Carl Joseph Maggio, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

I respectfully dissent.

In light of the disposition of this case, I will restrict my comments to only those issues discussed by the majority. My silence on the remedy issue, however, should not be construed as indicating my agreement with petitioners’ contentions.

In my view there is ample evidence to support the board’s conclusion the employers did not bargain in good faith. Like the majority, I will discuss separately the “take-it-or-leave-it” offer, the employers’ announcement of the impasse and the public relations campaign.

The “Take-It-or-Leave-It” Offer

The majority state “The record does not support a finding the employers presented their February 21 offer in a ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ manner.” (Majority opn., ante, p. 57.) I disagree. Among the facts relied on by the ma *73 jority is the fact that “representatives of the employers never referred to the proposal as a ‘final offer.”’ (See majority opn., ante, p. 57.) I am unimpressed. The board was properly concerned with the substance, not the form, of the contract’s presentation. Our function in reviewing the evidence is not to decide between conflicting views on a de novo basis, but rather on the whole record whether…

Dianna Lyons, Federico G. Chavez, Daniel A. Garcia, Ellen J. Eggers, Ira Gottlieb, Carmen S. Flores and Wendy Sones for Real Party in Interest.

OPINION

COLOGNE, J.

Two separate groups of petitioners (Carl Joseph Maggio, Inc., et al., and J.J. Crosetti Company, Inc., et al.) seek review of the final decision and order of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (Board) in Admiral Packing Company, et al. (1981) 7 A.L.R.B. No. 43. Petitioners are all agricultural employers subject to the provisions of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (Act) (Lab. Code, § 1140 et seq.). The petitions have been consolidated by order of the court.

The underlying action arose from the inability of the United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO (UFW) and a major portion of California's vegetable growing industry, including petitioners, [1] to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement. The UFW was certified as the collective bargaining representative for the employees of each of the respondent companies for each of the several years 1975 to 1978, and had commenced bargaining for a new contract. After three months and twenty-two sessions of bargaining held to effect an agreement for the ensuing years,…

Two separate groups of petitioners (Carl Joseph Maggio, Inc., et al., and J. J. Crosetti Company, Inc., et al.) seek review of the final decision and order of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (Board) in Admiral Packing Company, et al. (1981) 7 A.L.R.B. No. 43. Petitioners are all agricultural employers subject to the provisions of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (Act) (Lab. Code, § 1140 et seq.). The petitions have been consolidated by order of the court.

The underlying action arose from the inability of the United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO (UFW) and a major portion of California’s vegetable growing industry, including petitioners, 1 to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement. The UFW was certified as the collective bargaining rep *47 resentative for the employees of each of the respondent companies for each of the several years 1975 to 1978, and had commenced bargaining for a new contract. After three months and twenty-two sessions of bargaining held to effect an agreement for the ensuing years, the parties apparently could not make substantial progress and the growers’ negotiators declared impasse had been reached.

One day after negotiations…