Kerman, C Alifornia STATE OF CALIFORNIA UNITED FARM .
Kerman, CaliforniaSTATE OF CALIFORNIAAGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDUNITED FARM WORKERS OFAMERICA,Respondent,and,ANGEL LOPEZ,Charging Party.)))))))))))))))Case No.2015-CL-006-VIS44 ALRB No. 6(July 24, 2018)DECISION AND ORDEROn September 11, 2015, agricultural employee Angel Lopez filed theunderlying unfair labor practice charge (No. 2015-CL-006-VIS) against the United FarmWorkers of America (the “UFW”), alleging that the UFW violated the Agricultural LaborRelations Act (the “ALRA” or “Act”)1 by temporarily excluding a group of prodecertification, anti-UFW farmworkers of Gerawan Farming, Inc. (“Gerawan”) fromattending and participating in a September 9, 2015 public hearing conducted by theAgricultural Labor Relations Board (the “ALRB” or “Board”). On June 30, 2016, theGeneral Counsel of the ALRB (the “General Counsel”) issued a complaint, and a seven-1The ALRA is codified at Labor Code section 1140 et seq.
day formal hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Mark R. Soble (the“ALJ”).On December 11, 2017, the ALJ issued a decision and recommended order.The ALJ concluded that: (1) the “blue-shirted” workers2 who sought to attend and speakat the September 9, 2015 public hearing because of their desire to see the decertificationvotes counted were engaged in protected concerted activity; (2) the blue-shirted workerswho sought to attend and speak at the September 9, 2015 public hearing to address theBoard’s proposal to allow its own staff to visit agricultural worksites in order to educatefarmworkers about their rights under the ALRA were engaged in protected concertedactivity; and (3) by directing or misleading hotel security to exclude the blue-shirtedworkers, the UFW committed an unfair labor practice by restraining protected concertedactivity.The ALJ ordered the UFW to cease and desist from violating the Act, topost a notice at all of its offices in the San Joaquin Valley for a sixty-day period, to post anotice at Gerawan’s worksite for a sixty-day period, and also to cooperate with theVisalia Regional Office to arrange for notice mailing and notice reading to crewsemployed by the UFW during the time period of September 1, 2015, to September 16,2015. The ALJ also ordered training on the Act for all San Joaquin-Valley based UFW2The anti-UFW Gerawan workers wore blue shirts, and the ALJ generallyidentifies the group in this fashion throughout his decision. Pro-UFW individuals, on theother hand, mostly wore red shirts. For ease of reference and continuity with the ALJ’sdecision, we also will refer generally to these opposing groups by their shirt colors.44 ALRB No. 62
coordinators, organizers and their immediate supervisors. The UFW and Lopez filedtimely exceptions to the ALJ’s decision.3The Board has considered the record and the ALJ’s decision in light of theexceptions and briefs filed by the parties. The Board affirms the ALJ’s findings of fact,in part, and affirms the ALJ’s legal conclusion that the UFW violated Labor Code section1154, subdivision (a)(1) by directing or misleading hotel security into temporarilyexcluding workers employed by Gerawan from attending a public hearing held by theALRB. We reach our conclusions subject to the discussion below.I.Factual BackgroundThe UFW was certified as the exclusive representative of Gerawan’sagricultural employees in 1992. On October 25, 2013, Gerawan employee Silvia Lopezfiled a petition to decertify the UFW. An election was held on November 5, 2013, andthe ballots were impounded pending resolution of election objections and related unfairlabor practice complaints, which were consolidated for hearing. After a formal hearing,an ALJ found that Gerawan violated the ALRA by, inter alia, supporting and assisting thegathering of signatures for the decertification petition. With respect to the representationmatter, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s conclusion that Gerawan’s unlawful and/orobjectionable conduct tainted the entire decertification process, and adopted hisrecommended remedy dismissing the decertification petition and setting aside theelection. (Gerawan Farming, Inc. (2016) 42 ALRB No. 1.)3The General Counsel did not except to any of the ALJ’s finding or conclusionsof law.44 ALRB No. 63
