GERAWAN FARMING v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA)Petitioner’s Request for Judicial NoticeCal.February 25, 2016Case No. 8227243 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THESTATE OF CALIFORNIA GERAWAN FARMING,INC., Petitioner, SUPREME COURT v. FILED AGRICULTURAL LABORRELATIONS BOARD, FEB 29 2016 Respondent, UNITED FARM WORKERSOF AMERICA, Frank A. McGuire Cierk Real Party in Interest. Deputy Fifth Appellate District, Case No. F068526 ALRBCase No. 2013-MMC-003 [39 ALRB No. 17] Fifth Appellate District, Case No. F068676 Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 13CECG01408 The Honorable Donald S. Black, Judge REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF COMBINED ANSWERINGBRIEF OF PETITIONER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONOF DAVID A. SCHWARZ; PROPOSED ORDER David A. Schwarz (159376)* C. Russell Georgeson (53589) IRELL & MANELLA LLP ~~ GEORGESON & BELARDINELLI 1800 Avenueofthe Stars, Suite 900 7060 N.Fresno Street, Suite 250 Los Angeles, California 90067-4276 Fresno, California 93720 Telephone: (310) 277-1010 Telephone: (559) 447-8800 Facsimile: (310) 203-7199 Facsimile: (559) 447-0747 Ronald H. Barsamian (81531) Michael P. Mallery (116345) BARSAMIAN & MOODY General Counsel 1141 West Shaw,Suite 104 GERAWAN FARMING,INC. Fresno, California 93711 7108 N. Fresno St. Ste 450 Telephone: GC59) 248-2360 Fresno, CA 93720 Facsimile: ( 59) 248-2370 Telephone: G59) 272-2310 Facsimile: (559) 500-1079 7310030 Case No. 8227243 IN THE SUPREME COURTOF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA GERAWAN FARMING,INC., Petitioner, Vv. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, UNITED FARM WORKERSOFAMERICA, RealParty in Interest. Fifth Appellate District, Case No. F068526 ALRB Case No. 2013-MMC-003 [39 ALRB No. 17) Fifthanyellate District, Case No. F068676 Fresno Count uperior Court, Case No. 13CECG01408 onorable Donald S. Black, Judge REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF COMBINED ANSWERINGBRIEF OF PETITIONER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONOF DAVID A. SCHWARZ; PROPOSED ORDER David A. Schwarz (159376)* C. Russell Georgeson (53589) TRELL & MANELLA LLP ~ GEORGESON & BELARDINELLI 1800 Avenue ofthe Stars, Suite 900 7060 N.Fresno Street, Suite 250 Los Angeles, California 90067-4276 Fresno, California 93720 Telephone: (310) 277-1010 Telephone: C59) 447-8800 Facsimile: (310) 203-7199 Facsimile: (559) 447-0747 Ronald H. Barsamian (81531) Michael P. Mallery (116345) BARSAMIAN & MOODY General Counsel 1141 West Shaw, Suite 104 GERAWAN FARMING,INC. Fresno, California 93711 7108 N. Fresno St. Ste 450 Telephone: o59) 248-2360 Fresno, CA 93720 Facsimile: (559) 248-2370 Telephone: 559) 272-2310 Facsimile: (559) 500-1079 7310030 z TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICEthat, pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 452 and 459, California Rule of Court 8.252, and supporting case law, Petitioner Gerawan Farming, Inc. (“Gerawan”) hereby respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following materials cited in the Answering Briefof Petitioner (“Answering Brief”). This motionis based on this Notice of Motion, the accompanying MemorandumofPoints and Authorities, and the Declaration of David A. Schwarz (“Schwarz Decl.”). Dated: February 15, 2016 Respectfully submitted, IRELL & MANELLA LLP David A. Schwarz BARSAMIAN & MOODYP.C. Ronald H. Barsamian GEORGESON AND BELARDINELLI C. Russell Georgeson Michael P. Mallery GERAWAN FAR G, INC. 4 py:_q ooOo— David A. Schwarz Attorneys for Petitioner Gerawan Farming, Inc. 7310030 -1- I. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION Gerawan respectfully requests that this Court take judicial notice of the following materials cited in its Answering Brief. True and correct copies of these materials are attached as exhibits to the declaration of David A. Schwarz: 7310030 The Regional Director’s letter dismissing Unfair Labor Practice Charge No. 2013-CL-001-VIS, captioned United Farm Workers/Gerawan Farming,Inc. (May 13, 2013) (“Exhibit A”) Gerawan’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’sletter dismissing Unfair Labor Practice Charge No. 2013-CL-001-VIS, captioned United Farm Workers/Gerawan Farming, Inc. (May 28, 2013) (“Exhibit B”) , Order of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board Vacating the Regional Director’s Dismissal of Petition for Decertification, Gerawan Farming, Inc. (November 1, 2013) ALRB Case No. 2013- RD-003-VIS, Admin. Order 2013-46 (“Exhibit C’) Minute Order denying the United Farm Workers of America’s Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order, United Farm Workers ofAmerica v. Gerawan Farming, Inc. (November27, 2013 mento Superior Court) Case No. 34-2013-00153803 (“Exhibit D” Order denying the Agricultural Labor Relations Board’s Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order, Agricultural Labor Relations Board v. Gerawan Farming, Inc., etal. une 2, 2014 ~Superior Court) ALRB Case No. 14CECG00987 (“Exhibit E” Decision of the Administrative Law Judge, Gerawan Farming, Inc. Sept. 17, 2015) ALRB Case No. 2013-RD-003-VIS (39 ALRB No. 0) (“Exhibit F”) Keynote Speaker Speech by William B. Gould IV, Agricultural Personnel ManagementAssociation’s 36" Annual Forum (January 28, 2016) (“Exhibit G”) U.S. Department of Labor, 2012 LM-2 Labor Organization Annual Report of the United Farm Workers of America (“Exhibit H”) Under California Rule of Court 8.252(a)(2)(C) and Evidence Codesection 459, a reviewing court may take notice of anything that would be noticeable by trial court under Evidence Codesection 452. All of the materials cited abovefall under that provision. They are also relevantto the issues presented in this matter for the reasons stated below andin Gerawan’s Answering Brief. The Court should grant Gerawan’s Request. II, THE COURT SHOULD TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ORDERSIN STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS Exhibits D andE are noticeable as judicial orders of courts of this state. (Evid. Code § 452(d) (1) [“Judicial notice may be taken of . . . [r]ecords of . . . any court ofthis state.”]; see also Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 483,fn.7 [taking “judicial notice ofthe trial court’s order”in another matter].) Exhibit D is a superior court order denying the United Farm Workers of America’s (“UFW”) Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order to enforce the MMCorderthatis directly at issue in this appeal. Exhibit E is a superior court order denying a similar application brought by the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (“ALRB”) in a separate proceeding. 7310030 -3- Ill. THE COURT SHOULD TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ACTIONS BY THE ALRB AND THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Exhibits A, B, C, and F are noticeable as Official acts of the ALRB in related administrative proceedings. Evidence Code section 452(c) permits judicial notice of “[o}fficial acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments”of this state. “Official acts include records, reports and orders of administrative agencies.” (Ordlock v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2006) 38 Cal.4" 897, 911, fn.8.) Eachof the exhibits listed above involve actions by the ALRB thatdirectly relate to matters at issue in this appeal. Exhibit A is the Regional Director’s letter dismissing Gerawan’s unfair labor practice charge against the UFW forits failure to engage in collective bargaining for approximately two decadesafter beingcertified. The legal effect of the UFW’s abandonment of Gerawan’s employeeis one of the issues before this Court in this appeal. Exhibit B is Gerawan’s request for review of the Regional Director’s decision. It is noticeable as a “record”of an “administrative agency.” (Ordlock, supra, 38 Cal.4"at p. 911; see also C.R. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp. (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1103 [court may take notice of documentsfiled with state agency]; Salvaty v. Falcon Cable Television (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 798, 800, fn. 1 [same].) Exhibits C is an order by the ALRB,and Exhibit F is a decision of the Administrative Law Judge, regarding the Petition for Decertification of 7310030 -4- United Farm Workers of America. (Gerawan Farming, Inc., et al, ALRB Case No. 2013-RD-003-VIS (39 ALRB No.20).) As explained in Gerawan’s AnsweringBrief, the decertification petition is relevant to several matters in this appeal, including the UFW’s abandonment of Gerawan’s employeesandthe constitutionality of the MMCprocess. Exhibit C is also a publicly available governmentrecordthatis accessible on the webpage of the ALRB’andis thus “not reasonably subject to dispute and[is] capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to source of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code § 452(h).) Exhibit F is the Decision of the Administrative Law Judgein the above-referenced decertification proceedings. (Both the ALRB andthe UFW haverequestedthat this Court take judicial notice of this decision.) Exhibit H is the U.S. Department of Labor 2012 LM-2 Labor Organization Annual Report of the United Farm Workers of America (“Annual Report). It is noticeable as an “official act” of a federal agency. (Evid. Code § 452(c); see also Smiley v. Citibank (1995) 11 Cal.4th 138, 145, fn. 2 [court may take judicial notice of documents from federal administrative agencies].) Exhibit H is also a publicly available government record andis thus “not reasonably subject to dispute and[is] ' This documentis available at http://www.alrb.ca.gov/legal_searches/admin_orders/2013/2013- 46_Gerawan_2013-RD-003-VIS.pdf (last accessed on February 14, 2016) 7310030 -5- capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to source of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code § 452(h).) Membersofthe public may accessa copy of the Annual Report through the Departmentof Labor’s website.” IV. THE COURT MAYTAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF A PUBLIC SPEECH GIVEN BY THE CHAIRMANOFTHE ALRB Exhibit G is a public speech given by William B. Gould IV, Chairman of the ALRB,on January 28, 2016. The speechis noticeable becauseit is publicly available and thus “not reasonably subject to dispute and [is] capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to source of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code § 452(h).) A copyof this speech can be viewed and downloaded from a websitethatit is maintained by Stanford University where Chairman Gouldis the Charles A. Beardsley Professor of Law, emeritus.? This speechis relevantto this appeal becauseit discusses the purpose and effect of the MMCstatute on collective bargaining in California, and it was given by Chairman Gould whois the head officer of the Respondentagencyin this matter. This document may be accessedat https://olms.dol- esa.gov/query/getOrgQryResult.do (last accessed on February 14, 2016) > This documentis available at https://www- cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/WmBGouldIV- Thu28Jan2016-AgriPersonnlMangAssn-Keynote-Speech.pdf(last accessed on February 14, 2016) 7310030 /-6- Vv. CONCLUSION Forthe reasonsstated above, Gerawan respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of Exhibits A through H. Dated: February 15, 2016 7310030 Respectfully submitted, IRELL & MANELLA LLP David A. Schwarz BARSAMIAN & MOODYP.C. Ronald H. Barsamian GEORGESON AND BELARDINELLI C. Russell Georgeson Michael P. Mallery GERAWAN FARMING,INC. By:Caud : a David A. Schwarz y Attorneysfor Petitioner Gerawan Farming, Inc. DECLARATIONOF DAVID A. SCHWARZ I, DAVID A. SCHWARZ,declare as follows: 1. I am an attorneyatthe law firm ofIrell & Manella LLP, counsel of record for Gerawan Farming, Inc. (“Gerawan”). I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration and could and would testify competently to such facts under oath. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Regional Director’s letter dismissing Unfair Labor Practice Charge No. 2013-CL-001-VIS, captioned United Farm Workers/Gerawan Farming, Inc. (May13, 2013). 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Gerawan’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s letter dismissing Unfair Labor Practice Charge No. 2013-CL-001-VIS, captioned United Farm Workers/Gerawan Farming, Inc. (May 28, 2013). 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is true and correct copy of Order of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board Vacating the Regional Director’s Dismissal of Petition for Decertification, Gerawan Farming, Inc. (November1, 2013) ALRB Case No. 2013-RD-003-VIS, Admin. Order 2013-46. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copyof the Minute Order denying the United Farm Workers of America’s Ex Parte 7310030 -8- Application for a Temporary Restraining Order, United Farm Workers of America v. Gerawan Farming, Inc. (November 27, 2013 Sacramento Superior Court) Case No. 34-2013-00153803. 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the Order denying the Agricultural Labor Relations Board’s Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order, Agricultural Labor Relations Board v. Gerawan Farming, Inc., et al. (June 2, 2014 Fresno Superior Court) ALRB Case No. 14CECG00987. 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge, Gerawan Farming, Inc. (Sept. 17, 2015) ALRB Case No. 2013-RD-003-VIS (39 ALRB No.20). 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is F is a true and correct copy of The Keynote Speech of William B. Gould IV given at the Agricultural Personnel ManagementAssociation’s 36" Annual Forum on Thursday, January 28, 2016. As of February 14, 2016, this documentis accessible on the following website: https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploa ds/2016/01/WmBGouldIV-Thu28Jan2016-AgriPersonnlMangAssn- Keynote-Speech.pdf. 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy ofthe 2012 LM-2 Labor Organization Annual Report of the United Farm Workers of America issued by the United States Department of Labor. As of 7310030 -9- February 14, 2016, membersof the public can access this documentat the following website: https://olms.dol-esa.gov/query/getOrgOryResult.do. Executed on February 15, 2016, at Los Angeles, California. I declare under penalty of perjury underthe lawsofthe State of California that the foregoingis true and correct. DaveAlon David & Schwarz 7310030 -10- Case No. 8227243 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA GERAWAN FARMING,INC., Petitioner, Vv. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, UNITED FARM WORKERSOF AMERICA, Real Party in Interest. Fifth Appellate District, Case No. F068526 ALRBCase No. 2013-MMC-003 [39 ALRB No.17] Fifth Appellate District, Case No. F068676 Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 13CECG01408 The Honorable Donald S. Black, Judge [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JUDICIAL NOTICE Goodcause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDEREDthatPetitioner’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted. The Court will take judicial notice of Exhibits A through H containedin Petitioner’s request. Date: Presiding Justice 7310030 -11- STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN,JR., Governor AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD VISALIA REGIONALOFFICE 1642 W. WALNUT AVENUE VISALIA, CA 98277-5348 (559) 627-0905 FAX (559) 627-0985 www.airb.ca,qov May 13, 2013 Ron Barsamian Barsamian & Moody 1141 W. Shaw Ave.Suite 104 Fresno, CA 93711 Re: Case Name: United Farm Workers / Gerawan Farming,Inc,. Case Numbers: 2013-CL-001-VIS Dear Mr. Barsamian: After careful review and investigation ] havedecided to dismiss the above-referenced charge. Pursuant to the California Codeof Regulations,Title 8, section 20218, an unfair labor practice charge may be dismissed if the Regional Director concludesthatthere is no reasonable causeto believe that an unfair laborpractice has been committed orthere is insufficient evidence to support the charge. This charge alleges that the UFW committed an unfair labor practice by failing to communicate with the employer, designate a negotiator, make proposals or otherwise perform its responsibilities for over two decades after being certified as the bargaining representative. The charge further alleges that the UFW has failed to bargain in good faith in the last six months andthatit has lostits right to represent the agricultural employees due to the abandonmentof the bargaining unit. Any complaint based on this charge would be barred bythe statute of limitations. Labor Code Section 1160.2 states that no complaintshall issue based on any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the board. Our statute of limitationsis read strictly and we do not recognize continuing violations as a means of extendingthis time limit. AS-H-NE Farms, Inc, (1980) 6 ALRB No.9, fn. 2; Local Lodge No. 1424 v. NLRB (1960) 362 U.S. 411, 417-423. Here, you allege that the UFW has committed an unfair labor practice “for over two decades”, and yet the charge was notfiled until January 18, 2013. The Board has recognized that a union has a duty to exercise due diligence in the course ofits bargaining activities and that repeated and excessive delays by the union in responding to bargaining proposals may constitute an unfair labor practice. United Farm Workers (Maggio) (1986) 12 ALRB No.16. In Maggiothere were repeated delays by the union in responding to the employer’s bargaining proposals and the longest was approximately 10 months. Applying Maggio, it would notbe permissible under Section 1160.2 to permit a charge to be filed approximately17 years after the union allegedly failed, to exercise due diligence in the course of contract negotiations with Gerawan. Hence,this charge is barred by the statute of limitations, Ron Barsamian, Esq. May 13, 2013 Page 2 The second portion of the charge seems to seek as a remedy for the unfair labor practice, that the UFW be decertified as the bargaining representative of Gerawan’s employees. Becausethe chargeis time-barred, there is no need to address this point. However, we would look to Maggio, supra, in determining the appropriate remedies where a labor organization has failed to exercise due diligencein its bargaining duties. In that case, the Board ordered the unionto, inter alia, bargain with the employer upon request; to sign, mail, post, read and provide copies of a Notice to Agricultural Employees; and to cease and desist from failing to bargaincollectively and in goodfaith, failing to meet at reasonable intervals with the employer,failing to respond to and submit proposals, and failing to furnish the employer with requested information relevant to bargaining. Id. at 21, 22. If you disagree with this decision, you can request that the General Counsel reviewit. If she agrees with you, she can instruct me to change mydecisionin this case. To request review, you must write to the General Counselof the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, located at 1325 J Street, Suite 1900, Sacramento, California, 95814, within ten (10) days of service of this notice. In yourletter to the General Counsel you must explain why the decision should be reviewed. If you present new evidence for the General Counsel to review, you must whyexplain this evidence was not previously presented. The rules for seeking review are found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 20219. If you have questions regarding this matter, please do nothesitate tocall this office. Sincerely, Mn/—~ Silas Shawver Acting Regional Director Cc. Mario Martinez, United Farm Workers BARSAMIAN & MOODY Toll Free: A Professional Corporation Tel: (559) 248-2360 (888) 322-2573 Attorneys at Law Fax: (559) 248-2370 1141 W. Shaw Avenue, Suite 104 Fresno, California 93711-3704 E-Mail: laborlaw@theemployerslawlirm.com May28, 2013 Via UPS Delivery to: Sylvia Torres-Guillen, General Counsel Agricultural Labor Relations Board. Office of the General Counsel 1325 J Street, Suite 1900 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: United Farm Workers (Gerawan Farming, Inc.) Case No. 2013-CL-001-VIS Dear Ms. Torres-Guillen® Gerawan Farming, Inc. (“Gerawan”) respectfully requests review of the Acting Regional Director’s dismissal ofthe above-entitled unfair labor practice charge on May 13, 2013, pursuant to the ALRB’s Regulations, Section 20219. The Acting Regional Director (“Regional Director’) dismissed the charge because “[a]ny complaint based on this charge would be barred by the statute of limitations.” The basis ofthe charge is as follows: The United Farm workers of America (UFW) failed to communicate with the employer, designate a negotiator, make proposalsor otherwise perform any of its responsibilities for over two decades after being certified as the bargaining representative of the agricultural employees of Gerawan Farming, Inc. 1. Gerawanfarming,Inc. alleges that the UFW has lostits right to represent the agricultural employees due to its abandonmentof the bargaining unit, as set forth above. 2. Gerawan. Farming,Inc. further alleges that the UFW has failed to bargain in good faith during the last six months, as set forth above. The charge was filed on January 18,2013. The Regional Director did not dismiss the charge based on any failure to provide evidence that the alleged factual conductviolated the Act. In fact, the Region’s investigators cancelled a scheduled interview with John Sweet, the former Chief Financial Officer of Gerawan who attended the single negotiation session with the UFW in 1995. Mr. Sweet served in that position until 2007 and would provide testimony about the lack of any further contact from the UFW since 1995. Thus,it is clear that the Regional Director dismissed the charge on the sole basis that the statute of limitations barred the allegations. The Acting Regional Director provided no explanation as to why he believed his interpretation of the statute of limitations would bar the allegations during the time period from mid- July 2012 to the filing of the charge. Thus, the Regional Director erred in determining that Gerawan’s unfair labor practice charge against the UFWis time-barred. The Regional Director applied the wrong legal. standard, failed to make the appropriate threshold inquiry based on “reasonable cause,” and erroneously construed applicable law, including Sections 1160.2, 1155.2, and 1154(c). He summarily adjudicated the charge. This was not an exercise of discretion; it was legal error. In so doing, he usurped the authority ofthe: Board, and denied Gerawan due process of law. Gerawan respectfully requests review of that dismissal. The basis of the charge alleges that the Union bargained in bad faith during the six months preceding the filing of the charge. The charge is supported by undisputed evidencethat thisperiod of bad faith bargaining was a continuing violationof the UFW’s statutory obligations in the preceding 17 years. That abandonment is also prima facie evidence of the UFW's inability or unwillingness to represent the bargaining unit. The record shows that the Union made no contact with Gerawan orits employees, for close to two decades. The Union did not represent employees in grievances or other non-bargaining matters. These facts are relevant conduct occurring in the six months preceding the filing ofthe charge. Bruce Church, Inc., 17 ALRB No.1, at 10 (1991). This dilatory conduct is sanctionable under Section 1154(c). At minimum, it raises a substantial claim that Gerawan's duty to bargain had been extinguished when the Union requested negotiations in October 2012. Dole Fresh Fruit Co.,22 ALRB at 10, It also evidences the abdication of the UFW's obligations that would giverise to the remedy of a Board-ordered decertification This Board has held that such bargaining obligations wouldcease via “formal decertification or, in essence, a showing that the Union had effectively left the scene altogether.” Bruce Church, Inc., 17 ALRB No.1, at 10. The fact that the UFW resurfaced after 17 years does not render moot the Board's inquiry into the charge; it strengthens the claim. The UFW’s October 12, 2012 demandto negotiateis,itself, the evidence of bad faith bargaining, in light of its prior actions which reflect an abdication of the bargaining umt. That demandraisesthe substantial question as to the Union's ability to competently represent the workers, and its motivation in claiming the right to negotiate on their behalf. These are questions that are appropriately examined in the context of a complaintfiled before the Board. The Regional Director avoided consideration of these issues by applying an erroneous standard of review and a misapplication ofBoard and judicial precedent. ' Dole specifically contemplates that the employer mayfile a ULP whenit appearsto it that a certified representative has forfeited its statusas the representative ofits employees. Id. at 15-16. 2 i The Regional Director's Initial Review Must bé Based on Whether There is Reasonable Cause" that a ULP has been Committed. The Regional Director is required to investigate a charge “to determine whether or not there is reasonable cause that an unfair labor practice has been committed” ALRB Regulations, Section 20216 (emphasis added). A charge shall be dismissed only “[i]f the regional. director concludesthat there is no reasonable cause to believe that an unfair labor practice has been committed or there is insufficient evidence to support the charge.” Id., Section 20218. “Reasonable cause” is establishedifthe charge is neither “insubstantial norfrivolous.” ALRB v. Ruline Nursery Co., 115 Cal. App. 3d 1005, 1013 (1981) (emphasis in original); see also Boire vy. Freight Carriers, Inc., 515 F.2d 1185, 1189 (Sth Cir. 1975) (noting that the standard for granting temporary relief under 29 U.S.C. § 160() depends on whether the NLRB, “through its Regional Director, has reasonable causeto believe that unfair labor practices have occurred”). This standard, set forth in the regulations adopted by the Board, must be followed by the Regional Director. The reasonable cause standard, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, is a “threshold determination that further inquiry is warranted and that a complaint ‘should initiate proceedings.” Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil, 449 U.S. 232, 241 (1980). The determination is based on whether sufficient evidence supports the charge; it is not an adjudication of the claims asserted, or of the defenses that may be raised. Cf ALRA,Section 1160.6 (“If, after such [preliminary] investigation, the officer or regional director to whom the matter may be referred has reasonable cause to believe such chargets true”) (emphasis added). The Board — not the Regional Director — is charged with adjudicatory furictions.” The Regional Director does not suggest that he lacked reasonablecause to believe that an unfair labor practice has been committed; clearly, a failure to bargain over a prolonged period oftime is bad faith. Nor does he suggestthat there is insufficient evidence to support the charge. Indeed, the letter is devoid of any indication that the Regional Director made any factual inquiry as to the reasons for the Union's lack of due diligence and inactivity overthe last 17 years. The Letter ofDismissal does not suggest that the charging allegations and supporting evidenceis not in dispute, Thecharge meets this standard. i. The Charging Allegations Meet the “Reasonable Cause” Standard. The charge alleges that the UFW failedto bargain in good faith —or to bargain at all ~ during the six months preceding the filing ofthe charge. Specifically, Gerawan contends that the Union made no effort whatsoever to engage in any bargaining during a substantial portion of the six months preceding thefiling of the charge, from July 17 to October 12, 2012, a roughly four monthperiod. Gerawan further alleges that the failure to bargain was part of a continuing pattern of dilatory and evasive behavior reaching back close to two decades. Specifically, the UFW participated in a ? As the General Counsel has most recently argued several times since January 2012 in the context of seeking and obtaining judicial orders granting temporary relief to restrain unfair labor practices, “reasonable cause” is a “minimal burden of proof’: The court “need not establish an unfair labor practice has in fact been committed, nor is the court to determine the merits of the case.” Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Tex-Cal Land Management Inc., 165 Cal. App. 3d 429, 439 (1985) (citations andquotations omitted). negotiation session in February 1995, at which point it was asked to providea detailed proposal to Gerawan. It never responded, and ceased any direct interaction with Gerawan until October 2012. Gerawanalleges that this conduct, both within the six month period and the prior two decades, evidencedan abandonmentofthe bargaining unit by the UFW. There can be no more compelling evidence of an “unwillingness or inability” to represent workers than the complete abdication on the part of the UFW. That evidenceis not in dispute, and, importantly, was not addressed by the Regional Director in his dismissal of the charge. At a minimum,it compels the conclusion that the UFWfailed to performits mutual obligation to bargain in good faith during the six-month period and the preceding 17 years. ALRA, Section 1155.2(a). The UFW's motive, timing, and assertionofbargaining exclusivity in October 2012 raises very serious questions as to whether its unfair labor practices “would interfere with the free choice of employees to choose or not choose an exclusive bargaining representative.” ALRA, Section 1160.4{a)(2). The Board has an affirmative obligation, based on “reasonable cause,” id. at Section 1160.4(a), to investigate and, based on“reasonable cause,” obtain “appropriate temporary relief or restraining order” to enjoin such conduct.> . Thebelated reemergence of the Union does not render this history irrelevant or beyond inquiry by the Board. Nor does it moot a timely charge of bad faith bargaining. Rather, it reinforces the inferencethat the October 12 demandto initiate discussions was pretextual, made in bad faith, and not consistent with the obligations imposed by this Board to safeguard the workers' fundamental right of self-governance. The Regional Director was required to investigate these circumstances, as they would “shedlight on thetrue character”of the seventeen years of abandonment, Local Lodge No. 1424 v. NERB, 362U.S. 411 at 416 (1960), the bad faith motivationbehind the October 12 letter (given any colorable basis to claim that Gerawan's workers knewabout such a demand madeintheir name, let alone that they ratified that action), as well as the Union's explanation for its absence. The Regional Director does not indicate whether, as. part of his investigation, he made any factual investigation, beginning with the most fundamental question: What explanation does the Union have to counter the undisputed evidencethat it abandoned the bargain unit and failedto bargain in good faith — whether within the six months preceding the October 12 letter or 17 years after Gerawan askedthat the Union provide a proposal? Such evidence would be highly relevant to theULP charge. See, e.g., Sumner Peck Ranch, Inc., 10 ALRB No. 24, at 10 n.10 (1984) (evidence of bad faith bargaining prior to six-month period was relevant background for finding of a lack of good faith in negotiations in conduct within the limitations period); Holtville Farms, Inc., 7 ALRB No. 15, at 12 n.10 (1981) (incident outside the limitations term was evidence ofa “pattem” of conduct that “sheds light on the true character of events within the limitation period’’). * The Regional Director's “reasonable cause” standard, if adopted to proceedings brought bythe Board under Section 1160.4, would require the Boardto demonstrate that noaffirmative defense would bar a finding of an unfair labor practice, and that showing would have to be made in order to obtain “appropriate temporary relief or restraining order.” [f, on the other hand, the Board determinesthat the “reasonable cause” standard differs for purposes of dismissing a charge that it wouldfor seeking a TRO,then it should articulate the reasons for this distinction. Either way, the Board is charged with makingthe initial determination as to whether the quantum of proof required under Section 1160.4 is no less exacting than the standard set forth in the RegionalDirector's letter. 4 Il. The Regional Director Usurped the Board's Authority by Summarily Adjudicating the Charge. The Regional Director acknowledged, as he must, “that a union has a duty to exercise due diligence inthe course ofits bargaining activities and that repeated and excessive delays by the union in respondingto bargaining proposals may constitute an unfair labor practice. United Farm Workers (Maggio) (1986) 12 ALRB No.16.” Having set forth the applicable precedent, the Regional Director then ignores it and disregards the limited role ofhis inquiry,which is to makea threshold “reasonable cause” determination. Instead, he made evidentiary findings, and rendered conclusions of law, and adjudicated that the affirmative defense ofstatute oflimitations barred Gerawan's complaint. While (as discussed below), the Regional Director misapplied the law based on anerroneousinterpretation of theALRA, it was not within his purview to make that determination inthe first place. That is to be made by the Board, subject to Judicial review, assuming that the defense hasnot been waived. The Regional Director exceeded his authority based on an erroneous viewof the power vested in him. Cf Belridge Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 21 Cal. 3d 551 (1978). A. The Affirmative Defense of Statute of Limitations is Not Relevant to the Reasonable: Cause Standard. The statute of limitations is. not a “jurisdictional requirement, but must be the subject of an affirmative defense.” AS-H-NE Farms, Inc., 6 ALRB No. 9, at 16 (1980) (emphasis added). Affirmative defenses are waived if not asserted. See id.; George Arakelian Farms, 8 ALRB No.36,at 8-9 (1982) (‘Wefindthat Respondent’s failure to raise the statutory limitation embodied in section 1160.2 constituted a waiver of the defense,”); Chicago Roll Forming Corp., 167 N.L.R.B. 961, 971, 66 L.R.R.M. 1228 (1967) (“. .. the proviso to Section 10(b) of the Act is a statute of limitations, and is not jurisdictional. It is an affirmative defense, and if not timely raised, is waived.”); Shumate v. NLRB, 452 F.2d717 (4th Cir. 1971). The affirmative defense may be raised in the context of an adjudicative process, where the merits of the defense, as well as whether it was timely asserted, may be tested. The UFWwould have been required to raise the defense, and, regardless ofthe merits of that defense (which are none), hadit failedto do so, it would have waived it. The Regional Director's summary adjudication on statute of limitations grounds is a clear error of law, because it deprives Gerawan ofthe opportunity to challenge the merits of the defense. See Wagner v. Fawcett Publ’ns, 307 F.2d 409, 412 (7th Cir. 1962) (district court “had no right to apply thestatute of limitations sua sponte”). The Regional Director does not, and cannot, answer the two critical questions at issue where the defense is raised: First, when did the statute begin to run? Second, what facts. would bar the assertion of the defense, or toll the running of the time period? The answers to these questions tum onfact-intensive inquiries, including whether the claimant had actual or constructivenotice of the violation. These are part ofthe adjudicative process, and are subject to a hearing, an opportunity to examine witnesses, for the purpose of allowing the Board to make these determinations in the first instance, Montebello Rose Co. v. ALRB, 119 Cal. App. 3d 1, 30 (1981). There was no such notice; to the contrary, the undisputed evidence demonstrated the Union's inability or unwillingness to represent the workers; not a secretly-harbored intent to maintain that exclusivity, while doing nothing to bargain for the better part of 20 years. As in Montebello, the first i) “notice” of bad faith conduct was whenthe Union returned and demanded negotiations in October 2012. Until that time, Gerawan was given no basis by the Unionto suspect that it had the intention, willingness, or ability to representits workers. To the contrary, the Union failed to respond to Gerawan's requests for a more detailed proposal. The evidence presented (and not disputed) leads to the conclusion that Gerawan was not aware of the UFW's “first manifestation of bad faith” until October, 2012, and could not have had actual or constructive notice of the claim until receipt of the October 2012 letter. Montebello, 119 Cal. App. 3d at 10. The Unionis free to attempt to assert a statute of limitations defense; it can offer evidence as to when Gerawan was on notice of the Union’s failure to bargain. It can attempt to explain its dilatory conduct, or even to excuse it. Gerawan is entitled to argue that such defenses are untimely, waived, or otherwise barred bystatute and equitable principles, including laches and unclean hands. It is not, however, appropriate, for the Regional Director to make these detenninations. B. “Continuing Violations” Extend, and do not Bar, the Limitations Period under Section 1160.2 After reaching the erroneous conclusion that he may adjudicate the affirmative defense on statute oflimitations grounds, the Regional Director then misapplied the law bystating that the Board. does not “recognize continuing violations” as a means of extending the limitations period of ALRA Section 1160.2. The erroris three-fold. First, the bad faith bargaining occurred duringthe six-month period. Second, a continuing violation is a basis to extend the limitations period for an unfair labor practice claim; it is not grounds to extinguish a claim. Third, evidence of bad faith bargaining which predates the six-month period is relevant conduct, for purposes of assessing the violation which occurred within the Section 1160.2period. The Board has long recognized that continuing violations extend the six-month limitations period under Section 1160.2. AS-H-NE,cited by the Regional Director, explicitly holds that “surface bargaining is a continuing violation,” and therefore that the hmitations term of Section. 