"[5] The Act, part of the California Labor Code, explicitly encourages and protects "the right of agricultural employees to full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, to negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment, and to be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
The ALRB has two functions: To conduct, oversee, and certify representation elections, and to investigate unfair labor practice (ULP) charges and pursue remedies.
[4] Administrative law judges and agency staff adjudicate most cases, with the five-member Board serving as a final arbiter.
[4] Collective bargaining rights for most hourly workers in the United States were first given legal protection in 1933 by Section 7a of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA).
Although NIRA did not specifically exempt agricultural laborers from the protection of the Act, the Roosevelt administration—eager to win over farm-state members of Congress—argued that farmworkers were excluded.
[2][8] When the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was enacted in 1935, it, too, specifically exempted agricultural workers due to pressure from the "farm bloc" in Congress.
[4][11] A series of violent strikes and inter-union jurisdictional battles set the political stage for passage of the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act.
[27] Finally, a tentative agreement was reached on September 27, 1973; the Teamsters again agreed to leave jurisdiction over farm field workers to the UFW.
It called a few small strikes, defied court injunctions to stop picketing, and continued pushing its national boycotts.
It had opened a major organizing drive in March 1974 [36] and established a regional farm workers' local in June,[37] but the effort was in chaos by November.
[11][40] Chávez had rejected legislative solutions in the past by arguing that a truly successful union movement must be built from the ground up rather than rely on top-down activity.
Additionally, the time seemed right for a legislative program: Jerry Brown, long an avid supporter of the UFW, had been elected Governor of California in November 1974.
[11][40] The UFW knew it had to make a strong political showing in order to push Brown and the California State Legislature to act.
[40][41][43] The spontaneous, spectacular success of the Modesto march garnered significant media attention, and proved that the UFW still had the support of farm workers.
[11][21][40][41][44] Several previous efforts to enact legislation protecting collective bargaining rights for farm workers had emerged in California between 1969 and 1975, but all had failed.
César Chávez had briefly supported labor law reform in California in April 1969,[45] and Conservative Republican State Senator George Murphy had sponsored a bill backed by Republicans and growers the same year to guarantee the right to organize, imposed secret-ballot elections, and restricted the right to strike and to engage in boycotts.
An association of major growers agreed to support legislation which provided for recognition of farm worker unions in January 1971.
[11] Brown's public support and his impending run for governor (which was widely anticipated) led Chávez to make a stronger push for labor law reform in 1974.
[62] Top UFW staff member Dolores Huerta acted as the farm worker union's chief lobbyist.
[65] Nonetheless, a key State Assembly committee approved it on May 12, despite attempts by some Teamster members to intimidate legislators into opposing the bill.
[81] The Board has the right to determine the correct bargaining unit,[82] and an election is triggered only when a petition signed by a majority of current workers is presented.
Under this provision, the ALRB can "take affirmative action including...making employees whole, when the Board deems such relief appropriate, for the loss of pay resulting from the employer's refusal to bargain".
[89][90] The ALRB issued rules giving organizers access to fields on August 29, and the UFW filed for the first union elections under the Act on September 1.
[91] But a federal district court enjoined the Board from implementing its worksite access rules on September 3[92]—putting a halt to some ballot-counting in several elections.
[94] The California Supreme Court lifted the ban on union organizers in the fields on September 18, and the ALRB issued its first formal ULP complaints (against two growers) the next day.
[100] Others conclude (on the basis of anecdotal evidence) that the Teamsters have signed sweetheart deals with perhaps as many as 375 growers, holding down membership gains for the UFW.
UFW officials claimed the Teamsters were on the verge of losing a jurisdictional battle for 50,000 workers being decided by the ALRB, but at least one press report indicated that the scandal-scarred union wished to burnish its public image.
One study concluded that the Act actually resulted in a net economic loss: Higher prices were being charged for produce, farm worker earnings and land values had actually dropped.
Although the make-whole provision's goal is laudable, it is argued, the Board's decisions have led to litigation that lasts for years and mitigate the impact of any awards.