United Farm Workers of America v. Dutra Farms (2000)

[Modification fn. * of Opinion (83 Cal. App. 4th 1146 ) on denial of petition for rehearing with no change in judgment.]

UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, DUTRA FARMS, et al., Defendants and Appellants.

ELIA, J.-

1. The opinion in the above captioned case, filed on September 27, 2000, is hereby modified as follows:

Page 13, third full paragraph [83 Cal. App. 4th 1158 , advance report, last par., lines 1-2 and p. 1159, line 1], delete the first sentence and substitute in is place the following: Appellants also repeatedly argue that the Committee was a "grassroots" committee, was preexisting, and that the amount the employers contributed was minimal.

Page 14, after the first full paragraph [83 Cal. App. 4th 1159 , advance report, foll. 2d full par.], insert the following paragraphs:

Appellants argue that there are disputed facts regarding whether they gave things of value "for the purpose of causing such . . . group or committee directly or indirectly to influence any other employees in the exercise of the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing." According to appellant Miller, it did not make the donations to "cause" the Committee to do anything. According to appellant Dutra, there was no evidence the toilets it provided were actually used by the demonstrators. These arguments are without merit.

The undisputed facts reveal that the UFW is the exclusive bargaining agent for thousands of employees employed by agricultural employers in California. The undisputed facts show that the Committee engaged in various activities to oppose the UFW. These activities included public marches and demonstrations. It is also undisputed that appellants gave things of value to the Committee. There is no evidence that appellants were unaware of the nature of the Committee, unaware that it opposed the UFW, or ignorant that the donations had been made. [84 Cal. App. 4th 670b]

These facts satisfy the statutory "for the purpose of" requirement. Section 1155.4(c) does not, as appellants suggest, require evidence that the donations caused the recipient to engage in any particular conduct, or require evidence that the thing of value was used in a particular setting. Rather, its requirements are clear. Further, we note that conduct which has been deemed outside the scope of the statutory prohibition has been specifically excepted under 29 United States Code section 186, subdivision (c), via section 1155.6.

This modification does not affect the judgment.

2. The petition for rehearing is denied.

Cottle, P.J., and Mihara, J., concurred.

FN *. This modification requires movement of text affecting pages 1159-1165 of the bound volume report.