1160.2 did not operate to bar the cause ofaction. AS-H-NEat 22, fh. 2. The Regional Director recognizes that theUFW’s violationis continuing, but fails to follows the Board’s own precedenton such violations. The failure to bargain by theUFW for years is more extreme than the surface bargaining discussed in 4S-H-NE — there was no effort, superficial or otherwise, to negotiate. The Board has previously explained that because a request to bargain is “continuing, if is not necessary to rely solely upen conduct occurring more than six monthsprior to thefiling ofthe charge to establish an unfair laborpractice.” Ron Nunn Farms, 6 ALRB No.41, at3 (1980) (emphasis added)(citing Sewanee Caal Operators Ass’n., 167 N.L.R.B. No. 12, 66 L.R.RM. 2 (1967), aff'd in relevant part, 423 F.2d 169 (1967); see also Valdora Produce Co., 10ALRB No. 3, at 3 (1984) (moting that Section 1160.2’s limitations period affects the remedy, not the “cause of action,” which “survives due to the continuing natureof the violation”). These Board decisions follow the dictates of the Supreme Court, whichhas instructed that where occurrences within the limitations period “in and of themselves...constitute, as a substantive matter, unfair labor practices,” a charge is continuing in nature andwill not be time-barred. Local Ledge No. 1424 v. NLRB, 362 U.S. 411, 416 (1960). Such an occurrence took place here. Onor about July 21, 1992, the UFW sent Gerawana letter requesting negotiations. Gerawan responded on August 13, 1992, “formally accept{ing] [the UFW’s] offer to commence collective bargaining negotiations, and express[ing] [its] desire to meet and 6 negotiate.” The UFWdid not provide aninitialCBA proposal until November 22, 1994, nwo years later, and in February 1995, held one brief, introductory meeting with Gerawan. The Union made no attempt to initiate any further negotiations concerning a collective bargaining agreement until October 42, 2012, whenit senta letter to Gerawan requesting negotiations. This October 12 letter was within the six months before Gerawan filed its ULP charge on January 18, 2013. The absence of bargaining in the months prior to the transmittal of thatletter is the unfair labor practice charged; the absence of any communication in the preceding 17 years is furtherevidence of a continuing violation, and highly relevant to the lack of good faith, or improper motive, in the effort toinitiate bargaining. The letter did not become an “unfair labor practice only through reliance on an earlier prior unfair labor practice,” thoughprior conduct wouldbe highly probative. Local Lodge No. 1424, 362 U.S. at 417. Theletter is the unfair labor practice, when viewedin light ofthe preceding period of abandonment. Because the UFW’sviolation wascontinuing,and because the October 12 letter constituted an event that was, in ofitself, an unfair labor practice, the Regional Director erred in considering the charge time-barred. See Local Lodge No. 1424 v. NLRB, 362 U.S.at.416; Ron Nunn Farms, 6 ALRB No. 41, at 3. Moreover, the Regional Director should have considered the Union’s 17 years of evasive and dilatory conductas relevant evidence of the “true character” not only of the October 12 letter, but of the three months from July to October 12, within the six month limitations period, during which the UFW’s failed to bargain despite Gerawan’s ongoing requestto negotiate dating backto 1992. See Ron Nunn Farms, 6 ALRB No. 41, at 3. This failure to bargain was also in bad faith andconstituted an unfair labor practice. Gerawan respectfully requests the Regional Director’s dismissal of the charge be reversed by the General Counsel for the reasons stated and that a complaint be issued. Weappreciate your attention to these matters. Sincerely, BARSAMIAN & MOODY A Professional Corporation. } ‘onald H. Barsamian 26 27 28 PROOF OFSERVICE i| (Code of Civil Procedure §1013(a) and 2015.5) I, Krista K. Osha, declare as follows: I am and wasat the time of service hereafter mentioned, over the age of eighteen (18) years of age andnot a party to the above-entitled matter. My business address is 1141 W. Shaw, Suite 104, Fresno, CA 93711. On May 28, 2013, I served the following documents: Letter Requesting Review — Case No. 201 3-CL-001-VIS Ke depositing a ‘copy(ies) of each documentwith the United Parcel Service, Overnight Mail, City of Fresno, County of Fresno, State of California, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and addressed to: ‘See Below | 1 By Hand Delivering such document(s) to be delivered by hand to the offices of the person(s} listed below. oO By Facsimile Transmission. I transmitted such document(s) by facsunile machine to the facsimile numberlisted below. & By United States Postal Service, Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid and addressed to: I declare under penalty of perjury, according to the laws of the State of | Califormia, that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on May 28, 2013 at Fresno, California. i i H — 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 || Sylvia Torres-Guillen(original + 2 copies) General Counsel Agricultural Labor Relations Board 1325 J Street, Suite 1900 Sacramento, CA95814 Mario Martinez Legal Department || United Farm Workers ofAmerica 1227 California Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93304 || Silas M. Shawver || Acting Regional Director Agricultural Labor Relations Board 1642 W. Walnut Avenue Visalia, CA 93277-5348 NOV-01-2013 11:05 AG LABOR RELATIONS BRD 916 663 8750 P,001/006 oc 2 N G2 OD PP & N Y No & y w N Y NS g t S 8 8 R E F E R S E R E E A E R E R E E S GOURT PAPER GTAYE OF CALIFORNIA STO. 119 (REV, 8-72) 8% 34789 _ STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD GERAWAN FARMING,INC., ) Case Nos. 2013-RD-003-VIS ) Employer, ) ) and ) ) ORDER VACATING REGIONAL SILVIA LOPEZ, ) DIRECTOR’S DISMISSAL OF ) PETITION FOR Petitioner, ) DECERTIFICATION ) ] and j Admin. Order No. 2013-46) UNITED FARM WORKERS OF } AMERICA, ) ) ) Certified Bargaining Representative. On October 25, 2013, Petitioner Silvia Lopez (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Decertification ofthe United Farm Workers of America (the “UFW”) as the certified bargaining representative ofthe agricultural employees ofthe employer, Gerawan Farming, Inc. (“Gerawan”),! On October 28, 2013, the Regional Director dismissed the Petition as untimely based upon his conclusion that the decision ofthe Agricultural Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) in a Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation (“MMC”) case between the UFW and Gerawan (Case No. 2013-MMC- ' This is the second decertification petition filed by Ms. Lopez. Thefirst, 2013- RD-002-VIS, was dismissed for an inadequate showing ofinterest in a dismissalletter. Though unclear how manysignatures would have constituted an adequate showing of interest, we declined to review the Regional Director’s determination in accordance with Cal. Code ofRegs., tit.8, section 20300(1)(5). NOV-01-2013 11:05 AG LABOR RELATIONS BRD 916 653 8750 P.002/006 o 9 N GF a Ph we N e 8 ww Mw BM DM w e m m Re o e e o S e & F R F F EF R E S C R E R E R H E E CQ@URT PAPER STATE OF CALIFORNIA STD. 113 (rev, 6-72) BE 34768 003) resulted in a “contract bar” that precluded the holding ofan election. The Board subsequently vacated the Regional Director’s dismissal on the grounds that the issue of whether the terms ofthe mediator’s report were to be effectuated was currently before the Board.” (Gerawan Farming, Inc. Admin. Order 2013- 44,) The Board instructed -the Regional Director to continueto investigate the decertification petition to determine whether a bona-fide question concerning representation existed. On October 31, 2013, the Regional Director issued a letter conceming the decertification petition indicating that, although he had concludedthat Petitioner had met the statutory requirements for holding an election, the election should be blocked based on the pendencyofthree unfair labor practice complaints. (Case Nos. 2013-CE- 010-VIS (complaint issued May 17, 2013), 2013-CE-027-VIS (complaint issued August 15, 2013; first amended complaint issued October 25, 2013) and 2012-CE-04]. VIS,et al. (consolidated complaint issued October 30, 2013). The Complaint in Case No. 2013-CE-010-VISalleges that Gerawan proposed andinsisted on excluding farm labor contractor (“FLC”) employees from the bargaining unit in negotiations with the UFW. The Board does not view these allegations, standing alone, as being sufficient to warrant blocking the petition, as their effect on free choice, if any, would be dependent on the establishment ofsurrounding facts and circumstances. The complaint in Case No. 2013-CE-027-VIS contains * The Board ultimately determined that the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (the “ALRA”) precluded immediate effectuation of the termsofthe mediator’s report because Gerawan had challenged themin its petition for review. (Gerawan Farming, dne., Admin. Order 2013-45.) NOV-01-2013 11:06 AG LABOR RELATIONS BRD 316 653 8750 P.003/006 o O o ? 4 DD © hk we NY Pp ~ OQ NW b e e t w e S o 8 Rk R S R S < E R S E R R B R e S COURT PAPER STATS OF CALIFORNIA STR. 113 (REV, o-72) aS 20769 Serious allegations of employer interference in a decertification petition along with other unlawful conduct. The Regional Director’s letter, however, fails to mention the degree to which remedial efforts by the General Counsel and agreed upon by Employer, which were allegedly represented by the General Counsel to the Fresno Superior Court in injunctive reliefproceedings as having remedied someofthe allcged unfair labor practice charges, in fact did so. With respect to the consolidated complaint in 2012-CE-041-VIS et al., the complaint is based upon a series of charges pertaining to conduct alleged to have occurred as early as November 2012. Thelatest ofthe charges was filed in July 2013 and pertains to conduct alleged to have occurred in June 2013. Despite no complaint having previously been issued on any ofthese charges, the Regional Director issued a consolidated complaint on October 30, 2013 and cited the complaint as a basis to block the petition the next day. The Board’s blocking policy generally contemplates blocking an election based on a complaint that has already been issued, not one issued in the midst ofthe investigation ofan election petition. (Cattle Valley Farms (1982) 8 ALRB No. 24.) It may be entirely proper to rely on such a late-filed complaint to block an election under the appropriate circumstances such as where the allegationsrelate directly to the validity ofthe clection petition itself. However, under the present circumstances, notably that the charges on which the consolidated complaint was based were up to ten monthsold, the issuance of a complaint so close in timeto the election leaves us with Serious doubts as to the propricty ofusing that complaint to block the election. The NOV-O01-2013 11:06 AG LABOR RELATIONS BRD 916 653 8750 P.004/006 COURT PAPER o e N O P H O f h O w N M o e © 10 Ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1g 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 STATR OF CALIPORNIA Sto, 113 (REV, 6.723 & ge7e9 Board noted in its Cattle Valley Farms decision that “{s}tale or eleventh-hour charges which may subsequently be the basis for a complaint will not be permitted to delay or block a scheduled election.” (Cattle Valley Farms, supra, 8 ALRB No. 24 p. 3.) While the Board referred in that decision to charges, and not complaints, the rationale underlying the twosituations ofavoiding last-minute tactics to delay the holding of an election is the same. Atthis point, and underthe unique circumstances presented in this case, | there are enough questions regarding the degree to which any taint has been remedied, as well as questions as to the appropriateness ofrelying on the late-filed complaint to block the election, to justify holding the election, impounding the ballots, and resolving these issues through election objections andlitigation ofthe complaints. PLEASE TAKE NOTICEthat pursuantto the authority over election matters vested in the Boarditself under Labor Codesection 1142, subdivision (b), the Board hereby VACATESthe Regional Director’s October 31, 2013 decision to block the above-captioned petition for decertification. The Board hereby orders that the election be held on Tuesday, November5, 2013 and the ballots be impounded pending / / By SRECOT, ORNS o “ NOV-01-2013 11:07 AG LABOR RELATIONS BRD 916 653 9750 P.005/006 o 8 WN fm fF Rh ww MD PB 10 li 12 13 14 15 COURT PAPER 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 5) 24 25 26 27 SYaTy op CALIFORNIA STD, 313 (REV. 8-72) BS 34700 resolution ofany election objections andrelated unfair labor practice complaints.? No further dismissals shall be filed by the Regional Director, Dated; November 1, 2013 GENEVIEVE A. SHIROMA,Chair CATHRYN RIVERA-HERNANDEZ, Member HERBERT O. MASON, Member 3 Although the Regional Director’s decision to block the petition necessarily results in the election being held outside the sevenday time period specified in Labor Code section 1156.3 subdivision (a), the holding ofan election outside ofthe statutory period does not invalidate the election. (Radovichv. Agricultural Labor Relations Board (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 36.) USARieeeceoaea S R N . . NOV-01-2013 11:07 Gerawan Farming, Inc. 2013-RD-003-VIS AG LABOR RELATIONS 8RD 916 653 8750 P.006006 STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ' PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL (1013a, 2015.5 C.CP.) I am a citizen ofthe United States and a resident ofthe County of Sacramento. Tam over the age ofeighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action. Mybusiness address is; 1325 J Street, Suite 1900-B, Sacramento, California 95814. On November 1, 2013, I served the within ORDER VACATING REGIONAL DIRECTOR’S DISMISSAL OF PETITION FOR DECERTIFICATION(ADMIN. ORDER NO.2013-46) on parties in said action by fax and by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Sacramento, California addressed as follows: FAX & CERTIFIED MAIL David A. Schwarz IRELL & MANELLA LLP 1800 Avenue ofthe Stars, Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA, 90067-4276 Fax: (310) 203-7199 Ronald H. Barsamian BARSAMIAN & MOODY 114] West Shaw Avenue, Suite 104 Fresno, CA 93711 Fax: (559) 248-2370 . Mario Martinez/Thomas P. Lynch UFWLegal Dept. 1227 California Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93304 Fax: (661) 324-8103 Paul J, Bauer Tracy E. Blair WALTER & WILHELMLAW GROUP A Professional Corporation 205 E. River Park Circle, Suite 410 Fresno, CA 93720 - Fax: (559) 435-9868 FAX & CERTIFIED MAIL (CONT.) Anthony Raimondo MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP 5 River Park Place East Fresno, CA 93720 Fax: (559) 433-2300 AND DELIVERED Sylvia Torres-Guillén General Counsel Agricultural Labor Relations Board 1325 J Street, Suite 1900 Sacramento, CA 95814 REGULARMAIL & FAX Silas Shawver ALRB Visalia Regional Office 1642 W. Walnut Ave. Visalia, CA 93277-5348 Fax: (559) 627-0985 Executed on November 1, 2013, at Sacramento, California. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, ths Q Leslie Soule TOTAL P.006 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER DATE:11/27/2013 TIME: 09:00:00 AM DEPT: 53 JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING:David Brown CLERK: E. Brown REPORTER/ERM: BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: CASE NO:34-2013-00153803-CL-MC-GDS CASEINIT.DATE:;11/21/2013 CASE TITLE: United Farm Workers of America vs. Gerawan Farming,Inc. CASE CATEGORY:Civil - Limited EVENTTYPE:Motion - Other - Civil Law and Motion APPEARANCES Nature of Proceeding: Ruling onSubmitted Matter (Disposition of Ex Parte Application) taken undersubmission on 11/25/2013 Plaintiff, UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA (UFW), makes its ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and immediate enforcement of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (Board) decision of November 19, 2013, found in 39 ALRB No. 17. (FN1) Specifically, Plaintiff UFW requests that “pending a hearing on a preliminary injunction, the Court restrain and enjoin Gerawan Farming, Inc., its agents, assigns, partners, employees, and anyindividual or entity acting in concert with it or on its behalf fram refusing to abide by and refusing to implement the Collective Bargaining Agreementaffirmed by the ALRBin its decision in In re Gerawan Farming, Inc. and UFW 9203) 39 ALRBNo. 17, and incorporated decisions.Plaintiff further requests that the Gourt issue an order to show cause...why a preliminary injunction should not issue restraining and enjoining Defendant in the same mannerfor the remainderof this litigation." (Application, pg. 1, Il) 14-24) lit seeking ex parte relief, UFW asserts that the Labor Code (§1164.3(f)) provides that after the Board issues a final order adopting a collective bargaining agreement, a party may enforce the orderbyfiling an action in the Sacramento Superior Court, as UFW has done here. UFW further asserts thatit is undisputed the Board issued a final order and that Gerawan Farming (GF) “is refusing to abide the order." (MPA, pg. 2, |. 9) UFW’'s papers concede that any review of the Board's final order must be soughtin the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, under §1164.5(a). However, UFW argues that to date there has been no such review sought. The further assert any appellate filing would not automatically stay the ALRB’s order. Lab. Code § 1164.3(f). UFW claims that the appellant would need to make a showing to justify a stay. Lab. Code § 1164.3(f). In the absence of any attempt to seek review and any granting of a stay, UFW requests this Court to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting GF from refusing to abide by the Board's final order. UFW asserts "Otherwise, the UFW and the workerswill suffer irreparable harm from precisely the automatic stay that the Legislature declined to enact.” (MPA,p:2,ll. 18-23) The Court shall address whatthe parties contend are the relevant statutes. The Court beginsits analysis with Lab. Code § 1164.3(f}, which reads: "Within 60 daysafter the order of the board takes effect, either DATE: 11/27/2013 MINUTE CRDER Page 1 DEPT: 53 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: United Farm Workers of America vs. CASE NO: 34-2013-00153803-CL-MC-GDS Gerawan Farming,Inc. party or the board mayfile an action to enforce the order of the board, in the superior court for the County of Sacramento or in the county whereeither party's principal place of business is located. No final order of the board shall be stayed during any appeal under this section, unless the court finds that (1) the appellant will be ineparably harmed by the implementation of the board's order, and (2) the appellant has demonstrated a likelinood of success on appeal." § 1164.5(a) provides, in pertinentpart: "Within 30 days after the order of the board takes effect, a party may petition for a writ of review in the court of appeal or the California Supreme Court. If the writ issues, it shall be madereturnable at a time and place specified by court order and shall direct the board to certify its record in the case to the court within the time specified. The petition for review shall be servedpersonally upon the executive director of the board and the nonappealing party personally or by service.” § 1164.5(b) provides: "(b) The review by the court shall not extend further than to determine, on the basis of the entire record, whether any of the following occurred: (1) The board acted without, or in excessof, its powersorjurisdiction. (2) The board has not proceeded in the mannerrequired by law, (3) The order or decision of the board was procured by fraud or was an abuse ofdiscretion. {4) The order or decision of the board violates any right of the petitioner under the Constitution of the United States or the Califomia Constitution." § 1164.9 provides: "No court of thisstate, except the court of appeal or the Supreme Court, to the extent specified in this article, shall havejurisdiction to review, reverse, correct, or annul any order or decision of the board to suspend or delay the execution of operation thereof, or to enjoin, restrain, or interfere with the board in the performanceofits official duties, as provided by law and the rules of court." UFW argues, in part, that the statutory language compels the result. they seek. They assert the Legislature's deliberate creation of a narrow framework for review of the Mediator's report by the Board, and of the Board's decision by reviewing courts, demonstrates a desire to provide farm workers with the benefit of a collective bargaining agreement. Moreover, the Legislature's addition of language providing that no final order of the Board shall be stayed on appeal unless the appellant showsirreparable harm and a likelihood of success on appeal shows an explicit intent to provide a collective bargaining agreement to agricultural workers without delay. They also contend that such language regarding the granting of stays is critical given that in. absence of such language, anappeal would stay the Board's final order, See ALRB v. Superior Court (1983). 149 Cal. App. 3d 709, 713 (citing Code of Civil procedure section 916, the court held that an employer's appeal of an injunction issued againstit at the request of the ALRB was stayed pending appeal). Given the Legislature's elimination of "automatic stays” upon thefiling of an appeal in this area, the Legislature. must have intended to provide: | farm. workers with the immediate benefits of a bargaining agreement arrived at through the MMC process. They also claim that injunctive relief should be granted under the Court's equitable powers, compelling enforcement of the order. Of course, mandatory injunctions pending trial are rarely granted, and are permitted only "except in extreme cases where the right thereto is clearly established and it appears thatirreparable injury will flow from its refusal.” (Board of Supervisors v. McMahon (1990) 219 ‘Cal.App.3d 286, 295, quoting Hagen v. Beth (1897) 118 Cal. 330, 331.) In opposition to UFW's position, GF asserts that the controlling statutes provides no enforcement mechanism for the final order to be. complied with because there is, as of yet, no judgment. It is also asserted that the Court lacksjurisdiction to afford the relief requested by the UFW,and,finally, that there is no emergency‘to justify ex parte relief. GF asserts that there is no basis in Jaw or equity to grant an order to show cause, "let alone a mandatory injunction, to compel specific performance of a collective bargaining agreement {"CBA")that is neither self-enforcing nor reduced to judgment, as required before enforcement may be sought." (Opp. p. 1, Il. 2-5) GF arques that the ALRB has repeatedly held that DATE: 11/27/2013 , MINUTE ORDER Page 2 DEPT: 53 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: United Farm Workers of America vs. CASE NO: 34-2013-00153803-CL-MC-GDS Gerawan Farming,Inc. enforcementof the orderat issue is not permitted at this time. GF asserts it will now challenge the ALRB Decision. and order in the Court of Appeal, “as the statutory scheme provides.” (Opp.p. 2, Il 1-2), GF notes that It has, under the relevant statute (§ 1164.5(a)], 30 days to file a petition for a writ of review. GF argues that until the Boards decision has been affirmed on appeal, or the time for appellate review has lapsed and no petition for review has beenfiled, "there is no legal avenue through which the Board may seek to enforce its decision, " Citing to Ace Tomato Co and UFW, (2012) 38 ALRB No.8, atp.7. In Ace, following a Board Decision affirming the mediator’s report, the UFW filed a request for agency action to enforce the anti-stay provision in the MMC Law,alleging that Ace had failed to implement the CBA as ordered, and requesting that the Board go to court to enforceits decision (under Lab. Code § 1164.3(f), either party or the Board mayfile an action to enforce the Order of the Board). Immediately thereafter, the Board issued an Administrative Order requesting that Ace provide. a response to the UFW's. request for enforcement. Ace provided a response indicating thatit intended to file a petition for review in the Court of Appeal of the Board's decision affirming the mediator, but did not indicate whether it had implemented the agreement. Shortly thereafter, the Board issued another Administrative Order, ordering Aceto state whetherit had in fact implemented the CBA. The Board notedin the order that the CBA was effective and remainedin effect "without regard to whether Ace files a petition for writ of review pursuant to ALRA section 1164.5." (Ace, supra, at p. 3). The decision further noted "Moreover, the agreement would continue to be in effect for the duration of the review process unless the Court of Appeal grants a stay under the narrow provisions of ALRA section 1164.3(f).” (id. at p. 3) Ace admitted that it had not implemented the contract pending its planned appeal of the Board's decision. The issue presented in Ace falls squarely within the issue presented in the instant application. Although there is no state appellate. authority squarely on point, the Court considers the-Ace decision, with appropriate deference to the primacy of the ALRB's role in this area. In Ace, the UFW argued that the Board could seek immediate enforcementof its decision under ALRA 1164.3(f). For all intents and purposes, UFW seeks precisely the same relief in the instant proceeding. In finding 1164.3(f) "inapplicable", the ALRB addressed the meaning of section 1164.3(f). It concluded that 1164.3(f) establishes procedures. for reducing a Board decision to a judgment where no appellate court review has been sought. Further, the ALRB noted that "The Board cannot seek to enforce its decision at this time [after the Decision of the Board and before appellate court review has been sought] under section 1164.3, subdivision (f), for an additional reason...That section by its terms provides the Board [or either of the parties} with authority to seek enforcement of its decisions in MMC cases. As in unfair Jabor practice proceedings, the Board's decisions are not self-enforcing. Rather, in order to enforce its decisions, the Board mustfirst obtain a judgment.” Id. at pp. 4-5. The Ace decision goes on to note that that can occur in two ways. First, an order of an appellate court affirming the Board's decision constitutes a judgment [CCP §680.230]; second, where a Board order becomes final because the time for appellate review has passed, the Board must then get a court order reducing the Board's decision to a judgment. Significantly, the Ace decision notes “[ajt this time, the Board's decision has neither been affirmed by a reviewing court nor has the time for review lapsed. Consequently, there is no legal mechanism through which the Board can seek to enforce its decision atthis time.” Id. at p. 5. Yet, this is precisely what UFW seeks to do by way of the instant ex parte proceeding. The Court is persuaded by the analysis of the ALRB in Ace, whenit states: "However, in order to force Ace to comply with the Board's decision under threat of contempt, the court would be acting in a manner equivalent to enforcement, and that would require a judgmentthat...cannot be obtained while the time for appellate review of the Board's decision has not yet lapsed.” Id. at pp. 5-6. Further, by so doing, the Court would be acting in a manner inconsistent with section 1164.9. By acting in the manner proposed by UFW, the Court would compel enforcement of the ‘CBA,even before GFfiled its request for appellate review. Certainlyit is well established that legislative intent should be gathered from the whole act rather than from isolated parts. or words. People v. Allen, (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 91. Courts should thus construe all provisions of a statute together, (Turner v. Board of Trustees (1976) 16 Cal. 3d 818) significance being given when possible to each word, phrase, sentence, and part of the act in pursuanceofthe legislative purpose. Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal. 4th 1106. The meaning of a DATE:11/27/2013 MINUTE ORDER Page 3 DEPT: 53 CalendarNo. CASETITLE: United Farm Workers of America vs. CASE NO: 34-2013-00153803-CL-MC-GDS Gerawan Farming, Inc. statute may not be determined from a single word or sentence. Tonya M. v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 836. Its words must be construed in context, (/d.) keeping in mind the nature and obvious purposeof the statute where they appear (People v. Cottle (2005) 39 Cal. 4th 246) so as to make sense of the entire statutory scheme. Grafton Partners L.P. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 944). Moreover, when interpreting statutes, the court begins with the plain, commonsense meaning of the language used by the Legislature; if the language is unambiguous,the plain meaning controls. Surfrider Foundation v. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, (2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th 557; Polster v. Sacramento County Office of Education, (2009) 180 Cal. App. 4th 649, 663. However, where a statute's terms are unclear or ambiguous, the. Court may look to a variety of extrinsic aids, including the ostensible objects to be achieved, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, contemporaneous administrative construction, and the statutory scheme of which the statuteis a part. (in re M.M, (2012) 54 Cal.4th 530, 536). It is fundamental that legislation should be construed so as to harmonizeits various elements without doing violence to its language or spirit. Wherever possible, potentially conflicting provisions should be reconciled in order to carry out the overriding legislative purpose as gleaned from a reading of the entire act. (See People ex rel. Younger v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 30, 40.) A construction which makes sense of an apparent inconsistency is to be preferred to one whichrenders statutory language useless or meaningless. (See Estate of McDill (1975) 14 Cal.3d 831, 837.) As in any case involving statutory interpretation, the Court's. fundamental task is to determine the Legislature's intent so as to effectuate the law's purpose. (/n-.re C.H. (2011) 53 Cal.4th 94, 100.) Here the Court is persuaded that the rationale, as expressed in Ace, is the correct one, and governs the instant proceeding. There is thus no legal mechanism by which UFW mayseek to enforce the CBA atthis time. The Ace decision makes clear that what the UFW sought in that case and now seeksin the instant caseis the "immediate implementation of the agreement so that the employees are assured of being paid [under the terms of the CBAJ,” and that this "is actually more in the nature of temporary relief, i.e., a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction." id. at p. 7. Of note,this is addressed as well, the Ace. Decision noting "Unfortunately, there are no provisions of the ALRA governing the MMC process that permit the Board to seek temporary relief during the pendencyofthe 30-day period for seeking appellate review.” Id. Footnote 5 of the Ace Decision notes that the ALRB found no authority establishing that the Board could seek temporary relief under the general provisions for injunctions in the CCP,citing to section 525 et.seq. The Court finds the reasoning in the Ace decision persuasive and relevant to the analysis here. The application is DENIED. FN 1, The ALRB Decision and order states, in pertinent part, “Pursuant to Labor Code section 1164.3, subdivision (dc), the mediator's second report shall take immediate effect as a final order of the Board. The findings and conclusions of the Board set forth in Gerawan Farming, Inc, (2013) 39 ALRB No.5, Gerawan Farming, Ine. {013} 39. ALRB No. W,Gerawan Farming, Inc. (2013) 39 ALRB No. 13, and Gerawan Farming, Inc. (2013) 39 ALRB No. 16 are incorporated herein by reference. Those orders, together with the Order herein, shall constitute the final order of the Board subject to review pursuantto Labor Code section 1164.5 ." Gerawan Farming.Inc. (2013) 39: ALRB No. 16, pp. 2-3. DATE: 11/27/2013 MINUTE ORDER Page 4 DEPT: 53 Calendar No. “o cn gg re y t CASE TITLE: United Farm Workers of America vs. CASE NO: 34-2013-00153803-CL-MC-GDSGerawan Farming,Inc. Declaration of Mailing | hereby certify that | am not a party to the within action andthat | deposited a copy of this documentinsealed envelopes with first class postage prepaid, addressed to each party or the attomeyof record inthe U.S. Mail at 720 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California. Dated: November 27, 2013 E. Brown, Deputy Clerk s/ E, Brown DAVID P MASTAGNI MASTAGNI, HOLSTEDT, AMICK, MILLER & JOHNSEN 1912 1 STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95811 MARIO MARTINEZ ATTORNEYATLAW 1227 CALIFORNIA AVE BAKERSFIELD, CA 93304 DAVID. SCHWARZ IRELL & MANELLA LLP 1800. AVENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE 900 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-4276 RONALD H BARSAMIAN BARSAMIAN & MOODY 1141 WEST SHAW,SUITE 104 FRESNO, CA 93711 DATE: 11/27/2013 MINUTE ORDER Page 5 DEPT: 53 Calendar No. a SUP RIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA * COUNTY OF FRESNO FOR COURT USE ONLY Civil Department - Non-Limited 4430 “O’ Street . Fresno, CA 93724-0002 (859)457--1900° TITLE OF CASE: State ofCalif vs Gerawan Farming. CASE NUMBER:CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 44CECG00987 JH Nameand addressof person served: Paul J. Bauer oo ne - ‘Walter & Wilhelm Law Group 205 E River Prk Circle Ste 410 Fresno, CA 93729-8902 CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING . | certify that am not a party to this causeand that a true copy of the 06/02/2014 Minute Order and copy of Order After Hearing was mailedfirst class, postagefully prepaid, in a sealed envelope addressed.as shown below, and that the notice was mailed at Fresno, California, on: Vn Deputy M. Santana Date:June 2,2014 a Clerk by Anthony P. Raimondo, McCormick Barstow, 7647 N FresnoStreet, FresnoLon Paul J. Bauer, Walter & Wilhelm Law Group, 205 ERiverPrk Circle Ste 410, Fresno CA 93729-8902 Vivian V. Paz, 5505 E. Mt. Whitney, Laton CA 93242 David A. Schwarz, Irell & Manella LLP, 1800 Ave. of the Stars,Ste 900, Los Angeles ¢CA 90067-4276 Mario Martinez, 1227 California Avenue, Bakerstiold CA 93304 BGN-06 R09-00 . '. CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA « COUNTY OF FRESNO Entered by: Civil Department - Non-Limited TITLE OF CASE: State of Calif vsGerawan Farming Case Number: _LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER 14CECG00987 JH - Hearing Date: 06/02/2014 a : Hearing Type: From Chambers Department: 402 Judge/Temporary Judge: Jeffrey Y. Hamilton Court Clerk: M.Santana Reporter/Tape: Not Reported Appearing Parties: , , | Plaintiff: Not Present oo ; Defendant: Not Present Counsel: . Counsel: X| The matter previously taken under advisement, the Court now rules: The Court denies the requestfor a temporaryrestraining order. See attached copy of Order After Hearing signed and issued. [| Continued to [| Set for at Dept. for ( Submitted on points and authorities with/without argument. . [| Matter is argued and submitted. Oo Uponfiling of points and authorities. [| Motionis granted [| in part and denied in part. [J Motion is denied [| with/without prejudice. [__] Taken under advisement [_] Demurrer -[_] overruled [_] sustained with daysto ] answer ] amend Ey Tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. No further orderis necessary. [| ‘Pursuantto CRC 391(a) and CCP section 1019.5(a), no further order is necessary. The minute order adopting the tentative ruling serves as the order ofthe court. -[X] Service bytheclerk will constitute noticeofthe order. _[_] Time for amendmentof the complaint runsfrom the datethe clerk serves the minute order. [J] Judgment debtor a sworn and examined. [__] Judgmentdebtor | failed to appear. Bench warrantissued in the amountof $ Judgment: ; [] Money damages [_] Default [—] Other entered in the amountof: Principal $ interest $ Costs $ Attorney fees $ Total $ [|] Claim of exemption [_] granted [—] denied. Court orders withholdings modified to $ _ per Further, court orders: . ["_] Moniesheld bylevyingofficer tobe [__] released to judgment creditor. [_] returned to judgment debtor. []$ ___ to be releasedto judgmentcreditor and balancereturned tojudgmentdebtor. [_] Levying Officer, County of _. . , Notified. [__] Writ to issue [_] Notice to befiled within 15 days. _» [_] Restitution of Premises [_] Other: BCV-14 E11-01Mandetory Form LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER — _ FILE PH 2 JUN 2 2844 3 FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIORCoyRT 4 omDEBEAG? 5 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO 9 CENTRALDIVISION 44 State of CA (ALRB}, ) No. 14CECG00987 12 || Plaintiff, ) ORDER AFTER HEARING 13 Hy, ~ Hearing Date: May27, 201414 | } Dept. 402 15 | Gerawan Farming,Inc., Judge: Honorable Jeffrey Y. Hamilton 16 | Defendani. ! 17 18 The following matter cameon calendarbefore this court on May 27, 2014 for 19 a.further hearing onplaintiff's ex parte application for a temporary restraining order 20 || compelling defendant's implementation of a collective bargaining agreement 21 |, After review of the pleadings filed in conjunction with these motions, andall 22 other pleadingsin the file, and considering all oral argument made atthe hearing, 23 |Ithe courttook the matters under submission. The court now takes the matters out 24 || from under submission and orders asfollows: | 25 The State of California Agricultural Labor Relations Board bringsthis action 26 |l under the provisions of Labor Code § 1160.4(b)(2). Mandatory injunctions are 27 authorized in appropriate circumstances under Labor Code § 1160.4. (Agricultural 28swt’ or eneeno Labor Relations Board vy, Laflin &Laftin (I 979) 87 Cal.App.3d 651, 670.) However, 1 ‘the purpose of § 1160.4 is not to enforce“remedial” or “compensatory” ALRB orders pendingfinality. (Ibid.) Similarly, proposed orders which have “nothing to do with temporarily maintaining a status quo”are likewise unenforceable. (Ibid.) In ALRB v. Tex-Cal (“Tex-Cal"} | 1987) 43 Cal.3d 696, the California Supreme Court held that ALRB orders are final, not interlocutory, and “ordinary”for 703, 707-708.) Accordingly, the appellate stay provisions applied to both §§ 1160.4 and 1160.8: . 2 3 4 5 6 purposes of the appellate-stay provisions of the Code ofCivil Procedure. (Id. at, 8 9 Finally, as in the case of section 1160.4, the ALRA's purposes are not 04 unduly frustrated by applying normal appellate-stay rules to superior court enforcement orders under section 1160.8. Prohibitory portions of 4 an order are not automatically stayed pending appeal, and if42 affirmative injunctive relief is necessary to preserve the status quo . pending appeal, an Emeryville stay, supra, 69 Cal.2d 533, 72 Cal.Rpir.130 790, 446 P.2d 790, can be obtained from the reviewing court. We conclude that a superior court enforcement order under section14 1160.8 is subject to the appellate-stay provisions governed by part 2 of15. || ‘the Code ofCivil Procedure. : 16 || Id. at 708-709. 