![]() In court documents, the UFW said a previous law had failed to achieve California’s goal of providing millions of farmworkers the right to collective bargaining.Īt the time the law was enacted in 2002, fewer than half of farm employers whose workers voted to join a union since 1975 had agreed to a labor contract, according to the UFW. He said 50 to 100 other farms throughout California may find themselves in the same position as Gerawan. “The argument when it was enacted was that workers would get all fired up about having a union to represent them, and they would vote for the union, but then the employer would delay, and the workers would lose their enthusiasm,” said Philip Martin, a farm labor expert at the University of California, Davis. ![]() Unions can seek mediation 90 days after demanding to bargain on behalf of workers - even if the vote to unionize occurred decades earlier in some cases. The California justices said the law did not violate the state Constitution because it provided enough guidance to mediators on how to decide contract disputes and furthered lawmakers’ goal of “ensuring that collective bargaining agreements are tailored to the unique circumstances of each employer.” The board can then force those conditions on companies and unions. The law in question allows the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board to order mediation to achieve a contract and gives mediators the authority to set the terms of the agreement if there is an impasse. ![]() The United Farm Workers said in a statement that the court had rejected Gerawan’s arguments, and it accused the company of violating its workers’ right to a union contract. Gerawan Farming plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |