Bloomberg
Farmworker Clash Pits Union Access, Property Rights in the High Court
(Bloomberg) – For nearly half a century, labor organizers in California have had an unusual right: under state regulation, they can enter the premises of an agricultural company and recruit workers to join a union. The US Supreme Court in a case that critics seek to turn into a highly successful decision that strengthens property rights and restricts regulatory power. The court will hear arguments on Monday about a constitutional challenge to a 1975 rule that emerged from Cesar Chávez’s efforts to give farm workers collective bargaining rights. Conservative legal groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are opposing access regulation and trying to leverage a court that in recent years has strengthened the rights of landowners and restricted the influence of unions. It will be the first case on these topics for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whose confirmation in October gave the court an even stronger conservative majority. The case was brought by two companies that got involved with unionists: Cedar Point Nursery, which grows strawberries in the northern California city of Dorris, and Fowler Packing Co., a producer of grapes and other fruits in Fresno. They say the regulation removes agricultural companies from their right to control who enters their properties and compels them to allow disturbing protests. The producers are represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a defense group that fights what it considers to be an exaggeration by the government. “The purpose of access regulation is not to create a table and inform,” said Joshua Thompson, a lawyer for the foundation who will argue against the rule on Monday. “It is to intimidate, and that is exactly what they tried to do with our two customers.” Agricultural workers The regulation implements the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act, a 1975 law that gave agricultural workers in that state the kind of collective bargaining rights that other workers already had under federal law. The access regulation, however, goes beyond federal law, saying that a certain number of union organizers can be on the farm outside working hours for three hours a day, up to 120 days a year. The provision is “absolutely critical” to ensure that workers understand their rights, said Victoria Hassid, chairman of the California Agricultural Labor Relations Council, which issued the regulation. “A key component of the law is to ensure that workers can, if want, defend and work together to fight for better working conditions, ”said Hassid in an interview. “Basically, it is about knowing that these rights exist.” The question at the Supreme Court is whether the access regulation violates the constitutional provision that requires “fair compensation” when the government takes private property for public purposes. A federal appeals court based in San Francisco upheld the regulation. Bright Line Producers say the constitutional clause automatically goes into effect whenever a regulation requires “servitude” – that is, when the government gives another person the right to use private property. This bright-line approach “protects the fundamental right of homeowners to exclude invaders from their property,” the companies said in a lawsuit. The producers likened their case to a 1982 Supreme Court decision that said New York was taking private ownership by requiring homeowners to allow cable television equipment to be installed in their buildings. But 17 states and the District of Columbia said the categorical approach would mean a “radical change” and would raise questions about an “impressive series” of laws that depend on government inspections of private property for health and safety reasons. Producers and their allies say these inspection laws would not be affected. The Chamber of Commerce said the government would still be able to demand health and safety inspections as a condition of obtaining the necessary license. Maiden Change The Biden government is supporting California regulation, but will not discuss it on Monday. In a two-page letter in February, acting US Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar said the government’s long-held view is that “physical entry into a property without permanent occupation does not guarantee the application of a categorical rule and is instead properly analyzed in one case – Prelogar’s letter was a change of position for the government after the Trump administration filed a petition opposing the regulation. access to California is even more important than it was in 1975 to inform vulnerable agricultural workers about their rights. These workers as a group are less educated, less likely to speak English and more likely to be immigrants now than when The regulation was enacted, said Mario Martinez, who filed an application defending the regulation for United Agricultural Workers of America. there is a collective bargaining agreement, you have routine violations of basic minimum wage laws, overtime laws, health and safety laws, ”said Martinez. “You have stolen wages theft. You have a sexual harassment crisis. In some cases, we discover forced labor, slavery in which workers are kept against their will. But Mike Fahner, whose Cedar Point Nursery is at the heart of the case, says regulation no longer makes sense in the age of social media. Fahner sued after the organizers went to his nursery in 2015. “You can communicate with people around the world effectively without having to have access to a person’s private property and place of business,” he said. The case is Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 20-107.For more articles like this, visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay on top of the most trusted business news source. © 2021 Bloomberg LP