17 | Ace Tomato Companyv.United Farm Workers of America (2012) 38 ALRB 18 || No. 8, bridges theschism betweenthe prohibition of an ongoing unfair labor | 19 practice under § 1160 et seq., and the mandatory. mediation and conciliation 20 provisionsof 1164 et seq. In Ace Tomato, the ALRB denied enforcement under 21 §1164.3 reasoning that an orderis unenforceable until, “the Board's decision has 22 {either been affirmed by areviewing court [or]the time for review lapsed.” (Ace 23 Tomato, pg. 5.) However, Ace also addedthat temporary relief could be 24 || pursued by the General Counsel under § 1 160.4 because the UFW hadfiled a 25 || charge of an unfair labor practice. — . 26 __ Inthe present case, the General Counselfollowed the directive of Ace 27 Tomato and soughtinterim orders requiring Gerawan to comply with the new 28 || CBAon January 31, 2014. (2014-CE-003-VIS, see Dec. of Silas Shawver, Exhibit 1NTY OF FRESNO ‘Fresno, CA 14-00987 CA v GERAWANorder.docx -2- w o k - © O N T DO H W B ® w o ND filed on April 9, 2014.) This is apparently a § 1160.4 charge. (See Points & Auth. in support of TRO, filedon April 9, 2014.) The ALRB hasyetto issue an order based on these charges. | . Without an ALRB orderre 201 4-CE-003-VIS, the present case is procedurally distinct from the “normal appellate stay rules" addressed in Tex-Cal, Supra, 43 Cal.3d at 708-709. ) Thus, the matteris not stayed and whether injunctive reliefis appropriate turns ona finding of “just and proper.” Laflin and Tex Cal are both instructiveiin that they define “just and proper” as preserving, rather than upsetting, the status quo. Here, however, requiring Gerawanto implementthe CBAis a blatant departurefrom the existing status quo of no operative CBA. In particular, the CBA would invoke a long term bar to an employeeelection. Such an election, however,is, at this point, a clear objective of numerous Gerawan employees. Additionally, the evidence presented at both hearings described the UFW’s lengthy absence from Gerawan as well as the disputed mediation procedure giving rise to the CBA now under review bythe Fifth District Court of Appeals. . The Court denies the request fora temporaryyestraining order. | | DATED wise of June, 2013 ieee A le Jeffrey Y. Hamilto fe igSore 0 Superior Court 14-00987 CA v GERAWAN order.docx STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD GERAWANFARMING,INC., Employer, and SILVIA LOPEZ, Petitioner, and UNITED FARM WORKERSOF AMERICA, Certified Bargaining Representative. GERAWANFARMING,INC., Respondent, and UNITED FARM WORKERSOF AMERICA, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ChargingParty. ) ) ) ) Case No. 2013-RD-003-VIS (39 ALRB No.20) 2012-CE-041-VIS 2012-CE-042-VIS 2012-CE-046-VIS 2012-CE-047-VIS 2013-CE-007-VIS 2013-CE-009-VIS 2013-CE-025-VIS 2013-CE-027-VIS 2013-CE-030-VIS 2013-CE-038-VIS 2013-CE-039-VIS 2013-CE-041-VIS 2013-CE-042-VIS 2013-CE-043-VIS 2013-CE-044-VIS 2013-CE-045-VIS 2013-CE-055-VIS 2013-CE-058-VIS 2013-CE-060-VIS 2013-CE-062-VIS 2013-CE-063-VIS DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE fee Appearances: For the General Counsel: Sylvia Torres-Guillen Silas M. Shawver Arcelia L. Hurtado Teresa J. Bichsel John G. Cohen 1642 W. Walnut Avenue Visalia, CA 93277 Telephone: (559) 627-0995 AHurtado(@ALRB.ca.gov For Gerawan Farming, Inc.: Ronald H. Barsamian Patrick S. Moody Michael P. Mallery Natalie M. Packer David A. Schwarz 1141 W. Shaw Avenue, Suite # 104 Fresno, CA 93711 Telephone: (559) 248-2360 RonBarsamian‘@aol.com For United Farm Workers of America: EdgarI. Aguilasocho Mario G. Martinez Mary L. Mecartney Brenda Rizo P.O. Box 11208 Bakersfield, CA 93389 EAguilasocho@FarmWorkerLaw.com For Silvia Lopez: Anthony P. Raimondo Gerardo V. Hernandez Jasmine Shams Paul J. Bauer MichaelJ. Fletcher Tracy E. Blair 7080 N. Marks Avenue, Suite # 117 Fresno, CA 93711 APR@RaimondoAssociates.com This matter was heard by Mark R. Soble, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), State of California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (“ALRB”), at the State of California Building, 2550 Mariposa Mall, Fresno, California 93610, andat the Radisson and Doubletree Hotels in downtown Fresno, on one hundred and five (105) hearing days starting on September 29, 2014, and ending on March 12, 2015.! ISSUE(S) The overall question in this matter is whether the employer, Gerawan Farming,Inc. (“Gerawan”), committed unfair labor practices or other objectionable conduct with respect to the decertification election that was held on November5, 2013. The scope ofthis hearing wasstrictly limited by the Board’s Administrative Order No. 2014-27, dated September 19, 2014. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Jurisdiction, Procedural History and Background 1. Juridiction Gerawan admits that, at all relevant times, it was an employer within the meaning of California Labor Code section 1140.4, subdivision (c). (Respondent’s Answer to Amended Consolidated Complaint, dated September 15, 2014) Atall relevant times, the UFW wasa labororganization as defined by California Labor Code section 1140.4, subdivision (f).’ ' There are 105 volumes totaling 20,248 pages of hearingtranscripts. ? At the prehearing conference call on Tuesday afternoon, September9, 2014, Gerawan admitted to the general labor organizationstatus of the UFW,but did not (Footnote continued. ...) 2. Procedural History The General Counsel filed its Amended Consolidated Complaint, dated September 9, 2014, and, on or about September 15, 2014, the Respondentfiledits answer to the Amended Consolidated Complaint. On October 25, 2013, petitioner Silvia Lopezfiled a petition for decertification.? On October 28, 2013 and October 31, 2013, respectively, the Visalia ALRB Regional Directorfirst dismissed the petition and then blocked the election, based on theories of a pending bargaining agreement and pendencyofunfair labor practice complaints. On October 28, 2013, and November 1, 2013, the Board issued Orders vacating these Regional Director decisions and ordering that the election go forward. A decertification election was held on November5, 2013. The ballots were impoundedso thereis presently no available tally of ballots. The United Farm Workers of America (“UFW”), Gerawan andpetitioner Lopezall filed election objections. On December 19, 2013, the Board set some of (Footnote continued) admit that the UFrepresented its workers during June 2013 to November 2013. (Prehearing Conference Order, dated September 10, 2014, at pagethree, lines eight to ten.) > On September 18, 2013, petitioner Silvia Lopez filed a petition for decertification, along with a supplementalfiling on September 23, 2013. On September 25, 2013, the Visalia ALRB Regional Director dismissed this petition for decertification. Given that there wasless than five weeks between the time when the first petition was filed and October 25, 2013, which was whenthe second petition was filed, any companyaiding orassisting of the September 2013 petition, if found, might have the same impact on workers’ free choice asif it was connectedto the October 25, 2013 petition. these election objections for hearing. (39 ALRB No. 20) After taking overten months to complete its investigation, on September 9, 2014, the General Counsel filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint.* On September 15, 2015, Gerawan filed an Answerto the Amended Consolidated Complaint. On September 19, 2015, the Boardissued an administrative order to sever the amended, consolidated complaint andto expedite hearing of portions of the matter. (Administrative Order No. 2014- 27, dated September 19, 2014) Prehearing conferences were held on this matter on Wednesday afternoon, August 20, 2014, Tuesday afternoon, September9, 2014, Thursday afternoon, September 11, 2015, and Monday morning, September 22, 2014,with the last of those dates occurring in person in Fresno in the presence ofa court reporter. Prehearing conference orders were issued on multiple dates, including August 21, 2014, September 10, 2014, September 12, 2014, September 23, 2014°, and * Witnesses typically have their best recollection prior to extensive passage of time. Aside from the ALJ’s general concern overthe length ofthe investigation, the ALJalsofelt that the General Counsel’s specific timing of the amended consolidated complaint, e.g., September 9, 2014, less than three weeks before the long-established hearing date of September 29, 2014, had the general feel of trial by ambush. Under those circumstances, the General Counselitself should have simultaneously offered to stipulate to continue the hearing for an additionalbrief interval of time, subject to the approval of the Board and/or Executive Secretary, rather leaving the other parties with the unpalatable choice of seeking a short continuance and beingfalsely perceived as the party causing a delay in the proceedingsor otherwise scrambling in just a few days to review the twenty-eight pages amended consolidated complaint andprepare their theory of the case for the prehearing conferencecalls. > In this Prehearing Conference Order, due to the seasonal nature of agricultural employment, the ALJ offered special accommodations by which the UFW, Gerawan and Petition could call a limited number of witnesses out of the usual order. The ALJ (Footnote continued....) September 25, 2014°. Following a joint request for an extension from all of the parties, paper copies of the post-hearing briefs in this matter were physically received at the ALRB on Tuesday, May 26, 2015. 3. Background Gerawan is the largest tree fruit grower in California both in terms of number of employees and in terms of the amountoffruit that it grows. (62 RT 59:3-6) Gerawan’s “West side ranches”are in the Kerman area and Gerawan’s “East side ranches”are in the Reedley/Sanger area. (Exhibits SCGX-1, SGCX-2, and GCX-94) (Footnote continued) also expressed his significant concern about the Visalia ALRB Regional Director providing photocopies of confidential petition signatures to a third party that had been retained as a potential testifying expert witnesses. The ALJ struck the proposed testifying expert witness not only because her name wasnot timely submitted, but also because disclosing confidential petition signaturesto the parties, so that they could effectively cross-examinethetestifying expert, would completely undermine worker confidence in the confidentiality of petition signatures. The ALJ believes that as a generalrule it is inappropriate for the Regional Director to show the confidential petition signatures to a third party absent an Order from the Board or a Court. Thisis especially true in the instant hearing where the evidence of support required by California Labor Code section 20390, subdivision (c) was not at issue in this matter. ° In this prehearing conference order, the ALJ granted in part, and rejected in part, a UFW motion in limine to exclude evidence in support of Gerawan’s “abandonment” defense. The ALJ followed the Board’s reasoning in Gerawan Farming, (2013) 39 ALRB No.5,at pages three and four, whichrejected the proposed abandonment defense. The ALJ therefore excluded evidencefor the purposesoftrying to establish the truth of whether or not the UFW becameinactive at Gerawan Farming or not. Any statements in the briefs as to the alleged inactivity of the UFW are simply not supported by the record becausenone ofthe parties were given the opportunity to introduce evidencein that regard. Rather, the ALJ solely allowed workers to testify whether or not they felt abandoned by the UFW,using the concept of abandonmentin a lay person or colloquial sense, rather than as a legal conclusion. Generally, the ALJ limited counsel to inquiring during the time period ofthree or four years prior to the election when inquiring with witnesses as to when theyfirst heard about union issues. S R R o m i t te * S O R O S Gerawan harvests peaches, nectarines, plums, apricots, table grapes and wine grapes. (62 RT 23:19-24”, and 74 RT 125:1-7 and 92 RT 10:1-22) Nectarines are typically harvested from mid-Mayto early September. (62 RT 24:9-21) Peachesare typically harvested from early May to early October. (62 RT 24:7-17) Ona busy day during the peach harvest, Gerawan will have between thirty and fifty-five crews outin the fields. (62 RT 27:19-22, 77 RT 37:5-20, and 92 RT 47:20-24) Approximately five to fifteen of those crews would be farm labor contractor (“FLC”) crews. (92 RT 48:6-8) Most crews have between twenty and fifty workers. (62 RT 27:23-25) The workers use ladders to pick the peaches. GCX-16 is comprised oftwo photographsofthese ladders. (Exhibit GCX-16°) The fruit is then put in buckets andthe buckets are then put ontrailers moved by small tractors. Stone fruit is packed in packing houses and table grapes are packedin the fields. (62 RT 9:19-10:11) Theharvesting of grapes typically begins approximatelyat the time when the harvesting of peaches is completed, resulting in table grapestypically being harvested from early Octoberuntil late November. (62 RT 24:22-25:9) During the ” Court Reporter’s Transcript, volume sixty-two, at page 23, lines 19-24,is abbreviated as 62 RT 23:19-24. * The official exhibit numbers are the numbers on the white label attached by the ALJ to the exhibit. These numbersare the same as the numbers on the ALJ’s exhibit list. Pursuantto past direction, the ALJ assigned exhibit numbersin the order that the exhibits were identified at the hearing. Many of the General Counsel’s exhibits were pre-marked with a different number. harvesting of table grapes, most workers are paid piece rate regardless of whether they are doing picking or packing. (74 RT 163:2-6) In 2013, Gerawan was a memberof the California Grape and Tree Fruit League(the “Fruit League”), which is now knownasthe California Fresh Fruit Association. (62 RT 50:21-51:1) At that juncture, Gerawan has been a member of the Fruit League for approximately fouror five years. (62 RT 53:23-54:1) In 2013, Gerawan made $20,000 to $30,000 in paymentsto the Fruit League, including $15,000 in membership fees and dues, another $5,000 to $15,000 for export programs, and possibly some amountof moneyto the Grape league’s political action committee. (62 RT 52:1-53:4) Gerawan vice president George Nickolich serves on the Fruit League’s Board of Directors. 62 RT 51:2-7) Dan Gerawan has known Barry Bedwell since he becamepresident of the Fruit League, which was about a decade ago. (62 RT 54:14-17) Starting in December 2012, Dan Gerawan began talking to Bedwell almost daily. (62 RT 55:14-19) 4. Company Supervisors Gerawan doesnotdispute that the following individuals meet the standard of “supervisor” as defined by California Labor Code section 1140.4, subdivision (j): i. Owners andofficers Ray Gerawan, Star Gerawan, Dan Gerawan (witness # 94), and Mike Gerawan (witness # 117). (62 RT 8:19-23); il. Field managers Nick Boos, Jose (“Lolo”) Pizano, Antonio Franco, Steve Boos and Doug Zweigle. (62 RT 21:7-17, 77 RT 33:10-34:3 and 77 RT 36:8-14) Antonio Franco managesthe trees on the West side. Nick Boos manages the vines on the West side. (77 RT 20:6-10) Jose “Lolo” Pizano manages the trees on the East side. (77 RT 19:23-20:2) ili. Field supervisors Juan Aeal, Jose Becerra, Phil Braun, Jose Camargo, Guadalupe (“Lupe”) Elizondo, Jesus Elizondo, Rafael Gomez, Pedro Gonzales, Angie Guzman, Tony Martinez, Jorge Mendoza, Mario Montes (witness # 53), Mario Navarro, Roy Rhyne, Pedro Rosas and Lucio Torres (witness # 126). (77 RT 31:23-32:23 and 77 RT 35:1-16) iv. All crew bosses or foreman,and assistant crew bosses during the times when the assistant crew bossdirected a portion ofthe crew in a different physical location than the crew boss wassituated. An example of this would be when the crew boss directs workers packing grapes at edge ofthefields, and the assistant crew boss directs members ofthat crew picking grapes withinthefields. The record is replete with examples that Gerawan crew bosses have almost unfettered discretion whenit comesto hiring, assigning tasks, and enforcement of attendance andtardiness policies. Crew bosses are authorized to request discipline. (74 RT 143:6-7) V. Human resources and office managers: Jose Erevia (witness # 99), Oscar Garcia Bonilla (witness # 116), and Tatiana Projkovska (witness # 124), Erevia’s formaltitle is Employee Outreach and Regulatory Compliance Manager. (74 RT 105:11-13) In 2013, Garcia was Gerawan’s Human Resource Director. (91 RT 8:19-21) Notwithstanding their formal jobtitles, it was Erevia and not Garcia whohad primaryresponsibility for human resources matters involving field employees. (91 RT 11:2-7) In 2013, Projkovsha served as Gerawan’s office manager. (100 RT 8:17-20) B. In 2012, Gerawan Began Distributing Mailings and Flyers to Its Workforce That Described the UFW Unfavorably Following elections on May 9, 1990, and May15, 1990, the Boardcertified the UF W asthe bargainingrepresentative for Gerawan agricultural workers. (Ray and Star Gerawanet al. (1992) 18 ALRB No. 5)’ In October 2012, the UFW sent a letter to Gerawan seeking negotiations on behalf of the company’s agricultural workers. (62 RT 56:18-22, 62 RT 83:25-84:2 and 67 RT 62:21-24) Starting the next month, November 2012, Gerawan began distributing a series of hard-hitting mailers and flyers to workers that described the UFW unfavorably.'° The materials were typically provided in both Spanish and English. Thefirst of these mailers!’ was distributed on November 13, 2012 to approximately five thousand employees. (Exhibits J-1, page 1, and GCX-2) This mailer was signed by Ray, Mike and Dan Gerawan, on companyletterhead, and ? During the hearing, Respondent’s counsel stated that the companyis not raising a defense based upon the nameofthe entity chargedin the General Counsel’s amended consolidated complaint. (62 RT 48:6-49:14) '° In addition to hiring multiple law firms, Gerawan hired multiple media consultants andpolitical consultants to deliver their internal and external messages, including the Labor Relations Institute, Farm Employer Labor Service, and Kathy Eide. & 5 "! The words mailer and flyer will be used interchangeably. If you review exhibit J-1, pages oneto three, the column on the far details the method ofdistribution for each mailer. Exhibit J-1 is a joint exhibit to which all of the parties stipulated and which the ALJ admitted as evidence. 10 stated “As your employer, we did not want[to give your personal information to the UFW,] but we have nocontrol overthis.” The next mailer was distributed on November 22, 2012 to approximately five thousand employees. (Exhibits J-1, page 1, and GCX-3) This mailer was on companyletterhead and was in a question and answer format. The mailerstates that the workers will probably have to give someoftheir earnings to the UFW asthisis generally required by UFW contracts. The mailerstates that the UFW maytry to mislead workers into thinking that the companywill pay the dues,butitis actually the workers who must pay the union. The mailer states that the company does not wantthis to happen,butthat it is not the company’s decision to make. The mailer gives multiple telephone numbers if a worker wants to contact the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (“ALRB”), as well as telephone numbersfor the local State Assemblyman andState Senator. The third mailer in November 2012 wasdistributed on November 30, 2012 to approximately five thousand employees. (Exhibits J-1, page 1, and GCX-4) This mailer was on companyletterhead and wasin a question and answer format. The mailer states in bold font: “There is no vote planned.” Clearly, the company is trying to put the conceptofan election in the mindsofthe recipients. The mailer gives the telephone numberfor the ALRB,saying “If you want to know whythereis no vote planned, you can call the ALRB . . . and have them explain howelections are scheduled and conducted.” The mailer states that UFW contracts generally require workers to give someoftheir money to the UFW in the form of dues or fees. The 1] mailer adds, “Theunion maytell you that the company will pay the money,but in fact the money is paid by you.” The mailer states that Ray, Mike and Dan Gerawan do not wantthis to happen. On December 10, 2012, Gerawan distributed a two-page flyer to approximately five thousand employees. (Exhibits J-1, page 2, and GCX-6) This flyer asserts that except for one meeting twenty years ago, the UFW had not contact the company. Theflyer again emphasizes the UFW contracts generally require the workers to give someoftheir money to the UFW in the form of duesor fees. The flyer notes that “The answeris no, Ray, Mike and Dan do not wantthis to happen.” Theflyer talks aboutthe fact that “there is no vote planned”and that the ALRB is the appropriate agency to contact if you want to know whythere is no vote planned. On December 21, 2012, Gerawan distributed a one-page flyer with the company logo to approximately five thousand employees. (J-1, page 2, and GCX-9) This flyer states that the owners have always beenwilling to negotiate, but the union went away twenty years ago. The flyer points the workers to the ALRB if they have any questions, and provides the ALRB’s telephone number. | On February 22, 2013, Gerawandistributed a one-pageflyer with the company logoto approximately five thousand employees.” (Exhibits J-1, page 2, and GCX-7) Theflyer purportedly attaches a copy ofa lawsuit filed by Gerawan against the UFW. Theflyer states that the UFW has told workers that money will be " Theflyer mistakenly shows the date of February 22, 2012,but the parties havestipulated thatit was actually distributed on February 22, 2013. 12 taken from their paychecks. Theflyer also states that the UFW is trying to limit company communications with workers. Finally, the flyer attacks the employment status and tenure of the workerrepresentatives in attendance. Theflyer encourages workersto call the ALRB toseeifthey can help. On March 20, 2013, Gerawan distributed a one-page flyer with the company logo to approximately five thousand employees. (Exhibits J-1, page 2, and GCX-5) This flyer states the companyis givinga fifty cents hourly pay raise. The flyer states that the pay raise decision was made by Ray, Mike and Dan,justlike always, and that they trust that the union will not delay their decision. The flyer is very clearly trying to emphasize that the decision was madesolely by the company owners and that the UF'W presence and negotiations deserve no credit for the payraise. On March 23, 2013, Gerawan distributed a one-page flyer with the company logo to approximately five thousand employees. (J-1, page 2, and GCX-8) This flyer alleges that Gerawan workers make more moneythan workersat ther companies in the industry. The flyer gives Jose Erevia’s name, telephone number and email address. Just eight daysafter sending the March 20, 2013 mailer, which announced a fifty cents hourly pay raise, the company sent another mailing on March 28, 2013 stating that the pay increase would be for a full dollar, from $9.00 to $10.00 (rather than $9.50 as stated on March 20, 2013). This one-page flyer with the company logo states that it is from Ray, Mike and Dan Gerawan. The mailer wassent to 13 approximately five thousand employees. (Exhibits J-1, page 3, and GCX-10) The flyer gives Jose Erevia’s name, telephone number and email address. The next day, on March 29, 2013, Gerawansent another mailer, also announcing the one dollar pay raise in a one-pageflyer format, with the company logo, and stating thatit is from Ray, Mike and Dan Gerawan. (Exhibits J-1, page 3, and GCX-11) The flyer gives Jose Erevia’s name, telephone number and email address. On April 26, 2013, the company distributed a mailer to approximatelyfive thousand employeesstating that the “union will require you to pay them 3% of your wages.” The maileralso stated that “The union wantsusto fire you if you don’t give them some of your moneyfor dues.” This mailer included the company logo, a telephone number for Ray, Mike and Dan Gerawan,and a telephone number and email address for Jose Erevia. (Exhibits J-1, page 3, and GCX-12) C. In March 2013, Gerawan ManagerJose Erevia Invited WorkerCarlos Uribe Estrada to a Negotiation Session In March 2013, company manager Jose Erevia invited worker Carlos Uribe Estrada, witness # 80, to attend oneofthe negotiation sessions. (51 RT 127:11- 130:3 and 76 RT 144:9-145:9) Note that Uribe uses the word “invite” (51 RT 128:15-20), but Erevia does not. In an answerto a single question, Erevia denied four separate times that he had invited Uribe to the negotiations, but also conceded that he gave Uribe information aboutthe location, date and time ofthe negotiation session. (76 RT 144:13-145:9) I credited Uribe’s testimony on that subject. That 14 same month, worker Carlos Uribe Estrada left work early to attend a negotiation session.'* (51 RT 126:3-10 and GCX-71) While Uribe wasnot the petitioner in this matter, he did later participate as oneofthe signature gatherers. (51 RT 18:11-14) Butthere wasno evidence suggesting that Uribe encouraged Silvia Lopez to begin the decertification effort. D. Multiple Factors Exist Suggesting the Need to Evaluate Whether or Not Silvia Lopez Made an IndependentDecision to Becomethe Decertification Petitioner Thereare four factors that require a discussion of why Silvia Enedina Lopez, witness # 79, became the decertification petitioner. The first factor is that her boyfriend was a Gerawan supervisor. The second factoris that while Silvia Lopez did not work for Gerawan during 2010, 2011, 2012 or during the first half of 2013, she decided that she would becomethe decertification petitioner prior to when she began work at Gerawanon orslightly after June 25, 2013. (46 RT 65:4-9) Thethird factor is that Silvia Lopez worked very few hours for the company during July 2013 through November 2013. The fourth factor is that shortly after Silvia Lopez began the decertification drive, two of her daughters were hired by the company. (47 RT 19:14-21) '° In contrast, when the UFW requested the companyallow three or four workers to leave early to attend a negotiation session, the request was denied. (Exhibit GCX-18 and 24 RT 107:18-109:24) 15 I findthat, at all times during 2013, Silvia Lopez had a boyfriend named Mario Montez, who waswitness # 53. During mostorall of the time during 2009 through 2013, Ms. Lopez and Mr. Montez lived in the same house. (46 RT 33:10- 14, 46 RT 28:11-13, 52 RT 188:5-8 and 53 RT 10:6-9) At all times in 2013, Mr. Montez wasa supervisor at Gerawan. (46 RT 33:25-34:2) There was notestimony at hearing to show that Mr. Montezever discussed the union with Silvia Lopez.” In fact, the opposite was true. The testimony by Silvia Lopez and Mario Montez was stilted and rigid, and collectively suggested that the pair never discussed work topics with each other. In fact, Lopez denied telling Montez that she was going to seek a position at Gerawan in 2013. I foundthat testimony to be unpersuasive.'> But the fact that Lopez and Montez probably had conversations about what was taking place is not the sameestablishing that Supervisor Montez encouraged Lopez to become the decertification petitioner. It is undisputed that Silvia Lopez did not work at Gerawan during 2009-2012 andthe first half of 2013. (46 RT 21:11-22:14) On June 11, 2013, Silvia Lopez traveled to attempt to attend a mediation session between Gerawan and the UFW in Modesto, along with her son-in-law, Angel Lopez, who was witness # 98. (46 RT * Silvia Lopez testified that she doesnotrecall discussing the UFwith Montez at any time during 2010 to 2013. (53 RT 14:2-16) Silvia even deniestelling Montez whenher daughter wasarrested at an anti-UFW protest. (52 RT 14:18-20) ' Aswill be discussedlaterin this decision, I discredited most of Silvia Lopez’s testimony. Silvia Lopez conceded that she lied during her interview with Regional Director Silas Shawver. (52 RT 27:10-33:12, 52 RT 82:2-85:19, 52 RT 113:22-114:12 and 52 RT 115:10-13) 16 65:10-13) Silvia states that her son-in-law told her that the UFW wastreating the workers like animals and would be taking someoftheir wages away. (46 RT 67:20- 68:2) This date of the mediation session was several weeks before Silvia Lopez started working at Gerawan in 2013.'° (46 RT 1 16:8-10) Silvia testified that she attended because Angel did not wantto drive all the way there himself. (46 RT 66:22-67:2) Silvia’s daughter, Lucerita, who was Angel’s wife, also came along even thoughshe did not work at Gerawan. (46 RT 116:11-17) Also traveling with Silvia, Angel and Lucerita was Gerawan worker Felix Hernandez Eligio, who was witness # 82. (46 RT 118:12-119:8) It was at this mediation that Silvia Lopez met attorney Paul Bauerforthefirst time. Silvia states that on the date of the mediation session, she decided that she was goingto take on the lead role ofopposing the union. (46 RT 135:11-17) Prior to starting with Gerawan in July 2013, Lopeztried selling Herbalife products on a commissionbasis. Lopez claimed that one ofher reasonsto going to work for Gerawan wasthat her physical health precluded her from regular work and Gerawan’srelaxed attendancepolicies would accommodateher condition. (53 RT 58:14-59:7) I did not find this testimony persuasive. The daily routine of the "© In fact, Silvia did not ask a foreman about working at Gerawan in 2013 until the first day when she started work, which occurred several weeksafter she traveled to Modesto for the mediation session. (47 RT 6:4-6) 17 agricultural worker workingin the fruit trees is physically demanding work, much more physically demanding than sales or retail work. Lopez concededthat she did not work very muchin thefields during June 25, 2013 and November5, 2013. (53 RT 29:12-18) In fact, for the ten week period from August 12, 2013 to October 20, 2013, Lopez only workedonly eight-three hours!’, or an average of 8.3 hours per week. (Exhibit GCX-67) In contrast, during that same time period, some other workers were working as muchasfifty-five hours in a week. (Exhibit GCX-67) After Silvia Lopez began collecting signatures, Gerawan hired Silvia’s daughters Belen Elsa Solano Lopez, who was witness # 91, and Lucerita’* Lopez. (46 RT 17:23-18:4, 47 RT 19:14-21 and 47 RT 23:14-24:15) Both of those daughters also helped collect signatures for the decertification effort. (47 RT 33:7- 20) After initially working as crew labor, Belen waslater hired by the companyas a grape-checker, despite having missed forty out offifty-four days. (61 RT 132:6- 133:19, 61 RT 172:13-18, Exhibit GCX-49 and Exhibit GCX-67) Infact, for the four week period from August 12, 2013 to September 15, 2013,her third through sixth weeks on the job, Belen only worked 38.75 hours, or an average of 9.7 hours per week, during a time period where some other workers were working 50-55 hours '” In fact, even this figure of eighty-three hours worked maybe inflated by including four hours of reporting time that the company acknowledges paying almost all of the workers onthe dayofa protest occurring on September 30, 2013. '8 Lucerita Lopez is also sometimesreferred to as “Lucero”. (50 RT 188:25- 189:7) 18 in a week. (Exhibit GCX-67) In fact, an analysis of Exhibit GCX-67 suggests a high correlation to dates when Silvia was absent and when Belen was absent. The mostplausible conclusionis that the absences for Silvia and Belen wererelated to the decertification effort rather than the two womensimultaneously having health issues. Moreover, the absence of two workers at the same time would seemingly impact the crew greater than the absenceof only one person. The General Counsel presented no credible evidence that Silvia Lopez or her daughters were ever paid for hours that they did not work, other than the four hours of reporting time noted in footnote # 16. The General Counsel also presented no evidence of“off-the-books” payments to Silvia Lopez or her family.’ E. Manyof the Key Decertification Leaders or Signature Gatherers Had Relatives Who Were Company Supervisors Manyofthe key decertification leaders or signature gatherers had immediate relatives or household members who were company supervisors or foreman. Mario Montez was a Gerawan supervisor. His girlfriend was Silvia Lopez thepetitioner. In 2013, at least some ofthe time, Silvia’s daughters, Belen Elsa Solano Lopez, who '? Almost two monthsafter the hearing started, the General Counsel issued a subpoena to Wells Fargo Bank for Silvia Lopez’s bank records. (Exhibit GCX-103) I did not give any weightto the business records declaration from Wells Fargo Bank whichstates that they were unable to find any accounts for Silvia Lopez. (Exhibit GCX-100) The General Counsel could have obtained account information from Silvia Lopez either during its investigation stage or even during their examination of Lopez at hearing. Between the limited information that the General Counsel gave Wells Fargo to work with, and the lack of a witness to describe the specific search parameters taken by the bank,I found that business records declaration to be unreliable. 19 was witness # 91, and Lucerita Lopez, lived in the same house as her mother Silvia and Mario Montes. Silvia’s son-in-law Angel Lopez also lived in that same house. Gisela Judith Castro Lopez, who was witness # 92, wasvery active in the decertification effort. Castro’s husband is Gerawan crew boss Bartolo Ortiz, who was witness # 101. Rolando Padilla, who was witness # 83, wasvery activein the decertification effort. Rolando’s brother is Gerawan crew boss Jesus Padilla. Martina Rojas Rodriguez, witness # 85, was an outspoken advocate of decertification. Martina’s father is Gerawan crew boss Candalario Rojas Gonzales, who waswitness # 123. Other workers likely recognized manyofthe decertification leaders and signature gatherersas relatives or household members of Gerawan supervisors and crew bosses. On the other hand, nepotism runs rampant at Gerawan. There was extensive testimony showing that the majority of the crew bosseshad relatives workingat the company and many of them supervised their own relatives. There was somecredible testimonythat at least a few crew bosses generally favored family memberson all aspects of employment. If relatives of crew bosses are treated especially well that mightbe an alternative explanation as to why such workers were morelikely to actively oppose the union. F. The Decertification Proponents Seem Genuine in Their Animosity for the UFW and ALRB Regional Director A single persuasive witness may be morepersuasive than a multitude of less credible witnesses. That being said, the companydid not call a single non- 20 supervisory workersaspart of its case. The petitioner presented testimony from twenty-five non-supervisory workers plusherself. Six of the twenty-six witnesses are amongthose individuals that were either related to or lived with Gerawan supervisors orcrew bosses. Aswill be discussed later in this decision, I generally discredited much ofthe specific testimonyof several of the petitioner’s witnesses because those witnesses flat-out lied, and repeatedly, not only during General Counselinvestigative interviews, but also, best as I can tell, but then again at the administrative hearing, as to the nature and coordination ofthe earlier lies. Additionally, at the prehearing conference, the petitioner deliberately failed to disclose critical facts known to her which, when added to the otherlying, demonstrates a clear pattern of deliberate deception.” But while the concealmentat the prehearing conference and the untruthfulness during the investigative interviews and hearing testimony causes me to discredit muchofthe specifics of the testimony of certain witnesses, I also sensed ° In my Prehearing Conference Order, dated September 10, 2013, I found that the General Counselfailed to include enough detail in its theory of its case and ordered the General Counselto file a written brief to that end by nolater than September15, 2014. The ALRB regulations require all counselto outline their case in great detail. (ALRB Regulation section 20249, subdivision (c)(1).) While the other parties had limited time to see and analyze the General Counsel’s amended consolidated complaint, they still had ten monthsafter the election to prepare and summarize the facts known to their ownclients. For example,petitioner Silvia Lopez was well awareofthe factthat she wasinvolvedin blocking company work entrances on September30, 2013. Trial by ambushis not permitted andthe failure to fully disclose factual and/or legal theories of the case at the prehearing conference maybe an appropriate basis for adverse inferencesor sanctions. (ALRB Regulation section 20249, subdivision (d).) 21 a genuine and strong animosity from these same witnesses toward the UFW and ALRB Visalia Regional Director. In fact, the vast majority of petitioner’s witnesses seemedto have this anger and disdain toward both the union and the Regional Director. The decertification proponents felt that the Regional Director had cheated them and this encouraged them to redouble their efforts and, if needed, to break rules or lawsto achieve their end. Byitself, I do not find this dishonesty, or this zeal, to be indicia of companyinstigation. Even if the Regional Director had legitimate and highly persuasive bases to dismiss the first decertification petition, many of the decertification proponents may have been unaware orsincerely disbelieving of those reasons. This demonstrates the need for a Regional Directorto effectively communicate his or her basis for rejecting a petition, to the extent that it can be done without infringing upon workers’ confidence that petition signatures will be kept absolutely confidential. G. After Dan GerawanIntroduced Petitioner Silvia Lopez to Fruit League President Barry Bedwell, the Fruit League Proceeded to Serve as Financial Muscle for the Decertification Effort 1. Dan GerawanInvited Five or Six Decertification Advocates to meet him in Sacramento for a Lobbying Trip On August 14, 2013, Dan Gerawan invited five or six workers to go to Sacramento so that they, along with Dan, his wife Norma, and Fruit League President Barry Bedwell, could lobby Membersofthe State Legislature. (33 RT 40:5-7 and 62 RT 175:25-177:8) Barry Bedwell has been president of the Fruit League since July 22 2003. (33 RT 203:15-17) Bedwell admitted that the Fruit Leagueis “an association of agricultural employers”.”