‘Unprecedented’ lawsuit could roll back farmworker union wins from 2023 California law

A Kern County decision handed down earlier this month could be the first step in an industry-wide effort to overturn a 2023 California law making it easier for farmworkers to unionize.

The ruling temporarily halts United Farm Workers’ recent organizing efforts at Wonderful Co. — one of the largest agricultural companies in the world. It is the latest twist in a monthslong, powerful battle between the historic labor union and Wonderful.

In February, UFW used the new law to become the union representative for more than 600 Wonderful workers. Under the law, farmworkers can sign authorization cards to vote for union representation, a method supporters say is intended to lessen employer retaliation.

Within days, the company contested the election results, and alleged UFW organizers had misled almost half of the farmworkers who signed union cards. UFW immediately countered, saying Wonderful had intimidated its workers to reject union representation. The state Agricultural Labor Relations Board General Counsel has since issued a formal complaint, alleging Wonderful coerced workers to attend meetings and helped them sign declarations to take back their union vote.

Wonderful escalated the dispute by suing the ALRB, arguing that the new law was “unconstitutional.”

The July 18 decision in favor of the company could signal looming danger for this advancement in farmworker labor protections. The judge issued a preliminary injunction in the ruling and said Wonderful was “likely to prevail” in its lawsuit.

There is a long history of lawsuits against the state’s agricultural labor law since its inception nearly 50 years ago. But what experts say is unique about the current lawsuit is the “unprecedented” amount of money and industry-wide coordination in support of the case.

At the helm of it all is Wonderful, a multi-billion dollar business owned by entrepreneurs, philanthropists and marketing gurus Stewart and Lynda Resnick. And it’s not just a legal battle. The agriculture industry has launched a media campaign across the Central Valley declaring that UFW deceived workers into joining the union.

“The growers have found a way to finance such a case,” Chris Schneider, a former regional director of the ALRB. “It’s easy because the Resnicks have more money than God, so they can spend as much as they want on litigation, and it’s decimal dust to them.”

UFW has secured five union election certifications, covering nearly 1,700 workers, under the new law. Those could potentially go away, if Wonderful prevails in its lawsuit, said Ana Padilla, executive director of the UC Merced Community and Labor Center.

Regardless of what the future holds, there’s an industry-wide consensus on the ongoing battle: Wonderful is better resourced to mount a challenge against the law than most employers.

“It’s a long road, and fortunately, you’ve got someone like Wonderful that has the type of deep pockets that could entertain this type of litigation,” said Rob Roy, president and general counsel for Ventura County Agricultural Association.

In an email statement, Wonderful Nurseries spokesperson Seth Oster said the company is “gratified by the court’s decision to stop the certification process until the constitutionality of the card check law can be fully and properly considered.”

He called the ruling a win for the company and farmworkers.

‘The industry is animated by that decision’

The Wonderful lawsuit is the latest legal challenge brought forth by employers against the ALRB and the state’s landmark 1975 Agricultural Labor Relations Act. This law was the first in the country to grant farmworkers the right to collective bargaining without retaliation, which farmworkers were not granted under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. The exclusion was rooted in racism because, at the time, many of those workers were Black.

Since the act’s passing, employers have regularly introduced lawsuits against California’s agricultural labor protections. Success has varied over the years, but employers typically benefit from what is deemed a delay tactic by UFW.

“Even when workers have these rights, they will do everything they can to delay those rights,” said Elizabeth Strater, director of strategic campaigns for the union.

Over the past 11 years, two other high-profile lawsuits have challenged certain provisions of the act — with mixed success.

In 2013, Gerawan Farming, one of the largest tree fruit farmers in the nation, tried to overturn an expansion to the act that required mandatory mediation. The multi-year dispute with UFW led to numerous lawsuits, appeals and several findings of unfair labor practices by the ALRB. The California Supreme Court sided with UFW in 2017.

