approximately ciduous by plaintiffs on the pronged attack made lettuce, in- vegetables, other than percent), provisions of the various of constitutionality carrots, onions, onions, cluding green dry AERA, response and the defendants’ cauliflower, broccoli, cabbage, (approxi- etc. thereto, this finds and concludes that Court twenty percent), cantaloupes mately Agricultural Employment Relations percent). to ten (approximately five Act, 23-1381, et un sequence, is §§ length The of the harvest season entirety the reason constitutional in its for are peak times of for the most employment 23-1385(B)(8), 23-1392, that A.R.S. 23- §§ very great majority short. The of part 1393(B) are unconstitutional and void crop sepa- is harvested in face, lettuce Arizona 23-1385(C) and A.R.S. §§ length spring rate and fall harvests. The 23-1389 are unconstitutional when likewise any particular of these harvest testimony considered in context with the seasons ranges to weeks employer and other and these from four six presented, evidence peak are em- period sections found to be in violation of within which is a of there to weeks. ployment First and 'to the of three four only Fourteenth Amendments annually Any organization seeking organ- harvest occurs once to grape ize workers employed and lasts from four to six weeks with a provi- in these industries must reason of period peak of three to four employment relating represen- sions of the AERA weeks. AERA, tation and election of the from three Cantaloupes are harvested in very and because nature the or- with seven weeks two to peak ganizational process on previous based ex- dry three while the onion weeks harvest statutes, perience analogous g., e. Na- any single agricultural usually tional Labor Relations Act and the Califor- takes about two to four weeks. Act, Agricultural nia Labor Relations take accomplish ten certain periods The citrus harvest in Arizona lasts for of time to cer- organizational goals. tain months, Sep- from approximately eleven mid-July. tember to onions Green For example, takes approximately ten long harvested for as months of three to six weeks for a to gather union year. crops, Even in latter citrus and these authorization cards to be submitted with green onion, are factors which make there representation for a election. Ac- particular the period employment tivities which must be carried out specific employer during workers for a considera- union this time include locating all the various of an bly length employer, identify- shorter fields than total ing employees, contacting his employ- those Employers always harvest. do not have ees, informing persuading them to ready each crop successive for harvest at sign authorization cards. This cannot be harvesting preceding end done until the harvest begun season has Therefore, crops. the work is intermittent since there is a substantial turnover in em- often must employees employ- switch ployees year year and it impossi- Many ers. migratory workers are ble to determine who will work for an em- who immediately must leave area after a ployer until that person actually found in employment. harvest find other Many the field. protect Also to employees from do employees not return to the same em- possible retaliations, organizing ployer a following year so that each year must be done at relatively a time near the there change substantial in the work election. force. It usually within employer’s power also Green onions involve an industry delay of obtaining sufficient where there is tremendous turnover be- authorizations by employing coercive tactics cause paid workers are on a daily cash basis discourage among union activities his many because minors are employed. employees. In citrus, crews constantly are moved Much agricultur- work of reaching from employer to employer throughout al must be done on the employ- harvest season picking only intermittently er’s property, since most em- for any particular employer for from a few ployees migrants permanent with no days to a few weeks. residence the area and live in labor camps on the employer’s premises.