! (33 RT 290:9-12) Per Bedwell, Gerawanis one of the largest peach growersin the United States. (33 RT 217:18-22) Gerawan is also one of the largest growers amongthe Fruit League members. (33 RT 217:23-218:1) Bedwell knew that Dan Gerawan wasconcerned that the workers werenotgetting the right to vote. (33 RT 81:16-19 and 33 RT 82:8-11) Gerawan asked Jose Erevia to identify for him employees who would oppose Senate Bill 25, and within a day Erevia gave him oflist of prospects. (62 RT 177:6- 178:8) Dan Gerawan worked with Barry Bedwell and Fruit League lobbyist Louie Anthony Brown,Jr., who is with the law and lobbying firm of Kahn, Soares and Conway,to put togethera list of legislators to contact. (33 RT 38:4-8 and 62 RT 190:16-191:20) Dan Gerawan stated thatthe list of employees included Silvia Lopez, RolandoPadilla, Carlos Uribe Estrada, Jose de la Rosa, and Rosa Madrigal. (62 RT 194:13-195:3) Dan Gerawan could notrecall if a Rigoberto or an Andres was on the list. (62 RT 194:24-195:2) Carlos Uribe confirmed that he went along with Silvia Lopez, Rolando Padilla, Jose de la Rosa, plus an additional man and an additional woman. (51 RT 151:9-17) Gerawan called each of the workersfor the first time no more than twelve hours before the early morning departure time the next day, giving each of the workers the address for Fruit League lobbyist Louie Brown whowasa full *I Tn the past, the Fruit Leaguehas providedtraining to its members regarding “union avoidance”. (33 RT 237:10-25) 23 one hundred and eighty miles away in Sacramento. (62 RT 197:16-22 and 62 RT 204:5-10) When owner Dan Gerawan called Uribe on the telephone and invited him to go to Sacramento,this wasthefirst time that Gerawan had ever called Uribe. (51 RT 136:18-137:5) Gerawantold Uribe that it was important to speak with people in Sacramento about the problems with the union, and Uribe agreed to go. (51 RT 137:3- 9) Dan Gerawan gave Uribea list of namesto call. (51 RT 158:12-159:25) At Gerawan’s direction, they met at an office where the workers were provided with a free lunch. (51 RT 162:20-163:17) Uribe stated that the workers wentto tell the legislators that they wanted to have an election and getrid of the union. (51 RT 137:17-21, 51 RT 154:2-22 and 51 RT 166:10-14) Uribe said thatall of the workers expressed those sentiments to the legislators in the presence of Dan Gerawan. (51 RT 137:17-24 and 51 RT 154:2-22) During the six to seven hours of meetings with legislators and staffers in Sacramento, Dan Gerawan admitted hearing the workers raise the topic of wanting to vote. (62 RT 217:1-16, 62 RT 224:11-13 and 62 RT 227:12-13) Silvia Lopez admitted speaking out against the UFW while in Sacramento,telling Legislators that the UFW had abandoned Gerawan workers. (47 RT 73:2-10) Carlos Uribe Estradatestified that Barry Bedwell was there with Dan Gerawan and the workers for about half ofthis 24 time.” (62 RT 225:3-6) Bedwell does not speak Spanish. (33 RT 42:8-10) Thefirst time that Bedwell met with Silvia Lopez was whenshetraveled to Sacramento, at Dan Gerawan’s invitation, on August 14, 2013. (33 RT 254:12-21) Bedwell knew that Silvia Lopez filed a decertification petition on September 18, 2013. (33 RT 79:7-9) Bedwell also knew that Silvia Lopez was leaderofthe decertification effort. (33 RT 291:7-10) Other than Silvia Lopez, Bedwell was unable to nameany ofthe workers with whohe spent several hours. (33 RT 43:23-44:1) Bedwell did recall that the workers were unambiguousin their remarks that they wanted to get rid of the union and that they did not see value in its presence at Gerawan. (33 RT 48:4-14 and 33 RT 49:21-24) Dan Gerawan andthe workers had lunch at Fruit League lobbyist Louie Brown’soffice, apparently paid for by the Fruit Leagueor the lobbyist. (47 RT 80:13- 81:6, 51 RT 163:12-17 and 62 RT 226:16-24) Dan Gerawan madeit clear that he did not want to give up the namesofpeople who spoke duringtheir trip to Sacramento andthat it created a difficult situation for him. (62 RT 218:11-12 and 62 RT 221:4-5) Dan Gerawan even wentso far asto state on the recordthat he was reluctant to “snitch out” the workers in a proceeding which mightresult in their ballots being destroyed. (62 RT 244:20-23) Dan Gerawan explainedthat it was hard for him to candidly answer questions because hefelt that the purposeofthe hearing wasto destroy the workers’ ballots. (62 RT 218:4-6) Dan Gerawan repeatedly emphasized that he was worried that the information that he would *2 Onthat same day, the Fruit League provided “lunchboxes”, with fresh fruit in them, as gifts to the Membersofthe State Legislature. (33 RT 40:3-25) 25 give would be used to destroy the ballots. (62 RT 218:10-11 and 62 RT 220:20-221:2) If the UFW remains, Dan Gerawan is concernedthat his family will no longer be able to run the companyas a “meritocracy”. (62 RT 145:1-2) Worker Rolando Padilla went even further.”? Padilla denied that Dan Gerawan had called him. (65 RT 75:14-16) Rolando Padilla denied that Gerawan had invited Padilla to Sacramento. (65 RT 75:17-19) Ronald Padilla then becamevery defensive when he wasasked if he had met Dan Gerawan in Sacramento,first deflecting the question with a question of his own, but then denying having met Dan Gerawan in Sacramento. (65 RT 75:20-25) Padilla later said that he did travel to Sacramento with other workers, but that it was “totally false” that Gerawan wasthereatall. (65 RT 76:1-5) Then whenasked by the ALJ if he might have gone with Silvia Lopez, Carlos Uribe Estrada and Rosa Madrigal to Sacramento in mid-August 2013, Padilla responded that “he didn’t remember very well. (65 RT 117:9-17) Then, upon further examination, Padilla concededthat it was possible that he went and ran into Dan Gerawan and his wife while “walking down thestreet”. (65 RT 118:1-13) When asked if he attended a meeting in Sacramento where Dan Gerawan waspresent, Rolando Padilla continued to be evasive, stating that he couldn’t remember because he often travels with friends to Washington and Las Vegas. (65 RT 118:16-119:3) Padilla then concededthat he rememberedgoing into the Capitol, but that the onething he could say 3 Thefirst day that Rolando Padilla show upto testify he wore a t-shirt that said “Countour votes”. (65 RT 113:6-12) Padilla expressed his strong concern that Gerawan would go bankruptif there was a union present. (65 RT 113:22-114:9) 26 for sure is that Dan Gerawan wasnot present. (65 RT 119:8-17) Rolando Padilla was clearly lying throughouthis testimony. It was brutal.”4 2. After the Regional Director Dismissed the First Petition, The Fruit League Flexed Its Financial Muscle in Coordination with Petitioner Silvia Lopez Throughoutthe processofthe first decertification petition, Dan Gerawan provided Bedwell and Fruit League lobbyist Louie Brown with regular email updates, manyattaching documents. (33 RT 102:11-17 and 33 RT 103:6-8) Shortly after the Regional Director dismissed the first decertification petition, Bedwell called into the radio show of conservative talk show host Ray Appleton to express the League’s opposition to the dismissalofthe first petition and supporting the decertification effort by Silvia Lopez. (33 RT 114:6-19 and 33 RT 291:20-23) On that same day, Dan Gerawan sent an email to Bedwell thanking him for his performance on the radio show. (Exhibit GCX-34, bates # 0007273.) Dan Gerawan told Bedwell about the September 30, 2013 protest, sending information as well as attaching the companypress release issued that same day. (33 RT 118:1-11) Bedwell understood that decertification was the mainissue for the workers. (33 RT 76:6-9) Bedwell said the point of the October trip was for workers to expressthat ** Sufficeit to say, I did not find Rolando Padilla to be a credible witness. Padilla denied knowingthat any of his colleagues had blocked Gerawan entrances despite that his car also did so. (65 RT 122:18-123:11) Padilla also testified that while on the day of the work blockage his car blocked one of the entrances to the Gerawan property, it was purely inadvertent becausehis car just “suddenly died”in that particular spot, with no advancedifficulty to him. (65 RT 123:16-125:9) 27 they did not see value in being represented by the union. (33 RT 77:18-23) Bedwell knew that Gerawan could not legally pay for those expenditures. (33 RT 246:23- 247:247:6) Bedwell also admitted knowingthat there were legal provisionsrestricting the Fruit League’s involvementin decertification matters. (33 RT 290:13-291:3) On October 1, 2013, the day after the September 30° protest, Bedwell made his workcredit card(that is, the Fruit League’s credit card) available so that the workers could go to Sacramento on October 2, 2013. (33 RT 78:1-10, 33 RT 79:11-15 and 33 RT 118:23-119:5) Bedwell says that on October 1, 2013 he received a call Kent Steven at Sunview Vineyards asking him if the Fruit League could help the workers go to Sacramento. (33 RT 78:12-79:3) Even though Bedwell was in Washington, D.C.at the time, he was able within one or two hoursto get the Fruit League Executive Committee to authorize expenditures of up to twenty thousand dollars to support the decertification effort. (33 RT 122:8-22) Bedwell understood that the effort was trying to get the buses to go the very next day. (33 RT 131:4-19) Bedwell knew that it would be multiple buses and at least hundreds of workers who would be going. (33 RT 134:19-135:10 and 33 RT 161:24-162:2) That same day, Bedwell than called talk show host Ray Appleton and obtained contact information for attorney Joanna MacMillan, whorepresentedSilvia Lopez. (33 RT 123:1-16 and 33 RT 129:20-23) Also on the same day, Bedwell then spoke with attorney MacMillan, giving her his credit card number and authorizing herto useit. (33 RT 123:1-20, 33 RT 136:7-12, 33 RT 161:9-14 and 33 RT 245:20-23) Bedwell told McMillan that the Fruit League would payfor the workers transportation expenses, 28 including food for the workers, up to twenty thousand dollars. (33 RT 133:11-13 and 33 RT 136:13-24) Bedwell denies telling MacMillan that a Washington, D.C.political donor would be reimbursing them. (33 RT 288:17-289:1) Bedwell understood that MacMillan used the Fruit League credit card for charter bus expenditures of $6,366 to Classic Charter and $3,468 to Golden Eagle Charter, whichtotals $9,834. (33 RT 141:1-142:18 and Exhibit GCX-34) The Classic Charter invoice showsthat the reservation was confirmed on October 1, 2013, with a destination of the ALRB Offices at 1325 “J” Street, 19" Floor, Sacramento, California. (Exhibit GCX-30) The Classic Charter expenditure of $6,366 includes $750 for candy bars, chips, sodas and waters. (Exhibit # GCX-30) Bedwell also understoodthat MacMillan used the Fruit League credit card to buy food for the Gerawan workers, including $1,850 for Gordito Burrito and $1,664 for Juanito’s Mexican Restaurant, whichtotals $3,514. (33 RT 141:18-143:7 and Exhibit GCX-35) Thus, the Fruit League made expenditures totaling $13,348.00 in support of the decertification effort on October 2, 2013. The testimonyof three witnesses suggests that Gerawan had inquired about bus availability and prices immediately beforethis trip. Mary Louise Patterson, who is also known by her maiden nameofLouise Villagrana, and who waswitness # 56, has been the office managerat Classic Charter for the past fourteen years. (31 RT 265:5-7 and 31 RT 266:19-267:7) Louise rememberedthat Tatiana Projkovska, who was witness # 124, hadin the past booked buses for Gerawan,but not for law firm McCormick Barstow. (31 RT 283:1-285:23) UFW executive assistant Jeanette Christina 29 Mosqueda, who was witness # 55, recalled learning via email from Louise that, at the time in question, Tatiana from Gerawan had inquired about buses, but that McCormick Barstow had booked them. (31 RT 209:4-6 and 31 RT 211:16-25) Both Louise and Mosquedaidentified Exhibit GCX-28 asa true copyoftheir email exchange on Wednesday morning, October 2, 2013, which was the dayofthe trip. (31 RT 214:6-9, 31 RT 274:7-276:16 and 31 RT 277:11-24) In those emails, Louise told Mosquedathat Tatianacalled for a quote and then Classic Charter took 200 persons up to Sacramento for McCormick Barstow.”° (Exhibit GCX-28) Louise and Mosquedahave never metin person. (31 RT 269:11-14) Mosquedadid not contact the Golden Eagle bus company. (31 RT 243:24-244:7) I found both Mosqueda and Louise to be credible witnesses and fully credited their testimony. Projkovska was been employed with Gerawan since 2008 andservesastheir office manager. (100 RT 8:8-18 and 100 RT 48:22-49:2) Projkovska admitted that she contacted Classic Charter sometime between Monday, September 30, 2013 and Wednesday, October 2, 2013. (100 RT 30:11-22 and 100 RT 61:1-21) Projkovska also admitted that by the end of September 2013 the East side packingplant wasnot packing. (100 RT 56:12-19) Projkovska also admitted calling Golden Eagle about buses on or about Friday, September 27, 2013. (100 RT 30:23-31:8 and 100 RT 61:20- 25) On Wednesday, October 2, 2013, at around 5:15 a.m.or 5:30 a.m. in the morning, *> In a report to the Fruit League on October 15, 2013, Bedwell indicated that 300-400 employees were buses to Sacramentoto protest outside the ALRB offices and to meet with political leaders at the Capitol. (Exhibit GCX-40,bates # 0007259) 30 Projkovska learned that multiple buses were parked outside the company offices, but she did not take any action. (100 RT 32:16-33:9) Dan Gerawan indicated that he learned aboutthe buseslater that morning. (62 RT 253:12-21) Gerawan testified thatit sounded “right” that about four hundred workers went to Sacramento on the buses. (62 RT 255:2-7) On October 30, 2013, Bedwell sent an email to the Fruit League Executive Committee requesting approval of using Fruit Leaguediscretionary funds to support the decertification effort at Gerawan. (33 RT 149:1-15) Bedwell explainedthat the expendituresrelate directly to the union decertification effort of our member’s employees, and made reference to the second decertification petition filed on October 25, 2013. (33 RT 149:20-150:4 and Exhibit GCX-36, bates # 0007260) Bedwell requested approval for approximately $5,800 to $6,000 for up to two thousandt-shirts requested by Silvia Lopez with the “say no the union” message. (Exhibit GCX-36, bates # 0007260, 33 RT 155:20-25, 33 RT 250:12-21, and 55 RT 50:13-51:19) Specifically, the shirts said “No UFW”,inside a circle, with a slash overit. (52 RT 180:1-3) Silvia Lopez was the person who told Bedwell how muchthet-shirts would cost. (33 RT 157:4-20) There is an October 28, 2013 invoice from Gloria’s Sports in Madera for 1,178 t-shirts totaling $5,890.00. (See Exhibit GCX-38,bates # 0007241, 33 RT 185:14-19, and 55 RT 52:20-54:23) Bedwell’s nameis on the invoice. (See 31 Exhibit GCX-38”, bates # 0007241, and 33 RT 18612-187:15) The Fruit Leaguefiled show that the invoice was authorized for payment by Fruit League bookkeeper Vicky Jones on October 30, 2013. (See Exhibit GCX-38, bates # 0007241, and 33 RT 188:19- 22) On October 31, 2013, the Fruit League issued check # 8803 in the amount of $5,890.00 to Margarito Cano Moralesforthe t-shirts. (See Exhibit GCX-38,bates # 0007240, and 33 RT 156:15-18) As soon as Silvia Lopez received the t-shirts, she begandistributing them to her co-workers. (55 RT 54:24-55:2) In total, then, the Fruit League spent $19,238.00 to support the decertification proponents, including the $13,348 on October 2, 2013 and the $5,890.00 on October 31, 2013. These expenditures were clearly madeat the behest ofpetitioner Silvia Lopez, who bythis juncture had a bevy ofattorneys at her disposal.”’ The employer’s association, that is the Fruit League, was happy to serveas financial muscle for petitioner. Bedwell denied that the Fruit League received any money from outside sources to pay for the busesort-shirts. (33 RT 245:7-12) Bedwell claims that he does not know when Dan Gerawan becameawareofthe Fruit League paying for his workers to leave the work site to go to Sacramento andthat Dan neverdirectly talked to him about it. (33 RT 162:19-163:63:8 and 33 RT 269:14- *° Exhibit GCX-38is identical to Exhibit ALJ-3. Duetothis caselasting 105 days with 130 witnesses, there were a couple of instances where it was more expeditious to mark an exhibit again then to search for it among a myriad of documents. 32 270:1) I did not find credible Bedwell’s testimony regarding his alleged non- communication with Dan Gerawan onthis subject. The record is replete with constant communication between Gerawan and Bedwell during the days leading up to October 1, 2013. Exhibit GCX-33 is an email from Dan Gerawan to Barry Bedwell and Fruit League lobbyist Louie Brown dated September 19, 2013, at 9:00 p.m. Exhibit GCX-32 is an email from Dan Gerawan to Barry Bedwell and Fruit League lobbyist Louie Brown dated September22, 2013,at 5:08 p.m. Exhibit GCX-34 is an email from Dan Gerawan to Barry Bedwell and Fruit League lobbyist Louie Brown dated September 24, 2013, at 4:53 p.m. Exhibits U-8 and Exhibit GCX-37 are emails from Dan Gerawan to Barry Bedwell dated October 3, 2013, at 4:38 p.m. and 4:44 p.m., respectively. (33 RT 169:7-15, Exhibit U-8, bates # 0007277, and Exhibit GCX-37, bates # 0007281) Exhibit GCX-37 also shows multiple emails from Dan Gerawan to Barry Bedwell on October 7, 2013, and Bedwell responds to Gerawan just one minute after Dan’s second email. (Exhibit GCX-37, bates # 0007282) In this email exchange, Gerawan encourages Bedwell to change his language for a newspaper opinion-editorial piece and Bedwell acquiesces. (Exhibit GCX-37, bates # 0007282, 33 RT 174:22-25) For three reasons, when taken into account together, I reach the inescapable conclusion that Bedwell surely communicated with Gerawan about its expenditures for the chartered buses on October 2, 2013. First, Bedwell was taking away three to four hundred workers from Gerawan on oneofthe busiest days ofthe year, and just two days after the blockage that prevented a day’s work. Second, Gerawanstaffmade 33 inquiries for charter buses just a day or two before the October 2, 2013 trip, despite concedingthat the East side packing was mostly shut down,eliminating an alternative explanation as to why the buses might be needed. Third, and mosttelling, Dan Gerawan did not send an email to Barry Bedwell regarding the three to four hundred workers leaving the work site to go to Sacramento for the day. Had Dan Gerawan heard about this and not known that Barry Bedwell and the Fruit League were providing the financial muscle, he would have otherwise emailed Bedwellto tell him what wastranspiring. In tandem, thesethree sets of circumstances, along the demeanor of the witnesses, makeit clear cut to me that there was somelevel of communication between Bedwell and Gerawan regarding the October 2, 2013 expenditures supporting the decertification effort. Bedwell also tailored his answers to avoid admitting obvious facts. For example, in his testimony, Bedwell initially refused to acknowledge that the workers seeking a vote were the workers who wantedto getrid of the union. (33 RT 271:13- 273:18) Inthe Fruit League’s annualreport, it readily acknowledges thatit “took the lead”in calling for the decertification votes to be counted. (33 RT 289:2-290:8) On the other hand, the Fruit League did not provide any financial support to workers at Gerawan whosupportedretention of the union. (33 RT 84:3-5) For the past fourteen years, Areli Sanchez Fierros, who was witness # 75, worked for Gerawan. (42 RT 160:10-19) Sanchez was one of many witnesses who saw anti-union t-shirts at multiple events prior to the election. (43 RT 32:11-12, 43 RT 43:22-25 and 43 RT 47:1-49:3) When Sanchez wenton the bus to Sacramentopriorto 34 the election, she did not know whopaidfor the bus. (43 RT 74:3-11) Sanchez recalled that on the bus there were free snacks including candy and chips. (43 RT 74:12-17) However, when the bus stopped at Gordito Burrito, Sanchez madeit soundlike the stop wasjust to use the restrooms. (43 RT 75:5-10) Generally, Sanchez was a very confident witness who answered questionsat a quick pace. I credited most of her testimony, but discredited her statement to the extentthat it implies that workers just used the restroom at Gordito Burrito. H. Legal Supportto the Decertification Effort In 2013, Petitioner Silvia Lopez was supported by twolaw firms. Oneofthese firms was the Walter and Wilhelm Law GroupofFresno, ofwhichattorney PaulJ. Bauer wasthe lead contact. The other law firm was McCormick Barstow of Fresno, of which attorney Anthony Peter Raimondo, who was witness # 50, was the lead contact. Bythe time of the hearing, Raimondowasnolonger part of the McCormick Barstow law firm. (27 RT 58:4-6) The primary associate working with Raimondo onthis matter was Joanne MacMillan, who was witness # 57. In the amended consolidated complaint, dated September 9, 2013, the General Counsel alleged that Gerawan provided the McCormick Barstow legal support to Petitioner, but makes no such allegation as to Walter and Wilhelm. There was no evidence in the record to support the idea that Gerawan directly paid either McCormick Barstow or Walter and Wilhelm. Attorney Raimondotestified that the firm collected no money on the case. (27 RT 68:23-24 and 27 RT 87: 14-19) Attorney MacMillan recalled Raimondo joking aboutnot getting paid. (32 RT 143:7- 35 _ 17) No witness provided testimonyto the contrary. No did any witness or document support the concept that Gerawan paid the Walter and Wilhelm law firm. A second theory proffered by the General Counsel wasthat because, in 2013, attorney Raimondorepresented one or two farm labor contractors that did work on Gerawan fields that same year. Underthe specific facts of this case, the theoryfails by an especially wide margin. Raimondohasbeen representing Sunshine Agricultural Services for several years. (27 RT 125:6-10) However, Raimondotestified that he did not represent Sunshine with respect to any matters involving Gerawan. (27 RT 127:13- 23) The General Counsel also raised an even more tenuous theory. Many years back, Raimondo wasan associate at the law firm of one of the company’s attorneys, Ronald Barsamian. They also pointed out that Raimondo and MacMillan put a huge amount of time into this case and insinuated that no attorneys would work that much for free. I found those arguments thoroughly unpersuasive. Raimondocould have been representing Silvia Lopez to generate future business, out of animus toward the General Counsel, or had sincere to assist Silvia Lopez. It is not important for me to know Raimondo’s reasoning so long as neither Gerawan nor any employerassociation paid for his legal services. While some of Raimondo’s answers on other subjects were purposefully phrased to advocate his client’s position, I fully credit Raimondo’s testimony that neither he nor his law firm received any money from Gerawan,Silvia Lopezorthird parties. 36 Mysignificant concern with the attorneys of Silvia Lopez wasthat they helped facilitate the twenty thousand dollars donation to the decertification campaign by Barry Bedwell and the Fruit League. (32 RT 208:19-210:7) The Fruit League of course had its own separate attorneys. But the topic of that monetary influx to the decertification campaign is discussed elsewherein this decision. I. Unilateral Increases of Wages and Benefits 1. Unilateral Increase of Farm Labor Contractor Wages In June 2013, Gerawan raised the wagesofits farm labor contractor (“FLC”) employees from eight dollars an hourto nine dollars an hour. Company manager Jose Erevia, who waswitness # 99, testified that 2013 wasthefirst year that Gerawan paid FLC hourly wages that were greater than the minimum wage. (76 RT 160:7-11) Guadalupe Morales, who was witness #51, was the owner of Sunshine Agricultural Services. Moralestestified that the nine dollars an hour figure was proposed by Gerawan. (28 RT 16:10-12) In contrast, company manager Jose Erevia, claimedthatit was the FLC owners and not Gerawan that soughtthe wage increase. (76 RT 160:3- 161:24) Company owner Dan Gerawan testified that the UFW wasgiven no advance notice as to this FLC employee wageincrease. (64 RT 152:19-153:11) While I did not find Morales to be a particularly credible witness, I can think of no motivation for her to have been purposefully misleading on this topic. In contrast, the company had an obvious motive to have denied havingunilaterally raised FLC wages at that juncture. Forthat reason, on this topic, I credited the testimony of 37 Morales overthe testimony of Erevia. However, I will note that the evidence seemsto indicate that no FLC crews werestill working by the time that the election was held. 2. Unilateral Increase of Field Grape-Packer Piece-Rate WorkerReina Ibafiez, who was witness # 14,testified that on October 25, 2013, many employees left work in the middle of the day to go to a protest outside the Fresno courthouse. (11 RT 93:5-93:22) This was the day that the second decertification petition wasfiled. By the time that the workers returned, co-owner Michael Raymond Gerawan, who was witness # 117, unilaterally increased the piece-rate for field grape- packers from $1.25 per box to $1.50 per box. (92 RT 29:22-32:10 and Exhibit # GCX- 42) Gloria Mendez, who waswitness # 115, testified that the companyalso gavethe workers free pizza and tacos that day. (90 RT 151:20-152:10 and 95 RT 23:22-24:2) Michael Gerawan wascredible in testifying that the piece-rate was sometimes changed due to the quality of the grapes. (92 RT 30:10-15) Michael Gerawantestified that his reason for increase on October 25th was as encouragement and a reward. (92 RT 29:22-25) 3. Upgradesto the Friday Free Fresh Fruit Program The company had a program in whichis distributed free fresh fruit on some Fridays at the end of the work day. There was ampletestimonythatthis program existed in some form for many years. The most persuasive testimony wasthat the free fruit was previously left out in large bins for the workersto pick out in a self-serve fashion. (9 RT 32:1-33:9) By 2013,the fruit was put on tables under shade and there were sometimesfruit-flavored beverages. (9 RT 33:19-36:3) There was also 38 R E v d a a t i persuasive testimony that one ofthe purposes for these fruit give-aways was to reduce theft of fruit from thefields. 4. Employee Benefit Program In 2013, the company provided workers with a flyer that offered discounts with various stores and vendors like Costco and DirecTV. There is no evidence thatthe companypaid anything for these discounts and there was no evidencethat these discounts were better than deals otherwise available to a worker. There was insufficient evidencepresented at hearing to establish that these discounts were true “benefits” rather than just advertised specials that the company waspassing along. J. The General Counsel and UFW Failed to Establish that Grape-Checkers are Supervisors | At this juncture, there is no need for meto give a detailed recital of Oakwood Healthcare, Inc. (2006) 348 NLRB 686 and its progeny. Thereare assistant supervisors in the peach trees who some workersrefer to as “checkers” and those individuals are undisputed supervisors. But the “checkers”in the grapes are not supervisors. In 2013, the grape-checkers, who are sometimescalled quality control crew, or “QC”, had no ability to hire, fire or discipline employees. (101 RT 63:15- 65:24) Nor could the grape-checkers responsibly direct work or reassign a workerto another task. There was some credible testimony that in past years, the grape-checkers had the authority to unilaterally suspend an employee for small, dirty or poorly colored grapes, and also somecredible testimony that the grape checkers did not have such authority even in prior years. The more credible testimony wasthat in 2012 and 2013, 39 the grape checkers merely reported the issue with the grapes to a supervisor whothen decided what remedy,if any, was needed. The grape-checker positions had some advantages and disadvantages over picking and packing grapes during the vineyard harvest. The grape pickers and packers worked at a piece rate and often made more moneythan the hourly rates paid for either grape-checkers or non-supervisory peach tree work. On the other hand, the grape- checker work wasless physically demanding. K. There was Credible Evidence that One FLC Foremen Signed Himself or Collected Decertification Petition Signatures, But the Evidence as to the Second FLC foreman wasnot Persuasive 1. FLC Crew of Jose Evangelista In Fall 2013, Jesus Madrigal, who was witness # 3, work for a FLC called Sunshine Agricultural Services. (5 RT 9:6-14) Madrigal’s crew picked peachesat Gerawan on the Westside.”8 (5 RT 9:15-10:7 and 34 RT 8:6-16) Madrigal’s foreman was Jose Evangelista. (5 RT 10:2-18 and 34 RT 8:20-22) Jose Evangelista 28 Guadalupe Morales, who was witness # 51, also confirmedthat Evangelista’s crew worked on Gerawan property in 2013. (28 RT 12:4-11) Sheis the owner of Sunshine Agricultural Services. (28 RT 9:8-25) I generally discredited her testimony for two reasons. First, Morales initially denied that she received that name of attorney Spencer Hipp from attorney Anthony Raimondoandthen later conceded Raimondo had given hera list of five names including Hipp. (28 RT 36:14-39:17) Second, I found incredible Morales story about howher business records hadall been stolen in a burglary right after she had boxed them up to send to the ALRB Regional Office two or three days before the ALRB’s deadline. (28 RT 44:17:-51:1) 40 is sometimes knownas Jose Angelrico. (34 RT 15:22-25) The size of the crew was approximately eighteen to twenty workers. (5 RT 10:19-22 and 34 RT 15:23-25) A woman gave Evangelista a piece of paper in mid-September 2013 around the lunch hour. (34 RT 19:3-22 and 34 RT 21:5-7) Madrigal states that Evangelista told crew membersthat he had signed a paperontheir behalf regarding the union. (5 RT 14:4-17:12 and 5 RT 18:20-19:16) Evangelista later told Madrigal that he had signed against the union. (5 RT 29:24-30:9) Jose Evangelista, who was witness # 58, corroborated some of Madrigal’s account, but was not sure as to the paper’s purpose. (34 RT 18:14-25:2) Madrigal indicated that heinitially thought that the paper might have beenrelated to safety training, but no training had been conducted on that day or the preceding day. (34 RT 21:8-24:12) I found Madrigal to be the more persuasive witness andI credited his testimony in its entirety. Jose Evangelista’s crew stopped working at Gerawan duringthe first week of October 2013 so none of the crew members would have voted in the November5, 2013 decertification election unless in the interim they had obtained a position with a Gerawan direct hire crew. (34 RT 8:14-16) 2. FLC Crew of Israel Lopez. In August through approximately October 2, 2013, Priciliano Sanchez worked for a FLC crew. (12 RT 23:21-24:4) The nameofthe FLC was R & T Grafting, and the crew boss wasIsrael Lopez. (12 RT 22:5-10 and 22:24-23:3) The crew size was approximately twenty workers. (12 RT 24:10-13) Sanchezstated that Lopez told the crew to pick up their checks from the contractor near the Gerawanoffice. (12 4] RT 25:3-7) Sanchez stated that he recognized the FLC owner because he had seen him before.” The FLC “owner” than asked the crew members to sign a paper to get rid of the union. (12 RT 26:24-27:7) Sanchez emphasized three separate times that he believes that Gerawan treats workerslike “animals”. (12 RT 19:18-23, 12 RT 42:10-14 and 12 RT 43:17-22) Sanchezfelt that Gerawan treated him and his son unfairly back when he workedfor the company during 2008-2009. (12 RT 42:15-43:11) I did not find Sanchez to be a credible witness. L. Signature Gathering During Work Hours by Crew 1. Direct Hire Crew of Jose Luis Cabello Abraham Four witnessestestified with respect to work-time signature gathering in the crew of Jose Luis Cabello Abraham. These four persons were Jose Donaldo Guevara, Jacinto Carrasco Aquino, Carlos Uribe Estrada and Jose Luis Cabello Abraham. I did not find any of these four witnesses to be particularly credible and thus I do not draw any conclusions as to whetheror not there was any signature gathering during work timein the crew of Jose Luis Cabello Abraham. In 2013, Jose Donaldo Guevara, who was witness # 44, worked for Gerawan in the Reedley/Sangerarea in the crew of Jose Cabello. (22 RT 57:6-18) 9 Rosa Zepeda, who was witness # 52,testified that she was the president ofR & T Grafting. (28 RT 109:8-16) However R & T had a male field supervisor named Horacio Gomez. (28 RT 112:19-22) Myreasonfor discrediting Sanchez is not the discrepancy as to the owner’s gender, which could easily be explained by Sanchez mistaking Gomezas the owner, but rather due to Sanchez’ biasasa result of his strong animosity for Gerawan based uponhis past experience working for the company. 42 Cabello’s nicknameis “El Toca,” which meansto touchorto play. (89 RT 28:11- 17) About five minutes after the lunch break ended, which would be 10:35 a.m., Guevara saw four womengive talk with one of his colleagues, Hacinto Carrasco Aquino (witness # 87) and give him some paper. (22 RT 59:2-62:4) Cabello was aboutfive steps away from Guevara. (22 RT 63:20-64:4) Guevara then saw the womenleave a similarly give papers to persons in another nearby crew. (22 RT 64:13-23) At approximately 11:00 a.m., Carrasco asked Guevara to sign a paper to get rid of the union. (22 RT 66:4-16) Guevara saw Carrasco gather about four signatures. (22 RT 67-9-17) At the time, Guevara states that Cabello was approximately twenty-five feet away. (22 RT 66:23-67:7) Guevara alleges that Carrasco and Raul Zamora asked forsignatures almost every day. (22 RT 68:18- 69:11) I did not credit this statement. Someofthe times that Raul asked him for signatures were during work time when Guevara was pruningor suckering. (22 RT 69:18-70:21) During the times when signatures were collected, Guevara often saw Cabello give papers to Carrasco anda tractor driver named Raul. (22 RT 73:2-74:9) In the final days of October 2013, Guevarastates that he heard supervisor Jose “Lolo” Pizano respondto a workerthat they did not want the union there. (22 RT 76:5-79:15) Jacinto Carrasco Aquino, who was witness # 87, started working for Gerawan in 2004 and has workedthere every year thereafter. (57 RT 112:21-113:5) Carrasco is sometimescalled “Chinto”. (57 RT 143:18-19 and 51 RT 105:15-17) The nameof Carrasco’s significant other is Alecia Diaz Reyes, who was witness # 43 84. (57 RT 167:5-6) In July 2013, Carrasco began gathering signatures to oppose the union. (57 RT 126:2-23) Diaz wasalsocollecting signatures, but mostly in the Kermanarea. (57 RT 130:19-131:1) Diaz did sometimes cometo the Reedley area to collect signatures there. (57 RT 131:7-17) Diaz spent moretimecollecting signatures than Carrasco. (57 RT 131:22-24) Both Carrasco and Diaz began collecting signatures at about the same date. (57 RT 131:2-6) Carrascostates that he gathered signatures on work days during his lunch time. (57 RT 128:15-129:6 and 57 RT 167:10-13) Carrasco mostly collected signatures from other crews,stating that he only gathered signatures from his own crew on a single occasion. (57 RT 129:7-11) In 2013, Carrasco left work early on two occasionsto travel to the ALRB Visalia Regional Office. (57 RT 186:5-189:2) But on other occasions, Carrasco stated that the trips to Visalia were in 2014, not 2013. (57 RT 134:21-135:5 and 57 RT 189:11-21) When Carrasco was around seventeen years-old, he worked fora different agricultural employer and also volunteered for the UFin his spare time. (57 RT 149:6-151:4) Carrasco stopped volunteering for the UFW in 2003 because he was unhappywith payingfifteen dollars a month for a UFW membership identification card. (57 RT 151:9-21 and exhibit ALJ-4) Carrascostates that he has kept the UFW card all these years out of respect for Cesar Chavez. (57 RT 156:23-157:22) I did not find Carrasco credible when he rememberedthe specific block numberthat his crew was working in when the UFWfirst arrived or the exact number of workersin his crew that date. (57 RT 160:23-162:9) Nor did I find Carrasco credible whenhetestified that his significant 44 other, Alecia Diaz Reyes, witness # 84, nevertold him that she wasresponsible for blocking entrances at work. (57 RT 176:7-10) Carlos Uribe Estrada, who waswitness # 80,started working for Gerawan in 1996 and has worked there every year thereafter. (51 RT 8:14-21) I find that Uribe worked in the Reedley/Sangerarea in the crew of Jose Cabello (Exhibit # ALJ-5, Bates numbers 00011004-000110125), even thoughthe transcript indicates that he testified that his crew boss was Jose Carillo. (51 RT 8:22-9:12) Uribe understood from Silvia Lopez that they hadto collect signatures and take them to Sacramento in order to keep the union out. (51 RT 18:1-19) Uribe states that he and Carrasco collected signatures in the Sanger area at lunch time and after work. (31 RT 22:13-23:2 and 51 RT 24:10-12) They went to nearby crewsat lunch time and to a nearbystore after work. (51 RT 24:20-25:22) Uriberecalls having gone to other crewsfor signatures total of between ten and fifteen occasions. (51 RT 26:4- 15) Uribe collected signatures at the store on approximately five occasions but did not rememberthe nameofthe store. (51 RT 30:11-31:7) The furthest that he had to travel at lunch timeto collect signatures was approximately eight minutes in one direction. (51 RT 27:1-4) Uribe remembers that the UFW visited his crew at lunch time approximately betweenfive and ten times. (51 RT 34:10-35:6) Uribe claimsthatas of the date of his testimony,he did not know whowasresponsible for blocking the companyentrances in Kerman onthe day ofthe protest. (51 RT 42:7-43:8) Uribe and someof his crew mates told Cabello that they were stopping work without 45 giving a reason, and they then went to the protest from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (51 RT 44:22-46:16) Uribe indicated that they wentto the protest because Silvia had told them that the foremen were includedin the earlier signatures, so they would gather new signatures at the protest so that the ALRB could see that the foremenwerenot included. (51 RT 48:4-12) Uribe saw Chairez and other female workers collecting signatures at the protest. (51 RT 79:15-22) Uribe also left work early to go to a Visalia protest that Silvia told him about. (51 RT 60:14-63:21) In 2013, Uribe also missed workto attend a protest in Sacramento. (51 RT 119:19-120:4) In early 2013, Uribe attended a mediation session in Modesto between the company and the UFW. (51 RT 109:9-17) Uribe states that he learned about the mediation session from a truck driver whose namehe could not remember. (51 RT 109:18-110:18) Uribe had no idea whythis truck driver invited him in particular to attend the mediation session. (51 RT 110:24-111:1) Uribe did not see Silvia Lopez there that day. (51 RT 111:17-19) Jose Luis Cabello Abraham waswitness # 112. Cabello started as a crew bossin 1992, and hehasheld that position from that time until the present. (89 RT 8:16-17 and 89 RT 32:8-10) Thesize of his crew is approximately thirty-five persons. (Exhibit # ALJ-5, Bates numbers 00011004-000110125) His crew was on the East side, which was the Reedley/Sangerarea. (89 RT 9:23-10:1) His brother Eliberto Cabello also works in his crew. (89 RT 10:23-11:3) Cabello has a spouse who worksin the Gerawan packing house. (89 RT 28:22-29:2) Cabello had two assistants or helpers, one of who was Raul Zamora. (89 RT 15:25-16:14) Cabello 46 denies that some ladies ever dropped off papers to Carrasco. (89 RT 22:8-11) When asked about an occasion when Raul Zamora asked for Guevara’s signature, Cabello immediately stated that the requested signature was for a paycheck even though the question did not specify a date or time period. (89 RT 22:23-23:11 and 89 RT 49:20-22) Cabello denied ever seeing crew member Carlos Uribe collecting signatures. (89 RT 26:15-19) Cabello denies Jose “Lolo” Pizanostated that the company did not wantthe union, claiming that Cabello and Pizanoonly talked about work. (89 RT 25:8-21) Cabello denied knowingthat the union issue was important to the company. (89 RT 33:24-34:5) Cabello states that he normally ate lunchin his van and that he never saw anyone form the union visit his crew nor anyone opposed to the union. (89 RT 50:21-51:23) In fact, Cabello claimedthathe first learned that there were workers collecting signatures to get rid of the union in November 2013. (89 RT 43:12-17) Cabello did not rememberifwhen interviewed by the General Counsel in September 2013 whether they asked him anything about the union. (89 RT 45:15-46:10) 2. Direct Hire Crew of Jose Jesus Carillo Three witnessestestified with respect to work-timesignature gathering in the crew of Jose Jesus Carillo. These three persons were Cesar Garcia Gomez, Angel Rincon Solorzano and Jose Jesus Carillo. I did not find any of these four witnessesto be particularly credible and thus I do not draw any conclusions asto whetheror not there was any signature gathering during work time in the crew of Jose Jesus Carillo. 