Just a few years later in 2021, another lawsuit — Cedar Pointe v. Hassid — reached the nation’s top court and successfully overturned a provision of the 1975 law that allowed unions to access grower sites in off-hours to organize workers.

Experts believe the agricultural industry is cognizant of the court’s current makeup and increasingly more confident in its chances.

The 2023 law’s principal author, Mark Stone, a former Democratic Assemblyman from Santa Cruz, said he trusts the courts can flag potential flaws in the law and give the legislative branch an opportunity to fix it.

“I cannot imagine this being unconstitutional just because powerful business interests decide that that’s what they want,” Stone said. “At the U.S. Supreme Court, that is something that is likely that could happen, but not in this state. I have a lot more confidence in the state supreme court.”

Wonderful did not respond to questions about whether they hope the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court.

But for Schneider, the former ALRB chair, “the industry is animated by that decision (Cedar Pointe v. Hassid), and sees the court getting more and more anti-labor and pro-business.”

Agribusiness groups have thrown their support behind the legal challenge, signaling they may have sued over the card check law if Wonderful hadn’t stepped up.

According to court filings, two agricultural employers and two employer association groups — Driscoll’s Inc., Grimmway Enterprises, Inc., National Council of Agricultural Employers and Western Growers Association — tried to file written briefs in support of the lawsuit. The judge denied the briefs, citing they “did not appear to offer a different perspective on the issues from Wonderful.”

Carl Borden, senior counsel for the California Farm Bureau, confirmed the organization was considering challenging the law in court until Wonderful’s lawsuit was filed.

‘Fight it every chance they get’

Owned by the Beverly Hills billionaires Resnicks, The Wonderful Co., formerly Roll Global, is primarily known for its Halos, Pom juice and Wonderful Almonds and Pistachios.

The business is among the largest agricultural companies in the country, as well as one of the largest single water users and landowners in the nation, according to other published reports.

The Resnicks routinely financially support Democrats, like Gov. Gavin Newsom, and spend money on high-profile projects across the state including a charter prep school in Delano, new student union building at California State University, Fresno and a center for sustainable agriculture practices at UC Davis.

All put together, the couple and its company make for a formidable and unique opponent, according to UFW and labor experts who cited their tremendous amount of resources and influence.

“They’ve aligned themselves with things, with people and with causes that could seem very progressive,” Strater said. “And then, under the surface, this is a company who is really willing to pull out all the stops to ensure that these workers do not have a voice.”

Wonderful maintains its lawsuit is solely to protect farmworkers. The company has placed billboards around their land in Kern and King counties warning workers to not trust the labor union once spearheaded by Cesar Chavez.

“Ag workers say UFW misled them into signing up for the union to receive $600 COVID grants,” say the billboards in English and Spanish.

This is yet another example of what agricultural employers and businesses say is educating workers in the aftermath of the law’s passing. Last year, a nonprofit funded by industry trade associations aired similar radio advertisements across the Central Valley.

In its April webinar, the California Farm Bureau encouraged third-parties to coordinate social media campaigns targeting farmworkers and employees.

“Educating agricultural employees with truthful information about laws affecting them and their livelihoods and the consequences of their actions under those laws is pro-employee, not anti-union,” Borden said.

For Stone, the lawsuit and this “propaganda” reflect the influences and resources of agribusinesses.

“They’re going to fight it every chance they get,” Stone said. “These are not people and businesses that are going to give up their power and authority easily.”

UFW filed an unfair labor practice complaint over the radio ads in August 2023. The ALRB dismissed the complaint, saying it only has jurisdiction over agricultural employers and unions. UFW said it plans to file another unfair labor practice charge directed at Wonderful, if the company is not ordered by a judge to remove the billboards.

Padilla said she couldn’t speculate which way the court would rule, but called the agricultural industry’s messaging and tactics “concerning.” Plus, she said, the lawsuit is already having a symbolic impact on workers.

“The amount of public messaging by a single industry to tell workers not to trust the union — it’s unprecedented,” Padilla said.