AB 2183 (Stone), the United Farm Workers union-supported card-check bill, offers agricultural employers in California a choice between opting for a “labor peace” compact and non-“labor peace compact” status.

A third possibility may be in the offing in early 2023, when “compromise” legislation negotiated between UFW, California Labor Federation and Gov. Gavin Newsom will likely be introduced in and passed by the California Legislature. It would do away with the “labor peace/ non-labor peace” dichotomy and simply allow a union to present to the Agricultural Labor Relations Board signed authorization cards or petitions that allegedly reflect majority support for the union by the employer’s workforce.

Under the Agricultural Labor Relations Act in effect until Dec. 31, union authorization cards are used by a union to demonstrate employee interest in having the ALRB conduct a secret-ballot election to determine majority support for union representation.

To call for an election, a union must collect and submit to the ALRB authorization cards signed by a majority of the employer’s agricultural employees employed in the bargaining unit.

This repurposing of authorization cards from showing sufficient interest to have a secret-ballot election to effectively serving as ballots for a union election you’ll know nothing about until the union files for representation status with the ALRB is likely to cause confusion among employees. Before AB 2183, they could sign authorization cards knowing the union couldn’t force them to become members or pay union dues until after the union won an ALRB-supervised election.

It seems unlikely the UFW or any other union will clarify the new purpose of authorization cards to employees, and union agents will likely continue their past practice of pestering employees to sign authorization cards.

Farm Employers Labor Service has undertaken a flight of Spanish-language radio ads aimed at farm employees throughout the state through mid-December to educate them that signing a union authorization card is likely to be an irrevocable action that could result in their forced union membership and compulsory dues payments with no election ever occurring.

This issue of FELS Newsletter includes a sample educational pay-envelope stuffer to help inform your employees about this new reality under the ALRA as amended by AB 2183.

All of this may leave you confused as to whether you should opt for a “labor peace” compact through the ALRB. At this time, there is no regulatory or clerical mechanism for the ALRB to accept such a declaration from an employer, in spite of the rapidly approaching effective date of AB 2183.

It’s important also for agricultural employers to understand what “labor peace” status is—and what it is not. An employer opting for “labor peace” (should the ALRB ever provide a mechanism for it) requires the employer to agree “to make no statements for or against union representation to its employees or publicly, in any written or oral form, at any time during employee hire, rehire, or orientation, or after a Notice of Intent to Organize, Notice to Take Access, or petition for any type of election is filed,” along with agreeing to “voluntarily allow labor organization access as previously permitted under this part prior to the June 23, 2021, decision of the United States Supreme Court in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021).”

In effect, by opting for “labor peace” an employer gives up the right to inform employees of the employer’s views on unionization. The employer also agrees to let union organizers enter the worksite to meet with employees under the ALRB access regulation that the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated in the Cedar Point Nursery case (in which FELS’ parent organization California Farm Bureau had filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the employers’ position).

Does “labor peace” compact status confer any benefit on an employer? An agricultural employer with a high-profile public brand might believe opting for labor peace could benefit the brand in the long run by demonstrating progressive political views on the employer’s part. Employers opting for “labor peace” will be identified online, thus allowing unions to see they have agreed to labor peace election campaigns.

By choosing “labor peace” status, an employer’s employees would decide on unionization in a mail ballot election. An employer might think employees will prefer at least having an opportunity to participate in a mail ballot election. But union organizers will have plenty of opportunities to try to unduly influence voters in mail ballot elections.

Because mail ballot elections will be vulnerable to voter intimidation and will lack any ALRB supervision until the union petitions for the election, and because the ALRB simply doesn’t have the staff or organizational reach to supervise voters and union organizers scattered throughout California, it’s not at all clear whether employees would see any benefit from participation in a mail ballot election.

In contrast, an employer not opting for “labor peace” status would retain his right to express to his employees his views on unionization and retain control of his property, while subjecting his employees to unionization by “card check,” with all its attendant perils.

Non-labor peace status, however, will allow employers to educate themselves and train their supervisors (or have a FELS Labor Management Consultant educate their supervisors) about the ALRB, management’s rights and duties under the ALRA, and how to lawfully inform employees about the pitfalls of unionization.

FELS is working to finalize training materials for agricultural employers, supervisors and employees on the ALRA post-AB 2183. We invite you to reach out to us at 800-753-9073 or info@fels.net for more information.