47 Cesar Garcia Gomez, who was witness # 2,started working for the company in May 2010. (3 RT 58:12-14) In 2013, Garcia worked for two different foreman, Leonel Nufiez Martinez, who was witness # 106, and Jose Jesus Carillo, who was witness # 110. (3 RT 62:1-3) The nickname for Nufiez is the “tiger”, (84 RT 25:6-13) Garcia stated that he worked for Carillo from the end of June 2013 to November 2013. (3 RT 64:6-9) In Summer 203, Garcia allegedly heard Carillo speak to four workers aboutcollecting decertification signatures. (3 RT 67:13-71:7) The conversation took place at 6:10 a.m. or 6:15 a.m., prior to the 6:30 a.m. work start time that day, andthe sun had already begunto rise. (3 RT 67:25-68:6) The four crew workers included twotractor drivers, Angel Rincon Solorzano, nicknamed “Tamales”, who was witness # 77, and Pedro, and two regular workers, Jose Luna, who was knownas “Aurelio”, and Aurelio’s brother Edward, whose nickname was “Chaquetas”. (3 RT 68:21-69:9, 3 RT 70:18-23, 3 RT 115:4-13 and 45 RT 82:3-4) Shortly thereafter, Rincon and Aurelio asked Garcia to sign a decertification petition to get rid of the union. (3 RT 75:2-13) Garcia also saw thepair ask seven to fifteen other workersto sign, finishing up about seven minutes before work started. (3 RT 75:14-76:15) After that day, Garcia wasaskedto sign a decertification petition on four more occasions. (3 RT 78:20-24) Thefirst of these other occasions was allegedly twoto five days after the original time, and took place during work hours between 7:14 a.m. and 7:45 am. (3 RT 79:13-80:11) On this occasion, Carillo was approximately six to eight rows away. (3 RT 83:3-9) Garcia estimatesthatit is sevento eight feet between two rowsofpeach trees. (4 RT 88:22-89:6 and 4 RT 48 93:10-94:2) On that occasion, Garcia states that he saw Rincon and Aurelio approachfifteen to twenty workers after he himself was asked. (3 RT 84:10-15 and 3 RT 139:22-25) On cross-examination, Garcia stated that it was Pedro and Aurelio who he saw soliciting the signatures that day. (4 RT 67:6-10, 4 RT 70:12-14 and 4 RT 101:8-11) Garcia states that it was anothersix to eight weekslater the next time that they asked him forhis signature. (3 RT 86:19-21) On that occasion, Garcia was asked by Rincon and Pedro for his signature during work hours between 11:15 a.m. and 11:45 a.m. (3 RT 86:8-11 and 3 RT 88:12-14) Garcia also states that on a Friday, Carrillo indicated that there would possibly be a work stoppage the next day to protest the union. (3 RT 93:21-96:8) Garcia states that his crew workedthe next day, but that there was a work stoppage the following Monday. (3 RT 96:23-97: 13) Onthat day, Garcia states that he arrived at around 6:05 a.m. and he saw three forepersons standing around, andhe also saw Silvia Lopez collecting signatures. 3 RT 98:12-99:12) The three forepersons were Jose Jesus Carrillo, Leonel Nufiez Martinez and Francisco Maldonado Chavez, witness # 104. (3 RT 98:19-24) Garcia states that he was askedfor his signature that day between eight and twelvetimes. (3 RT 107:15-20) Garcia states that he heard Carillo talk about the decertification signatures with Rincon, Pedro, Aurelio Luna and Chaquetas on approximately six to eight other occasions. (3 RT 117:13-119:7) In one of the conversations that Garcia heard, Carrillo stopped those four workers and told them to go to a September protest at the intersection of J-145 and Central. (3 RT 120:4-121:10) Garcia later 49 gave a declaration to the UFW but did not rememberit until it was put before him. (3 RT 174:15-19, 3 RT 205:18-22 and 4 RT 27:23-28:24) Garcia stated that he and Carrillo had argued, and Carillo told him thatif the union did not come in, Garcia would be amongthe first to be fired and that the company would replacefruit trees with almondtrees. (4 RT 109:23-110:16) Garcia also states that, in August and September, Dan Gerawan spoke to the workers on three occasions and on one ofthe occasions, Dan Gerawan “indirectly” told the workers to vote against the union. (4 RT 111:12-112:19, 4RT 129:3-4 and 4 RT 192:7-13) Garcia later described the last meeting as having taken place in November approximately one to two weeksbefore the election. (4 RT 168:7-20) On one of those three occasions, Dan’s wife, Norma Linda, andbrother, Michael, were also present, as was Jose Erevia. (4 RT 131:7-132:6 and 4 RT 160:20-25) Garcia remembers Michael Gerawan speaking in Spanish, although later he acknowledgedthat it might have been Dan speaking in Spanish instead. (4 RT 140:12-141:25) Angel Rincon Solorzano, who was witness # 77, started working for the company in 1996. (44 RT 113:15-22) His nicknameis “Tamales”, because he usedto sell tamalesout in the fields. (45 RT 47:7-11) He has worked in Carillo’s crew since 1999. (45 RT 19:9-12) Rincon decided that he would collect signatures to get rid of the union. (44 RT 130:19-131:2) Rincon gotthe idea to dothis after he saw womenat the companycollecting signatures. (44 RT 131:3-12) Signature gatherers gave him a telephone numberfor Silvia Enedina Lopez, who was witness # 50 79. (44 RT 132:9-133:23) Rincon received the signature sheets from Silvia Lopez and her son-in law, Angel Lopez, who was witness # 98. (45 RT 27:14-23 and 45 RT 93:13-16) After collecting signatures, Rincon then gavehis signature sheets to Silvia Lopez or Angel Lopez. (44 RT 135:8-25) Rincon’s wife Erica Solano also collected decertification signatures. (45 RT 80:15-22) Rinconstates that Carillo told him that he did not want to see anyonecollecting signatures from crew members during lunch time. (45 RT 85:9- 87:25) Rinconstates that he was not involved in causing the work stoppage that occurred in September 2013. (44 RT 145:1-10) Rincon states that he never asked anyoneas to who wasresponsible for the blockage. (45 RT 62:10-12) While testifying on Friday, December 5, 2014, Rincon stated that on the day of the work stoppage, at around 7:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m., which was an hour after he hadinitially arrived to work and observed the blockage and log-jammed cars, Rincon saw single workeron a tractor across Central. (44 RT 170:2-171:17 and 45 RT 30:9-11) Rincon did not rememberthe nameofthis person. (44 RT 170:22-25) On Monday, December 8, 2014, Rincon claimed that the worker was Eleazar Mulato, witness # 10. (45 RT 28:19-29:12) Rincon admitted that he had discussed the topic on the telephone with co-worker Eduardo Luna,also known as “Chaquetas”, in betweenhis testimony. (45 RT 29:13-24 and 45 RT 47:12-16) Rinconstated that no supervisors were in the area when that occurred. (45 RT 31:5- 7) On the day of the work stoppage, Rincon saw people gathering signatures for the decertification effort, so he asked them for sheets of paper and joined them in the 51 signature gathering. (44 RT 149:25-151:11 and 44 RT 169:7-10) One ofthe workers who gave him signature sheets was “Chairez”. (45 RT 107:24-108:6) Three or four womenwerethere with him collecting signatures. (45 RT 60:24-61:1) They collected signatures during what would havebeen their normal working hours but for the blockage. (45 RT 68:2-4) Jose Jesus Carrillo, who was witness # 110, started working for Gerawan in 2006 and first became a foreman in 2009. (87 RT 117:7-22) In 2013, his crew worked on the Westside, near Kerman. (87 RT 119:13-21) His typical crew size was twenty-five to thirty workers. (87 RT 121:22-24) On the one or two days that he might have beensick,either Pedro Esparza or Eduardo Luna would have beenleft in charge of the crew. (87 RT 122:24-123:9) Onthe day of the work stoppage, between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., which was after work would have started, Carrillo saw about right to one hundred feet away a worker from Maldonado’s crew block Branch Avenue by moving a single tractor. (88 RT 8:6-10:5 and 88 RT 41:25-42:1) The tractor was not locked or tied down in any way, so anyone who wanted to movethat tractor could have hopped onto it and moved it. (88 RT 62:1-18) Any even without that tractorthere, foot traffic was already impeding anyonefrom going forward. (88 RT 63:24-64:3) Carillo did not call his supervisor, Antonio Franco, until between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. (88 RT 10:20-11:7) Carillo then went to have lunch with Franco and foreman Maldonado. (88 RT 11:21-12:3) Carillo then received a call from someoneatthe 52 office telling him to go there. (88 RT 13:21-14:5) Carillo could not remember the nameof the person from the office who had called him. (88 RT 13:24-25) In the office, Carillo participated in a conference call with the other crew bosses and company’s attorneys, where the attorneys told the crew bossesto write down whatthey had seen on a sheetofpaper. (88 RT 15:21-15:25) Carillo then left to go homefor the day, without making any inquiries as to the workers who had rode to work with him that morning. (88 RT 16:1-13) Carillo denied knowing that the people blocking the entrances that day were against the union. (88 RT 55:17-21) Carillo states that no one mentioned the day’s events during the ride to work the next morning. (88 RT 16:14-16:19) Carillo remembered twoor three other days when multiple crew membersleft early and some came back to work before the day ended, with at least one of these occasions occurring before the decertification vote. (88 RT 17:22-18:19 and 88 RT 20:7-21:3) None of the workers were disciplined for leaving early. (88 RT 53:6-8) Carillo remembers a time when oneof the owners cameto speak with his crew. (88 RT 22:17-25) Carillo rememberedvery little of what wassaid at the meeting because he purposefully walked away when the ownerandhis wife was talking, nor did Carillo recall if more than one crew waspresent. (88 TR 24:10- 25:1) But Carillo denied knowing beforehand what managementwasthere to speak about. (88 RT 25:2-5) Carillo denied talking to his crew aboutthe decertification petition and collecting signatures. (88 RT 29:9-15) Carillo denied knowing that Dan 53 Gerawanwanted the workers to havethe right to choose whetheror not to be represented. (88 RT 40:13-16) 3. Direct Hire Crew of Maria EmmaSalvador de Cortez Theallegation with respect to crew boss Maria EmmaSalvador Cortez is not that she allowed signature gathering during work time, but rather that she stood with anti-union protesters on the day of the work blockage, which was September 30, 2015. In 2013, Salvador Alatorre, who was witness # 41, was an ALRB Regional Office field examiner (sometimescalled a Board agent). Alatorre saw restroomsset up near the protest on September 30, 2013. (21 RT 13:13-21 and 21 RT 44:14-24) Alatorre described the pro-UFW group he saw that day as fewer than fifty persons. (21 RT 65:10-21) Shortly before 1:00 p.m. that day, Alatorre saw a separate group of ten or fewer people protesting with signs on Central, and identified crew boss EmmaCortez as oneofthe people in that group. (21 RT 34:15-37:17) Alatorre had interviewed Cortez a few days prior to the work blockage. (88 RT 140:4-11 and 88 RT 154:9-19) Alatorre took a picture of herlicense plate. (21 RT 36:11-14, 88 RT 155:23-156:5, and exhibit GCX-93, pages two through four) Maria EmmaSalvador de Cortez, who was witness # 111, began working at Gerawan in 1991, and becamea foreperson in 2007. (88 RT 77:13-19) Cortez had a son, Antonio Cortez, who workedin her crew. (88 RT 77:20-24) Cortez was unable to work onthe day of the blockadeand protest. (88 RT 91:10-13) | After being told by a non-supervisory worker that there was no work that day, Cortez 54 simply satin hercar for six or seven hours with the windowsrolled up, neither moving nor speaking with anyone on hercellular telephone that she had with her, (88 RT 95:15-97:10, 88 RT 100:14-102:23, 88 RT 102:25-103:2, 88 RT 110:5-7 and 158:19-159:17) The next day, no one asked or spoke to Cortez about what had happened nordid Cortez herself ask anyone else what had happened. (88 RT 110:23-112:11) It is not believable that Cortez stayed in her car and called no one and received nocalls for six hours at Central & Goldenrodstreets. I credited all of Alatorre’s testimony as to Cortez, and discredited all of Cortez’s testimony asto her activities on the day of the September 30, 2013 work blockage. However, I do note that from Alatorre’s testimony, we have no way of knowing if Cortez merely stopped for a couple of minutesto talk to someofthe protesting workersorif, alternatively, Cortez took a more active role. I also discredit the testimony of Felix Hernandez Eligo, who was witness #82, as to his claim of having seen Salvador Alatorre waiving a UFW flagthat day. 4. Direct Hire Crew of Martin Elizondo Cruz Six witnessestestified with respect to work-time signature gathering in the crew of Martin Elizondo Cruz. These six persons were Gustavo Vallejo, Jorge Aguirre, Justino Meza, Maria Gonzales Espinoza, Alejandro Paniagua Chavez and Martin Elizondo Cruz. I found the five worker witnesses to be more credible than crew boss Martin Elizondo Cruz. Gustavo Vallejo, who was witness # 1, worked for Gerawan during 1997 to 2014. (1 RT 159:9-10) In addition to being a regular worker, Vallejo was 55 also a grape checker during 1998 to 2006. (1 RT 164:2-9) During calendar year 2013, Vallejo worked in the crews of Martin Elizondo and Santos Rios. (1 RT 167:22-168:1) In 2013, Vallejo was in Martin Elizondo’s crew during the months of April through September. (1 RT 168:2-4) The crew had approximately thirty-two workers. (1 RT 194:24-195:1) Vallejo stated that he recalled an occasion when three persons cameto his crew to collect signatures at approximately 1:40 p.m. in the afternoon. (1 RT 206:21-207:6) On direct examination, Vallejo described this event as occurring in April 2013, but on cross-examination Vallejo conceded that it might have occurred in another month such as July 2013. (1 RT 197:13-15 and 2 RT 202:11-204:23) At this time, Elizondo’s crew hadjustfinished thinning trees at Ranch 20-C and foreman Elizondo was giving outinstructionsfor starting work at Ranch 21-B. (1 RT 203:16-20) Vallejo saw two workers sign the petition while Elizondo wasgiving the work instructions. (1 RT 216:4-10) Elizondo told his crew workers to wait until he was done givinghis instructions. (2 RT 214:21-215:4) Vallejo had seen these same three persons cometo his crew on the preceding day at the end of the work day, but the crew ignored the three people because it was the end of the day. (1 RT 197:13-23 and 1 RT 201:22-202:1) Jorge Aguirre, who was witness # 23, worked for Gerawan from 1997 through 2014. (14 RT 174:8-16) His spouse is Maria Gonzales Espinosa, witness # 34. (18 RT 141:4-5) In 2013, he worked for crew bosses Manuel Ramos and Martin Elizondo,in that order. (14 RT 176:6-20) Aguirre remembers an occasion when worker Rolando Padilla, who was witness # 83, came to Elizondo’s crew to collect 56 decertification petition signatures. (14 RT 177:4-178:10) Padilla sought the signaturesforten to fifteen minutes right after the lunch break had ended. (14 RT 180:16-21 and 14 RT 181:7-9) Aguirre also recalled an occasion when twoladies and a man came to Elizondo’s crew tocollect decertification petition signatures. (14 RT 182:17-19, 14 RT 185:12-15 and 14 RT 187:2-5) Herecalls them getting a few signatures while his foreman conducted a class. (14 RT 184:24-185:16) The three people remained there for aboutfive to eight minutesafter the class ended. (14 RT 190:3-5) Aguirre also remembered an additional occasion when two people came to Elizondo’s crew for signatures after they had moved from the peachesto the grapes. (14 RT 193:8-194:10) On one occasion, Aguirre himself asked Elizondo for permissionto collect signatures from the crew. (14 RT 195:18-196:1) Aguirre claimsthat he told Elizondo that he wanted during work timeto collect signatures to have the union “comein” and that Elizondo denied his request, saying that he would haveto go to the office to seek permission. (14 RT 195:21-196:7 and 14 RT 204:11- 14) Later that day, Aguirre states that Elizondo received and read out loud a typed letter from the office which stated that Elizondodid not havethe authority to grant permissionfor people to collect signatures and that anyone seeking permission would needto goto the office. (14 RT 198:15-199:12 and 14 RT 205:8-10) Aguirre wasterminated from the company in 2014. (14 RT 202:20-23) Justino Meza, who waswitness # 28, worked for Gerawan from 2007 through mid-November 2013. (16 RT 123:20-124:1) In 2013, Meza was in Martin 57 Elizondo’s crew. (16 RT 124:9-13) Meza rode to work with a colleague named Isabel. (16 RT 124:18-125:9) Meza alleges that Isabel told him sometime between July and August 2013 that he had received papersfor collecting signatures from Elizondo. (16 RT 125:10-126:1 and 16 RT 128:20-22) Meza also saysthat Isabel told him thatif the union camein, the company would knock down the trees and give the land to the State. (16 RT 126:1-5) The next day, Meza saw Isabel collecting signatures prior to the start of a work day, putting the materials away when workstarted. (16 RT 131:6-8 and 16 RT 133:14-25) Onthe day of the blockage, Mezarecalls Martin Elizondotelling crew workers to go over to Interstate 145 where the workers are going to gather. (16 RT 142:5-10) Mezalater joined the pro-union workers that were protesting and wentto the UFW offices to give a declaration. (16 RT 144:13-146:6) Mezaalso remembered a second day when there was no work and he heard rumors that workers were going to Visalia. (16 RT 147:2-153:15 and 16 RT 156:18-157:8) Hearsay evidence is admissible whenallegations are additionally supported by other corroborating evidence. Although counsel did not object during the hearing, this “double hearsay” is sometimesless reliable. Here, the witnessis testifying as to what a secondpersonstated that a third person had told him. Noneofthe parties indicated that they tried to subpoena “Isabel” but were unable to do so. Martin Elizondo Cruz, witness # 103, did not remember whether or not he had a worker namedIsabel in his crew in 2013, but denied asking any workerto collect signatures. (80 RT 48:25-49:13) 58 Maria Gonzales Espinoza, who waswitness # 34,started workingat Gerawan in 1997. (18 RT 112:14-15) She is the wife of Jorge Aguirre, who was witness # 23. (18 RT 141:4-5) In 2013, Gonzales picked grapes in Elizondo’s crew. (18 RT 113:19-21) This would have been well after August 4, 2013. Gonzales recalled a single day where,half an hour into working, a woman, whoshe did not recognize, wearing clean clothes and dress boots, asked her to sign a paperto get rid of the union. (18 RT 115:12-116:12) The significanceofthe attire is that presumably most workers intending to work on particular day would wear certain clothing and footwear in the fields due to the nature of the work. Gonzales remembers one occasion when she went to work but work was canceled. (18 RT 120:10-12) On that morning, Gonzales recalls outdoor lamp/heaters and people chanting “out with the union”. (18 RT 121:12-122:5 and 18 RT 123:11-124:13) She heard someone on a megaphonesaying that they were going to a location, possibly Visalia, and inviting people to join them. (18 RT 124:14-21) After waiting at work for a couple of hours, supervisor Lucio Torres, who was witness # 126, told the approximately five remaining workers that they could work for the day with Raquel Villavicencio’s crew. (18 RT 130:1-132:13) Her husband was among the workers that remained to work. (18 RT 141:1-3) At the end of her testimony, Gonzales wished to explain that she was worried by coming and testifying that it might impact herfuture ability to work at Gerawan. (18 RT 145:8- 146:18) Respondent’s counsel objected to her making that commentat the end of her testimony. (18 RT 146:5 and 18 RT 147:20-148:4) 59 Alejandro Paniagua Chavez, who was witness # 64, worked for Gerawan from 2010 to 2014. (36 RT 118:9-14) In 2013, he worked in Elizondo’s crew. (36 RT 119:8-9) Paniagua indicated that a co-worker named Refugio Ochoa had filled in for Martin Elizondo on some occasions when Elizondo wassick. (36 RT 120:8-14) In 2013, on a day whenthey were picking plums, Refugio Ochoatold Paniagua to removehis red UFt-shirt, and that Paniagua would now nolonger be considered a friend. (36 RT 120:18-121:6 and 36 RT 123:2-5) Paniaguaalso stated that on one occasion Elizondo pulled him aside forfive or ten minutes to tell him that Elizondo hadthe authorization to stop him from working. (36 RT 124:22- 126:14) Paniagua understoodthis to mean that he could lose his job because ofhis wearing the UFW t-shirt. (36 RT 123:10-125:13) Paniagua also remembered two women and one man collecting signatures on a Saturday when he waswaiting in line to get his paycheck from his foreman. (36 RT 132:3-134:14 and 36 RT 150:18-25) Martin Elizondo Cruz, who was witness # 103, worked for Gerawan from 1985 to 2014. (80 RT 9:11-15) Elizondo became a crew bossin 1998 and servedin that capacity in 2013. (80 RT 18-23) Atfirst, Martin stated that he only hada single brother, supervisor Guadalupe Elizondo, who workedat Gerawan in 2013. (80 RT 14:13-22) In 2013, Elizondo’s crew normally worked on the East side. (80 RT 145:17-19) Guadalupe was Martin’s direct supervisor when his crew was on the West side. (80 RT 16:14-22) Martin later admitted that he also had a second brother, supervisor Jesus Elizondo, who worked at Gerawan. (80 RT 15:23-16:9) Martin does not rememberanyone other than crew counters and ALRB 60 staff visiting his crew in 2013. (80 RT 21:9-22:19) Martin remembersthat his crew was working at block 123A on the West side on the day of the work blockagein late September 2013. (80 RT 22:21-23:12) Three of the four workers who Elizondo regularly drove to work in 2013 weretractor drivers. (80 RT 25:20-26:2) On the day of the work blockage, upon arriving at around 5:30 a.m., Martin saw ladders and | ribbons blocking an entrance near the tractor. (80 RT 23:19-20 and 80 RT 25:12- 26:20) Martin called his brother Guadalupe whotold him that he was on his way andto just wait. (80 RT 26:25-27:5) Elizondo indicated that he could have easily removedthe ribbon and gonethrough the entrance, but he did notfor fear of being scolded. (80 RT 27:22-25) Elizondo claimedthat he had no idea who had blocked the entrance. (80 RT 28:11-13) At around 8:30 a.m. or 9:00 a.m., one of the counters told Martin and two other nearby foremento goto the office. (80 RT 28:25-29:17) At the office, Martin saw as manyas aboutfifteen other crew bosses simultaneously present. (80 RT 39:16-19) Martin denies seeing Silvia Lopez on the day of the work blockage, contrary to her recollection. (48 RT 160:7-161 :21, 55 RT 36:19-37:1 and 81 RT 83:8-22) Martin tried to answer more than one question with a general denial before the company’s counsel had even finished the question. (See for example 80 RT 43:7-11) Martin alleges that Gustavo Vallejo, who was witness # 1, did not work for his crew in 2013. (80 RT 43:24-44:1 and 81 RT 64:11-16) Exhibit GCX-88 includes the workers in Martin’s crew, which is crew number 342,for the week ending August 4, 2013. (Exhibit GCX-88 and 81 RT 76:18-20) These workers 61 include Gustavo Vallejo (second page, fourteenth namefrom thetop), Jorge P. Aguirre(first page, twenty-fifth name from the top), Justino Meza Meza(first page, fourth name from the bottom), Alejandro Paniagua Chavez (secondpage,fourth namefrom the top), and Isabel H. Zavala (second page, sixteenth name from top). (Exhibit GCX-88) Martin could only remembera single occasion, regardless of the time of day, when someone cameto his crew to collect signatures. (80 RT 45:25-46:5) Martin identified that person as Rolando Padilla, the brother of Jesus Padilla, and Martin recalled that Rolandocollected signatures from his crew during a lunch break. (80 RT 46:4-14) In contrast, Silvia Lopez recalls talking to Martin Elizondo when she went to his crew on the East side to collect signatures with Clara Cornejo (nicknamed “Carla”), witness # 78, and Alecia Diaz Reyes, witness # 84. (55 RT 36:19-37:1 and 45 RT 113:1-23) Martin denied that Rolando collected any signatures from his crew during work time. (36 RT 47:10-16) Martin admitted that Jorge Aguirre, witness # 23, had asked him for permissionto collect signatures, and Martin alleges that he told Jorge that he could do it during breaks and before andafter work, just not during work time. (80 RT 47:18-48:5) Martin claims that he did not know whetheror not Aguirre supported or opposed the union (81 RT 20:12-18 and 81 RT 28:8-25), but in a prior declaration Martin stated that until Aguirre spoke with him, he had not knownthat Aguirre supported the union. (Exhibits U-14 and U-15) Martin could not remember whether or not in 2013 his crew had a worker named “Isabel”. (80 RT 48:25-49:5) Martin 62 denied ever giving any worker a piece of paper and asking him orherto collect signatures. (80 RT 49:7-13) Martin denied knowing someone named Maria Gonzales Espinoza who worked at Gerawan in 2013 (80 RT 49:17-19 and 81 RT 68:19-23), but her name shows up amongpunchcardsfor his crew for the date of October 14, 2013. (Exhibit GCX-89) Martin then conceded that Gonzales- Espinoza might have been amongthepickers with his crew. (81 RT 77:21-78:13) Martin did remember Alejandro Paniagua as a former workerin his crew, but denied that Paniagua ever told him that co-workers were teasing him about his UFt-shirt. (80 RT 49:25-50:8) 5. Direct Hire Crew of Cirilo Gomez Two worker witnessestestified with respect to work-time signature gathering in the crew of Martin Elizondo Cruz. These two persons were Macario Ogarrio and Raul Perez Salazar. Foreman Cirilo Gomez wasnotcalled as a witness by any of the parties. Two other witnesses, Horacio Ramirez Reyes and Manuel Barrientos, were called in an effort to discredit Ogarrio and Salazar. One other witness, Armando Elenes, was asked some questions relating to Ramirez and Barrientos. I completed discredited the testimony of four witnesses, Ogarrio, Salazar, Ramirez and Elenesfor the reasonsthat will be discussed below, but found Barrientos generally credible but not having a very detailed recollection. Asa consequence, I do not find any evidence of work-time signature gatheringin the crew of Cirilo Gomez. 63 Macario Ogarrio, who was witness # 35, worked for Gerawan from 2010 to September 2013. (18 RT 152:7-10) Ogarrio described two women who came to his crew to do signature gathering twotimes in late August 2013 during the lunch break. (18 RT 172:9-175:17) Ogarrio described two women,different from the ones described above, gathering signatures at one of the Friday free fresh fruit give-awaysas only being six to seven meters from Dan Gerawan andnine to ten meters from Gerawan’s spouse. (18 RT 163:21-164:5) I discredited this statement based on other more persuasive witness testimony that both decertification and UFW proponents were always further away than that from wherethefruit was being given away. Ogarrio was also vague with respect to his memory of having collected signatures from crew member about a non-unionissue, recalling only that it was something for Washington. (18 RT 164:10-18 and 18 RT 184:24) Ogarrio recalled asking his foreman for permission to distribute some union flyers during work time, but he did not showthe flyers to Gomezor tell Gomez anything abouttheir source or content. (18 RT 166:3-168:6) Raul Perez Salazar, who was witness #43, worked for Gerawan for approximately three to four years. (21 RT 169:15-22 and 22 RT 9:16-10:1) Salazar recalled people from outside his crew regularly visiting the crewto solicit signatures. (21 RT 171:24-172:2) Salazar describes one of these peopleas a forelady who workedin the grapes, but he does not rememberthe forelady’s name. (21 RT 172:3- 18) Salazar later describedthe scene differently, stating that the forelady only directed other workers to collect the signatures rather than directly gathering some of 64 them herself. (21 RT 189:22-190:3) Upon cross-examination, Salazar seemingly stated that one of the women with the forelady was Silvia Lopez. (21 RT 192:15-20) Salazar states that he had seen the forelady arranging her crew in the fields and also heard comments from other crew membersregardingherstatus. (21 RT 178:6- 180:24) Salazar described this forelady as being overweight, neither particularly short nor particularly tall, 45-50 years old, lighter-colored skin and reddish-brown hair. (21 RT 188:9-189:2) Salazar states that after collecting signatures, the forelady gave the papersto his foreman, Cirilo Gomez. (21 RT 172:19-173:6) But upon cross-examination, Salazar then stated that it was Silvia Lopez who gave the papers to Gomez, thereafter changing it back to being the nameless forelady that did so. (21 RT 197:9-198:1) Then, upon further questioning, Salazar stated that Silvia Lopez did not visit his crew on the same day as the forelady. (21 RT 198:12-22 and 22 RT 20:9-12) On one daythat Silvia Lopez visited his crew, Salazar recalls a co- workersigning the petition with the name “Pancho Villa”, though no onein his crew had that name. (22 RT 13:25-14:7) But then Salazar seemingly backtracked and stated that co-workers would just say they were going to write “Pancho Villa”. (22 RT 18:21-19:1) When Silvia Lopez visited his crew, Salazar recalls that she was wearing an identification card. (22 RT 30:10-15) Horacio Ramirez Reyes, who was witness # 96, was previously a worker at UFW crew representative at Dole Berry North. (68 RT 87:6-16) In January 2012, Ramirez became a UFW organizerfor eight months at T.T. Miyasaka in the Salinas/Watsonville area. (68 RT 88:20-89:24) Next, Ramirez went to work 65 for three or four monthsat Corralitos Farms. (68 RT 90:1-24) Ramirez explained that he was recruited to pretend to be an ordinary worker at Corralitos whenin fact he wassimultaneously on the UFpayroll. (68 RT 91:9-13) Next, Ramirez was hired by the UFW to be an organizer at Gerawan. (68 RT 91:24-92:15) Ramirez indicated that his UFW supervisor was Guadalupe Corona. (68 RT 93:5-11) Corona told him that when he wentfrom the Salinas area to the Fresno/Maderaareahis supervisor would then be Armando Elenes, who was witness # 49. (68 RT 93:24- 94:6) Aspart of his UFtraining, Ramirez alleges that the UFW taught him howto take statements from workers and how to explain to workers what was neededin the statementfor it to be useful. (68 RT 97:6-100:11) Ramirez did not recall Elenes directly saying that the organizers shouldtell the workersto lie, but he felt that Elenes insinuated it. (69 RT 77:14-21 and 69 RT 83:6-23) However, Ramirez did notput all of his training into practice. (69 RT 20:6-17) If something else was needed to make a worker’s charge useful, Ramirez would explain what element was missing. (68 RT 100:13-102:4) Ramirez recalled an instance where a workerindicated that he would say whatever was needed. (68 RT 102:6-9) Ramirez recalled this worker being in the crew of Cirillo Gomez. (68 RT 114:25-120:15) In total, Ramirez took three or four statements from workers that would get forwarded to UFWparalegals. (68 RT 114:9-21) Ramirez drafted a couple pre-declaration forms, but only the attorneys or paralegals drafted the declarations. (69 RT 127:17- 128:20 and 69 RT 132:17-21) Ramirez states that he told all of these three or four 66 workers to lie. (69 RT 78:16-24) Whenaskedin a non-leading manner, Ramirez was completely unable to recall the names of Ogarrio or Salazar. However, when asked in a pointedly leading manneras to whether Ogarrio and Salazar were among the three to four Gomez crew workers with whom he spoke, Ramirez responded affirmatively. (69 RT 85:19-91:23) Ramirez described how hereceived a called from a worker seemingly out of the blue asking him totestify at the hearing. (69 RT 98:5-106:3 and 69 RT 162:7-164:21) Ramirez indicates that he then invited his coworker Manuel Barrientos, who was witness # 97, to also share his experience. (69 RT 111:19- 112:17 and 69 RT 159:18-25) Ramirez acknowledgedtestifying at the Corralitos hearing in Salinas in November 2012. (69 RT 172:11-21) Ramirez denied lying at the Corralitos hearing. (69 RT 173:10-17) Having reviewed the hearing transcript in Corralitos Farm, 39 ALRB No.8, Case No. 2012-RC-004-SAL etseq., I note that Ramirez testified under oath that he had always been a strawberry picker and withheld divulging that he had worked for the UFW either before or during his time at Corralitos.*” (Corralitos, 1 RT 122:6-22) *° The Board should consider referring to the State Bar of California the issue of whetheror not, at the time of the Corralitos hearing, any UFtrial counsel had actual knowledge that Ramirez was on the UFW payroll while he was working at Corralitos. If any counsel, UFW or otherwise, had actual knowledgeofthis relationship, their silence on that matter could be construed as deception, and thus might be an appropriate subject for State Bar review. In any event, it is my holding that, prospectively, UFW counsel are directed to disclose, both generally at the prehearing conference, and specifically before the hearing testimony ofthat particular witness,if they are calling (Footnote continued. ...) 67 ManuelJavier Barrientos, who was witness # 97, became a UFW organizer in June 2011. (70 RT 22:1-4) Barrientos was assigned by the UFW to work as an organizer at Gerawan from January 2013 to October 25, 2013. (70 RT 23:13-14 and 70 RT 28:16-24) Barrientostestified that he saw workers who were unjustly fired at Gerawan, but later modified his testimony to say that he only learn of the firings through the commentsof other workers. (70 RT 36:7-23) When workers came to Barrientos with possible companyviolations, he nevertold the workersto lie. (70 RT 41:18-24) Nor did Barrientos evertell a workerto alter his statement to UFparalegals. (70 RT 44:22-45:4) Whenhe wastrained by Armando Elenes, organizers weretold that they neededto use “creativity” in their work, but Barrientos never actually saw organizers put this into practice. (70 RT 68:24-69:10 and 70 RT 75:24-75:8) Barrientos states that he never heard other UFW organizerstell workersto tell lies. (70 RT 48:10-13) Barrientos and Ramirez were friends who often ate dinner together in 2013. (70 RT 97:24-25) Barrientos did recall Horacio Ramireztelling him that he had told workerstotell lies in the crew of Cirilo Gomez, but he did not rememberthe namesofthe workers involved. (70 RT 48:24-49:14, 70 RT 52:7-17 and 70 RT 53:20-55:7) But later Barrientos stated that Ramirez did nottell him that he hadtold witnessesto tell lies, only that he had manipulated the circumstances. (Footnote continued) any worker witness who wassimultaneously on the payroll of both a growerand the UFWitself. 68 (70 RT 60:12-18) Barrientos also vaguely remembered UForganizer Jose Higueratalking about being able to bring in more statements andtelling a workerto change his statement. (70 RT 48:3-20) Barrientos indicated thathe left the UFW in October 2013 when he wastold that his pay would no longer include a supplement for being from Salinas instead of Madera. (70 RT 75:22-76:9, 94 RT 195:13-196:7 and 94 RT 199:20-23) On cross-examination, I found that Barrientos was candid when he admitted that petitioner’s attorney had paid for his lunch. (70 RT 96:7-8) Armando Elenes has been a National Vice President for the UFsince 2008. (24 RT 25:5-18 and 34 RT 26:11-15) Elenes has worked for the UFW from 1997 to 2003 and from 2006to the present. (24 RT 25:5-13) In 2013, Elenes was also responsible for organizing new membersand bringing them intothe union, especially in the San Joaquin Valley. (24 RT 26:21-27:5) He noted that the UFW had re-requested negotiations with Gerawan on October 12, 2013. (24 RT 30:9-12) Oncross-examination, Elenes indicated that he was unable to give an estimateas to the UFW’s numberof dues-paying members in 2013. (30 RT 65:15-66:11) Asa key leader of the UFW, who wastasked with bringing in new members, knowing how many dues-paying membersthat you haveis the type of information you simply need to know. (30 RT 66:15-17) In this instance, the number of workers at Gerawan,andthusalso the numberofpotential dues-paying members,is very large, in the multiple thousands. Most probably Elenes was concerned about conceding the smallness of existing UFW membership, especially in comparison to the number of Gerawan workersat stake. Thus, I reach the inescapable conclusion that Elenes was 69 lying whenhestated that he was unable to give an estimate as to the number ofUFW dues-paying members. (30 RT 67:5-68:2) As result, for me,this seriously underminedthe credibility of Elenes as to his other answers. In late 2012 and 2013, Elenes was in charge of running the Gerawan organizing campaign. (94 RT 146:21-23) There were three lead organizers or coordinators, Oscar Mejia, Nancy Oropeza and Everardo Vidales. (94 RT 147:1-20 and RT 150:20-25) There were fifteen to twenty organizers underthe three coordinators. (94 RT 152:16-24) Elenestestified that he probably had approximately fifteen meetings with the organizers. (94 RT 154:4-156:2) Elenes indicated that he may have given sometraining to the organizers on howto take a statement from a worker-witness. (94 RT 171:8-172:3 and 94 RT 185:23-186:7) Elenes denied ever instructing organizers to coach employeesto give more definite- sounding statements when the worker was uncertain as to somedetails. (94 RT 173:5-10 and 94 RT 184:3-15) I gave less weight to most of Elenes answers given mydistrustof his earlier testimony regarding the number of dues-paying UFW members. 