The ALRB held a series of public hearings in September 2015 for thepurpose of gathering information concerning a proposed regulation to allow ALRB staffto enter employer worksites to provide education to employees concerning their rightsunder the ALRA. The ALRB held one such hearing on September 9, 2015, at aDoubletree Hotel conference room in Fresno at which interested persons could commenton the proposal. Staff and supporters of the UFW attended this hearing, and most ofthem wore red t-shirts.Also attending the public hearing was a group of individuals who sought todecertify the UFW as the exclusive representative of Gerawan’s agricultural employees.Almost all of these individuals wore blue t-shirts, some of which were printed with thewords “Pick Justice” and/or “Count Our Votes.” Some of the persons wearing blue shirtswere identified as Gerawan non-supervisory agricultural workers. Angel Lopez, thecharging party, was part of the anti-UFW group. The agenda for the public hearing didnot include the topic of the Gerawan decertification petition and election.On the day of, but prior to the start of the public hearing, Hector Lopez, thehotel security manager, spoke with Nancy Oropeza (“Oropeza”), a coordinator for theUFW, and was left with the impression that she was one of the contacts for the publichearing. Hector Lopez testified that Oropeza told him that people wearing blue shirtsmight be coming and would be disruptive to the public hearing, and that Oropeza furthertold him to exclude those wearing blue shirts. Immediately after his conversation withOropeza, Hector Lopez told another security guard, Jose Sepulveda (“Sepulveda”), thatthe blue-shirted protestors were not allowed at the event. Sepulveda told the blue-shirted44 ALRB No. 64
persons that they were not allowed at the public hearing. He made this statement at theside entrance to the hotel and, as a result, 20 to 25 Gerawan employees were temporarilyprevented from entering the hotel where the public hearing was to be conducted. Personswearing red shirts or street clothes were allowed into the public hearing.Gerardo Hernandez (“Hernandez”), counsel for the anti-UFW workers, wasamong those individuals who were told that those wearing blue shirts would not beallowed to attend the public hearing. Hernandez told Sepulveda that it was“preposterous” that the blue-shirted persons would not be let into the building. Inresponse, Sepulveda stated that he was “just doing his job.” Hernandez then stated thatthe exclusion was “going to be an issue” and Sepulveda offered to take him inside to talkwith someone. Hernandez, Hector Lopez and Sepulveda walked into the hotel andentered a conference room where they encountered Hernandez’s co-counsel, AnthonyRaimondo (“Raimondo”). One of them informed Raimondo that the blue-shirted personswould be excluded from entering the building. Raimondo stated that it was a “publichearing,” and Hector Lopez responded that they had been “instructed by the organizer.”Raimondo interrupted Hector Lopez and asked who the organizer was. Hector Lopez,referring to Oropeza, responded that it was “the lady in pink right over there.”Raimondo then found Antonio Barbosa (“Barbosa”), who at the time wasthe ALRB Executive Secretary. Raimondo told Barbosa that there were farmworkerswho had been told by security that they had been instructed not to let them enter thebuilding. Oropeza interrupted Barbosa and Raimondo, stating “Antonio, there’s a protestgoing on outside.” Barbosa then went outside with the security guards and the two44 ALRB No. 65
attorneys and invited the blue-shirted persons to come inside and informed them that, ifthey desired, they could speak at the meeting.4II.Discussion and AnalysisA. Protected Concerted ActivityThe ALJ found that, at all relevant times, the blue-shirted workers were engagedin concerted activity protected under the Act. No party excepted to this conclusion. We agreewith the ALJ that the blue-shirted workers who sought to enter the hotel in order to attend thepublic hearing were engaged in protected concerted activity. We reach this conclusion basedon the discussion below.The ALRA protects the rights of employees “to full freedom of association, selforganization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing” free from interference,restraint, or coercion by employers or labor organizations. (Lab. Code, § 1140.2.) Employeessimilarly have the right to refrain from any and all such activities. (Lab. Code, § 1152.) Alabor organization commits an unfair labor practice when it restrains or coerces employees inthe exercise of these rights. (Lab. Code, § 1154, subd. (a).)In the instant matter, the workers who appeared at the hotel and sought to attendthe ALRB’s public hearing were engaged in concerted activity. Moreover, the record is devoid4In making his factual determinations, the ALJ gave weight to testimony byHector Lopez, Sepulveda and Hernandez regarding the events that led to the temporaryexclusion of the blue-shirted persons from the public hearing. However, the ALJ found avideo clip of these events to be the most persuasive evidence. The video clip lasts forfour minutes and forty-four seconds, and is partly in English and partly in Spanish. Thevideo clip starts with Hernandez speaking with Sepulveda, then follows Hernandez andthe security guards into the hotel to approach Raimondo, where they then find Barbosa.The video clip concludes with Barbosa inviting the blue-shirted workers to come insideand informing them that, if they desire, they could speak at the meeting.44 ALRB No. 66
