Supreme Court throws out state’s union access rule
briefs in support, Thompson added. In turn, Borden said FarmBureau “ap- preciates the work by the Pacific Legal Foundation and the two agricultural em- ployers—Cedar PointNursery andFowler Packing—that stuck with this case all the way through to theU.S. Supreme Court.” “The California FarmBureau has a de- cades-old policy opposing the access reg- ulation as a violation of private-property rights, andwe supported the effort tohave the regulation overturned,” he said. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett
Kavanaughdiscusseda1956U.S. Supreme Court case, National Labor Relations Board v. Babcock &Wilcox Co., in which the court ruled that an employer could disallow union organizers access to com- pany property unless no alternatemeans of communicationwere available. “Babcockstronglysupports thegrowers’ positionintoday’scase,”Kavanaughwrote, “because the California union access reg- ulation intrudes on the growers’ property rights farmore thanBabcock allows.”
ByKevinHecteman California farmers and their advocates welcomedaUnitedStates SupremeCourt ruling that invalidates adecades-old state regulation allowing union organizers to recruit newmembers on a farm employ- er’s property. The case, Cedar Point v. Hassid, cen- tered on a regulation adopted in 1975 by the state Agricultural Labor Relations Board. The rule granted unions seeking to organize farm employees the ability to occupy farmproperty for asmany as three hours a day—before or after work or at lunchtime—for up to 120 days a year. Two agricultural employers—Cedar PointNurseryofDorrisandFowlerPacking Co. of Fresno—sued the state in2016, say- ing the regulation amounted to a taking of private property by the government in vi- olationof theFifthAmendment to theU.S. Constitution. Ina6-3ruling issuedJune23, the Supreme Court agreed, determining the statemaynot force employers toallow organizers onto their property without paying just compensation. “The access regulation appropriates a right to invade the growers’ property and therefore constitutes a per se physical tak- ing,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for themajority. “Rather than restraining the growers’ useof theirownproperty, the reg- ulation appropriates for the enjoyment of third parties the owners’ right to exclude.” Carl Borden, senior counsel for the California Farm Bureau, described the ruling as “an important victory for pri- vate-property rights.” “As apracticalmatter, itmeansunionor- ganizers cannot gain access to farms and rancheswithoutpayingjustcompensation,” Borden said. “Organizers still have plenty of other ways to contact farm employees, but the state access regulation clearly was a physical taking of private property that violated theFifthAmendment.” Fresno attorney Howard Sagaser, who worked on the case, called the decision “a stepintherightdirectiontowards restoring or obtaining balance in the Agricultural Labor Relations Act.” Voiding the access regulation, he added, “makes it much easier to comply with global food safety guidelines and all the other regulations that California farmers have to deal with.” Joshua Thompson, director of legal op- erations for the Pacific Legal Foundation, presented the farmemployers’ caseduring oral arguments before the Supreme Court inMarch. He said California farmers and ranchers“nowenjoytherightthateveryoth- erbusinessinCaliforniahasalwaysenjoyed.” “It is a vindication of every farmer and agricultural business’ rights to decide for themselveswho(is) andwho’snot allowed on their property,” Thompson said. “And if the government wants to give that right to other people, whether it be union orga- nizers or whomever, they have to pay for it. That’s what the Constitution demands, and that is what we as Americans have a right to demand of our government.” Borden filed four friend-of-the-court
briefs on behalf of the California Farm Bureau as the casemade itsway to the na- tion’s highest court, and Thompson said those efforts were crucial to the outcome. “The California Farm Bureau support was particularly needed and welcomed and influential,” along with that of the American Farm Bureau Federation and other employer organizations that filed
See ACCESS, Page 10
The scientific explanation. A broad-spectrum contact pesticide PREV-AM delivers quick and effective knockdown of insects, diseases and mites. There are no restrictions on the number of applications throughout the season due to its multiple modes of action. Multiple modes of action:
Suffocation PREV-AM is easily drawn into an insect’s spiracles, moving into the trachea and quickly suffocating the insect.
Coating Disruption The disruption of waxy coatings on insects’ wings makes them unable to fly, feed or mate.
Proof of Performance:
Better pest control.
Desiccation - Insects By drying the waxy connection of a soft body insect’s exoskeleton, body
Desiccation - Diseases PREV-AM pentrates the hydrophobic coating of fungal mycelia, destroying the living tissue.
fluids leak out – causing death.
See PREV-AM’s multiple modes of action video. www.PREV-AMworks.com A valuable resistance management tool PREV-AM’s physical modes of action make resistance development highly unlikely. PREV-AM can replace application(s) of a susceptible pesticide or be added as an additional application in the spray rotation. Benefits of PREV-AM include:
• No residual activity • Quick knockdown
• Multiple modes of action for broad use • 3-in-1 insecticide, fungicide and miticide • No pre-harvest interval Learn more at oroagriusa.com PREV-AM is a proprietary trademark of Oro Agri Inc. Always read and follow label directions.
July 7, 2021 Ag Alert 9
Powered by FlippingBook