If an election is to be so held particular procedures election grow- the AERA are er virtually can to identical those of the National participate, such an election be which, Labor held Relations Act in a contested during the period peak employment. of election, requires from six to To seven weeks accomplish this, law the should assure for completion. that an petitioned election can be for dur- ing peak such periods, and the proce- that The election of the AERA call dures for holding elections does extend Board investigation petition, of the in time beyond the period of peak employ- setting the holding pre-election and ment. hearing demand employer, of the deci- REPRESENTATION AND ELECTION hearing, raised of issues at sion to days provide ten granting PROCEDURES Board and list of facts, these our Having stated considera- union. naturally tion turns to that of the of the U.F.W. experience plaintiff The Act most to consideration important in Cali- 400 elections in over participating This constitutionality. is A.R.S. 23-1389 that industry was in the fornia recognition, (employee representation, peti- to before from three six weeks it took procedures). analysis election For a full experi- NLRB could be filed. Under tions point analysis this well as an exhaustive held until from hearing ence AERA, Regulation of the see: “State days peti- after the twenty-one to fourteen Agricultural Labor Relations —The Arizona is filed. Interpretive Farm Labor Law —an period six seven week between to Cohen, Comparative Analysis.” Warren H. holding of an filing of a petition Order, Law and the Jonathan Rose. Social longer many will be than election 1973, pp. through 431, at 322. When peak employment. seasons legislative purpose of the Act stated to six weeks of to three period added Policy,” in its enunciated “Declaration of must be done before a work which filed, 23-1381, cannot take process the entire is said to be: can A.R.S. § before the place policy state place their their work leave finish shall be free to agricultural employees employment. action, and organize, to take concerted the N.L.R.A. and under both Experience through representatives their own situations employer-employee in California choosing bargaining enter into collective has industry, shown establishing wages contracts do utilize such coercive employers some employment; terms and conditions of during elections intimidating tactics Board and the California both NLRB policy recognition is but a Such stated action that even after remedial have found right to free First was impossible unfair it practices, labor peaceably, to due speech, assemble and the fair, hold a uncoerced election. to right all in America who desire been determined In such situations to participate to do so and retain member employ- to only way preserve Connecticut, ship in a union. Griswold v. bargaining to collective was ees’ 1678, 381 U.S. 85 S.Ct. 14 L.Ed.2d 510 bargain employer, issue orders to Alabama, (1965); N.A.A.C.P. v. ex rel. Pa through absent an actual certification a se- terson, 1163, 2 357 U.S. 78 S.Ct. cret ballot election. CIO, (1958); v. Hagne L.Ed.2d 1488 bargain- such power Absent such to issue (1939); L.Ed. 1423 59 S.Ct. orders, Board, acting pursuant ing Corp., Laughlin NLRB v. Jones and Steel AERA, adequate would be without rem- (1937); 615, 81 L.Ed. 893 57 S.Ct. protect employee rights collective edy Cleave, Lontine, al., et v. Van F.2d prohibits AERA bargaining. Since the 1973); Federation of (10th Cir. American an order issuing Arizona Board from State, Municipal Employees & County bargain with a requiring Woodward, (8th 1969); 406 F.2d 137 Cir. union, through unless that union is certified Tilendis, (7th F.2d McLaughlin v. election, encourages employ- AERA 1968); Collins, Cir. Thomas ers to commit those of unfair types 89 L.Ed.2d 430 See result in election coercion practices which Preliminary Survey also “A the Arizona and in turn to a “no-union” vote. Such Act,” Kerry, A. Farm Labor Robert year practice could be after engaged Review, p. at 801. effectively any bargaining. Law Vol. No. year, delaying agricultural By employee group as 1. an or question section in reads follows: agricultural employees any of or individu- and elections- Representatives 23-1389. al or their organization acting labor by a secret Representatives A. selected cent alleging thirty per behalf that or for the of collective bar- purposes ballot agricultural more of the em- number agricultural of the gaining by majority the ployees question in the unit in either wish for appropriate in a unit such employees represented bargain- to be collective representa- shall be the exclusive purposes ing their declines to employees agricultural tives of all the recognize representative their or assert of collective purpose such unit for the bar- the labor organization individual or gaining respect pay, rates of wages, which been being has certified or is cur- employment or other hours conditions of rently recognized their employer as any If ratification employment. such the bargaining representative long- is no required, contract vote in er a representative. be such ratification shall limited the em- employer, 2. By agricultural alleging bargaining Any unit. ployees indi- or that one more or labor or- individuals a agricultural employee vidual or group of ganizations have a presented to him claim may at employees time recognized representative to be or as the present to their grievances agricultural em- organization that an individual or labor grievances adjusted, and have ployer such as previously been certified bargaining without intervention bargaining representative longer is no a adjustment representative, if the not in- representative. consistent with the terms of collective agreement contract or bargaining then in D. If upon the board finds the record of bargaining representative effect. The shall hearing such question representa- given opportunity present be to be at exists, it shall direct an- election adjustment. secret ballot and certify shall the results thereof. If second labor organization B. board shall decide in each case petition files a for an alleging election employees whether order to ensure to thirty per cent or more of the employees in freedom in exercising fullest question unit in represented desire to be appropriate purposes unit by that organization, then the board bargaining collective shall consist of either shall require that the names of both labor all temporary agricultural employees or all organizations shall appear the ballot. In permanent ag- any election the voters shall be afforded ricultural employer working at farm choice of “no union”. If in a representa- where such employer grows produces or tional election where more than one union agricultural products or both. In making ballot, is on the and none of the choices unit determinations the extent of a union’s vote, receives a majority second election of organization extent shall not be control- shall be held. The second election shall be ling. Principal factors should be com- receiving highest between the union munity employees, interest between number of votes and “no union”. In hours, same compensation, duties and organization election a labor shall obtain administrative structure all in that and control votes cast election in of labor policies. relations bargaining order to be certified rep- C. The board shall investigate any peti- of all resentative in that tion, and if it has reasonable cause to be- unit. lieve question that a representation ex- provide ists shall for an E. whether appropriate determining hearing notice, question exists, due representation when such the same petition has been filed in good Regulations faith in accordance with apply and rules of decision shall such regulations prescribed by irrespective identity of the persons the board: filing kind of relief board, filing by a with the deny Upon the board J. the In no case shall sought. by on ballot a of organization place thirty per agricultural cent or more labor to such respect with by of order in a a employees bargaining reason unit covered not predecessor organization or agreement labor certification or between by conformity in with 23-1390. issued organization a labor 23-1385, petition made a pursuant of a of of such days receipt F. Within five alleging the desire that such representation file agricultural employer may petition, rescinded, authority be shall con- board ground on the challenge petition to such by an election secret of the duct ballot filing for the of such that the authorization unit and re- certify such employees that such autho- petition is current or organization thereof to the sults fraud, misrep- by rization has been obtained employer. to the or shall resentation coercion. Such proceeding but stay not act to the election is the threshold AERA This section of the the au- if it is thereafter determined that pass must if employees over which thorizations are not current or obtained their constitutional desire to exercise fraud, pe- misrepresentation coercion . . con- organize . . . take to “. will be tition dismissed. represent- through action . . . certed .” choosing. atives of their own . be or con- G. No election shall directed any bargaining unit or subdi- ducted fails, the the Act If this section rest of which, preced- in the vision within thereof fail, of the Act since most use election ing period, twelve-month valid apply would if farm were only workers Employees engaged shall have been held. initially organize free if the who not entitled in an economic strike of exercise of such a constitutional freedom eligible to reinstatement shall be to vote impossible. were assembly made shall regulations under the board this of the Act Essentially, purposes find are consistent with the must be invalid as constitutionally found of article in election provisions the First and Four being violation of three after conducted within months Constitution, teenth Amendments to the be the strike. Any agricul- commencement of length proce cause excessive of sought found employee tural who is to have representa permitting delays dures unit only pur- accepted employment tion elections with na coupled the seasonal the outcome an election pose affecting ture of labor. election eligible shall not be to vote in an pursuant conducted sites, job The constant flux of workers to period article for of twelve months routines, mobility the broken and inter- the date that election. change with and the employers, different span working periods during peak short Nothing H. in this section shall be con- periods when the employment hearings prohibit waiving strued to in a proposed employed by workers unit are a consent by stipulation purpose for the grower, impossible Agri- make it for the with conformity regulations election Employment cultural Relations Board to rules of of the board. decision timely pur- conduct election effect the agricultural employer, I. The within ten poses of the Act. after an days election is directed recognition by Representation agreement board or consent election union, employ- and the that an requirement approved request the board union, board, can bargain a list er shall furnish the board represent achieved if the union is chosen to bargaining in the employees through proce- the election vote, who are and such a qualified unit 1385(A)(5). organiza- dures set out in the A.R.S. § list shall be available made 23— held, the union other involved Before an election can be tions or interested reeogni- must first demand and be denied election. “permanent” the A.R.S. 23- but still employer. employee § tion be excluded by no time out in 1389(C)(1). is set the voting There from having because while worked employer the must an- law within which employer for the for at “least six months request. swer this during preceding the he year,” calendar was not at the time of the employed election petition If does not for an employer the (and year plain we take calendar to have its a election, request recogni- and denies for meaning being extending a year from tion, must for petition the union an then through January pro- December so that this thirty percent at least showing election that clearly vision means that a worker the unit wish to be employees in have employed during been the twelve by the union. A.R.S. 23- represented § n preceding January year months 1 of the in If the AERA has reason- 1389(C)(1). Board held). which the election is that a able to believe sufficient num- cause a ber of workers desire have union to A as temporary employee defined “over election, represent justify them to an it will sixteen . years age . . employed set pre-election hearing. Again a no time by particular agricultural a employer and the how period provided in Act for soon who has so the employed during pre- been the Board must act. time for Since ceding year.” 23-1382(1). calendar A.R.S. § provided, notice not the general applica- Again, worker currently employed tion of the Arizona Administrative Proce- even though previous he the worked calen- day dure stamps twenty period Act dar year employer for the could vote. (A.R.S. 41-1009) how soon hearing on § event, In- any it is also clear from these will be held. many migratory work- other If hearing, at Board determines vote, ers could not though presently even there a question representation, it will employed, simply they because had not direct an election secret by Again ballot. worked employer particular for setting there is no the time within unit, for either six months or at time which the election must be held. during the preceding year calendar —the the Board Once has fixed the time for a practical being particular effect election, union employer ten days worker must be employed during two suc- submit to the Board list of employees his cessive being harvests before entitled to eligible 23-1389(1). vote. A.R.S. § Then vote. by the election must be secret ballot. If the categories employees eligible These cast, union wins a of the votes Act, vote set forth would appear to will be certified the Board the repre- be so defined as to preclude significant for sentative that unit and employer and substantial number from participating will required bargain collectively with in the collective bargaining process, from 23-1385(A)(5); union. also § see selecting representatives their own 1385(D). choosing, given the migratory and transito- Board is directed the AERA to ry agricultural employment. nature of form unit from either all “permanent” A significant second and conse- employees, all most “temporary” employees or quence of determining solely unit both. 23-1389(B). Permanent eligible employees basis defined as those “over six- Act, teen defined is that an years election in age who . . [have] . been unit will be a bar to another election employed particular by a for employer 23-1389(G). for least twelve months. A.R.S. at six months during preceding calendar Groups of workers thus be hired for year.” 23-1382(1). A.R.S. § the same unit at different times

