The Supreme Court has tightened restrictions on unions and their access to farmworkers in California and across the nation in its latest ruling. In a 6 - 3 vote with conservatives in the majority, the High Court ruled it unconstitutional for union representatives to engage in practices that impeded on a farm owner’s property rights.
This blow to union representatives stems from a California case in which two fruit growers, a strawberry grower near the border of Oregon and a grape and citrus grower near Fresno, filed suit challenging a California law that allowed union representatives to enter their orchards in order to contact employees.
The 1975 California law allowed farm grower union representatives to visit any growers’ land 120 days out of the year during non-work hours, be it before work, after work, or during a worker’s lunch for no more than three hours. While this law was adopted when many farmworkers actually lived on the orchard that they tended, the two growers from California argue that this law is a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights against unlawful seizure of private property “without just compensation.”
While the Supreme Court's ruling was under the circumstances of two California grower’s rights, the majority ruling in favor of the California growers could have a lasting impact on industries and union organizers all across the nation.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the conservative majority and explained that the California law was unconstitutional because "The access regulation grants labor organizations a right to invade the growers’ property." Justice Roberts adds, "It therefore constitutes a per se physical taking."
According to the liberal dissenting justices, their concerns lie with how the ruling could impact food and work inspections on private property. Associate Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an opinion on behalf of himself and the other dissenting liberal justices and explained, "In my view, the majority’s conclusion threatens to make many ordinary forms of regulation unusually complex or impractical."
While the court deliberated about possible implications for government inspection in not only the agriculture sector but in other industries, the conservative justices ultimately settled on the California case being a unique situation in which a blatant violation of the Constitution was taking place. Roberts wrote, "Unlike a mere trespass, the regulation grants a formal entitlement to physically invade the growers’ land." He adds, "Unlike a law enforcement search, no traditional background principle of property law requires the growers to admit union organizers onto their premises. And unlike standard health and safety inspections, the access regulation is not germane to any benefit provided to agricultural employers or any risk posed to the public."
For some farmers in California, the now unconstitutional law eroded property rights and took away growers’ right to privacy because they could not have control over who was on their property without their permission. Farmers at Cedar Point Nursery and Fowler packaging company shared with USA Today that the law which was now brought down by the court would "eviscerate a landowner’s right to exclude unwanted persons from her property."
Justice Breyer explained that the California law was not synonymous with a “taking” of property. Instead, Breyer argued that it gave employers the right to exclude others.
Growers argue that this outdated law is no longer relevant to current times as many farmworkers typically live off-site and have greater means of communication and access to union representatives than they did when the law was first enacted.
This latest ruling by the Supreme Court is another setback for union organizers. It follows a 2018 ruling against public worker unions in which the Court ruled 5-4 that state government workers who decide not to join a union could not be compelled to pay union dues in order to offset the cost of negotiating contracts.
Employees who work for local governments will no longer have fewer rights to solicit political contributions from their fellow workers than those who work for state governments. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a section of the law that barred all their solicitations is constitutional. In 1996, California... Read More »
The U.S. Supreme Court declined the opportunity to review California’s test for determining whether a worker should be classified as an “employee” or as an “independent contractor.” The denial of certiorari comes as the National Labor Relations Board issues its own more stringent test for classifying workers. Originally signed into... Read More »
Voters enacted a ballot proposition called Californians Against Cruelty, Cages and Fraud with 63% of the vote in 2018. It requires all “veal calves, breeding pigs and egg-laying hens” to be housed in cage-free environments with adequate floor space that allows them to “lie down, stand up, fully extend (their)... Read More »
The Supreme Court recently held oral arguments addressing whether unions can be held responsible for damage to a company caused by a union-backed strike. The Court’s conservative supermajority appeared to favor the business, foreshadowing a continuation of the Court’s pro-business trend. The case titled Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood... Read More »