of facts that would remove the workers’ conduct from the protections of the Act.5 At the timethat Oropeza caused hotel security to exclude the blue-shirted workers from the public hearing,she could not have known the content of what any of them would say at the hearing, or if theywould say anything at all. Any belief she may have harbored as to what they would do at thehearing was speculative and gave her no legal justification to interfere with their concertedactivity. Thus, the restraint on the blue-shirted workers’ rights was achieved before any ofthem even were permitted to speak after being admitted to the hearing.B. The ALJ’s Credibility DeterminationsThe UFW excepts to three of the ALJ’s credibility determinations. First, theUFW excepts to the ALJ’s “omission” of Hector Lopez’s testimony that Oropeza did not tellhim to exclude the blue-shirted workers from the public hearing and that he incorrectlyassumed that Oropeza was in charge of the public hearing. Second, the UFW excepts to theALJ’s decision to discredit Oropeza’s testimony. Third, the UFW excepts to the ALJ’sdecision to partially credit the testimony of Angel Lopez. We address each of these exceptionsin turn.In the case of non-demeanor based credibility determinations, the Board mayreject the ALJ’s findings in favor of its own when the ALJ’s findings conflict with wellsupported inferences from the record considered as a whole. (California Valley LandCompany, Inc. et al. (1991) 17 ALRB No. 8, p. 12; Mann Packing Co. (1990) 16 ALRB No.5For instance, there are no facts suggesting the blue-shirted workers wereengaging any unlawful or violent conduct. (See, e.g., NLRB v. Washington AluminumCo. (1962) 370 U.S. 9, 17 [concerted activity not protected where it is “unlawful, violentor in breach of contract” or is “indefensible”].)44 ALRB No. 67
15, p. 9; Krispy Kreme Donut Corp. v. NLRB (6th Cir. 1984) 732 F.2d 1288, 1290; NLRB v.Mt. Vernon Telephone Co. (6th Cir. 1965) 352 F.2d 977, 980; NLRB v. Elias Brothers Big Boy,Inc. (6th Cir. 1964) 327 F.2d 421, 427.)In Sabor Farms (2015) 42 ALRB No. 2, p. 1, fn. 1, the Board summarized thestandards for reviewing ALJ credibility determinations:The Board will not disturb credibility resolutions based ondemeanor unless the clear preponderance of all the relevantevidence demonstrates that they are in error. (United FarmWorkers of America (Ocegueda) (2011) 37 ALRB No. 3;P.H. Ranch (1996) 22 ALRB No. 1; Standard DrywallProducts (1950) 91 NLRB 544.) In instances wherecredibility determinations are based on factors other thandemeanor, such as reasonable inferences, consistency ofwitness testimony, or the presence or absence ofcorroboration, the Board will not overrule the ALJ’scredibility determinations unless they conflict with wellsupported inferences from the record considered as a whole.(S & S Ranch, Inc. (1996) 22 ALRB No. 7.) In addition, it isboth permissible and not unusual to credit some but not all ofa witness’s testimony. (Suma Fruit International (USA), Inc.(1993) 19 ALRB No. 14, citing 3 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (3ded. 1986) § 1770, pp. 1723-1724.)The UFW contends that the ALJ erred by omitting Hector Lopez’s testimony thatOropeza did not tell him to exclude blue-shirted workers from the public hearing and that heincorrectly assumed Oropeza was in charge of the public hearing. The ALJ’s assessment ofHector Lopez’s credibility was not based upon his demeanor. Therefore, the question iswhether the ALJ’s decision to credit his testimony that Oropeza told him to exclude the blueshirted workers from the public hearing over his testimony that she did not explicitly tell himto exclude the blue-shirted workers conflicts with well-supported inferences from the recordconsidered as a whole.44 ALRB No. 68