6. Direct Hire Crew of Benigno Gonzalez Medina Two workerwitnessestestified with respect to work-time signature gathering or assistance in the crew of Benigno Gonzalez Medina. These two persons were Marina Cruz and Juan Diego Jimenez. Foreman Benigno Gonzalez Medina wasalso called as a witness. As noted below,I completed discredited the testimony of Marina Cruz. With respect to Mr. Jimenez, I found that he wastruthful, but not 70 particularly reliable with respect to his recollection of specific details. Asa consequence, I do not find any evidence of work-time signature gathering in the crew of Benigno Gonzalez Medina. I do find, based upon a preponderanceofthe evidence, that foreman Benigno Gonzalez Medina did let some of his crew members occasionally use his Chevrolet Suburban, andthat on one occasion, the crew membersrode in the Suburban to goto a protest. I further find that Benigno knew, or had reason to know, where the crew members were going onthat occasion,given that about halfof his workers simultaneously left and that one worker asked him if he should goto the protest. (89 RT 107:1-6, RT 152:12-18 and RT 161:11-24) Marina Cruz, who was witness # 6, worked for Gerawan from 1997 to 2013. (6 RT 109:1-10) Cruz remembers seeing foreman Benigno Gonzalez Medina at a Sacramento protest. (6 RT 200:19-201:1) Juan Diego Jimenez, who was witness # 30, worked for Gerawan in 2013. (17 RT 7:25-8:5) Please note that the court reporter’s transcript, Volume23, incorrectly lists the first name for Mr. Jimenez as “Jose”, whenhis first nameis actually “Juan”. (17 RT 5:14-15) Jimenezrecalled his foreman’s name as Benigno Hernandez. (17 RT 8:24-9:5) Jimenez recalled three women, ages twenty-five to thirty-five, coming to his crew about five minutes before lunch ended and staying about five minutes into the work time. (17 RT 10:1-7 and 17 RT 15:14-17) Jimenez did not see any of the three womentalk to his crew boss. Jimenez described Benignoas approximately thirty-five feet away. (17 RT 12:13-19) Jimenez indicated that after he declined to sign, the women took out a California 71 identification card andsaid that she was here legally and he was not. (17 RT 21:23- 22:4) The woman also gave him a cardfor her attorneys, which Jimenez gave to “Oscar” with the union. (17 RT 22:7-15) Jimenez also alleges that a friend, “Celestino”, told him that the womenthreatenedthefriend, but I discredited that part of his testimonyas unreliable hearsay. (17 RT 30:6-33:11) Jimenez recalled another instance when Benignoasked someofthe crew if they were goingto the Visalia protest. (17 RT 44:4-46:10) Jimenez recalls that Benigno loaned his Chevrolet Suburban to a crew member who drove someofthe workers to the protest. (17 RT 46:14-25) Jimenez himself went backin the Suburban, though he wentto the protest in a different vehicle. (17 RT 47:14-18) Jimeneztestified that, from a distance of thirty-five feet, he heard a portion of a conversation between Benigno and a co- worker in which Benigno mentioned cutting down thefruit trees and replacing them with almond trees. (23 RT 10:21-11:13) Jimenez admitted that he could only hear part of the conversation. (23 RT 11:19-25) Benigno Gonzalez Medina, who was witness # 113, has workedat Gerwan from 1993 throughthe present. (89 RT 56:23-57:7) Benigno has two brothers whoarealso crew bosses, Emetario and Esteban. (89 RT 59:12-15 and 89 RT 157:23-158:5) Benigno’s brother-in-law was supervisor Jose Becerra. (89 RT 58:25-59:7 and 89 RT 60:11-15) Benigno’s brother Pedro wasalso a supervisor. (89 RT 158:2-5) Benigno hasotherrelatives working for Gerawanas well. Benigno confirmed that he drove a Chevrolet Suburban. (89 RT 76:1-2 and 89 RT 119:14- 16) Benigno denied being in Sacramentoat a protest. (89 RT 103:19-22) I credited 72 Benigno’s testimony on that subject and discredited the testimony of Marina Cruz on that subject. Benigno stated that he did not ever encourage workersto go toa protest. (89 RT 107:1-21 and 89 RT 121:20-25) Benigno admitted to loaning his Chevrolet Suburban to workers on eight or ten occasions in 2013. (89 RT 120:16- 121:14) Benigno claimed that, on one day, when the workersleft early, he heard the workersyelling, but that he did not pay attention to what they were saying. (89 RT 140:7-18) Moreover, Benigno knew or had reason to know where half of his crew wassimultaneously going, especially given that Benigno concedesthat one worker asked him, “Mr. Crew Boss, do you want meto goto the protest?” (89 RT 107: 1-6, RT 152:12-18 and RT 161:11-24) Benigno denied evertelling a workerthat, if the union camein, that fruit trees would be replaced with almondtrees. (89 RT 123:22- 25) 7. Direct Hire Crew of Emetario Gonzalez Medina One workerwitnesstestified with respect to assistance in the crew of Emertario Gonzalez Medina. This person was Marina Cruz. Foreman Emetario Gonzalez Medina wasalso called as a witness. As noted below, I completed discredited the testimony of Marina Cruz. As noted above, Cruz worked for Gerawan from 1997 to 2013. (6 RT 109:1-10) Cruz testified that Emetario Gonzalez offered to pay her cash out ofhis pocket if she would go to a protest in Visalia. (6 RT 205:1-15) Cruz then wentto the protest and spenta couple of hours outside the ALRB Visalia Regional Office. (6 RT 209:22-25) Onredirect examination, Cruz wasnotsure if this protest was 73 before or after the election. (7 RT 23:5-11) On the other hand, Cruz thoughtthat the protest was in “October”, which would presumably have been October 2013, since her testimony was on October 6-7, 2014. (7 RT 23:14-16 and 7 RT 38:17-20) Cruz did not recall muchdetail about whatthe protesters chanted, although she did mention the topic of counting the votes. (6 RT 209:14-17 and 7 RT 39:10-16) She states that Emetario Gonzalezpaid her the next week in the form of a $100 bill. (6 RT 210:19-211:16) Cruz did not see Emetario give cash to any of the other workers. (7 RT 21:23-22:3) The company suspended Cruz on two occasionsin 2012. (7 RT 16:17-20) First, I did not find credible the testimony regarding the cash payment from Emetario. Second, notwithstanding hertestimony about counting the votes,I did not find persuasive evidence one way or the other as to whetherthis protest occurred before versusafter the election. Of course,this latter point is moot if my credibility determination as to Cruz is otherwise left undisturbed. Foreman Emetario Gonzalez Medina, who was witness # 100, started working at Gerawan in 1982, and became a foreman in 1987. (78 RT 9:17-25) Emetario indicated that Cruz workedin his crew in the grapes in 2013,and also worked in his crew a couple ofyears prior to that time. (78 RT 34:4-14) Emetario denied offering to pay Cruz for going to a Visalia protest. (78 RT 38:1-12) Emetario further denied encouraging herto goto the protest, and denied that Cruz had asked him for money. (78 RT 68:18-69:12) Emetario also denied that in 2013 he gavecash, or loaned money, to Cruz for any purpose. (78 RT 13 1:14-22) Onthis specific subject, I credit the testimony of Emertario, but not that of Cruz. 74 8. Direct Hire Crew of Jose Octavio Jaimes Twoworker witnesses testified with respect to assistance in the crew of Jose Octavio Jaimes. These workers were Elias Hernandez and Adolfo Medina. Foreman Jose Octavio Jaimes wasalso called as a witness. I mostly foundall three of these witnessesto be credible and foundthat their testimony, while slightly divergent, could be mostly reconciled as compatible. Elias Hernandez, who was witness # 47, worked for Gerawan from 2010 through 2014. (22 RT 150:21-151:4) In 2013, the foreman for his crew was Jose Jaimes. (22 RT 151:11-24) One day, Hernandez saw a worker, Rolando, blocking the entrance, saying that the workers could not enter. (22 RT 153:14-16) Hernandez did not recall Rolando’s last name, but did recall that Rolando’s brother was a foreman. (22 RT 153:17-23) Hernandezindicated that Rolando’s car, a red Honda, was blocking the entrance, as were some woodenstakes. (22 RT 154:25- 155:24) In Rolando Padilla’s later testimony, Rolando indicated that he had a four- cylinder Honda Accord. (65 RT 79:18-21) Hernandez indicated that his brother inquired with Jaimes as to what was going on. (22 RT 157:20-22) While hearsayis often admissible if bolstered by other evidence, in this instance, I found more persuasive Jaimes direct testimony than any recollection by Hernandez as to whathis brother may have said. Hernandezstates that later Jaimes told workers that they could goto the protest or go home. (22 RT 157:23-158:10) Hernandez also remembered anotherdate, prior to the election, when Evelyn Fragosa cametohis 75 crew during work time and delivered an anti-union message. (22 RT 163:16-165:14 and 22 RT 166:15-20) Adolfo Medina, who was witness # 68, worked for Gerawan for multiple years. (38 RT 76:24-77:6 and 38 RT 94:23-95:1) In 2013, Medina exclusively worked in the crew of Jose Jaimes. (38 RT 77:16-18) Jaimesalso sometimes served as Medina’s ride provider. (38 RT 78:8-15) On one occasion between September and November,at approximately 4:00 p.m., Jaimes took his passengersto a protest at the intersection of Highway 145 and Central Avenue. (38 RT 79:14-82:7) Medina, who seemed very nervousonthe stand, indicated that he saw womenat the protest gathering signatures to support the decertification effort. (38 RT 80:23-81:20) After about thirty or forty minutes, Medinathen called Jaimes to say that he was hungry. (38 RT 82:9-13) Five or ten minuteslater, Jaimes swung by in his brown van andpicked up the workers from the protest. (38 RT 82:13-14) Medina admitted that he had been suspended by the company in August 2014. (38 RT 103:12-25) Jose Octavio Jaimes, who was witness # 125, started working for Gerawan as a crew bossin approximately 2000 and continuedto holdthat position in 2013. (100 RT 167:20-168:8) On the day of the work blockage, Jaimes was driving a Gerawan van and saw the entrance where youget the tractors blocked by twocars. (100 RT 176:4-23) Jaimes could not remember for sure whether or not Adolfo Medina worked that day. (100 RT 188:18-189:2) Jaimes also remembered a day whenthree of his male workers individually asked to leave work early to attend a 76 protest in Visalia. (101 RT 16:2-17:7 and 101 RT 52:8-13) Jaimes allowed the workersto go,telling them to put awaytheir ladder and shears. (101 RT 18:15-23 and 101 RT 48:6-16) While the workers did nottell Jaimes what the protest was about, he knew that it was likely related to the union decertification because he was familiar with severalearlier protests in that regard. (101 RT 52:14-54:4) Jaimes denied seeing Elias Hernandezorhis brother on the day of the work blockage. (101 RT 19:5-22) With respect to the testimony ofAdofo Medina, Jaimes did concede that there was a day, at the end of the work day at approximately 4:00 p-m., where someofhis passengers (other than Medina)asked to be droppedoff at Highway 145 and Central Avenue, where a protest was occurring. (101 RT 21:24-22:9) It certainly is possible that these other workers spoke to Jaimes outside of the presence of Medina. According to foreman Jaimes, Medina got out with the other workers. (101 RT 22:10-12) This protest occurred at an earlier date in the year than the work blockage. (101 RT 23:1-5) Consistent with the testimony from Hernandez, Jaimes did remember a woman visiting her crew who was a former union employeein October or November 2013, but stayed about fifty feet away when she spoke. (101 RT 42:24-43:14) 9. Direct Hire Crew of Eugenio Lopez Sanchez Two worker witnesses testified with respect to assistance in the crew of Eugenio Lopez. These workers were Alberto Bermejo and Jesus Alacron Urzua. Foreman Eugenio Lopez Sanchez wasalsocalled as a witness. I did notfind any of 77 these three witnesses to be highly credible. As a consequence,I did notfind any evidenceof assistanceon the part of foreman Eugenio Lopez Sanchez. Alberto Bermejo, who was witness # 4, worked for Gerawan from 2011 through 2014. (5 RT 78:18-21) In 2013, Bermejo’s foreman was Alfredo Zarate. (5 RT 79:13-15) Please note that whenthe transcriptrefers to Bermejo discussing Martin Allesandro,that this actually refers to Martin Elizondo. On the day of the work blockage, Bermejo saw a crew bossat the intersection of Highway 145 and Central Avenue where the protesters were gathered. (5 RT 159:18-21) The foreman at the protest was Eugenio Lopez Sanchez, who is sometimes known by the nickname of “El Amigaso”, which meansclose friend. (5 RT 159:22-160:19) Jesus Alacron Urzua, who was witness # 25, worked for Gerawan in 2012 and 2013. (15 RT 110:21-111:4) In 2013, Urzua workedin the crew of foreman Eugenio Lopez Sanchez. (15 RT 112:8-10) Urzuatestified that he heard Eugenioandhis brother Alvino, a regular worker in the crew, talking with each other and saying bad things about the union. (15 RT 114:14-115:4) Lam skeptical ofthis testimony because Urzua conceded that he wasaboutthirty-five feet away from the two brothers when they were talking. (15 RT 116:13-22 and 15 RT 125: 19-20) On another occasion, Urzuarecalls Eugenio telling him and one of Eugenio’s brothersto stop arguing about the union. (15 RT 117:1-18) Urzua also remembered one occasion when Silvia Lopez cameto his crew to collect signatures and brought her son along. (15 RT 140:10-18 and 15 RT 146:23-24) Urzua described the son as being the approximateageofa “student” andSilvia said she brought him along so 78 that he could see what his mother was doing. (15 RT 140:16-18) I do credit this portion of Urzua’s testimony. Silvia Lopez also conceded that she did take her seventeen years-old son, Roman, on companyproperty on oneoccasion. (46 RT 31:5-32:9 and 46 RT 48:17-19) Silvia stated that she took her son to work that day so that she could get him a tri-tip sandwichat a nearbyplace thathe liked. (46 RT 48:12-15) The company’s employee manual prohibits bringing children or non- employed family members on to the property. (Exhibit GCX-47, bates # 0008552, and exhibit R-13). Urzua indicated that they were in eyeshot of Eugenio Lopez, who is not related to Silvia. (15 RT 141:10-13 and 97 RT 159:23-160:3) There was no evidence presented that disciplinary action was ever taken against Silvia Lopez or any of the other signature gatherers for bringing a minor child to work. Howeverthe Respondent’s counselelicited persuasive testimony showing that in 2012 another workerwasin fact suspended for a full week for bringing a minorto work. (9RT 194:3-18) Eugenio Lopez Sanchez, who waswitness # 121, began working for Gerawan in 1988, and has been a foreman for the past dozenyears. (97 RT 133:10- 17) In 2013, Eugenio had severalrelatives who workedin his crew, including brothers Alvino and Esteban, and nephewsJavier and Adolfo. (97 RT 138:1-11) Both ofhis brothers are tractor drivers for the crew. (97 RT 143:13-16) Eugenio summarily denied making any comments aboutthe union, allowing any worker, including his brothers,to insult a colleague, and knowingthe identity of Silvia Lopez back in 2013. (97 RT 157:25-160:17) Eugenio did say that he may have heard 79 workerstalking about Silvia when he was “going by in [his] car”. (98 RT 33:17- 34:14) Eugeniodid recall seeing Urzua wearing a UF W t-shirt towardthe end of 2013. (97 RT 168:7-9) Eugenio denied that Urzuatold him that Eugenio’s brothers made fun of his support for the union. (97 RT 168:20-23) Eugenio even denied knowing whether his own brothers supported or opposed the union. (98 RT 75:25- 76:6) At the time of the work blockage, Eugenio denied knowing thatit had anything to do with the unionization issue. (98 RT 6:21-24) Eugenio states that he did not call a supervisor to ask what was happening. (98 RT 25:16-21) Eugenio also states that when he ate lunchon the day of the blockage with several other foremen, none ofthem talked about what was happening that day. (98 RT 78:15-79:1 7) 10. Direct Hire Crew of Francisco Maldonado Chavez Three worker witnesses testified with respect to assistance in the crew of Francisco Maldonado Chavez. These workers were Eleazar Mulato, Rafael Marquez, and Salvador Perez Rangel. Foreman Francisco Maldonado Chavez was also called as a witness. Eleazar Mulato, who waswitness # 10, worked for Gerawan during 2010 through 2013. (8 RT 190:3-191:3) At all pertinent times, his crew boss was Francisco Maldonado Chavez. (8 RT 190:15-25) Mulato indicated that his crew was all-male. (9 RT 10:13-20 and 82 RT 89:17-19) The company sent Mulato a letter in the mail which, in Spanish, talked about the union. (8 RT 194:9-196:24, 8 RT 212:8-10, and Exhibit GCX-2) In total, Mulato recalled receiving approximately seven suchletters from the company. (8 RT 217:23-218:6) Mulato recalled an 80 instance when the union topic came up with his foreman when Mulato was receiving a morningride to work in Maldonado’s Chevrolet Suburban. (8 RT 219: 1-19) The other passengersin the vehicle were also members of his crew, but Mulato thought the other workers were sleeping in the car. (8 RT 220:11-17) Mulatotestified that Maldonado asked him about the union, and that Mulato responded positively about it. (8 RT 219:20-25) Mulato stated that Maldonado thentold him that Ray Gerawan would cut down all of the treesif the union cameinto the company. (8 RT 220:1-10) Mulatoindicated that he participated in the union-companynegotiations. (8RT 220:21-222:16) Thefirst time that Mulato heard a woman gather anti-union signatures in his crew,he neither talked to her nor saw her. (9 RT 14:5-16:3) This testimony was too limited to be verified or tested. Nor did I find persuasivethe hearsay evidenceas to this occurrence. (9 RT 16:4-17:3) The second time that Mulato heard a womengatheranti-union signatures in his crew, he also did notsee her. (9RT 17:18-21) Mulato heard the womantalking to a co-worker, Alejandro, and then he heard co-worker Rafael Marquez join the conversation. (9 RT 17:30-21 :7) Mulato testified that the woman told Marquezthatifthe workers did not sign the petition the company would cut down thetrees and the workers would no longer have jobs. (9 RT 21:10-13) Mulatostates that he heard Marquez ask the woman for her name, and that she responded by asking why he wanted to know. (9 RT 21:20-22:5) This subject matter was further addressed by witness Rafael Marquez, as noted below. 81 Mulatostates that on one occasion in 2013, he asked Maldonado for permission to collect signatures during work hours. (9 RT 25:12-19) Foreman Maldonado denied Mulato’s request. (9 RT 26:1-27:21) Given the context, it was logical for Maldonadoto conclude that Mulato wasasking collect signatures related to the union issue. I credited Mulato’s testimony onthis subject. I do assumethat Mulato’s request was a purposeful attemptto try to show that the company would treat union supporters differently than decertification proponents. Mulatoexplained that in past years, the company had given away some free fruit, although some was over-ripe. (9 RT 28:1-33:9) In the past years, the unattended fruit was put in large bins and the workers hadto bring their own bags and pick throughthefruit of varying qualities like “chickens”. (9 RT 32: 1-33:9) There were no shade coverings or free beverages in the past years. (9 RT 32:9-24) In 2013, Mulato indicated that the fruit was of nicer quality andpresentation,free bags and beverages were provided, and the area was shaded. (9 RT 33:19-36:3) Prior to the work blockage, Mulato did not moveanytractors. (9RT 123:22-24) At one point, several hours after the blockage wasinitiated, Mulato sat on a tractor for a few minutesto try to get a better view of wherethe entrance was blocked. (9 RT 125:6-9) Atthe time, foreman Francisco Maldonado was about one hundred feet away. (9 RT 82:21-25) Nothing stopped Maldonado from immediately moving the tractor. (81 RT 131:1-4) I find that Mulato had absolutely nothing to do with the early morning work blockage. The work blockage was donesolely by anti-union workers. While 82 falsely denying it during investigative interviews, at the hearing and under oath, the decertification proponentsreadily and repeatedly admitted that they were solely responsible for the blockage, andit is disingenuous for any party to suggest otherwise. Indeed, I find that the decertification proponentsinitiated the blockage primarily because they were convinced that this was their only hope to timely gather the signatures that they needed after the Regional Director dismissedtheirfirst decertification petition. There was no credible evidence thatthe companyassisted the Petitioner with respect to the work blockage, although it was immediately and readily apparent to the company foremen and supervisors, upon arriving to work that day, that it was the solely the anti-union workers who blocked the entrances, thus denying all workers the opportunity to do their jobs and receive ordinary wages that day. Rafael Marquez, who was witness # 20, worked for Gerawan from 2011 to the present. (13 RT 80:15-19) From 2011 to 2013, Marquez workedin the crew of foreman Francisco Maldonado. (13 RT 81:14-16) Similar to Mulato, Rafael Marquez recalls a female worker approaching Alejandro Perez. (13 RT 102:6-9) But unlike Mulato who described this occurring during work time, Marquez described it taking place during a break. (13 RT 102:10-1 1) I credit that testimony. Marquez then spoke with the signature gatherer and indicatedhis support for the union. (13 RT 105:6-11) Marquez indicatedthat the worker soliciting signatures did notleave until at least ten minutes past the end of the break. (13 RT 108:7-14) Marquezrecalled that on this day, foreman Francisco Maldonado wasoutand his 83 brother Daniel Maldonadohad beenleft in charge. (13 RT 102:25-103:3) I credit this portion of Rafael’s testimony, but there wasnot sufficient evidence to demonstrate one way or the other whether or not Daniel Maldonado overheard the conversation. None of the parties called Daniel Maldonadoas a witness. Marquezalso indicated that in December 2012, foreman Francisco Maldonado told him that the union would take sixty dollars from each worker. (13 RT 90:12-18) Marquez also testified that, in December 2012, Maldonado told him that he had heard Supervisor Antonio Francosaythat “the union could pass under his balls”. (13 RT 90:20-91:19) I am not crediting this hearsay statement and could not even weighits importance without knowing further context. Moreover, none of the parties called Supervisor Antonio Francoas a witness. Marqueztestified that he asked foreman Francisco Maldonado for permission to collect signatures so that they can have a contract. (13 RT 139:2-17) Juan Cruz wasalso present. (13 RT 139:23-25) Maldonado told Marquezthat he could collect signatures during break time but not during work time. (13 RT 139:18- 20) Onthe day of the work blockage, Marquez eventually went to Highway 145 and Central Avenue to support the union. (13 RT 162:9-25) One worker threatened to beat him up. (13 RT 163:8-11) Marquez wasalso pushed bya decertification supporter, but he was not hurt. (13 RT 163:1-5 and 13 RT 223:18- 224:7) 84 Salvador Perez Rangel, who was witness # 46, worked for Gerawan during 2008 to 2013. (22 RT 118:15-19) Perez workedin the crew of Francisco Maldonado. (22 RT 119:1-8) Perez recalled an occasion whenSilvia Lopez came to his crew to solicit signatures at lunch time. (22 RT 121:11-17) Silvia Lopez came with another womanand a young girl who appearedto besix or seven years old. (22 RT 120:10-121:6) Perez also recalled riding in Francisco Maldonado’s car on the morning of the work blockage. (22 RT 129:16-130:2) Maldonadoreceived two phonecalls. (22 RT 130:3-131:7) After the first call, Maldonadotold the people in the car that the union had closed the work entrance. (22 RT 130:15-1 8) After the secondcall, Maldonadotold the people in the car that it was people of the company whohad closed the entrances. (22 RT 130:22-131:7) Francisco Maldonado Chavez, who was witness # 104, has worked for Gerawan from 1996 to the present. (81 RT 88:17-89:6) Maldonadostatesthat, in 2013, he did not know Silvia Lopez, nor did he know that she was gathering signatures. (81 RT 110:8-23) Maldonado confirmedthe generalrecollection of Salvador Perez as to the two female signature-gatherers who had brought to the crew a very young girl. (81 RT 114:4-24) Maldonadostatesthat he called the office to let them knowthat the womenhad broughta child to the field, but by the time someone from the office came by, the two well-dressed women and the younggirl had already left. (81 RT 114:25-116:1 and 82 RT 83:9-14) 85 Maldonadoalso confirmed that he told Marquez and Mulatothat they could collect signaturesat lunch time, but did not approveit for during working hours. (82 RT 19:3-12) Maldonado denied telling Mulato thatifthe union camein, Ray Gerawan would cut down all of the trees. (82 RT 17:24-18:16) I credited Maldonado’s recollection on that topic. Maldonado denied evertelling Marquezthat the union wouldtake sixty dollars per month from the workers. (82 RT 22:20-23:1) By somepoint in 2013, Maldonado knew that Marquez wasa strong supporterofthe union. (82 RT 51:4-6) But even in 2012, I find it unlikely that Maldonado made that comment to Marquez. Maldonado remembered giving Perez rides to work during part of 2013, but he did not recall giving Perez a ride to work on the date of the work blockage. (81 RT 122:3-25 and 82 RT 64:5-11) In this instance,I will credit Maldonado. There was someimplication that Maldonado may have stopped giving rides at somepoint to Mulato andPerez. If so, that would havelikely occurred prior to the time of the work blockage. 11. Direct Hire Crew of Sonia Ynez Martinez Three worker witnessestestified with respect to assistance in the crew of Sonia Ynez Martinez. These workers were Marina Cruz, Fidel Garcia Ortega, and Areli Sanchez Fierros. Crew boss Sonia Ynez Martinez wasalso called as a witness. Marina Cruz, who was witness # 6, worked for Gerawan from 1997 to 2013. (6 RT 109:1-10) As discussedearlier, I completely discredited the testimony of Cruz regarding the cash paymentthat she allegedly received from foreman Emetario Gonzalez Medina. I also discredited her testimony whereshe purportedly 86 remembered seeing foreman Benigno Gonzalez Medina at a Sacramentoprotest. Here, Cruz testified that she saw crew boss Sonia Ynez Martinez received a decertification petition from worker Virgina Chairez andpassed it around to her crewfor signatures. (6 RT 172:2-18) Cruz states that the petition was circulated shortly after the work day had started, and just after Martinez had conducted a morning class on avoiding heat stroke. (6 RT 162:23-163:16 and RT 169: 17-19) Thetranscript is replete with palpable references to worker Virginia Chairez collecting decertification signatures during non-work time. None ofthe parties called Chairez as a witness. Nonetheless, I completed discredited the testimony of Marina Cruzon this subject. It is not that I think Cruz confused a training class paper with the decertification petition. Rather, I completed discredited the testimony of Marina Cruz becausethe remainderofthe testimony on a variety of other subjects rang so false. Fidel Garcia Ortega, who was witness # 45, worked for Gerawan during 2004 to 2013. (22 RT 94:18-20) In 2013, the crew boss for Ortega was Sonia Ynez Martinez. (22 RT 96:6-7) Ortega recalled Martineztelling workers during a training class that she would come bylater with a paper for workers to sign. (22 RT 98:5-19) Garcia was only able to recall her saying that the paper was for signing if a worker wasin favor of the company. (22 RT 98:5-14 and 22 RT 100:9- 19) Martinez then asked Ortega to sign a blank piece of paper. (22 RT 99:15- 100:23) 87 Forthe past fourteen years, Areli Sanchez Fierros, who was witness # 75, worked for Gerawan. (42 RT 160:10-19) I previously discussed someofher mostly credible testimony with respect to oneofthe bus rides to Sacramento. In 2013, Sanchez worked in the crew Sonia Ynez Martinez. (42 RT 160:20-21) Sanchez indicated that she did not see anyonein her crew collectsignatures during work time. (43 RT 24:4-5) Sanchez, whocollected signaturestogetrid of the union, recalled going to a protest at the Visalia Regional Office wherestaff posted a sign that said “no public restrooms”. (43 RT 28:16-25) Sanchez also recalled that the company sometimes gave workers free coffee and bread, and also sometimesfree pizza if the workers werethere late at night. (43 RT 73:2-10) Sonia Ynez Martinez, who was witness # 102, has been employed by Gerawan for the past seven years. (79 RT 100:6-7) In 2010, Martinez became a crew boss. (80 RT 155:7-9) I conclude that Martinez was exaggerating when she stated that during one month the UFW visited her crew on every single day at lunch time. (79 RT 113:12-23) Martinez testified that the visits bothered her because she could noteat her lunchin peace, but rather hadto separate herself from the workers if the union visited. (79 RT 114:5-12) Martinez denied ever having membersofher crew sign a documentrelated to the union. (79 RT 125:6-21 and 79 RT 128:10-22) She did have crew memberssign papers related to safety training sessions. (79 RT 125:22-126:4) Onthe day of the work blockage, Martinez andsix to eight crew members were able to reach the block at which they were scheduledto work, but 88 they were unable to work due to the absence of bathrooms and water. (79 RT 133:17-135:5) Martinez informedthe office that she and some of the workers were able to reach the work site. (80 RT 134:23-135:22 and 80 RT 138:15-139:1) Martinez did not recall Dan Gerawan or his wife meeting with her crew in previous years, but in 2013,she recalls at least one of the two visiting her crew on a monthly basis. (79 RT 115:22-119:19 and 80 RT 59:7-60:24) Martinez has known worker Virginia Chairez for five or six years, but she denied having any conversations with Chairez in 2013, other than morningsalutations. (80 RT 86:15-16, 80 RT 70:4-71:6 and 80 RT 88:14-20) Martinez testified that she saw papers being passedout, and that the people bringing the papers had pens, but that she did not see any actual signing. (80 RT 110:3-9) Having discredited the testimony by Marina Cruz, and taking into accountthe brevity and lack ofspecificity as to the testimony of Fidel Garcia Ortega, I find that it was not established that crew boss Martinez solicited signatures for the decertification petition. This finding is corroborated by the testimonyof Areli Sanchez Fierros. 12. Direct Hire Crew of Gloria Mendez Seven worker witnesses testified with respect to assistance in the crew of Gloria Mendez. These workers were AlmaDelia Patifio, Severiano Salas, Gerardo Gifiez, Reina Ibafiez, Fermin Lopez, Maria Hinojoa de Lopez, and Gabriel Suarez. Crew boss Gloria Mendez wasalso called as a witness. 89 AlmaDelia Patifio, who was witness # 8, worked for Gerawan from 2007 to 2014. (7 RT 205:9-20) In 2013, Patifio worked in the crew of Gloria Mendez. (7 RT 206:20-21 and 7 RT 207:23-208:5) Her husband, Severiano Salas, also workedin that crew. (7 RT 209:25-210:4 and 8 RT 83:17-84:17) He worked for Gerawan from 1999 to 2013. (8 RT 82:6-20) Patifio recalls during work hours a co-worker from her crew, Erika Solano??, asking her to sign a decertification petition. (7 RT 218:20-23) Specifically, Patifio recalled them being asked for signatures between 11:00 a.m. and noon,andSalas testified that Solano asked them for signatures at approximately 11:00 a.m. (7 RT 221:1-7 and 8 RT 86:14-18) Patifio told Solanothat the two of them could go and check with her husband, who was abouteight to twenty feet away. (7 RT 212:4-13 and 7 RT 218:24-219:8) Salas indicated that they would notsign thepetition at the moment and Solano responded that it was fine. (7 RT 219:17-20) Severiano Salas’, who was witness # 9, essentially corroborated the testimony ofhis wife, Patifio. (8 RT 85:23-96:1) Salas testified that crew boss Martinez was approximately three to five rows of peach trees away when he spoke with Solano, and that Martinez was looking in a direction perpendicular to his 3! There is no evidence that Erika Solanois related to the Petitioner or her daughter, Belen Elsa Solano Lopez. (95 RT 61:13-23) °? Inher testimony, Gloria Mendez notedthat on at least one occasion in 2013, she had Salas take a small part of the crew with him when the crew members neededto be split up. (90 RT 99:19-100:7) So presumably, in Gloria’s eyes, Salas wasa trusted memberofthe crew. 90 location. (8 RT 96:14-99:7) Patifio also recalled crew boss Martinez at a distance of approximately three to five rows ofpeach trees. (7 RT 225:4-226:5 and 8 RT 69:2- 8) Patifio estimated the distance from row to row(tree trunk to tree trunk) as being twelve feet. (8 RT 66:22-68:20) Gerardo Gifiez, who was witness # 11, worked for Gerawan from approximately 2007 to 2013. (9 RT 212:12-17) Herecalled a day when two women asked for his signature during worktime at around 11:00 a.m. (9 RT 224:8-18) Gifiez did not know the nameofeither of the women. (9 RT 225:19-25) The women did not explain the purposeofthe signature, so he declinedto sign. (ORT 224:11-13) Gifiez later heard comments from co-workersthat the signatures were to oppose the union. (9 RT 225:12-18) Gifiez also recalled an incident from a day when he was workingin a different crew washing trays. (9 RT 216:4-24) When Gifiez was washingtrays, he worked an evening shift. (9 RT 2 13:2-15) On one evening, Gifiez recalls a person named Julio, who he believed was in charge of packing the grapes, telling him that they were going to close up the yard entrances so that the morning workers could not enter. (9 RT 218:3-15) As a result, Gifiez would need to leave using an alternative route. (9 RT 218:10-12 and 9 RT 220:18-22) Reina Ibafiez, who was witness # 14, worked for Gerawan from approximately 2009 to 2013. (11 RT 63:6-14) Ibajfiez is the sister of Gerardo Giftez, who waswitness #11. (11 RT 139:19-140:6) Reina’s crew boss was Gloria Mendez. (11 RT 63:15-17) Gloria’s husband workedin their crew. (11 RT 111:8- 10) Similar to Patifio and Salas, Ibafiez described Erika Solanosoliciting 91 decertification petition signatures during work hours. (11 RT 141 :2-142:12) Ibafiez also described an occasion when co-worker Martha Rojas™? encouraged workers to leave in the middle of the afternoonto go to a Fresno protest at the courthouse. (11 RT 93:5-93:22) After the workers returned to workat 5:30 p.m., the company gave all of the workers free tacos and pizza, whether they had stayed and workedorif they hadleft to go to the protest. (11 RT 99:6-22 and 11 RT 100:20-23) Ibafiez also addressed two other topics where I discredited her testimony. First, Ibafiez recalled Mendez making negative comments aboutthe union. (11 RT 120:11-121:19) Second, Ibafiez recalled seeing Mendez and Rojas discuss paperwork that waslater given to Erika Solano. (11 RT 127:6-13) But Ibafiez was morethanfifty feet away from the pair when this conversation took place. (11 RT 127:18-128:12) Fermin Lopez, who was witness # 60, worked for Gerawan from approximately 1993 to 2013. (34 RT 146:9-16) In October 2012, Fermin Lopez recalled crew boss Martinez making negative comments about the union andits plansto take three percent of the workers’ money. (34 RT 154:1-1 1) However, Lopezlater indicated that Martinez did not make those comments directly to him. 3 Martha Rojas Rodriguez, who was witness # 85, worked for Gerawan from 1994 through 2013. (56 RT 120:23-121:3) Sheis the daughter of crew boss Candalario Rojas Gonzales, who was witness # 123, nicknamed “Calabazo”. (56 RT 161:21-162:5, 99 RT 46:10-47:21 and 99 RT 79:17-19) Rojas works mostofthe year for crew boss Gloria Mendez. (56 RT 122:3-4 and 56 RT 171:1-5) Rojas explained her opposition to the union,in part, as that sheis “not a little girl who needs someoneto represent me.” (56 RT 127:2-12) 92 & t a i e o S R R a (34 RT 154:14-16) Lopez also did not see Martinez make those commentsto his wife, Patricia. (34 RT 154:17-155:5) Consequently, I found Fermin’s testimony to be unreliable hearsay. On the day of the work blockage, Fermin Lopez eventually went to the protest to support the union. (34 RT 155:21-24) His wife also attended. (34 RT 155:25-156:1) They had a UFWflagoutside their car when they drove by someofthe anti-union protesters at shortly after noon. (34 RT 165:18-166: 1) Fermin heard a rock hit the side of his car. (34 RT 166:2-10) While I believe Fermin’s testimony that his car washit by a rock nearthe protesters, there was no persuasive testimony asto the specific identity of the rock-thrower. Maria Hinojosa de Lopez, who waswitness # 71, worked for Gerawan from approximately 2001 to 2013. (39 RT 128:20-129:5) Hinojosa workedin the crew of Gloria Mendez in 2012 and 2013. (39 RT 130:15-22 and 39 RT 132:1 1-19) Hinojosa could notrecall if she had heard of the UFW in 2012. (39 RT 134:4-5) Thefirst time that Hinjosa heard about the UFW wasin 2013 when the ALRB came to her workplace and spoke for about fifteen minutes. (39 RT 135:1 -18) Hinojosa recalled during worktime in July 2013 owner Dan Gerawanandhis wife speaking to her crew on one occasion. (39 RT 147:14-23) Dan Gerawan told the crew that the union had comein twenty years ago, that he did not know why they went away, and that now the union had returned. (39 RT 147:24-148:3) Hinojosa recalled the chronology of the two events to be that first the ALRB cameto her crew and then afterward Dan Gerawan cameto speak to them. (39 RT 148:4-16) Both of these visits were before September whenshegatheredsignaturesto support the 93 decertification effort. (39 RT 141:8-142:5) Hinojosa recalled the company providing free pizza twice in 2012 when the workers weretherelateat night packing grapes. (39 RT 179:1-4) Shedid not recall the company providing free coffee, - bread or tacos in 2013. (39 RT 180:22-181:25) Hinojosa received a “no union”t- shirt before the election. (39 RT 189:20-190:4) Gabriel Suarez, who was witness # 128, worked for Gerawan from approximately 2008 to 2014. (102 RT 145:3-5) His crew boss was Gloria Mendez. (102 RT 84:8-9) In 2013, Suarez was an assistant crew boss onthose occasions when the crew wassplit up, but in 2014, he was only a regular worker and never assistant crew boss. (102 RT 130:21-131:19) In 2013, even whenthe crew wasnot split up, Suarez described himself as a supervisor or lead person for a subset of approximately fifteen workers. (102 RT 83:21-14, 102 RT 121:9-11 and 103 RT 185:12-186:10) There are no company documents which describe this arrangement and Suarez himself concedesthat he was not paid any extra when the crew was together, only when the crew was more formally split up. (102 RT 120:1-4) Suarez states that on the day of the work blockage, Mendeztold him to take some workersto the protest. (102 RT 90:1-12) Suarezalso testified that Mendez told him aboutthe protest the day before, and that it was common knowledge. (102 RT 91:2-6) Onthedayofthe blockage, Suarez then told some of the workers, perhaps as manyasforty, that they needed to go and support the company. (102 RT 92:21-25 and 102 RT 96:1-6) On that day, the crew was not split, although, as discussed earlier, Suarez himself would characterize it as that he 94 had a sub-set of workers underhis supervision. (102 RT 123: 1-9) Suarez admitted that Jose Erevia had providedtraining for crew bosses andassistant crew bosses to stay uninvolved, but he felt obligated to comply with his immediate supervisor, Mendez. (102 RT 116:21-117:12 and 102 RT 164:13-20) Suarez admitted that he was very unhappy with Mendez for allowing workers to spread untrue rumors about him. (102 RT 129:23-130:1 and 103 RT 144:1-5) I believe that Suarez was mostly sincere about feeling mistreated by the company, Mendez and his co-workers. But whetherhis feelings of persecution have a genuine basisor not, there were times when his testimony rang untrue. For example, Suarez denied owing a co-worker two hundred dollars, when no one had previously mentioned an amount in controversy. (103 RT 177:25-178:20) I findit more likely than not that Gabriel’s feelings caused him to embellish his testimony. Forthat reason,I discredited all of his testimony. Gloria Mendez, who was witness # 115, worked for Gerawan from approximately 1999 to 2014. (90 RT 96:12-22) From approximately 2004 to 2014, Mendez served as a crew boss. (90 RT 97:1-2 and 90 RT 162: 14-16) Mendez has several relatives who worked in her crew,including her son, Luis Miguel Rodriguez, her daughter Anabelle Zavala, her father-in-law, Luis Zavala, and her niece, Maite Daza. (90 RT 97:9-19 and 90 RT 160:24-161:5) Mendez had twoother nieces, Christina Torres and Gloria Torres, who workedin her crew in either 2012 and/or 2013. (90 RT 161:9-24) As a crew boss, Mendez can decide on her own tohire workers. (90 RT 175:15-17, 90 RT 176:18-21 and 90 RT 177:21-24) In 2013, her 95 assistant crew boss or helper was Gabriel Suarez. (90 RT 99:2-8 and 90 RT 11 1:2-4) There was a two month stretch when the crew was formally split and Suarez was in charge ofa part of it. (90 RT 168:14-169:24) Forthis time period,the parties stipulated that Suarez wasa statutory supervisor. (95 RT 29:7-12) On the day of the work blockage, September 30, 2013, Mendezrecalls seeing her whole crewat the blocked entrance chanting that they wouldnot work. (90 RT 134:15-18, 90 RT 137:24-138:2 and 95 RT 64:17-23) Mendeztold her supervisor that there was a car blocking the entrance, but did not mention the workers. (90 RT 189:23-190:3) After the workers left, Mendez went home, taking her son and father-in-law with her. (90 RT 138:20-139:7, 90 RT 140:22-24 and 90 RT 192:21-25) Mendezrecalls a separate occasion, on October 25, 2013, when some of her workers began spontaneously chanting “let’s go” and “we’ll be right back”. (90 RT 143:15-144:14 and 95 RT 7:20-21) Mendez concedesthat she said nothing in response. (95 RT 7:22-25) Mendez also concedesthat her supervisor was present. (95 RT 8:21-22) Then, the majority of her workers left from 10:30 a.m. until approximately noon. (90 RT 143:20-23 and 90 RT 144: 15-21) Mendezlater concededthat she might not have recalled the correct time that the workers left and departed. (95 RT 15:12-19, 95 RT 17:21-23 and 95 RT 62:12-64:3; see also Exhibit GCX-59, bates numbers 2141-2147) Mendez denied ever seeing workers solicit signatures during work hours. (90 RT 149:5-10, 90 RT 151:1-4, 90 RT 154:21-155:3, and 90 RT 156:19-23) Mendezalso denied telling Suarez about the work blockage a day in advance. (95 96 RT 50:25-51:3) Mendez recalled that on October 25, 2013 when the workers had left early and then came back was a day when the companygavefree pizza and tacos to the workersin the evening. (90 RT 151:20-152:10 and 95 RT 23:22-24:2) The workers who hadleft mid-day were permitted to partake in the free pizza andtacos. (95 RT 26:14-24) Having discreditedall of the testimony from Suarez, along with a small portion ofthat from Ibafiez and Lopez, I left with reconciling the remainder ofthe worker testimony with the general denials made by crew boss Mendez. Certainly, I ampersuadedthat worker Erika Solanodid solicit decertification petition signatures during work time. This contention was persuasively made by Patifio, Salas and Ibafiez. Given Salas’ testimony that Mendez was looking perpendicular to the workers, and the general denial by Gloria herself, I do not find the evidence sufficient to conclude crew boss Mendez actually saw Solano gathering the signatures. I also believed Ibafiez when shetestified that worker Marta Rojas encouraged workers to go to the October 25, 2013 protest at the Fresno courthouse. Ibafiez had a better memoryofthe time whenthis took place than did Mendez. Moreover, none ofthe parties elicited persuasive testimony from Rojas about this incident. I conclude that Mendez obviously saw the workers leaving en masse,in dereliction of typical protocol, and chose to do nothing. A higher ranking company supervisor was also present, and workers obviously interpreted the combinedsilence from supervisors as a messagethat they could leave with impunity to attend the mid- afternoonprotest. 