The Board year, is also an yet among group directed to form the election one bargaining unit from employees “working group will bar an election aby hired later at the farm.” A worker thus could, could be a An year. for exam- Circuit, following The Ninth NLRB election to a an respond pie, Co., noted that with- Packing supra, Gissel minority permanent, his by a small filed order collective authority to out ultimate if should employees, year-round results, regardless of election bargaining no-union, how then matter vote themselves become statutory procedures hundreds or thousands many attempt prevent employer’s aid to unit, thereafter hires for Co., B. v. L. Forster unionization. NLRB elec- holding another they are barred (9th 1969). F.2d Cir. an absolute clearly for twelve months — any in the AERA of Thus the absence right of free association. frustration elec- to a secret ballot alternative feasible even if an argued have Defendants an en- in effect a condonation and tion is peak or after the election were held before interference couragement intentional plaintiff object union period, the could election which employer grounds non-representative effectively any meaningful prevent could bargaining the collective electorate selected held, being again from frus- election ever again, here as if in representative. But asso- trating assembly to free reaction, anticipation of this kind of ciation. picketing boy- or 23-1385(B)(12) prohibits § for next additional bases We consider “(b) cotting preceding Where within the Court, jurisdiction upon this conferring twelve a valid election under months any other section namely, whether there “(c) has or Where a 1389 been conducted.” AERA that are constitu- sections or under 23-1389.” been filed face so that there tionally invalid on their findings, earlier another As noted in the question federal substantial a further procedure out of a which difficulty arising presented. con- (aside makes an election from dubious of three sections: We find to be true the sole employer) procedure sent an 28-lS85(C), 23-1385(B)(8), A.R.S. § A.R.S. § establishing recognition repre- union 23-1393(B). and A.R.S. § ballot procedure sentation subject disruption by CONSUMER PUBLICITY any thus could frustrate such effectively pub The first with consumer deals recognition being or ever representation part: reads licity pertinent achieved. practices. 23-1385. Unfair labor problem recognized by This has. been well practice B. It shall an unfair labor courts, and where an election is agents: or for a labor organization alternative, feasible the NLRA and ulti- encourage 8. To induce or validity have of infor recognized courts any agricultural mate consumer of designating mal methods of a union purchasing, product refrain ordering bargaining collective and an essen consuming using or method of em preserving tial dishonest, un- product by the use NLRB, Lumber Division v. ployees. Linden Per- deceptive publicity. truthful and 429, 42 L.Ed.2d 465 419 U.S. encouragement or missible inducement Co., 395 (1974); Packing NLRB v. Gissel meaning of this section within 89 23 L.Ed.2d 547 S.Ct. truthful, nondecep- honest and means NLRB, (5th (1969); 502 F.2d 1024 Bishop agri- which identifies publicity tive Industries, 1974); Big Cir. NLRB v. Three agri- product produced cultural (5th 1974); 497 F.2d 43 NLRB v. Kaiser Cir. with whom the labor cultural A 473 Agr. Corp., Chem. Div. of Kaiser & C dispute. organization primary has a (5th 1973); F.2d 374 J. P. & encourage- Cir. Stevens or Permissible inducement Inc., NLRB, Co., Gilistan Division v. direct- publicity ment does not include (5th 1971); trademark, F.2d 514 Cir. NLRB v. Drives name against ed trade Inc., ag- (7th 1971). generic include F.2d 354 Cir. name sota, producer another products