With the passing of 19 months since the public hearing, Hector Lopez providedinconsistent testimony regarding whether Oropeza told him to exclude the blue-shirted personsfrom the public hearing. He remembered having a conversation with Oropeza, but had troublerecalling exactly what Oropeza told him. Initially, Hector Lopez testified that Oropeza toldhim that there might be blue-shirted persons coming to the public hearing that would bedisruptive to the hearing. Later on, he testified, “I’m not sure if she actually said, keep themout, but she said that they have the potential of being disruptive.” Under questioning bycounsel for the charging party, Hector Lopez stated that Oropeza told him not to let the blueshirted workers in because they were protesting. Under questioning by the ALJ, Hector Lopeztestified that it was more likely that Oropeza told him that the blue-shirted persons wereengaged in a “disruptive presence or protest, which combined with my mind-set of it being aclosed meeting would mean these people can’t come into the meeting if it’s a closed meetingand they’re going to be disruptive.”The ALJ relied upon the video clip to resolve the issue of Hector Lopez’scontradictory testimony. In the video clip, Hector Lopez, when questioned concerning theexclusion of the blue-shirted workers, states that the security guards have been “instructed bythe organizer,” then, when asked who the organizer was, he replied, “the lady in pink overthere.” At this moment, Hector Lopez is referring to Oropeza. Moreover, Sepulveda heardOropeza tell Hector Lopez something about “blue-shirts” and “protestors” and, immediatelythereafter, Hector Lopez told Sepulveda not to let the blue-shirted workers enter the event.Therefore, reasonable inferences from the record and corroboration from the video clip and44 ALRB No. 69
other witnesses weigh in favor of the ALJ’s finding that Oropeza told Hector Lopez to excludethe blue-shirted workers. (Sabor Farms, supra, 42 ALRB No. 2, p. 1, fn. 1.)Additionally, the UFW excepts to the ALJ’s decision to discredit Oropeza’stestimony. In the UFW’s view, the ALJ erred by finding that Oropeza never spoke with thehotel manager and that the ALJ erred by concluding that Oropeza misled the hotel securityguards based on the video showing her interjecting an explanation of the events to Barbosa.The ALJ’s assessment of Oropeza’s testimony was not based upon her demeanor, and thereforethe issue is whether Oropeza’s denial that she directed or mislead the security guards intobelieving that she was in charge of the public hearing conflict with well-supported inferencesfrom the record as a whole. We find that it does not.Oropeza’s testimony was contradicted by several other witnesses who had littlemotive to be deceptive. For example, Oropeza testified that the security guards, not her,mentioned “blue shirts” first. Security guard Sepulveda testified that Oropeza was the personwho mentioned people in blue shirts. Oropeza also testified that the blue-shirted workers wereyelling and making “a lot of noise outside.” Every other witness contradicted Oropeza,including Valdez and Mejia, the two other UFW coordinators. Valdez testified that theworkers were not acting aggressively and Mejia testified that the blue-shirted workers were notyelling at or threatening the pro-UFW group.The UFW also puts significant emphasis on Oropeza’s alleged conversation withthe hotel manager due to her ability to accurately describe his appearance as a “gentleman inhis 60s, Caucasian, and weighing about 170 or 180 lbs.” Sepulveda testified that he never sawOropeza speak with the hotel manager. Furthermore, Oropeza testified that the man she44 ALRB No. 610
described never stated that he was the hotel manager, but that she had presumed that he wasbecause he wore a suit. Neither of the other two UFW coordinators, or anyone else for thatmatter, stated that they saw or spoke with the hotel manager. We find that the ALJ’scredibility determinations regarding Oropeza’s testimony do not conflict with well-supportedinferences from the record considered as a whole. (Sabor Farms, supra, 42 ALRB No. 2, p. 1,fn. 1.)The UFW also contends that the ALJ partially credited the testimony of AngelLopez. UFW’s contention is in error, as the ALJ’s decision makes clear that he did not creditany of Angel Lopez’s testimony. Specifically, on page 12 of his decision, the ALJ states, “Idid not find Angel Lopez to be credible.” The ALJ’s decision goes on to state, “While I amconfident that Angel Lopez told a lot of people about what happened at this meeting, histestimony as to the specific crews and timetable of his alleged visits was implausible.” Weconclude that the language of the decision makes clear that the ALJ did not credit AngelLopez’s testimony.C. DisseminationThe UFW excepts to the ALJ’s findings concerning the dissemination ofinformation among Gerawan employees regarding the temporary exclusion of the blue-shirtedworkers from the public hearing. The ALJ found, “it [was] highly probable that, in thefollowing days, there was widespread discussion among Gerawan workers about the temporaryexclusion from the ALRB meeting, as the meeting occurred just eight days before the44 ALRB No. 611
