U.S. Supreme Court Favors Grower Property Rights Over Labor Unions

A U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision in a California case involving labor unions and property rights could affect the entire nation’s agricultural employers and employees.

In a 6-3 decision on Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, SCOTUS struck down the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board rule that gave union organizers the right to physically access farm property to solicit support for unionization.

The Court held that the regulations were a state-sponsored taking of property rights without the just compensation guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The Western Growers Association, which represents local and regional family farmers growing fresh produce in California, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico, strongly supports the decision. “We applaud the Supreme Court for protecting the notion of private property rights as envisioned in our Constitution,” Western Growers President and CEO Dave Puglia said in a statement. “We also commend Cedar Point Nursery, Fowler Packing Company and the Pacific Legal Foundation team for seeing this case through to its unequivocal conclusion.”

United Farm Workers posted its disappointment in the Supreme Court decision on Twitter, writing: “Farm workers are the hardest working people in America. This decision denies workers the right to use breaks to freely discuss whether they want to have a union.”

“The California law in question stated that agricultural employers must allow union organizers onto their property for up to three hours per day, 120 days per year,” Michael Droke, an attorney working in the Dorsey & Whitney firm’s food and agriculture group, said in a statement. He regularly advises California agriculture corporations and cooperatives.

“The employers objected when the United Farm Workers union organizers demanded access to their property,” Droke said. “The growers challenged this regulation as a state-sponsored ‘taking’ of their property rights, without the just compensation.”

“The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the growers, holding that the [California Agricultural Labor Relations Act]’s access regulations were a per se violation because they allowed ‘physical invasion’ of the land without compensation," Droke said.

This case applies to agricultural employers only. Non-agricultural employers are governed by the federal National Labor Relations Act, which allows employers to prohibit non-employee access to their property.

“Agricultural employers should immediately review their policies and practices regarding on-farm access,” Droke said in his statement. “Access should be limited to employer-approved business. The policy or practice should also specify who is authorized to allow access. Employers also need to clearly delineate their property, because unions are still allowed to contact employees off the grower’s premises.”

The California Fresh Fruit Association, a voluntary state and federal public policy association representing growers, packers and shippers of California table grape, blueberry, kiwi, pomegranate and deciduous tree fruit communities, also agrees with the SCOTUS decision. "For 45 years, California's farmers have seen their property rights ignored by the Agricultural Labor Relations Board by allowing organizers onto their property. No other industry in the United States, including California, has had to allow union organizers onto their property in a similar manner," association President Ian LeMay said in a statement. "We appreciate both Fowler Packing and Cedar Point’s efforts in leading the fight to restore the same property rights that are enjoyed by all other industries in the United States, to California farmers."

“The case is clear-cut,” Puglia said. “This is a simple property rights case. States cannot take private property without just compensation, and property owners have the fundamental right to exclude trespassers.”

EDITOR'S TAKE:

Anyone who has been watching the evening news during the past three or four decades will recognize the struggle waged between agricultural workers and farmers/ranchers over what rights belong to each party when attempting to organize. This is a landmark decision that will clearly establish some boundaries that allow farmers to once again take control of their land and property. It still allows workers the right to organize, just not at will on private property. This decision will provide clarity to the rights and process for both workers and property owners.