Prohoroff Poultry Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

Petitioner is a poultry farm operator located near San Marcos deriving its principal revenue from egg production. It was charged with unfair labor practices committed in September and October 1975, when the United Farm Workers (UFW) was organizing petitioner’s employees in advance of the election of October 24, 1975, won by no union.

The charges are petitioner tendered a number of benefits to its employees, ranging from an improved health plan to a chicken dinner at *625 company expense, in order to influence the employees’ vote. Also charged are impermissible interrogations of employees Jesus Gonzales, Sr., and Arnulfo Jiminez, regarding their union sentiments, and promises to Jiminez of special favors if he did not support the union.

The board found unfair labor practices occurred: benefits offered shortly before the union election, and impermissible interrogations of employees Jiminez and Gonzales. In addition, the board found petitioner impermissibly circulated threats of possible union violence to discourage a union vote. This unfair labor practice was not charged in the complaint. The company brochure containing the supposed threats was entered in evidence on…

I concur in the result reached by the majority.

While I am satisfied the evidence does not support a finding the speeches or conversations John Prohoroff, Jr., had with employees were in violation of Labor Code section 1153 (see N.L.R.B. v. M & W Marine Ways, Inc. (5th Cir. 1969) 411 F.2d 1070 ; N.L.R.B. v. Ralph Printing and Lithographing Company (8th Cir. 1967) 379 F.2d 687 ) and the distribution of leaflets by Prohoroff was protected by free speech (see Luxuray of N.Y., Div. of Beaunit Corp. v. National Lab. Rel. Bd. (2d Cir. 1971) 447 F.2d 112 ; N.L.R.B. v. Hawthorn Company (8th Cir. 1969) 404 F.2d 1205 ; Southwire Company v. N.L.R.B. (5th Cir. 1967) 383 F.2d 235 ), there was evidence, tenuous as it may appear from the record, supervisor Roberto Jiminez threatened employees with loss of jobs if the employees chose a union and Victor Kolesnikov promised extra benefits if they voted “no union.” Whether the specific language of each of these statements amounts to an act in violation of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (Lab. Code, § 1153) is a factual question and the board’s determination in this regard is conclusive (Lab. Code, § 1160.8; Tex-Cal Land Management, Inc. v.…