undersigned issued his decision in the consolidated election case,6 so there would have beenhigh interest in UFW and ALRB-related news.” The ALJ also concluded that the blue-shirtedworkers spread word of their temporary exclusion from the public hearing via smart phones,internet and social media platforms.The Board does not rely on the ALJ’s findings regarding dissemination tosupport its conclusion that the UFW committed an unfair labor practice by restrainingprotected concerted activity. The record contains no evidence, nor does the ALJ cite any,concerning the use of smart phones, internet, or social media to disseminate news of theworkers’ temporary exclusion from the public hearing. The ALJ’s dissemination finding alsois unnecessary in reaching the conclusion the UFW violated section 1154, subdivision (a)(1) ofthe Act. Thus, we do not adopt the ALJ’s findings and conclusions of law concerning whetherGerawan employees discussed the temporary exclusion from the public hearing.D. RemediesThe UFW excepts to the remedies ordered by the ALJ, contending that theremedies are punitive because: the ALJ failed to address that only five Gerawan workerstestified that they discussed the public hearing with coworkers; the ALJ credited AngelLopez’s false testimony; and the ALJ assumed that dissemination occurred via smart phonesand online platforms.In his lone exception, Angel Lopez objects to the ALJ’s notice reading remedyby seeking to have the notice read on “Radio Campesina,” which it contends is the UFW’sSee Gerawan Farming, Inc., Case No. 2012-CE-041-VIS, et al. and,subsequently, Gerawan Farming, Inc., supra, 42 ALRB No. 1.644 ALRB No. 612
public radio station that it uses to promote its activities to workers. We address theseexceptions in turn.1. The UFW’s exception to the ALJ’s ordering of a notice posting, mailing,reading, training, and cease and desist remedies.The Board has broad discretion in fashioning remedies that effectuate thepurposes of the Act. (Tri-Fanucchi Farms v. ALRB (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1161, 1168.) A primarypurpose of the Act is to encourage and protect the right of agricultural employees to be freefrom interference, restraint, or coercion in the exercise of their self-organizational rights. (Lab.Code, § 1140.2)The Board’s adherence to standard non-economic remedies has served to furtherthe purposes and policies of the Act, and it is incumbent upon the respondent to demonstratecompelling reasons for departing from such remedies. (Vincent B. Zaninovich & Sons, Inc.(1999) 25 ALRB No. 4, p. 2, fn. 2; Nish Noroian Farms v. ALRB (1984) 35 Cal.3d 726, 747.)Thus, where the violation is “isolated” or “technical” the Board may find that departure fromstandard remedies is warranted. (Zaninovich, supra, 25 ALRB No. 4, p. 2, fn. 2.)As a preliminary matter, it appears that the ALJ incorrectly worded Section 2subsections (b) and (e) of the order. Section 2, subsection (b) states:Prepare copies of the attached Notice, in all appropriatelanguages, by placing a copy of such Notice in a plainstamped or metered envelope, with the ALRB’s returnaddress, in the manner directed by the Regional Director,addressed individually to each and every agricultural workeremployed by Respondent during the time period of September1, 2015 to September 16, 2015 44 ALRB No. 613
Section 2, subsection (e) states:To cooperate with the Visalia ALRB Regional Director asneeded with respect to the arrangement of Board agentsreading the attached Notice in all appropriate languages to thecrews employed by Respondent during the time period ofSeptember 1, 2015 to September 16, 2015.We correct the ALJ’s technical error here, and find that the mailing and noticereadings be provided to crews employed by Gerawan, and not Respondent, UFW.Turning to the exceptions, the UFW argues that the ALJ’s proposed remedy inthis case is punitive, particularly because the ALJ found widespread dissemination ofinformation among Gerawan employees concerning the temporary exclusion of the blueshirted workers from the public hearing. In other words, the UFW is asserting the ALJ erredby finding that there was widespread dissemination, and consequently the ALJ’s erroneoususage of widespread dissemination as justification for the remedies ordered is punitive andshould be