97 13. Direct Hire Crew of Francisco Mendoza Three worker witnesses testified with respect to assistance in the crew of foreman Francisco Mendoza. These workers were Adela Castillo, Valerio Velazquez Lopez, and Leonidon Mendoza Morales. Crew boss Francisco Mendoza wasnotcalled as a witness by anyoftheparties. Adela Castillo, who was witness # 12, worked for Gerawan for two months in 2013. (10 RT 82:7-83:21) She may have also workedfor a couple days back in 2012. (10 RT 171:25-172:15) In 2013, Castillo’s foreman was Francisco Mendoza. (10 RT 82:25-83:2) Castillo recalls a couple soliciting decertification petition signatures during work hours. (10 RT 95:4-21) Castillo did not know the nameofeither person. (10 RT 96:24-97:1) Castillo recalls that she was lifting buckets of peachesat the time. (10 RT 97:9-15 and 10 RT 164:16-21) Castillo recalls that the signature gatherers were not dressed in typical workclothes. (10 RT 103:6-104:18) After the two people spoke with her, they proceeded to the next row and begantalking to other workers. (10 RT 107:2-12) Castillo did not hear the conversations between the two people and the workers in the next row, nor did she see anyone sign anything. (91 RT 108:13-15 and 10 RT 110:6-11 1:17) Castillo did not know the location of foreman Mendoza whenthisactivity took place. (10 RT 115:21-116:1) Castillo recalled a second instance in October 2013 that occurred at the endofthe lunch break. (10 RT 116:8-23) A man asked herto sign the decertification petition right before she went back to work. (10 RT 127:7-20) Castillo had seen this man before with a megaphoneata protest, but she did not 98 know his name. (10 RT 117:14-23) Castillo also recalled hearing that one reason that the company gave awaycertain fruit was because previously workers would take it and the company neededto have security check the worker’s bags. (10 RT 163:2- 17) Valerio Velazquez Lopez, who waswitness # 26, worked for Gerawan from 1999 to 2014, except for the years 2001 to 2006. (15 RT 203:8-15 and 15 RT 224:16-21) In 2013, Velazquez workedin the crew of Francisco Mendoza. (145 RT 204:4-8) Velasquez remembered three separate days when Sylvia Lopez asked him to sign a decertification petition. (15 RT 210:6-220:11) None ofthese three times were during work hours, but rather were either at the end ofthe dayorat lunch time. (15 RT 209:14-17, 15 RT 210:24-25 and 15RT 218:11-19) When Velazquez refused to sign the petition, Lopez called him “ignorant”. (15 RT 21 1:2-16) Velazquez also states that Lopez tied getting piece-rate wagesto signing the petition, and thatif workersdid not sign, the vineyards would be replaced with almonds. (15 RT 218:23-219:14) There was notestimony that an owner orother statutory supervisor would have overheard these alleged threats. Velasquez notedthat almondtrees are less labor intensive than grape vineyards. (15 RT 219:25-220:3) Leonidon Mendoza Morales, who waswitness # 38, worked for Gerawan from 2008 to 2014. (20 RT 23:16-25) In 2013, Mendoza worked for crew bosses Francisco Mendoza and Mayte Serrano. (20 RT 24: 16-17) Francisco Mendozais Leonidon’s uncle. (20 RT 25:12-17) Leonidonis notrelated to supervisor Jaime Mendoza. (20 RT 36:5-9) Leonidon served on the UFW’s 99 negotiating committee. (20 RT 46:18-47:7) Leonidon recalled one occasion in October 2013 when Jose Erevia and Jaime Mendoza cameto his crew with a chart showing that the companypaid high wages and how muchthe union would take away. (20 RT 35:11-14 and 20 RT 36:21-37:18) Leonidonrecalled a second occasion,perhapsthree to four days after the earlier incident, when supervisor Oscar Garcia came to his crew with a woman whose name Leonidon could notrecall. (20 RT 38:4-8 and 20 RT 35:18-20) Oscar urged the workers to support the company overthe union and the woman made disparaging remarks aboutthe union. (20 RT 38:24-39:13) I conclude that this woman was LaborRelationsInstitute consultant Evelyn Fragoso. Finally, Leonidonrecalls a single day, November 1, 2013, when work wascancelled at approximately 7:00 a.m. that morning. (20 RT 25:21-25 and 20 RT 29:9-31:2) His crew had been scheduledto tie plastic to the grapevines. (20 RT 28:12-29:8) After the supervisor met with the two crew bosses onsite, Francisco Mendozaadvised his crew that there would be no work that day. (20 RT 29:17-32:4) Shortly thereafter, a womantold the workers that there would bea protest in Visalia and invited them to attend. (20 RT 32:23-25) Leonidon did not know the name of the woman,but believed that she was a non-supervisory worker. (20 RT 33:1-9 and 20 RT 43:13-18) I credited all of the testimony of Adela Castillo. With respect to Velasquez,I credited all of the testimony, except for the part whereSilvia Lopez allegedly stated that the vineyards might be replaced with almonds and regarding piece-rate wages. Leonidon Mendozawasa difficult witness to gauge the 100 credibility. Leonidon was very candid that he was a strong supporter of the union, and that he had served on the UFW’s negotiating committee, so he certainly carries a strong pro-UFW bias. But I foundall of his testimony about the two separate meetingsin the fields, where Jose Erevia, Jaime Mendoza, and Oscar Garcia were present, respectively, to be credible. I also credit his testimony that the workers were invited to a Visalia protest on November1, 2013, but I am not persuadedthathis crew boss made any mentionofthe protest, especially given that Leonidon was likely known to his uncle as a strong union supporter. 14. Direct Hire Crew of Telesforo Mendoza Jaime Montafio Dominguez wasthe only witness whotestified with respect to Telesforo Mendoza. Crew boss Telesforo Mendoza wasnot called as a witness by anyoftheparties. Jaime Montafio Dominguez, who waswitness # 7, worked for Gerawan from approximately 2011 to 2014. (7 RT 45:14-17) Montafio was sometimescalled by the nickname “Palmiero”. (7 RT 105:24-106: 1) In 2013, Montafio worked in the crews of Telesforo Mendoza and Jesus Padilla. (7 RT 46:18- 47:5) He changed crews from Padilla to Mendozaafter getting sick for three days. (7 RT 97:5-21) While he was technically assigned to Mendoza, Montafio was building structures for packing under the direction of “Julio”. (7 RT 98:10-100:3) While he was working, Montafio recalls a woman coming and asking for his signature. (7 RT 101:15-112:4) Montanotestified that the woman was Silvia Lopez. (7 RT 109:25-111:1) Montafio saw Lopez speak with Mendoza immediately before 101 she cameto speak with him. (7 RT 104:15-105:21) After asking Montafio for his Signature, he saw her ask two ofhis co-workers andthen returned to Mendoza. (7 RT 107:16-108:5) Montafio testified that Mendoza came overandtold him “notto be a fool,” that he need to give his signature or the company “would go broke”. (7 RT 111:10-23) In the absenceofany evidencerefuting the recollection of Montafio,I credited his testimony as to his conversation with Telesforo Mendoza. 15. Direct Hire Crew of Leonel Nuiiez Martinez Two worker witnesses, Armando Flores Cruz and Rulber Gonzales, gave pertinent testimony with respectto the crew of foreperson Leonel Nufiez Martinez. Foreperson Nufiez also testified. While the testimony of Gonzales and Nufiez was quite different, it is nonetheless undisputed by either of them that foreperson Nufiez allowed worker Virginia Chairez to advocate for the decertification drive during work time. Armando Flores Cruz, who was witness # 18, first worked for Gerawan in 2001. (12 RT 197:19-23) Flores worked for Gerawan in 2013, serving in the crew of foreman Leonel Nufiez. (12 RT 197:24-198:13) Flores recalled an occasion in October 2013 when a woman askedforhis signature during work hours. (12 RT 199:23-200:7) Flores did not know the nameofthe woman. (12 RT 204:17-19) The woman told Flores that the signature related to the union taking three percent of the money from the workers’ checks. (12 RT 202:3-10) Flores did not know the location of foreman Nufiez when the womansolicited his signature, although he did 102 see Nufiez and the woman exchangegreetings shortly thereafter. (12 RT 206:22- 209:13) Rulber Gonzales, who was witness # 32, worked for Gerawan from 1997 to 2013. (17 RT 185:12-23 and 17 RT 223:22-224:1) Ona day when Gonzales wasin the crew ofNufiez, he saw Virginia Chairez come to the crew. (17 RT 190:1-7 and 17 RT 195:15-25) While the crew was working, Chairez asked Gonzales to sign the decertification petition. (17 RT 197:11-17) Chairez then asked approximately four other workers to sign the petition. (17 RT 198:1-23) Chairez then asked Nufiez to gather his crew, which he did. (17 RT 199:4-24) Gonzales then recalled that Nufiez said negative things about the union, and told the crew that if the union camein, the company could cut workers’ hours or even go bankrupt. (17 RT 200:13-20) Chairez then passed a clipboard around to the workers for signatures. (17 RT 201:10-23) This meeting and the signing thereafter took place during work time. (17 RT 201:24-202:3) Nufiez was angry at the workers whodid not sign the petitioners and threatened to fire the “gossipers”. (17 RT 204:6-205:5) Leonel Nufiez Martinez, who waswitness # 106, worked for Gerawan from 1984 to 2015, and becamea foreman in approximately 1991. (83 RT 89:9-24) Leonel’s nicknameis “El Tigre”or the “tiger”. (84 RT 25:6-13) Leonel has a cousin, Ramiro Cruz, whois also a crew boss. (83 RT 101:1-9 and 84 RT 41:1 1-20) Leonel had two brothers whoserved in his crew ashis helpersorassistants. (83 RT 98:8-24) Leonelalso had a third brother, Gamaliel, in his crew. (84 RT 62:5-8) Leonel’s son, Sergio, also workedin his crew, as did his nephew, Miguel. (83 RT 103 100:13-102:19, 84 RT 25:16-18 and 84 RT 62:9-14) When his crew did thinning and picking in the peaches,it typically had between thirty and thirty-eight workers. (83 RT 94:5-13) Nufiez recalled that his crew voted in the election. (83 RT 108:24- 109:1) Nufiez recalled that the crew bosses had a meeting with Jose Erevia, “but not more than one monthbeforethe election.” (83 RT 110:13-17) Nufiez later revised that estimate to six to eight weeks from whenJose Ereviafirst met with the crew bossesuntil the date of the election. (84 RT 92:9-15) Nufiez also recalled that the ALRB cameto speak to his crew ona later date than Erevia. (83 RT 113:3-12) During work time, Nufiez recalls Virginia Chairez coming and speaking to her crew. (83 RT 118:2-12 and 84 RT 94:1-6) Nufiez claims that he thought she wasthere on behalf of the company, but I do not find that credible as Nufiez concedesthat he “gave her permission” and told Chairez to be “brief”. (83 RT 118:17-19, 83 RT 124:21-24 and 84 RT 47:15-25) If Chairez wasthereat the director of a manager or supervisor, Nufiez would not have been granting her permission to speak nortelling her to be brief. (84 RT 103:1-4) While company “counters” (attendance people from the office) sometimes came to Leonel’s crew to obtain signatures, they did not ever speak to the crew as a wholeforseveral minutes. (83 RT 127:10-12) On cross-examination, Nufiez testified that he gave his crew the optionoflistening to Chairez, which also undermineshis purported explanation. (84 RT 46:10-22 and 84 RT 100:5-21) Moreover, Nufiez had never seen Chairez work as a counter or a checkerin the trees. (84 RT 39:12-15 and 84 RT 70:17-10) Nufiez walked away but could see Chairez talking to his crew. (83 RT 1 19:2-14) After 104 Chairez was done speaking, Nufiez could hearthe workers talking about whetherit wasin their best interest to support the union or to support the company. (83 RT 120:10-25) Nufiez also saw Chairez obtaining signatures from someofhis crew members. (83 RT 121:6-18) Nujiez and Chairez then exchanged “good-byes” and she left. (83 RT 121:23-122:2) Nufiez does not know if Chairez was ever disciplined for collecting signatures during work hours. (84 RT 97:20-23) At the time, Nufiez was very good friends with Rulber Gonzales, who worked in his crew on that particular day since Nufiez had an opening. (83 RT 130:21-131:25, 84 RT 27:12-28:18 and 84 RT 94:12-15) I concludethat the most plausible scenario is that Nufiez did call the crew togetheras testified by Rulber Gonzales. Nufiez then turned control of the meeting over to Chairez and allowedherto solicit signatures from his crew during work time. While I do not credit Rulber Gonzales’ specific statement that Nufiez suggested during the meeting that the union could lead to the company’s bankruptcy, nor do I find Leonel Nufiez to be even slightly credible when Nufiez claimed that he altogether misunderstood the purpose ofthe visit from Chairez. 16. Direct Hire Crew of Jesus Padilla Martinez Five worker witnesses, Jaime Montafio Dominguez,Feliciano Valdivia, Guadalupe Barajas, Cresencio Vargas Rendon, and Rolando Padilla, gave pertinent testimony with respect to the crew of foreperson Jesus Fernando Padilla Martinez. Foreperson Jesus Padilla also testified. 105 Jaime Montafio Dominguez, who was witness # 7, worked for Gerawan from 2011 to 2014. (7 RT 45:14-17) In 2013, Montafio workedin the crew of Jesus Padilla andalso briefly in the crew of Telesforo Mendoza. (7 RT 47:1-5) Montajfio testified that, in 2013, Jesus Padilla once asked him and two co- workers if they belonged to the union. (7 RT 48:6-23) Montafio testified that about halfof the crew,or twelve out of twenty-five workers, were related to Jesus Padilla. (7 RT 50:14-25) Padilla had approximately four brothers and eight nephews working for him. (7 RT 51:1-52:4) One ofthe brothers of Jesus Padilla is named Rolando Padilla. (7 RT 55:5-10, 7 RT 68:19-24 and 7 RT 182:21-182:1) Montafio testified as to three times when Rolando Padilla returned late from his lunch break. (7 RT 57:4-13) In a coupleofthese instances, Rolando had soughtdecertification petition signatures from his crew and thenleft going toward a nearby crew. (7 RT 57:24-66:23 and 7 RT 73:10-74:23) Montafio testified that Jesus Padilla let him leave work early on two occasions, but told him that he would needapproval from the office if he needed to leave early again. (7 RT 70:15-72:10) I credited all of the testimony of Jaime Montafio Dominguez. Feliciano Valdivia, who was witness # 17, worked for Gerawan from March 2012 to 2014. (12 RT 59:5-60:7) In 2013, Valdivia worked in the crew of foreman Jesus Padilla. (12 RT 60:20-21 and 12 RT 61:7-21) There were approximately thirty-two workers in Padilla’s crew. (12 RT 62:23-63:1) Amongthe workers in the crew were Jesus’ brothers Rolando, Juan, Nathan and Beto. (12 RT 63:5-10) Rolando Padilla workedas a field worker similar to Valdivia. (12 RT 106 76:13-15) Valdivia indicated that Jesus Padilla showedstrong favoritism toward crew workers who werehisrelatives. (12 RT 163:24-164:2) Valdiviatestified that he saw RolandoPadilla leave to collect signatures on many daysfor an hour or an hour and a half. (12 RT 76:2-20 and 12 RT 83:7-15) Because RolandoPadilla took a yellow folder with him whenhe was goneforthe longertime periods, Valdivia concludesthat Rolando wasout collecting decertification petition signatures. (12 RT 77:3-83:25) Valdivia testified that if he (Valdivia) had to leave early, Jesus Padilla would call the office, but if Rolando missed time, Jesus would notcall the office. (12 RT 84:17-21) Valdivida also described an incident where both Jesus Padilla and Rolando Padilla solicited a decertification petition signature from a co-worker, Lupe Avila. (12 RT 68:10-71:23) I found Feliciano Valdivia absolutely sincere in that he felt Jesus Padilla treated his family membersbetter than the other crew members. However, Valdivia’s strong feelings about Jesus Padilla gave me somereservation as to fully crediting his testimony. As a consequence,I am crediting Valdivia’s testimony only to the extent that it corroborates Montafio’s testimony. Thus,I find that Rolando Padilla did take approximately twoorthree slightly extended lunches, and thatthere is persuasive circumstantial evidence that Rolando collected signatures in those instances. I do not credit the remainder of Valdivia’s testimony. Guadalupe Barajas, who was witness # 63, worked for Gerawan from approximately 2009 to 2013. (36 RT 98:18-25) Barajas workedin the crew of foreman Jesus Padilla. (36 RT 99:18-19) Barajas testified that Rolando Padilla told 107 him that the union would not be coming to Gerawan because the company doesnot wantit and that the union “head honcho”had “sold out to Gerawan”. (36 RT 101:8- 17) I credited this testimony from Barajas, but there is no evidence that foreman Jesus Padilla heard this conversation. Cresencio Vargas Rendon, who waswitness # 66, worked for Gerawan in 2013. (37 RT 95:10-25) Vargas workedin the crew of foremanJesus Padilla. (37 RT 96:1-5) Vargas saw RolandoPadilla collect signatures from his crew both during the break and during work. (37 RT 99:1-20, 37 RT 115:3-18 and 37 RT 117:6-11) Vargastestified that Rolando told him that he would be going to other crews afterward. (37 RT 99:24-100:2) On multiple occasions, Vargas saw Rolando return back from lunchlate. (37 RT 118:2-12) Rolandotold him that hedidnottell his brother what he did when he was gone late. (37 RT 148:8-12) Vargas also recalls Rolando repeatedlytelling him that “we don’t wantthe union here, we’re the Padillas here”. (37 RT 113:13-23) Priorto the decertification election, Rigoberto Padilla took Vargas to a protest in Visalia. (37 RT 124:1-13 and 37 RT 141:10-12) Rigoberto is Jesus Padilla’s son. (37 RT 124:12-13) Rolando hadtold Vargas about the protest earlier in the morning and Jesus Padilla told workersthat they could either go or stay and work. (37 RT 124:14-125:8 and 37 RT 125:21-126:4) Jesus Padilla told Vargasthat he had to go and that Rigoberto would drive him. (37 RT 127:1-10 and 37 RT 138:12-16) Rigoberto drove Jesus Padilla’s minivan to the protest. (37 RT 201:15-17 and 37 RT 213:12-215:7) Like Valdivia, Vargas sincerely felt that Jesus Padilla treated his family membersbetter than other crew 108 members. (37 RT 159:1-5) Additionally, I found that Vargas did not have a good memory for details like dates. For example, Vargas first described the Visalia protest that he attended as in August 2013. (37 RT 124:4-5) Laterin his testimony, Vargasdescribed that sameprotest as being twenty days before the election. (37 RT 141:13-18) Vargas also described the ALRB Visalia office as being the union’s office. (37 RT 139:12-17) As a consequence, I am crediting Vargas’ testimony only to the extent that it corroborates Montafio’s testimony. Rolando Padilla, who was witness # 83, worked for Gerawan from 2001 to 2014. (55 RT 93:2-5) Rolando has always worked in the crew of foreman Jesus Padilla. (55 RT 94:21-95:10 and 65 RT 40:17-21) At the beginning of 2013, his crew hadthirty-six to forty workers. (55 RT 98:18-21) Jesus Padilla is his brother. (65 RT 40:11-16) Rolando claimedthat in 2013, he did not spend any days off with his brother, other than on holidays. (65 RT 91:6-18) Rolando had other brothers who were workers in the crew including Arnulfo Juan Padilla, Edelberto (“Beto”) Padilla and Enrique Padilla. (65 RT 85:18-87:11 and 65 RT 115:9-19) Rolandois also related to Rigoberto Padilla, who worked in his crew. (65 RT 87:12- 24) Rigobertois Jesus Padilla’s son. (65 RT 106:22-25) Rolando stated that he could notrecall the names ofhis cousins that workedin his crew. (65 RT 92:3-9) Rolando explained that he did not want to give moneyto the union and that he did not even want to give money in church. (55 RT 96:1-7) Rolando testified that he heard from his coworkers that they wereafraid that if the union comesin, the company would go bankrupt and the workers would losetheir jobs. 109 (55 RT 100:1-11 and 65 113:13-114:5) Thefirst time that Rolando heard or saw about collecting decertification petition signatures when was the ALRBvisited his crew. (55 RT 104:6-105:21) Rolando states that he gathered signatures on approximately fifteen different days. (55 RT 109:3-6 and 65 RT 13:9-13) Rolando explained how he had sueda person in his crew, Fidel Lopez,affiliated with the UFW. (55 RT 114:24-115:23, 55 RT 116:14-16 and 65 RT 73:7-74:14) Rolando testified that Lopez told him the “President of the Union had already paid two black mento [kill him]”and that “they had contacts with very dangerouspeople in Mexico”. (65 RT 73:22-74:1) Rolando’s attorney was Paul Bauer. (65 RT 71:1-5) Rolando obtained Paul Bauer’s name from Silvia Lopez. (65 RT 103:7-16) Rolando alleged that he could not recall whether or not he began gathering signatures before or after meeting attorney Paul Bauer. (65 RT 72: 1-8) Onthe day of the work blockage, Rolando saw perhaps eighty to ninety percent ofthe field workers in attendance, perhaps two thousand or more people. (65 RT 24:21-25:9) He wasthere from approximately 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (65 RT 27:2-28:15) He saw people gathering signaturesat the protest that day, although he could not remember whether he himself collected any signatures on that date. (65 RT 83:2-18) Whenasked about Montafio recollection that Rolando sometimes returmedlate from his lunch break, Rolando alleged that Montafio likes to drink, is a bad worker, and that “all of what he saysis totally false and wrong”. (65 RT 53:19- 110 54:14) Rolando also claimed that Valdivia was friends with the person that Rolando had sued. (65 RT 63:1-11) As I noted earlier in this decision, Rolando denied knowingthat any of his colleagues had blocked Gerawan entrances despite that Rolando’scar itself was blocking one of the entrances. (65 RT 122:18-123:11) Rolando sought to explain that his car just “suddenly died”in that particular spot, coincidentally happening to block a work entrance, with no advancedifficulty to him. (65 RT 66:9-23, 65 RT 78:18-79:21, 65 RT 93:15-22 and 65 RT 123:16-125:9) Instead, I credit the testimony of witness #1, Gustavo Vallejo, whostates that he saw worker Rolando Padilla block an entrance with his car and with ladders. (2 RT 36:7-36:18) Vallejo states that Rolando Padilla told him that he was blocking the entrance because they were going to have a strike. (2 RT 37:2-5) Moreover, Rolando wasclearly lying when he discussedhis travel to Sacramento with other workers, claiming that it was “totally false” that owner Dan Gerawan wasthere at all. (65 RT 76:1-5) Rolando indicated that Dan Gerawan would belying if he said that he called Rolandoandinvited him to go to Sacramento. (65 RT 105:6-10) Rolando extendedhis deception further by testifying that that it was possible that he went to Sacramento andcoincidentally ran into Dan Gerawan andhis wife while “walking downthestreet”. (65 RT 118:1-13) I concluded that Rolando frequently lied during his testimony and discreditedall ofit. Jesus Fernando Padilla Martinez, who was witness # 105, worked for Gerawan from 1988 to 2014. (82 RT 95:21-96:10) Jesus has been a crew boss since 111 1998. (82 RT 96:13-14) His crew size when workingin the trees was typically thirty to forty workers. (82 RT 101:24-102:9) Jesus hadat least eleven relatives in his crew. (83 RT 80:25-81:13) The crew size might double when the crew was assignedto the grapes. (82 RT 102:11-103:3) Jesus denied ever discussing the union with his wife, son or brothers. (82 RT 120:24-121:13) Jesus had multiple meetings with Jose Erevia, and also a meeting with ALRB staff, in which he learned aboutthe decertification issue. (82 RT 113:15-117:10) Jesus knewthat his brother Rolando opposed the union because Jesus was aware of a dispute between Rolando and another worker. (83 RT 48:23-49: 18) Jesus conceded seeing Rolando collect signatures during a lunch break, but indicated that he did not knowthe purposeofthat signature gathering. (83 RT 52:23-53:4) WhenJesus arrived on the morning ofthe work blockage, he saw approximately twenty workers blocking a field entrance. (82 RT 128:20-129:25) There were also vehicles blocking the entrance. (82 RT 130: 1-19) The protesters were yelling “protest” and that they did not wantthe union to comeinto the company. (82 RT 130:22-131:3 and 83 RT 56:10-14) The protesters had signs. (82 RT 132:2-4) Jesus also saw protesters at three more entrances yelling that they did not want the union to come into the company. (82 RT 131:16-132: 1) Accordingly, I find that crew bossJesus Padilla had reason to believe that the persons blocking that entrance were workers opposed to the UFW andsupporting the decertification effort. Jesus testified that later that day, he received separate calls from his brother Rolando and son Rigoberto that they had goneoverto the protest at Highway 145. (82 RT 112 132:17-133:19) After Jesus parked near the office, he saw his brothers Arnulfo and Edelberto walk toward the protest at Highway 145. (82 RT 127:25-128:3 and 82 RT 139:16-25) The crew bosses had a speakerphonecall with Jose Erevia and a male attorney named Mike. (82 RT 140:13-141:8) Afterwards, the crew bosses were given a blank sheet of paper to explain what they saw. (82 RT 142:20-143:3 and 83 RT 71:25-73:4) Later that day, Jesus saw someentrances blocked with wood pallets and yellow tape. (83 RT 10:9-11:4) By the next day, Jesus did not see any blocked entrances. (83 RT 13:20-23) Jesus recalls a morningpriorto the election when his whole crew of approximately thirty-five workers left in the middle of the day to go to Visalia. (83 RT 12:20-15:6) Jesus indicates that he advised supervisor Jose Camargo as to what had happened. (83 RT 60:10-22) Jesus did not issue or recommend any discipline for the workers who hadleft that day. (83 RT 62:6-11) Jesusalso recalled a second occasion when perhapshalf ofhis crew left in the middle of the day andthen those workers returned to resume work prior to the endofthe day. (83 RT 19:1 1-20:15) Jesus concededthat his brother Rolando would sometimes leave during the work day, but contended that Rolando nevertold him the reason that he was going. (83 RT 22:22-24:23) Jesus recalled one time whenthe telephonecall-in system for work assignments included information from Dan Gerawan telling the workersthat they have the right to choose. (83 RT 35:16-21) Dan Gerawanandhis wife also personally visited his crew and told workersthat they were free to make their own 113 decision. (83 RT 35:22-36:17) Jesus must have been in the bathroom when Dan Gerawan anda politician spoke with his brother Rolando. (83 RT 39:23-42:1 8) I credited Jesus Padilla’s observations on the day ofthe work blockage. I do not credit Jesus Padilla’s denials as to knowing that his brother Rolando was an active opponentofthe union. Rolandois very talkative and has a strong personality and I am confident that everyonein their crew knew Rolando’s position on the issue of decertification. Given that Jesus saw his brother Rolandocollecting signatures at lunch time, and knew that Rolando had a significant dispute with another crew memberoverthe union issue, it would have been reasonable for him to concludethat one possible reason for Rolando’s occasional extended lunch wastocollect signatures. I discredit Jesus Padilla’s statementthat he let any worker come and go as they please. But there is insufficient evidence to show whether Jesus simply favored his family membersas a generalpractice, or if instead such favoritism was more narrowly tailed to the union issue. 17. Direct Hire Crew of Jose Manuel Ramos Worker Juan Manuel Juarez Hernandeztestified with respect to the crew of foreperson Jose Manuel Ramos. Foreperson Ramosalsotestified. Juan Manuel Juarez Hernandez, who was witness # 27, worked for Gerawan from approximately 2008 to 2014. (16 RT 8:18-22) His crew boss was always Manuel Ramos. (16 RT 9:12-16) Juarez recalls Ramos asking him privately what he thought aboutthe union. (16 RT 16:17-21 and 16 RT 17:13-16) Ramostold him that the workers were free to do whateverthey thoughtwasin their bestinterest. 114 (16 RT 16:22-25) Juarez recalled three times when Silvia Lopez cameto his crew to collect signatures. (16 RT 25:7-20) Juarez learned her identity after she hadleft. (16 RT 26:7-17) Juarez recalls that Lopez stayed approximately seven minutespast the break on eachof the three occasions. (16 RT 29:9-35:19) Juarez complained to Ramos,but only after Silvia had alreadyleft. (16 RT 34:4-20) Juarez states that on one occasion,Silvia tried to leave papers with Ramos, but he declined to take them. (16 RT 43:3-7) Juarez also indicated that he saw Ramos’ son-in-law, who had the nickname “Cookies”, collecting signatures in the vineyard during worktime. (16 RT 108:21-109:7 and 16 RT 112:7-13) Juarez said that he saw the son-in-law solicit signatures from approximately twenty persons that were as manyaseight or nine rows away. (16 RT 109:21-110:3) I discredited this testimony because it seems unlikely that Juarez could have seen what wastaking place eight to nine rows away. There wastestimonyin the hearing that workers generally did not have ladders in the vineyards. It would have been unlikely that Juarez could see eight or nine rows away by looking over the vines. Nor was I persuadedby his explanation that by stooping, Juarez could see under the vines and see what was occurring. (16 RT 111:8-15) Jose Manuel Ramos, who was witness # 122, worked for Gerawan from 1978 to 2015. (98 RT 92:8-16) Ramoshas been a crew bossfor approximately eighteen years. (98 RT 92:17-22) In April through June 2013, his crew had forty to forty-five workers. (98 RT 97:13-98:5) Ramosrecalled Dan Gerawan andhis wife 115 visiting his crew in 2013. (98 RT 117:3-11) Dan Gerawantold the crewthatthe union had contacted the company,but that there was nothing that he could do about it. (98 RT 117:21-24) Ramostestified that as of the date of his testimony, he was unaware that workers at Gerawan had gathered signatures to get rid of the union. (99 RT 32:25-33:13) Ramosdid not seem adept at recalling details, particularly dates. Ramosseemedtorecall the incorrect year that multiple events occurred. When giving his testimony in March 2015, Ramos was often unable to correctly select between 2012, 2013 and 2014as the year that various events occurred. For example, Ramosincorrectly stated that the ALRB cameto his crew in June 2012. (98 RT 103:3-21) As another example, Ramosinitially denied that his crew worked in the vineyards in 2013, yet company records persuasively indicated to the contrary. (99 RT 6:13-14 and 99 RT 7:25-9:20) Moreover, Ramoserroneously recalled that the work blockage occurred in September 2014. (99 RT 28:1-17) Given the multiple inaccuracies in his testimony, I discredited all of it. Given that I completely discredited the testimony of both Juarez and Ramos,I did not find any evidence of company assistance with respect to the crew of Jose Manuel Ramos. 18. Direct Hire Crew of Santos Efrian Rios Worker Gustavo Vallejo testified with respect to the crew of foreperson Santos Efrian Rios. Foreperson Riosalsotestified. AsI previously noted when discussing the crew of Martin Elizondo, Gustavo Vallejo, who was witness # 1, worked for Gerawan during 1997 to 2014. (1 116 RT 159:9-10) With respectto the crew of Santo Rios, Vallejo testified that he saw Santos Rios give somepapersto his brother Oscar Rios, who workedin his crew, and that Santos told Oscar to gather signatures. (1 RT 229:25-231:10) When Vallejo heard this he was about three rowsoftrees, or thirty-five feet distance, away from the two brothers. (1 RT 231:21-232:8) Vallejo states that he later saw Oscar obtain fifteen signatures from crew members. (1 RT 233:17-234:7) Noneofthe parties called Oscar Rios as a witness. Vallejo recalled a day when he wentto work, arriving at 5:30 a.m., and the entrances were blocked with ladders. (1 RT 235:12-17 and 1 RT 235:22-236:8) At that time, Santos Rios had just recently becomehis crew boss. (1 RT 168:20-23, 2 RT 45:16-17 and 2 RT 148:3-9) In mid-October, the crew had approximately thirty-five workers. (2 RT 155:23-156:2) Vallejo left in his vehicle at around 7:00 a.m., taking with him the workers who typically rode with him. (2 RT 40:12-16, 2 RT 45:10-23, 2 RT 46:23-25 and 2 RT 245:2-8) Shortly thereafter, Vallejo received a phone call from foreman Santos Rios, asking Vallejo why hetookhis three riders from the work site. (2 RT 41:2-45:19) Vallejo states that a couple days later Rios told him not to take workers away from a strike. (2 RT 46:5-17) Also two daysafter the work stoppage,the brother of a crew bossbegan driving the workers who previously paid Vallejo for a ride. (2 RT 53:24-54:12 and 2 RT 251:7-15) Vallejo indicated that he stopped working at Gerawan becauseafter Rios’ crew shifted from the Sangerarea to the Kerman area, his co-workers verbally intimidated him for supporting the union. (2 RT 139:24-141:11, 2 RT 144:19-145:2 117 and 2 RT 166:2-15) Vallejo states that foreman Santos Rios laughed when Vallejo told him about his concerns. (2 RT 145:3-146:5) From December 2013 to February 2014, Vallejo went backto Elizondo’s crew andthen Vallejo left the company. (2 RT 182:10-185:1) During his testimony, Vallejo indicated that three persons, a man and two women,tried to intimidate him during a break and indicated that Vallejo would face consequencesfor his testimony. (2 RT 100:12-102:21) The man,in the presence of the two women,told Vallejo that he would go to Vallejo’s church and talk to Vallejo’s supervisorat his new job. (2 RT 102:21-115:17) Vallejo identified the two womenas audience membersthatpetitioner stipulates were her daughters, Belen Solano and Rose Hilda Solano. (2 RT 109:12-24 and 2 RT 124:19-125:3) Santos Efrian Rios, who was witness # 108, worked for Gerawan from 2000 through 2015. (85 RT 66:22-67:3) Rios testified that he became a crew boss in approximately 2011. (85 RT 67:6-11) In 2013, Santos’ brother Oscar worked in his crew. (85 RT 67:15-18 and 85 RT 69:16-18) Santos called Oscar his “assistant”. (85 RT 79:5-80:1) There wasinsufficient evidence presented at hearing to designate Oscar as having supervisory status, so for analytical purposes,I treat him as if he was an ordinary worker. Santos recalls when a lady cameto speak to his crew who wasan ex- union employee. (85 RT 95:2-24) Santostestified that the lady told the crew that the things that the union was promising were lies. (85 RT 95:25-96:2) Santos remembers that the lady was accompanied by a young man namedOscar, which was easy for him to remember because it was the same nameashis brother. (85 RT 96:5- 118 7) It was a thirty-minutes long meeting, possibly during work time. (85 RT 96:20- 21 and 86 RT 156:6-13) I concludethat this man was witness # 116, Oscar Garcia Bonilla and that the woman was LaborRelations Institute consultant Evelyn Fragoso. Onthe day ofthe work blockage, Riostestified that he eventually went to the office and completed a statement for the company. (85 RT 109:19-1 10:5) Whenheleft the office, Santos claims that he had no idea why the entrances had been blocked. (85 RT 110:15-25 and 86 RT 107:22-25) But Santos obviously knew that the blockage wasrelated to the union issue, because while he felt uncomfortable getting out near where the workers wereyelling, he saw noproblem in his passengers doing so. (85 RT 155:18-156:3) In fact, Santos’ passengers walked toward the group and immersed themselvesin it. (86 RT 98:6-8) Moreover, on the day of the work blockage, Santos did notcall a manageror supervisor to advise them of what wastaking place. (86 RT 63:14-18) Santos concededthat he did give his brother Oscar papersto get crew signatures on one or two occasions, but alleged that the papers were not connected to the decertification effort. (85 RT 115:7-22) Santosdid not recall whetheror not Vallejo gave rides to other crew members, and did not recall talking to him. (85 RT 131:15-21) Santos also did not recall Vallejo, or anyone else, ever reporting to him having been verbally harassed by other workers. (86 RT 151 :2-16) On the three or four occasions when workers came to Santos with questions about the union,hetold them to call Jose Erevia with the company. (85 RT 142:22-143:24) 119 While I credited Gustavo Vallejo’s testimony as to the crew of Martin Elizondo,his testimony as to Santos Rios wasslightly less persuasive. But between the two, Vallejo and Santos Rios, I credited Vallejo over Rios with one exception, which wasthat I was not persuaded by Vallejo’s testimony that Santos gave decertification petition signatures sheets to his brother Oscar. I felt that it was appropriate to report in the decision the testimony by Vallejo with respectto the alleged witness intimidationtactics by the daughters of Silvia Lopez, namely Belen Solano and Rose Hilda Solano. But I did not believe this hearing wasthe appropriate forum to investigate such allegations, and limited inquiry onit, so I make no credibility determinationsrelated to that issue. The summary ofthat testimonyis containedin this decision solely so the Board may decideifit wishes to referthat topic to the appropriate authority for investigation. 