ricultural S.Ct. L.Ed. [51 trademark, of such trade name or user (1931)], injunction, so far as it name. or generic imposes prior speech restraint on publication, impermissible constitutes an specifi- deals This of the AERA restraint on first rights. amendment “truthful, and undecep- honest cally says publicity tive if is not of publicity” Again Sullivan, Y. in N. Times v. character, practice. it is an unfair labor (1964), L.Ed.2d 686 to prohibit This is no doubt intended section court also indicated First Amendment referred as consumer commonly what is protections just to other apply than truthful by handbilling, pick- boycotts to be achieved statements. of commu- eting, and other mediums orally, interpretations Authoritative customarily employed by nication labor or- guarantees First Amendment have con- ganizations. sistently recognize excep- refused to First, specifically prohibits inducing tion for test of truth —whether ad- an ultimate consumer to encouraging re- by judges, juries or ministered adminis- particular agricultur- frain purchasing trative one especially officials —and that dishonest, “by al the use products un- puts on proving the burden the truth to deceptive publicity.” truthful This sec- and speaker. Speiser Randall, Cf. v. 357 goes permissible tion on to define induce- 1332, 513, U.S. 525-26 2 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d [78 truthful, honest, ment nondeceptive “as 1460, (1958)]. 1472 The constitutional agricultural identifies the publicity which protection “truth, does not turn upon product agricultural an produced by em- popularity, or social utility the ideas ployer organization with whom the labor and beliefs which are offered.” NAACP has primary dispute.” Button, v. 415, 328, 371 U.S. 445 S.Ct. [83 argues (1) Plaintiff that the section un- 344, 9 (1963). L.Ed.2d 405] constitutionally speech restricts activity be- truthful, honest, cause it all makes but nondeceptive publicity prac- an unfair labor That erroneous statement inevitable tice, subjects person organization in free debate and it be pro that must guilty practice penalties to criminal tected expression if the freedoms of

