Hess Collection Winery v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

I respectfully dissent. In my view, Labor Code section 1164, as of the time relevant to this case, delegated legislative power unconstitutionally and violated equal protection guarantees of the state and federal Constitutions.

Invalid Delegation of Legislative Power

The Legislature delegated its power to a private person without setting fundamental public policy standards to guide that person’s legislative acts. Nothing in Labor Code section 1164 controlled the discretion of the “mediator” in deciding the terms of the “collective bargaining agreement” or how the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (Board) and the court were to measure the award on review.

“An unconstitutional delegation of authority occurs only when a legislative body (1) leaves the resolution of fundamental policy issues to others or (2) fails to provide adequate direction for the implementation of that policy. [Citation.]” (Carson Mobilehome Park Owners’ Assn. v. City of Carson (1983) 35 Cal.3d 184, 190 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 284 , 672 P.2d 1297 ].) “An unconstitutional delegation of power occurs when the Legislature confers upon an administrative agency the unrestricted authority to make fundamental policy…

*1591 Opinion

This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of mandatory interest arbitration statutes applicable to agricultural employers. (Lab. Code, § 1164 et seq.; undesignated section references are to the Labor Code.)

After agricultural employer The Hess Collection Winery (Hess) and United Food and Commercial Workers Union (Union) failed to agree on the terms of an initial collective bargaining agreement, a private mediator determined the terms of a contract by which the parties would be bound, pursuant to section 1164 et seq. The Agricultural Labor Relations Board (the Board) denied Hess’s petition for review of the mediator’s decision.

Hess seeks an order setting aside the Board’s decision. Hess contends the statutory scheme (§ 1164 et seq.) violates principles of due process in that it unreasonably interferes with the right of contract, denies the right of judicial review, and is aimed at protectionism. Hess also contends that the scheme violates equal protection, invalidly delegates legislative authority, and is vague and overbroad.

We shall conclude Hess’s contentions are without merit.

THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

In 2002 the Legislature declared, “a need…

Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Rubin & Demain, Scott A. Kronland, Jonathan Weissglass, Danielle E. Leonard, San Francisco; Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld and David Rosenfeld for Real Party in Interest.

Pacific Legal Foundation, M. David Stirling, John H. Findley and Arthur B. Mark III, Sacramento, for Western Growers Association, California Farm Bureau Federation, Ventura County Agricultural Association, Grower-Shipper Vegetable Association of Santa Barbara & San Luis Obispo Counties, Imperial Valley Vegetable Growers Association and Howard Sagaser as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

Law Offices of Marcos Camacho, Marcos Camacho and Thomas Patrick Lynch for United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.

SIMS, J.

This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of mandatory interest arbitration statutes applicable to agricultural employers. (Lab.Code, § 1164 et seq.; undesignated section references are to the Labor Code.)

After agricultural employer Hess Collection Winery (Hess) and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (Union) failed to agree on the terms of an initial collective bargaining agreement, a private…