Related Links
UFW seeks to block ouster at Gallo
Union asks state farm labor board to invalidate last month's decertification vote
Published: Saturday, July 7, 2007 at 3:40 a.m.
Last Modified: Friday, July 6, 2007 at 9:00 p.m.
The United Farm Workers is asking a state board to invalidate last month's election to oust the union from E&J Gallo's vineyards in Sonoma County.
In a document prepared for the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, the UFW claims Gallo unfairly influenced the election because its vineyard supervisors and labor contractors indirectly supported the petition drive that triggered the vote.
The move sets up a repeat of the 2003 showdown between the nation's largest winery and the largest union representing U.S. farm workers.
Last time, the UFW prevailed, successfully blocking the workers' votes from being counted. In a decision that embarrassed Gallo, the ALRB ruled the wine company's labor contractors had illegally helped the effort to oust the union.
This time, the union failed to block the votes from being counted, but it still hopes to block the results.
"We feel pretty confident that we have a pretty good case," said UFW Vice President Efren Barajas. "We have three or four angles that we didn't have last time."
On June 25, farm workers voted at three Gallo vineyard sites in Sonoma County, and ALRB officials immediately released the results -- 125 workers rejected the union while 95 voted to retain it. Twelve votes were contested and uncounted.
The vote does not take effect until the ALRB rules the election was fair. If that happens, the bargaining agreement between Gallo and the 300 workers who tend its 3,200 acres of Sonoma County vineyards would be nullified.
But the UFW, which has represented Gallo vineyard workers in Sonoma County since 1994, claims the vote would never have occurred without Gallo's support of the petition drive.
A fiercely anti-union worker -- Roberto Parra -- was allowed to drive a company vehicle on company time to campaign against the union, the UFW claims.
"Parra had access to a company vehicle -- a four-wheel motorcycle -- to gather signatures and to distribute flyers in support of ousting the union," UFW attorneys argued in their 20-page filing. "Further, this activity was done on work time, in the presence of supervisors, which would give the impression to workers that the employer supported the decertification effort."
In essence, the union claims Gallo paid an anti-union worker to campaign against the union, Barajas said.
"By having basically an agent running around when that person is supposed to be working, that's very clearly against the law," Barajas said.
For example, the union points out that Parra is an irrigation specialist but spent time campaigning against the union in a Gallo vineyard in Asti, where there was no irrigation work required.
The union raised several other objections to the vote, including its timing. The UFW says the recent extension of the contract through 2011 barred such a vote from occurring at all.
ALRB staff already rejected this argument when deciding to hold the election.
Another union objection involves information the company provided to the union about workers. The union claims the company provided inaccurate information about workers' addresses, thwarting union efforts to contact them.
"This inaccurate eligibility list provided by the employer prevented the union from communicating with at least 137 employees concerning the election. It caused the union to waste valuable time looking for employees whose addresses were never correct to begin with," the union wrote.
Gallo officials did not return a call for comment. They have previously claimed to be neutral on the topic of whether their workers opt for union representation.
The UFW allegations are similar but not identical to the ones it made against Gallo regarding the 2003 decertification vote. In that case, Administrative Law Judge Nancy Smith concluded that two foremen working for labor contractors hired by Gallo unlawfully "assisted, supported and encouraged" the effort to oust the UFW. The judge found the contractors supported the circulation of decertification petitions and encouraged workers to sign them.
The new objections focus less on the actions of labor contractors and more on those of Parra, who works directly for Gallo and spearheaded the 2003 vote.
You can reach Staff Writer Kevin McCallum at 521-5207 or kevin.mccallum@pressdemocrat.com.
All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.
Comments are currently unavailable on this article