for violation where determination to have “breathing that space” “truth” aby is left be decided tribunal survive,” case) “need to (citing was also after the utterance and thus creates a drill recognized by Appeals the Court of for on the exercise of First Amendment rights, District Columbia in Circuit Swee (2) and that the section’s limitation on in- Paterson, 23, ney 24, v. 76 U.S.App.D.C. ducement a union to .by products produced 457, (1942), 128 F.2d 458 cert. denied 317 by the agricultural employer with whom 160, U.S. 678 S.Ct. L.Ed. 87 [63 a primary dispute 544] union has restricts (1942). unconstitutionally right of non-employ- ees to communicate. Schwartz, See also Vanesco v. 401 As requisite, to the first the U. S. Su- F.Supp. (D.C.N.Y.1975), 87 aff’d without preme Court has held many on occasions opinion 1041, 763, 423 U.S. S.Ct. that prerequisite truthfulness not a L.Ed.2d 630 The court Vanesco First protection. Amendment held prohibiting that a “deliberate statute

In Organization misrepresentations” regulations prohib- a Better Austin v. Keefe, 1575, iting 402 U.S. 91 S.Ct. cam- “misrepresentations” political (1971), L.Ed.2d 1 the court said: paigns, on the face of statute were not course, finding It is based of actual mal- elementary, of that in a ice, case of was an infringement this kind the do overbroad courts con- cern themselves with First unconsti- the truth and was validity of the publication. Under Near v. Minne- tutional on face. However, be noted that A.R.S. likewise con- statute here involved fact is “dis- requirement, only no intent definition of