overturned.As stated, we do not rely on the ALJ’s conclusions concerning dissemination,whether it occurred via word of mouth, smart phones, or online platforms. Witness testimonyestablishes that 20 to 25 Gerawan-employed farmworkers witnessed the temporary exclusionof the blue-shirted workers from the public hearing. Additional witness testimony indicatesthat approximately 40 other employees were later told about the public hearing. Thus, therecord makes clear that the event is neither “isolated” nor “technical” such that the Boardshould depart from its standard remedies. (Zaninovich, supra, 25 ALRB No. 4, p. 2, fn. 2.)Furthermore, these notice posting, mailing and reading remedies are in accordance with prior44 ALRB No. 614
Board decisions. (See United Farm Workers of America (Olvera) (2018) 44 ALRB No. 5, p.37.)We reject the UFW’s argument that the notice posting, mailing and readingremedies ordered by the ALJ are punitive. Posting, mailing and reading remedies serve theimportant functions of informing workers of the outcome of the unfair labor practiceproceedings and to answer their questions about the notice and the rights guaranteed to themby the Act. (M. Caratan, Inc. (1980) 6 ALRB No. 14; Jasmine Vineyards, Inc. v. ALRB (1980)113 Cal.App.3d 968, 979-982.) The notice would serve its purpose of informing employees ofthe resolution of this unfair labor practice charge, and of their right to engage in protectedconcerted activities, free of restraint, irrespective of whether they support or oppose the union.Moreover, here, the remedies ordered by the ALJ are narrowly tailored to reach Gerawanworkers employed during the time period of September 1, 2015, to September 16, 2015. Thus,we find that the notice posting, mailing and reading remedies are in accordance with applicablelaw and find that the UFW’s contentions that these remedies are punitive lack merit.Turning to the ALJ’s order that San Joaquin Valley-based UFW coordinators,organizers, and their immediate supervisors undergo training, we do not deem such a remedynecessary. While not diminishing the seriousness of the UFW’s unlawful conduct, thestandard notice posting, mailing and reading orders are sufficient to remedy the UFW’sunlawful conduct. Thus, we overturn the ALJ’s order of training for all San Joaquin Valleybased UFW coordinators, organizers, and their immediate supervisors on the protectionsafforded to agricultural workers under the Act.44 ALRB No. 615
2. Charging party Angel Lopez’s request for a notice reading on “RadioCampesina.”7Angel Lopez filed one exception to the ALJ’s decision, wherein he seeks aremedy that includes a notice reading on “Radio Campesina,” which, Lopez asserts, is theUFW’s public service radio station.The NLRB regards notice publication via newspaper or other publications ofbroad circulation to be a remedy that, while permissible in appropriate cases, is “not routinelyused” and has generally been reserved for “egregious cases.” (HTH Corp. (2014) 361 NLRBNo. 65, pp. 32-33.) In Perry Farms, Inc. (1978) 4 ALRB No. 258, Andrews (1977) 3 ALRBNo. 45, and Vessey & Co. (1981) 7 ALRB No. 449, administrative law judges ordered noticingvia media publication and, in each case, the Board declined to include that remedy in its finalorder.We decline to find that this case is sufficiently egregious to warrant a noticereading via a media publication and we conclude that the notice mailing, along with the otherremedies, ordered by the ALJ is sufficient to remedy the conduct at issue. Notice mailing is awell-established part of the NLRB’s remedial repertoire when traditional posting is insufficientto dissipate the effects of the unfair labor practices. (HTH Corp., supra, 361 NLRB No. 65, p.7On February 16, 2018, Angel Lopez filed a Request for Hearing on theRemedies, where he reasserts his argument that a remedy should include a notice readingon “Radio Campesina.” This filing, however, does not comport with Board regulation20282, subdivision (c), which provides, in relevant part, that after the filing of replybriefs to exceptions, “No further brief shall be filed except as requested by the Board.”The last day to file a reply brief was February 7, 2018, nine days before Angel Lopezfiled his brief. Thus, the Board rejects Angel Lopez’s filing as untimely.8In Perry Farms, the media noticing was optional.9See Vessey & Co., Inc. (1985) 11 ALRB No. 3, p. 3.44 ALRB No. 616