tains 23-1382.6 it is not limited “de- even broader since pute,” there as “. and it is defined misrepresentation. liberate” any controversy between his employer and defendants, particular Although to this 1385(B)(8) Construing . .” others, are al- many and with so that a means light of A.R.S. 23-1382.6 interpreta- the narrowest proposing ways to conduct permitted organization this is suggesting that possible, this, many provisions, against particular picketing that other way have a interpreted to save constitutional- employer’s should if said, statute, where yet, been ity and conditions controversy over terms involved, rights are First Amendment employment. the statute in this section of prohibition 321, Swing, In AFL v. 312 U.S. S.Ct. on free restraint involving prior as it does a (1941), the Illinois Su 85 L.Ed. drawn, and narrowly must be speech, enjoined picketing by had preme Court po- “chilled” should not be speaker there was ground labor union on his interpretation of ex- tential some and his dispute no between which he has knowl- concerning pression employees. United States immediate statement “untruthful.” may make his edge reversed, however, Supreme holding Court Wilson, Gooding injunction was inconsistent with (1972); Pickering 31 L.Ed. “the to free discussion” and therefore 563, 573-74, Education, 391 Board pri if a It follows that unconstitutional. (1968); Garri- 20 L.Ed.2d 811 88 S.Ct. mary dispute required primary is not Louisiana, son v. requirement a picketing, it cannot be made Button, v. (1964); NAACP 13 L.Ed.2d 125 “right The 328, secondary picketing. same 415, 433, 9 L.Ed.2d 371 83 S.Ct. U.S. Workers Local 302 v. it is not (1963); abridged, 405 Cafeteria to and free discussion” 293, 295, 126, 88 320 64 S.Ct. Angelos, U.S. pro in outweighed by the interest State’s Hamp- 58 v. New (1943); Chaplinsky L.Ed. since secondary employer tecting 572, 766, shire, 568, 86 315 62 S.Ct. U.S. no rela primary dispute of a has existence Connecticut, (1942); L.Ed. 1031 Cantwell v. secondary employer tion to whether the 296, 900, 310, 60 84 L.Ed. 1213 U.S. S.Ct. to economic coercion. See being subjected (1940). Restau v. Arizona Flame also: Baldwin next part sec- questionable (1957), rant, 385, P.2d 759 82 Ariz. tion, namely 23-1385(B)(8), that A.R.S. § held un Court Supreme where the picketing by which limits consumer the un- re 23-1322 which constitutional A.R.S. § in solely ion situations which union dispute regarding quired a “bona fide a dispute particular with a primary conditions” between wages working and grower identify and picket signs majority a of his employer However, grower. particular if that picketing. See a lawful prerequisite grower primary with whom the has a union 760, 377 Local also: NLRB v. Fruit Packers sells dispute to a trade association which 1063, 12L.Ed.2d 129 U.S. utilizes a name on products trade sold 23-1385(B)(8) This section particular grower’s prod- include the as a violation its face therefore is invalid on uct, the its union is forbidden in consumer the First speech provision free picketing referring from trade to the Constitution. Amendment name. argue language Defendants BY UNION ACCESS necessary grower protect involved REPRESENTATIVES dispute happens with the union who in a Turning next to consideration bearing same product in same deal reads part 23-1385(C) pertinent which in name, grower with whom the trade as follows: dispute. does have .union Amalgamated .No shall be re- centers discussed in Food employer . C. to furnish or to a Plaza, make available quired Logan Valley v. Employees Union organiza- organization, labor no labor 20 L.Ed.2d 603 S.Ct. required shall be to furnish make Hudgens NLRB, (1971); materials, employer, to an infor- available (1976); L.Ed.2d 196 S.Ct. mation, time, (emphasis or facilities add- Tanner, Corp. v. Lloyd ed) to enable such or labor or- (1971) upon 33 L.Ed.2d 131 relied be, to ganization, as the case commu- by defendants. employer, nicate with cases, Supreme In latter Court members of the organization, on exercise of First upheld restrictions supporters, adherents. prop- private because of provision that an em- clearly This states erty interests. ployer migrant farm workers does not situation, company town provide pertinent have to when place time or case, where union can with his communicate to the facts of this the court Marsh workers, and it also the employ- means that Alabama, supra, found that there was er not have does to allow the union to come town, nothing company except property. provides his in a corporation, mere title which would positive tool for a grower keep treating oth- justify differently from prop- his everyone away one er center. municipal erty. Sugar The court Peterson v. Talisman fact, by testimony Given as shown Co., went a labor supra, on to hold that and other evidence really disputed camp equivalent was functional mu- defendants vast and the had to accom- nicipality company farm workers are migratory generally extent property rights modate its reside areas or labor located on camps to allow the free flow ideas necessary property owned by the this sec- employer, and the and information between the union tion must fall because it constitutes an un- Mi- migrant workers. also: Illinois See constitutional restriction First Co., 519 grant Campbell Soup Council Amendment exercise of free speech because (7th 1975); F.2d 391 Cir. Farm United private property interests. Union, Workers AFL-CIO v. Mel Finerman Even defendants agree there that Co., Fran- (D.Colo.1973); 364 F.Supp. 326 be an accommodation organiza- between (S.D. Morgan, F.Supp. cesehina v. 346 833 rights tional property rights by citing Hassle, F.Supp. Ind.1972); Folgueras v. 331 NLRB, Central Hardware Co. 407 (W.D.Mich.1971); “First Amendment 615 92 (1972), S.Ct. 122 L.Ed.2d La- Migrant of Access to and the Problems but no such accommodation is permitted v. Tan- Corporation Lloyd bor After Camps this section of the statute. ner,” L.Rev. 560 Cornell Beginning with Alabama, Marsh v. makes argue that this section Defendants (1946), L.Ed. which held that to and does not restrict ownership property no reference didn’t always mean absolute domain to communicates with rights that private property per was se im- time in during other non-work mune from a constitutional protection areas, re- and that the section non-work people on or entering upon property, organizations. They say labor stricts courts continued to assert same princi- access, deny says doesn’t just this section ple. employer have furnish that doesn’t to prohibited,

In facilities and the union “is not Peterson Co., v. Talisman Sugar (5th F.2d 73 Cir. of free from into 1973), speech, going exercise the court found that a camp was reasona- analagous property more to non-work areas on the at traditional “company town” shopping legitimate, peaceful purposes.” than ble times jurisdiction 23-1393. Court However, to means com- alternative munication, 23-1389(1) provides A.R.S. § a only provide need list of employer

that an of a or him, boycott, B. In the case strike working for people names of the against or this, boycott, with or of a strike conjunction taken threat states 23-1385(C)’s provision employer, that the court agricultural an required shall be to furnish or employer upon shall grant, proper application make available information to enable un- a ten- grant provided this section ion to effec- employees, communicate enjoining such a restraining order day tively union of alternative deprives if an agri- that boycott, provided strike or migrant form of communication due to jur- invokes the court’s employer cultural nature of the workers. ten-day restraining to issue the isdiction attempt enjoin provided to make dis- strike as

Defendants also to order “furnishing” “denying tinction between must as a subsection, said these They argue access.” seem to that are the dis- agree to submit thereto condition acts, always separate two one an affirma- as the means arbitration pute binding to negative, tive and the other issues. settling the unresolved one, namely Act “furnish- only applies to on an arbi- agree parties cannot event would to be the ing.” appear In fact the court days after within two trator activity. grower same If the doesn’t have order, restraining the court awards clearly means he “furnish facilities” to decide the unresolved appoint shall one place provide doesn’t have time employer shall Any agricultural issues. when the union can communicate with his relief accorded injunctive be entitled to workers, and also means that he does thus the Arizona Rules of Civil Rule allow onto his have to them come a verified filing Procedure property. his em- showing distinguish Defendants also seek be- or are unlawfully on strike ployees tween employee non-employee union boycott, or are unlawfully conducting a organizers, contending the former has boy- threatening strike or unlawfully access does while latter not. cott, cessation of resulting and that Aside value of this dis- dubious will reáult boycott work or conduct terms, tinction in constitutional words prevention production or the are not so limited and an statute loss, deterioration, spoilage, or reduction who is union con- employee organizer marketability quality grade, agency principles normal* sidered under commodity or commodities union, and the agent consumption in commercial for human to allow any obligation would under not be of this sub- quantities. purpose For the time for him either. or facilities section, commodity an or then, not have In does brief consumption with commodities for human he access to facilities which does grant to a market five thousand dollars value of to furnish. not have quan- or commercial more shall constitute rights of the established clearly Given tities. this sec- organization, communication to unique remedy provides This section 23-1385(C) is constitution- of A.R.S. § his to the On verified employer. ally too broad prohibits defective because it Court, alleging the his scope and un- protected of activity, both alleging preven- unlawfully on strike and protected, association involving freedom of spoilage loss of his production tion of or speech. crop, things happen: several COURT JURISDICTION he, 1. order the As a condition for the to the issues “agree” submit employer, to finally We turn A.R.S. 23- § arbitration; 1393(B) which in reads: to pertinent part binding days within after 2. If two Constitution and the parties the Seventh order agree providing the cannot for right by jury. issuance of the to trial issues, the the Court an arbitrator to decide CONCLUSION one “to the unre- appoint