28.)The ALJ’s recommended order appropriately calls for notice mailings for Gerawanworkers employed from September 1, 2015 through September 16, 2015. Accordingly, wedeny Angel Lopez’s request that the notice be read on “Radio Campesina.”III.ConclusionIn summary, the Board affirms the ALJ’s findings of fact, in part, and affirms theALJ’s legal conclusion that the UFW violated Labor Code section 1154, subdivision (a)(1) bydirecting or misleading hotel security into temporarily excluding workers employed byGerawan from attending a public hearing held by the ALRB. We find that that the blue-shirtedworkers were engaged in protected concerted activity when they were temporarily preventedfrom entering the hotel where the ALRB’s public hearing was to be held, and we affirm theALJ’s credibility determinations. We do not adopt the ALJ’s conclusion that there waswidespread dissemination of information, whether by word of mouth or through smart phonesor online platforms, among Gerawan employees regarding the temporary exclusion of the blueshirted workers. We clarify the ALJ’s recommended order to state that the mailing and noticereadings are to be provided to crews employed by Gerawan, and not Respondent, UFW. Weoverturn the ALJ’s order for training for all San Joaquin-Valley based UFW coordinators,organizers, and their immediate supervisors and deny the media noticing remedy requested bythe charging party.44 ALRB No. 617
ORDERPursuant to Labor Code section 1160.3, Respondent United Farm Workersof America (“UFW”), its officers, agents, and representatives shall:1. Cease and desist from coercing or restraining employees who choose toexercise their right to engage in protected concerted activity undersection 1152 of the Act;2. Take the following affirmative steps which are found necessary toeffectuate the purposes of the Act:(a) After its translation by the ALRB into all appropriate languages, postsigned copies of the attached Notice to Agricultural Employees(“Notice”) at the UFW’s San Joaquin Valley offices for a period of60 consecutive days, the specific dates and location of posting to bedetermined by the Visalia ALRB Regional Director, exercise duecare to replace any Notice which has been altered, defaced, covered,or removed, and grant ALRB agents access to that location to ensurecompliance with this requirement;(b) Prepare copies of the attached Notice, in all
decertification, anti-UFW farmworkers of Gerawan Farming, Inc. (“Gerawan”) from attending and participating in a September 9, 2015 public hearing conducted by the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (the “ALRB” or “Board”). On June 30, 2016, the General Counsel of the ALRB
a. Gerawan Farming, Inc.; Plant 3 Kerman Fruit Packing Facility, Fresno County Gerawan Farming, Inc. (Gerawan) owns and operates a fruit packing facility near Kerman in Fresno County referred to as the Plant 3 Kerman Fruit Packing Facility (or Facility). The Facility’s packing process incl
39 alrb no. 20 1 kerman, california state of california agricultural labor relations board gerawan farming, inc.
the performance of unreinforced and reinforced maonry buildings, steel buildings during the earthquake is also reviewed. INTRODUCTION On Dec. 26, 2003 at 01:56:56 GMT, (05:26:26 local time) a destructive earthquake hit the city of Bam in Kerman province and caused near source effects. The Kerman province is one of the largest provinces in
Studying on the fatigue behavior of Al- Al 2 O 3 metal matrix nano composites processed through powder metallurgy M. Vaghari 1, G.R. Khayati*,2, S.A. Jenabali Jahromi 1Department of Materials Science and Engineering, School of Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. 2Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran.
University of California, San Diego CSU/UC MDTP 9500 Gilman Dr. # 0319 La Jolla, CA 92093-0319 Website: mdtp.ucsd.edu Email: mdtp@ucsd.edu Fall 2019 CSU/UC Mathematics Diagnostic Testing Project MDTP is provided with the support of the Trustees of the alifornia State University, the Regents of the University of alifornia, and the
alifornia’s FY 2017-18 Budget: Impact on Alameda County Seniors and Services On June 27, 2017 Governor Jerry Brown signed the Budget for 2017-18, the fiscal year that began July 1, 2017. The spending plan continues
Postcard Social Media Posts Promotional Flyer, Video & alendar of dates to promote Kick It alifornia. BRAND TIMELINE SEPTEMBER SOCIAL facebook twitter instagram KICK IT COACH TRAINING
Alfredo López Austin, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) 4:15 pm – 5:00 pm Questions and Answers from Today’s Panelists . Friday’s symposium presenters (order of appearance): Kevin B. Terraciano Kevin Terraciano is Professor of History, chair of the Latin American Studies Graduate Program, and interim director of the Latin American Institute. He specializes in Colonial .