“shall” decide solved issues.” conclude, we find that the To fatal flaw Agricultural Employment if apparent, The effect of section is Act Relations consists of inability of “employ- insist the union should under the agricultural employees organize (A.R.S. 23-1383) that rights” ees’ section their right first instance to exercise of free- concerning right bargain have a speech assembly, dom as we indi- the em- contrary issue which is to that of striking down cated 23-1389. “management ployer’s under the position 23-1384, 23- (A.R.S. rights” sections §§ This, coupled with other sections 23-1385(D)), then resultant 1385(B)(11), down, complete results in perver- struck support posi- of their strike the union expressed Legisla- sion of intent unilaterally tion can deemed “unlawful” agricultural employees ture to allow to “be can, who the con- by the without organize, and, free to take concerted action union, dispute submit sent of the representatives through of their own choos- binding by an outsider. act arbitration ing, enter into collective bargaining agree- then the Court to submit establishing mandates wages ments their and terms stranger deprives matter the Court to a of employment. and conditions . .” jurisdiction further hear the matter on right organize The limitation on this its merits. by legislated delay, inability frustrated compulsory Such unilateral arbitration communicate with at the em- facilities, ployer’s constitutes a denial of proscription clear due unlawful speech, under the when the of stat on free to concerted right law for effect action form parties clearly utes has coerce strike been to to submit to lawful arbitration, agreement threatened the employer’s without or assent on unilateral ac- so, having tion in determined part issue to do courts have declared Kansas, stranger through compulsory them arbitration [Dorchy unconstitutional in turn away takes to a 286, 323, 44 S.Ct. 68 L.Ed. 686 by the (1924); by jury, finally imposition trial Packing Chas. Wolff Court Co. v. criminal sanctions. Relations, vague ambiguous Industrial 522, light rulings In of these there is obvi- (1923); L.Ed. 1103 North Graves v. plaintiffs’ no need to rfile other ously ern Co., P. R. 5 Mont. (1885)] 6 P. 16 including equal pro- contentions the claimed depriving parties liberty property tection violation. law, without due process 55 A.L.R.2d 510, or depriving parties of constitutional Court, light findings of this right to a trial by jury. Smith, Re 381 Pa. a permanent IT ORDERED that in- IS 112 A.2d app. dismissed, 350 U.S. junction enjoining shall issue defendants L.Ed. 762 enforcing any pro- applying Furthermore, under pertain- Arizona law 23-1381, seq. et visions A.R.S. § ing to arbitration which contains procedures for arbitration review, and means of JUDGMENT 1517 makes such article to have “. the Agricul- having The Court found no application to arbitration agreements be- Act, Employment Relations A.R.S. tural tween employers and 23-1381, unconstitutional sequence, et respective representatives.” entirety for the reason A.R.S. in its 23-1392, We 23-1393(B) therefore 23-1385(B)(8), strike down this section of §§ the statute, face, on their 23-1393(B), A.R.S. as uncon- unconstitutional void stitutional 23-1389 are process 1385(C) violation the due like- §§ A.R.S. 23— clause of the Fourteenth when considered in Amendment the wise unconstitutional evi- and other testimony context with having and these sections

dence presented, First be in violation of

been found to to the Consti- Amendments Fourteenth violation and in of the United States

tution assembly pro- speech

of the freedom equal of the due

visions and 23-1393(B) clauses with A.R.S.

protection of the Seventh

also to be violation found to trial providing falling by the rest of the Act

jury and with inseparability inoperability

reason of its to be inval-

apart from the found

id,

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED

judgment hereby rendered in favor with the

plaintiffs herein accordance in-

opinion permanent and a of the Court en-

junction hereby preventing entered defendants herein

forcement 23-1381, seq. et

§§ concurring:

CRAIG, Judge, District preferred case I would have in order

invoke the doctrine abstention might Court of Arizona Supreme

first express opinion respect of a law

constitutionality established Legislature. State to consider its mer- elected the case on

its. also, Circuit, F.2d 9th 661.

I, therefore, result, See concur al- though I would have fewer words to used

reach it. Plaintiff, America,

UNITED STATES STANLEY,

Frank D. Defendant.

No. CR-76-106-CBR. Court,

United States District

N. D. California.

April 1978.

Case Details

Case Name: United Farm Workers National Union v. Babbitt

Court Name: District Court, D. Arizona

Date Published: Apr 20, 1978

Citation: 449 F. Supp. 449

Docket Number: Civ. 72-445 PHX-CAM

Court Abbreviation: D. Ariz.