19. Direct Hire Crew of Antonio Sanchez Twoworkers, Juan Cruz Lopez and Hilario RochaSalas,testified with respect to the crew of foreperson Antonio Sanchez. None ofthe parties called Antonio Sanchez as a witness. Juan Cruz Lopez, who waswitness # 24, worked for Gerawan from 2010 through 2014. (15 RT 12:7-12 and 15 RT 98:13-15) In 2013, his crew boss was Antonio Sanchez. (15 RT 12:14-15) Lopez credibly testified that he asked foreman Sanchez for permissionto solicit pro-union signatures. (15 RT 25:23- 26:11) His request was denied. (15 RT 26:10-11) On the day of the work blockage, Lopez saw an entrance blocked by ribbons, a car, and workers. (15 RT 38:2-39:22) 120 The workers were holding multiple professionally-madesignsthat said “let us vote”. (15 RT 41:23-42:10 and 15 RT 61:7-16) None of the workers blocking the entrance had a pro-UFW sign. (15 RT 98:9-12) There were also someladies there with clipboards collecting signatures. (15 RT 42:11-15) Hilario Rocha Salas, who was witness # 59, worked for Gerawan from 2012 through 2014. (34 RT 76:21-77:3) The first foreperson for whom Rocha worked in 2013 was Antonio Sanchez. (34 RT 78:11-15) Rochatestified that, on one day, Sanchez told the crew that they could leaveearly by half an hour, andstill get paid, in order to go to a strike. (34 RT 84:21-85:10) The purposeofthe protest was to remove the union. (34 RT 88:7-18) Noneofthe parties presented or addressed time records for the crew of Antonio Sanchez for the pertinent daysthat might have bolstered or undercut Rocha’s testimony. Rocharecalled workers collecting decertification petition signatures from his crew during work hours on three occasions. (34 RT 100:22-101 :8) On the first such occasion, a man cameto his crew at around 9:00 a.m. (34 RT 101:21- 102:2) He did not know the man’s name and was unableto describe him other than his being younger and possibly around twenty-five years old. (34 RT 101:16-20 and 34 RT 103:17-104:3) As to the second occasion described by Rocha, some young womenvisited his crew, but it was actually during lunch time. (34 RT 105:7-20) In the third instance, some younger men cameby, but Rocha was unable to describe them. (34 RT 106:23-107:21) 12] Rochaalso claimedthat, in 2012, he heard crew boss EmmaSanchez tell some workers that the company did not wantthe unionto be there. (34 RT 89:1- 4) Rochaalso claims to haveheardhertell some workersthat if the union camein, they wouldbring failure, and that the company would cut downthetrees. (34 RT 90:1-9) On cross-examination, Rocha indicated that these comments were made during April or May 2012. (34 RT 128:3-19) I do not credit this testimony because the union does not appear to have been an issueatthat juncture. As previously noted, noneofthe parties called foreperson Sanchez as a witness. I am crediting all of the testimony of Juan Cruz Lopez, but none ofthe testimony of Hilario RochaSalas. In the absenceoftime records, Rocha’s testimony aboutgetting paid for half an hourto attend the one protest is insufficiently reliable, given the other inaccuraciesin his testimony. 20. Direct Hire Crew of Raquel Villavicencio Four workers, Norma Yolanda Macias Lopez, Jovita Hernandez Eligio, Clara Cornejo, and Alecia Diaz Reyes,testified with respect to the crew of foreperson Raquel Villavicencio. Raquel Villavicencioalso testified as a witness. Norma Yolanda Macias Lopez, who was witness # 37, worked for Gerawan from 2012 through 2014. (19 RT 128:13-19) In 2013, her crew boss was Raquel Villavicencio. (19 RT 129:1-13) Maciascredibly recalled a meeting during work hours in which Oscar Garcia and Labor Relations Institute consultant Evelyn Fragoso were present. (19 RT 149:2-150:16 and 19 RT 153:6-10) Fragoso explained that the union was lying about helping the workers andthat they just 122 wantedthe three percent. (19 RT 150:17-25) That same day, her crew wasgiven a compactdisc with the lady saying someofthe samethings that she said at the meeting. (19 RT 151:14-152:1) Alsoat the meeting, Silvia Lopez andJovita Eligio gave awayfree t-shirts that said “noto the union”. (19 RT 152:7-15) I credited Macias’ recollection regarding distribution of the compact discs andt-shirts. Jovita Hernandez Eligio, who was witness # 72, worked for Gerawan from approximately 2003 to 2014. (40 RT 23:11-13) In 2013, her crew boss was Raquel Villavicencio. (40 RT 25:7-12) Eligio learned about the union when her paystub told herthat the union wasgoingto be taking awaythree percent of her paycheck. (40 RT 26:13-27:23) Eligio initialed recalled that she gathered signatures in more than onecalendar year, but a few dayslater indicated that the signature gathering had only been during a single clanedar year. (41 RT 175:18-21 and 42 RT 10:14-22) Eligio gathered decertification petition signatures from many crews, perhapsintotal, eleven or twelve different crews. (40 RT 39:24-40:7 and 41 RT 181:14-17) Asto these eleven or twelve crews, Eligio estimates that she wentto them an average ofat least two times each. (41 RT 182:6-9) Eligio only visited crewsat lunch time prior to when the regional director rejected the first group of signatures. (41 RT 182:22-25) When going to other crewsat lunchtime, Eligio claimedthat pro-union supporters made offensive and/or sexist commentsto her. (40 RT 46:2-15) Eligio testified that Silvia Lopez, Angel Lopez,and herself, purposefully planned the work blockage. (40 RT 47:7-9) Eligio also discussed the 123 blockagein advance with Clara Cornejo. (41 RT 19:9-13) Eligio testified that Silvia Lopez, Angel Lopez,andherself, were among the people who physically blocked work entrances on September 30, 2013 so that workers were unableto enter company property and work. (40 RT 47:18-48:1) In total, there were approximately fifteen workers who as a group who deliberately blocked the work entrances. (40 RT 50:10-14) On the day of the work blockage, Eligio arrivedat the company property at approximately 3:30 a.m. (40 RT 52:21-23) Eligio states that she brought red and yellow ribbon or tape that she had purchased with cash ata local store on Sunday evening at 8:00 p.m. (40 RT 54:1-10, 41 RT 22:7-13 and 41 RT 27:11-14) Eligio concededthat this ribbon looked identical to the type used at Gerawan. (41 RT 136:16-19) After leaving the ribbon with someofher co-workers, she then placed her car blocking the entrance to which she had been assigned. (40 RT 54:13- 18) Eligio knew that some people might recognize her car orlicense plate since she had been collecting a lot of signatures. (41 RT 40:2-14) Thereafter, Eligio and a lot of other people began gathering decertification petition signatures. (40 RT 56:3-6) Eligio herself began gather signatures at 8:00 a.m. (41 RT 179:1-5) Eligio saw maybe 2,000 people at Highway 145 and Central, and perhaps twenty-five that were supporting the union.** (40 RT 62:2-3 and 40 RT 64:14-16) Eligio hadtimeto look ** Eligio claimed that a female co-worker who supported the union, Lupe Martinez, had threatened and followed her. (40 RT 65:23-25) According to Jovita’s brother, Felix Hernandez Eligio, who was witness # 82, and whoalso worked at Gerawan,his sister never told him about someone from the union threatening her. (54 RT 140:6-9) 124 at every one of the two thousand people and she wassure that none of them were crew bosses. (41 RT 180:1-6) Eligio stated that of the two thousand workers protesting against the union, she had seen every single one of them workingfor the company. (41 RT 157:8-16 and 41 RT 179:13-19) But of the twenty-five people supporting the union, she only recognizedfive or six of them. (40 RT 64:15-16 and 41 RT 157:17-20) Eligio acknowledged that on approximately three days that she did not work, she nonetheless went to company property to collect signatures. (41 RT 10:18-11:12) All of the crewsthat Eligio ever visited to collect signatures took lunch at the same time as her crew, which was 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. (41 RT 13:9-15) Eligio noted that workers are not allowed to bring a child to work. (40 RT 93:1-4) Her co-workers Clara Cornejo and Alecia Diaz wouldalso collect decertification petition signatures. (41 RT 16:21-17:5) Eligio recalls being given a free “No UFW”t-shirt, as well as distributing sucht-shirts to other workers. (41 RT 42:9-46:14 and 41 RT 175:2-3) Eligio acknowledged lying when she waspreviously interviewed in July 2014 by the ALRB regionalstaffat the office of petitioner’s legal counsel. (41 RT 84:1-8, 41 RT 89:23-24 and 41 RT 176:18-20) Eligio testified “Why would I tell him the truth if [Shawver] is not listening to us. It makes no sensefor metotell him the truth if he wasn’t goingto pay attention to us, anyhow.” (41 RT 90:13-19) Eligio also claimed that she wasafraid that Shawver would call immigration on her. (42 RT 8:2-12) Eligio states that she was also worried that the company mightfire 125 her for causing the blockage. (42 RT 9:15-24) But Eligio deniedevertelling Silvia Lopez that she had lied to the ALRB about the blockage. (41 RT 186:21-25) Eligio claimed that she did not know whetherSilvia Lopez or Angel Lopez told the ALRB abouttheir involvementin planning and implementing the blockage. (41 RT 186:5- 12 and 42 RT 16:25-18:16) Clara Cornejo, who was witness # 78, worked for Gerawan from approximately 2007 to 2014. (45 RT 115:24-116:8) Her nicknameis “Carla”. (45 RT 113:18-23) In 2013, her crew boss was RaquelVillavicencio. (45 RT 116:9-10) Cornejofirst heard about the UFW whenthey cameto her crew promising to help get immigration documents for workers who needed them. (45 RT 117:17-119:16) Union organizers also told her that workers could get better wageswith the union, but Cornejo believed that better wages than what the companyalready offered were impossible. (45 RT 137:1-6) In 2013, Cornejo collected signatures from more than ten different crews. (45 RT 124:20-126:17) Cornejo only collected signaturesat lunch time. (45 RT 126:21-23 and 45 RT 129:22-25) She took the whole day off from workto go to Reedleyto collect signatures on approximately ten occasions. (45 RT 130:11-15 and 49 RT 12:6-11) Cornejo did not recall why Silas Shawver invalidated the first batch of signatures. (45 RT 134:1-21) Onthe day of the work blockage, Cornejo arrived at 4:00 a.m. to block an entrance to Gerawan fields. (45 RT 144:2-5 and 45 RT 145:9-13) Cornejo blocked the entrance with her car and some tape. (45 RT 146:11-17) Cornejorecalls discussing the idea of a blockage with Jovita and others perhaps four orfive days 126 beforehand. (45 RT 153:4-12 and 45 RT 154:18-19) Oneofthe purposes ofthe work blockage was to gather more signatures. (45 RT 157:21-24 and 45 RT 188:21- 24) The co-workers whodid the blockinglater collected signatures at the protest that day. (45 RT 158:13-21) According to Cornejo, some ofthe protesters held signs, and morethan fifty of the signs appeared to be professionally-printed. (45 RT 192:6-11 and 45 RT 195:10-16) Two days later, Cornejo wentin a busto Sacramentoto protest outside the ALRB offices. (45 RT 160:1-15 and 45 RT 161:16-17) Cornejo had heard that the bus waspaid for by or through “Ray”at the KMSradiostation, but she did not recall from whom she had heardthat information. (45 RT 191:14-23) When Cornejo was interviewed by ALRB RegionalOfficestaff, she denied participating in the work blockage. (49 RT 6:9-15) Cornejo had petitioner’s counselpresentat the interview. (49 RT 8:20-22 and 49 RT 49:16-21) Cornejo claimsthat noneof her co-workerstold her that they were going to deny having participated in the blockagein their own interviews with ALRB RegionalOffice staff. (49 RT 7:5-10) Cornejotestified that she did not see any reasontotell the truth to ALRB Regional Office staff when Silas Shawver wasjust playing around with them. (49 RT 9:20-22 and 49 RT 10:16-18) Alecia Diaz Reyes, who was witness # 84, worked for Gerawan from approximately 2012 to 2014. (56 RT 8:4-15) In 2013, her crew boss was Raquel Villavicencio. (56 RT 9:18-23) In 2013, her crew waslocated in Kerman. (56 RT 10:16-18) Her boyfriend is Jacinto Carrasco Aquino, who was witness # 87. (56 RT 127 15:24-16:11) Her boyfriend used to work for the UFW andhe spokenegatively of them. (56 RT 15:17-19 and 56 RT 53:10-13) Diaz gathered signatures with her friend Clara Cornejo, who was sometimes known as Carla. (56 RT 18:2-15) Diaz took morethan fifteen whole days off from work to go to Reedleyto collect signatures. (56 RT 93:17-22, 56 RT 96:4-6 and 56 RT 107:7-10) On those days, Diaz visited between ten and twenty different crews. (56 RT 99:12-20) Diaz also took four or five whole days off to gather signatures from Kerman-area crews. (56 RT 101:15-17) Diaz recalled that Jovita Eligio, witness # 72, and Virginia Chairez, who wasnot called as a witness, were both active in gatheringsignatures. (56 RT 114:21-25) Diaz participated in the blockage of companyentrances. (56 RT 36:13-16, 56 RT 37:10-17 and 56 RT 69:21-24) During herfirst conversation with Carla beforehandabout blocking the entrances, they talked about collecting new decertification petition signatures. (56 RT 81:18-21) When people cameto the entrance where Diaz wasstationed, she told them that she was blocking it. (56 RT 72:6-9) Diaz also told them that they neededto have a biggerstrike to get the ALRB’s attention. (56 RT 70:17-25) She saw somesigns that were professionally printed that day. (56 RT 41:18-20 and 56 RT 88:1-10) Diaz and her co-workers gatheredsignatures on the day of the work blockage. (56 RT 42:1-6) Alecia said that Carla and Jovita both told her that they had been interviewed by the ALRB Regional Office staff, but neither of them told her that during such interviewsthey had lied. (56 RT 85:4-21) 128 On oneoccasion, a co-worker who supported the UFW began handing out a pro-unionflyer shortly prior to lunch. (56 RT 60:15-17) As soon as foreperson Villavicencio sawthis, Villavicencio sent the worker back to where she should be working. (56 RT 60:18-19) When Diaz took a busto go protest in Sacramento, the bus was parkedin front of the company office. (56 RT 90:24-91: 1) She did not pay anything to take the bus, and was provided with burritos, snacks, chips and water. (56 RT 91:15-92:15) Carla told her that the food that day came from donations on behalf of an English-languageradio station. (56 RT 92:16-20) Diaz assumed thatthe buses fell into the same category. (56 RT 93:8-12) Raquel Villavicencio, who was witness # 119, workeddirectly for Gerawan as a crew boss from approximately 2002 to 2014. (95 RT 80: 1-5) Her crew was sometimesa large asfifty to sixty workers. (95 RT 99:2-8) Villavicensio testified that she always has exactly as many workers who want to workas there are spots for workers. (95 RT 155:1-4) During 2010 through 2013, Villavicencio does notrecall ever turning down a person who sought workin her crew. (95 RT 155:6- 12) During 2008 through 2013, Villavicencio has never disciplined or suspended a worker. (95 RT 161:4-21 and 96 RT 32:3-12) Instead, Villavicencio stated that she hasthe discretion to do whatshe thinks is appropriate. (96 RT 39: 16-22) Her assistant crew boss was Benjamin Gallardo Rodriguez, who was witness # 48. (95 RT 85:9-15) The parties stipulated that, in 2013, Gallardo wasalso a statutory supervisor. (23 RT 45:15-46:17) At times, Gallardo supervised part of the crew physically separated from Villavicencio and the remainderofthe crew. (95 RT 129 85:16-19) Villavicencio had a sister, Ana Maria,sister-in-law, Gemma, and nephew, Miguel, who workedin her crew. (95 RT 90:13-91:5) Raquel Villavicencio also had a brother, Reynaldo Villavicencio, who wasa crew boss. (95 RT 92:6-16) None of the parties called Reynaldo Villavicencio as a witness. Raquelrecalled an occasion before the election when her crew had already started work, packing grapes, when a significant amountofher crewallleft at once. (95 RT 124:14-23) The crew membersjust began chanting “let’s go” and left, sometelling her not to let anyone touch their packingarea. (95 RT 125:2-10) On that occasion, perhapsforty-five of her sixty workers left. (95 RT 126: 10-18) While the workers were missing, supervisor Lupe Elizondo walked by and just shruggedhis shoulders. (96 RT 96:12-19) Maybefifteen ofthe forty-workers who left returnedlater in the day. (95 RT 127:1-5) Villavicencio claimsthat she did not know where the workers went, she did not ask them, and they did not tell her anything. (95 RT 128:7-22) Villavicencio denied being friends with Jovita and Carla, testifying that “All the workers are the same to me.” (95 RT 131 :24-133:10) Villavicencio stated that Jovita and Carla would just tell that they are going to stop work and would leave. (95 RT 135:18-25) Villavicencio nevertalked to Jovita or Carla about the large amountofwork that they were missing. (95 RT 163: 13-17) Whenaskedif Jovita missed thirty-six full days of work between June1, 2013, and September 20, 2013, Villavicecio respondedthat she did not remember. (96 RT 42:9-13) When asked if Carla missed twenty-two full days of work between June 1, 2013, and September 20, 2013, Villavicecio stated that she could not force herto 130 show up to work. (96 RT 43:6-13) When asked ifAlecia missedthirty-four full days of work between June 1, 2013, and September 20, 2013, Villavicecio stated that she does not count the days and thatit would be “inhumane”to force someoneto work. (96 RT 43:17-25) Villavicencio madeit soundlike she was helpless and powerless to inquire why workers were routinely leaving in the middle ofthe day. (95 RT 159:1-10) Villavicencio similarly madeit sound like she had no recourse if a workerwasroutinely absent. (95 RT 158:3-13) Jovita Eligio never complainedto her that Lupe Martinez was bothering her. (96 RT 23:1-5) Villavicencio recalled Lupe Martinez as being “quiet”. (96 RT 23:8-14) Onthe day of the work blockage, Villavicencio did not think about whether or not it might be related to the union issue. (95 RT 169:7-9) Villavicencio testified that she understood Jose Erevia’s past instructions to require herto leave wheneverthere was a large group of people. (95 RT 168:21-24) However, Villavicencio did not call Jose Erevia upon arrival to the blocked entranceto tell him what she saw. (95 RT 169:4-6) Villavicencio states that she tried calling several supervisors, but most of them did not answer. (95 RT 104:8-10) Villavicencio did reach Videl, but he did not give her any instructions. (95 RT 104:19-22 and 9 RT 105:15-16) Villavicenciotestified that she did not receive any calls or text messages from her crew. (95 RT 106:15-107:9 and 95 RT 112:11-13) Villavicencio thenleft to get a cup ofcoffee, later going to the office. (95 RT 110:3-4 and 95 RT 113:18- 25) Upon cross-examination, Villavicencio conceded that she did not go inside the 131 store to get a cup of coffee, but rather simply parked in back and waited. (96 RT 78:24-79:7) Villavicencio recalls one day when Oscar Garcia came and made a presentation to her crew. (96 RT 26:2-6) Villavicenciotestified that, despite multiple meetings conducted by Jose Erevia, she did not know whatthe election was aboutorthat it had anything to do with the union. (96 RT 57:19-21 and 96 RT 58:2- 21) Uponre-direct examination, Villavicencio both conceded and denied that she knew there was a groupgetting signaturesto try to get rid of the union. (96 RT 112:10-12 and 96 RT 115:11-15) Villavicencio identified exhibit GCX-76 as the red tape that the companyusedin the fields. (96 RT 97:21-98:23) She notedthat the tape is easily ripped or torn with a person’s bare hands. (96 RT 101:13-16) I credited the testimony of Eligio, Cornejo and Diaz that they were among the principal architects of the September 30, 2103 work blockage at Gerawan blockage, along with Silvia Lopez and Angel Lopez. Thetestimony at the hearing overwhelming showedthatit was the decertification proponents who were solely responsible for the blockage of workplace entrances. But when it cameto other topics, such as their motives for conducting the blockage, and for lying to the ALRB Regional Office staff, I mostly discredited the testimony of Eligio and Cornejo.It is not just that the pair was caught lying, whichis a given. I asked Eligio and Cornejo if they spoke to one anotherbefore lying to the Regional Office staff and they denied doing so. It stands to reason that if Silvia Lopez, Angel Lopez, Eligio, Cornejo, and others were going to an ALRB interview andintendedtolie, they wouldfirst check 132 with their co-conspirators to ensure uniformity in their responses. I credited Diaz as to hertestimonythat, during her first conversation with Carla beforehand about blocking the entrances, they talked aboutcollecting new decertification petition signatures. I conclude that the workers decided that, due the Regional Director rejecting their earlier batch ofsignatures, the work blockage was the only means by which they could timely gather the large numberof signatures required in a short time period. Before too long, winter would be upon them and workerlayoffs would escalate. The work blockage was a deliberate and calculated effort to quickly obtain signatures as their numberofsignature gatherers was otherwise not great enough to timely finish the task using only during the thirty-minute lunch break as was done the first time. As for Raquel Villavicencio, I certainly did not believe her utopia scenario, where workers are never warnedor disciplined, and may leave early or miss work in great abundancewith neither scrutiny nor consequences. Villiavicencio, like other crew bosses, surely recognized that the walk-outs and blockages were initiated by the proponentsofthe union decertificationeffort. 21. Direct Hire Crew of Reynaldo Villavicencio Five workers, Francisco Serviano, Innocensio Bernal, Bernardo Magafia Elias, Silvia Enedina Lopez, and Belen Elsa Solano Lopez,testified with respect to the crew of foreperson Reynaldo Villavicencio. Surprisingly, none of the parties called Reynaldo Villavicencio as a witness. Francisco Serviano, who waswitness # 21, worked for Gerawan from approximately 2008 to 2014. (14 RT 7:9-11) With the exception of one day,in 133 2013, Serviano’s crew boss was Reynaldo Villavicencio. (14 RT 9:7-9) His crew hadthirty-five to forty workers. (14 RT 38:14-16) The crew typically worked on the West side, near Kerman. (14 RT 152:16-17) Silvia Lopez started in his crew in June or July 2013. (14 RT 10:8-11) Serviano recalled that Lopez drovea Toyota Avalon. (14 RT 39:13-14) For about a month and a half, Lopez typically missed two or three days or work every week. (14 RT 43:20-44:13) Lopez was slightly late to work approximately forty percentofthe time. (14 RT 27:10-17) Servianorecalls a single time when he wasfive or ten minutes late for work when Reynaldo told him that there could be consequencesifhe made a habit of being late, but no action was taken against him. (14 RT 64:1-24) Lopez alsoleft earlier than the rest of the crew on many occasions. (14 RT 29:4-20 and 14 RT 42:5-7) There would be other times that Serviano did not actually see Lopez leave early, but by the time the workers took their next break, she was already gone. (14 RT 43:7-11) On twooccasions, Serviano mentioned Silvia’s absence to his crew boss, Reynaldo Villavicencio. (14 RT 59:22-60:20) Reynaldoto Serviano to do his work and that he could not do anything aboutit. (14 RT 60:21-61:14) Serviano does not know if Reynaldo complained to Silvia about her attendance because Reynaldo usually had those types of conversations with the worker in private. (14 RT 70:14-19) Atleast three or four times, Serviano worked in the same row as Lopez. (14 RT 14:23-25) Serviano recalled that Silvia Lopez was slow at her work. (14 RT 14:4-5) Servianotestified that Lopez left her row manytimes, starting on 134 even the first morning that she worked, and also repeatedly had long cell phone conversations. (14 RT 16:10-24) Serviano indicated that majority of the telephone calls were in English. (14 RT 23:4-5) Serviano speaksa little bit of English, but speaks Spanish better. (14 RT 5:11-19) OnSilvia’s second day of work, she told Servianothat one of the telephonecalls was with her attorney. (14 RT 24:15-19) Servianoclaims that Silvia also told him abouttelephone calls to co-workers in other crews. (14 RT 25:12-15) Serviano’s conversations with Silvia were in Spanish. (14 RT 157:1-11) All of the other workers in his crew also sometimes usedtheir cell phone while they were working. (14 RT 147:6-20) Perhaps a week or two afterSilvia started with his crew, Silvia’s daughter, Belen, also began coming to the crew in Silvia’s car. (14 RT 97:3-12) In 2013, Belen worked in the crew for approximately three months. (14 RT 98:2-4) Later, during the 2013 grape harvest, Belen worked as a checker. (14 RT 99:1-10) Serviano also met another daughter of Silvia Lopez who was working as a checker during the 2013 grape harvest. (14 RT 126:10-18) I creditedall of the portions of Serviano’s testimony that are summarized in this sub-section. Thetestimony of Innocensio Bernal, who was witness # 22, was very short as to its length, but not small as to its importance. Bernal worked for Gerawan for three seasons. (14 RT 164:5-7) In 2013, his crew boss was Reynaldo Villavicencio. (14 RT 164:22-23) Ona Friday, Bernal asked Villavicencio to take off a Saturday because his spouse wasin the hospital. (14 RT 165:3-24) Villavicencio approved Bernal taking off the Saturday. (14 RT 165:15-17) On 135 either Friday or Saturday, Bernal then asked Villavicencioifhe could take off the next Mondayto meet with his immigration attorney. (14 RT 166:4-15) Villavicencio denied his request. (14 RT 166:10-22) Villavicencio told Bernal that he couldn’t have Bernal missing so much work,that the company didn’t want people missing that much work. (14 RT 166:1 0-12) Bernal did notfurther workat Gerawan in 2013, because whenhe called Villavicencio to inquire, he was told that they were not taking any more people. (14 RT 167:6-9) Bernal was not asked any cross-examination questions and, as previously noted, Reynaldo Villavicencio was not called as a witness by anyofthe parties. I fully credited the testimony of Innocensio Bernal. Bernardo Magafia Elias, who was witness # 74, worked for Gerawan from 2008 to 2014. (42 RT 24:1-14) Thefirst three years Magafia workedfor a contractor at the company,thelast four years Magafia workeddirectly for Gerawan. (42 RT 24:3-14) In June andJuly 2013, his crew boss was Reynaldo Villavicencio. (42 RT 25:10-17) In 2013, Magafia had severalrelatives working in Villavicencio’s crew. (42 RT 104:4-9) Magafia also briefly worked for Reynaldo Villavicencio during October to early November. (42 RT 27:16-25) As for August and September 2013, Magafia gave conflicting testimony as to whether he workedfor Villavicencio or insteadshifted to the crew ofRamiro Cruz. (42 RT 26:17-18 and 42 RT 100:24- 103:18) If Magafia was mistaken,I believe that he was simply confusing 2012 and 2013, and not being deceptive about his crew assignment. Magaifiatestified that whenhefirst saw UFW organizers, they told him “we’re going to take three 136 percent”. (42 RT 31:14-32:15 and 42 RT 140:13-17) Magafia also remembered the people from the uniontelling him in August 2013 that the workers “needed to sign a contract and thatif [they] did not sign the contract, [they] wouldbefired”. (42 RT 36:11-19 and 42 RT 38:1-5) Magaifia also recalled people from the union telling him to vote for them and they would give the workers immigration documents. (42 RT 39:5-11) One day before the election, Magafia left workearly to go to a protest in Visalia. (42 RT 66:25-67:1 and 42 RT 68:4-8) Magaifiajust told Villavicenciothat he wasleaving, and Villavicencio told him to write the reason on his punch card. (42 RT 69:7-21 and 42 RT 134:22-24) Magafia recalled receiving a free t-shirt prior to the election. (42 RT 148:16-22) I am skeptical of Magafia’s testimony that when union organizers first made contract with him,the first words that they uttered were that “we’re goingto take three percent”. Similarly, I am skeptical of Magafia’s testimony that the union told him that workers would befired if they did not sign a contract. It would have been in the UFW’s interest to focus only on thepositive aspects of union membership, and to not emphasize any costs or disadvantages. I did credit Magafia’s testimony that Villavicencio told him to write the reason for leaving early on his punch card, to which Magafia repeatedly testified. Petitioner Silvia Enedina Lopez”, who waswitness # 79, did not work at Gerawan during 2010, 2011 or 2102. (46 RT 21:23-22:14) Silvia does not 5 Some of mydiscussion of the testimony of Silvia Lopez is located in the earlier section of this decision regarding factors requiring scrutiny of Silvia’s role as the decertification petitioner. 137 rememberif she worked for Gerawan in 2008 or 2009. (46 RT 21 8-13) Silvia believes that the first year that she worked at Gerawan was in 1997 or 1998. (46 RT 18:16-19) Silvia concededthat, in 2013, she may have publicly overstated the length of time that she had worked for Gerawan. (50 RT 43:14-18, 50 RT 52:13-16 and 50 RT 58:11-20) Silvia testified that she described herself as a fifteen-year Gerawan worker because that is how long she was awareofthe company. (50 RT 52:17-21) I did not find that explanation to be credible. From 2010 forward, Silvia’s first day working at Gerawan wasin June or July 2013. (46 RT 65:4-9) In 2013, Silvia started working in the crew of Reynaldo Villavicencio. (47 RT 6:4-6) In 2013, Silvia only worked in the grapes, not the peaches. (53 RT 154:6-8) Her crew ordinarily worked six days a week, with Sundayoff. (50 RT 162:1 1-18) Shortly thereafter, her daughter Belen also joined this crew. (50 RT 176:5-14 and 50 RT 180:3-5) I previously discussed that Silvia worked very few hours in 2013. Yet Silvia was neverdisciplined for excessive absences. (50 RT 125:5-7) Silvia admitted that she started working at Gerawan specifically to help her son-in-law get rid of the union. (S0 RT 121:1-3) Silvia testified that she spent more time working on the decertification effort than actually workingin the fields. (50 RT 123:1-1 1) Nonetheless, Silvia testified that even if she had not becomeinvolvedin the union issue, she would have gone to work at Gerawan in 2013. (50 RT 120:15-20) At one juncture, Silvia testified that she expected to work fifty hours a week. (50 RT 88:4- 5) Silvia agreed that from June 25, 2013 to November5, 2013, she probably missed 138 about sixty percent of the work days. (50 RT 154:22-155:2) And even on those days that she did work between June 25, 2013 and September 28, 2013, Silvia either started late or left early about halfofthe time. (50 RT 160:7-12) Yet, Silvia gave contradictory testimony which suggestedthat, for long-term pre-existing health conditions, she was unable to regularly work. (50 RT 88:21-89:4 and 50 RT 123:20-124:7) Specifically, Silvia claimed that she could not easily lift her right leg without being in pain. (50 RT 147:9-12) Silviatestified that she also had pain in her arms, but that the pain in herrightleg is greater. (50 RT 148:25-149:3) Silvia gave varying testimony at to whether this pain was constantor intermittent. Silvia claimed thatthis pain was one ofthe reasonsthat she wentto work at Gerawan in 2013, because she knew the company wasnot tough on attendance. (53 RT 58:24-59:2 and 53 RT 93:5-11) I did not find credible Silvia’s explanation that, due to her leg pain, she purposefully picked a job that would involve strenuous physical labor because she perceived Gerawan to have a relaxed attendance policy. Moreover, Silvia and Belen often missed the same days of work, which presumably would have had a greater impact on the crew if two workers did not show up. Silvia has four children, Belen, Lucerita, Rose Hilda and Roman. (46 RT 17:23-18:4) In 2012,Silvia lived with Gerawan supervisor Mario Montez. (46 RT 28:11-16) Her daughter, Lucerita, and her son-in-law, Angel Lopez,also lived in the sameresidenceas Silvia and Mario. (46 RT 29:11-20 and 46 RT 1 12:12-13) Lucerita is Angel’s wife. (61 RT 13:7-8) On different occasions, Angel, Lucerita, 139 Belen and Rose Hilda assisted Silvia in decertification petition signature gathering. (46 RT 30:9-19, 47 RT 33:7-20, 47 RT 148:10-23 and 50 RT 18:23-19:24) Rose Hilda did not work for Gerawan in 2013, although she worked there in a previous year. (46 RT 30:1-4) In 2013, Silvia also hada sister, Guadalupe, who worked as a grape checker at Gerawan. (46 RT 61:24-62:2) On one occasion, Silvia took her son Roman to Gerawan properties when she waseither gathering signatures or giving out flyers. (46 RT 31:5-16) At that time, Roman wasseventeen years-old. (46 RT 48:17-19) In Octoberor November 2012, which was during the time ofthe grape harvest, Angel told Silvia that the union was coming to Gerawan. (46 RT 34:25-35:11 and 46 RT 45:14-16) Even thoughSilvia did not work at Gerawan at that juncture, she never mentioned her conversation with Angel to Mario. (46 RT 37:13-17) In fact, Silvia testified that she has never discussed the union with Mario. (46 RT 46:15-17) Silvia concededthat it was possible that attorney Paul Bauer representedher before she began working at Gerawan in 2013. (47 RT 146:12-17) Silvia has never paid Bauer for his services. (53 RT 78:24-79:2) Silvia also testified that she is unawareofany third party having paid her attorneys fortheir services. (53 RT 83:16-22) In herfirst or second week at Gerawan in 2013, Silvia began collecting decertification petition signatures. (47 RT 143:7-11) In July 2013, Silvia had approximately seven workers helpingherto collect decertification petition signatures. (47 RT 147:14-16) Later, there were more workers involved. Her son- 140 in-law called those workers “Los Burritos’*®. (47 RT 150:10-24 and 52 RT 77:22- 25) It was between one and two monthsafter Silvia first met with attorney Paul Bauerthat she first met with attorney Anthony Raimondo. (46 RT 150:13-2 1) Beforethefirst petition wasfiled, Silvia also had contact with Anthony Raimondo’s associate attorney, Joanna MacMillan. (46 RT 152:8-22) On September 30, 2013, the day of the work blockage, they collected between eight hundred and one thousanddecertification petition signatures. (47 RT 152:15-153:5 and 52 RT 120:12-19) After the first petition was rejected, Silvia Lopez knew that she had a limited time period to try to file a second decertification petition if she wanted to do it that year. This is because the law requires such a petition to befiled during a period of peak employment, or what Ms. Lopez described as the being the “harvest season”. (48 RT 18:14-19) Less than five days passed from that dismissal ofthe first decertification petition before Silvia Lopez planned a work blockage. (48 RT 19:1-17 and 52 RT 77:20-22) Lopez denied planning the work blockagein order to collect signatures. (48 20:25-21:3) I do not find that denial to be credible. The number of workers that voluntarily attended protests after work, or even during work, was far fewer than the number whenthe option of working was unavailable to any worker. 3° Th his testimony, Angel Lopeztestified that people call Felix Eligio Hernandez by the nickname “El Burrito”. (71 RT 46:24-25) 14] It was Silvia’s idea to block the company entrances. (53 RT 160:21- 22) Silvia Lopezfirst discussed the blockage plan with her daughter, Lucerita, and her son-in-law, Angel Lopez. (48 RT 112:17-25) Silvia also discussed the work blockage with Jovita beforehand. (48 RT 127:21-23) Angel gaveSilvia red tape to use for the blockage on the day before. (48 RT 155:11-13) The work blockage took place on Monday, September 30, 2013. Silvia’s daughter, Belen, went with her when she went to implement the blockage. (48 RT 150:5-6) Silvia used her Toyota Avalon to block one of the company entrances. (48 RT 156:21-25) She and her daughteralso tied red ribbon to ladders to block four other adjacent entrances. (48 RT 164:2-16, 48 RT 166:6-14 and 48 RT 168:11-13) At the location blocked by Silvia’s car, Belen and Rosa Madrigal werealso present. (48 158:8-159:2) This is the same Rosa Madrigal who Dan Gerawan hadpreviously invited to go to Sacramento along with Silvia Lopez. Silvia Lopez testified that when she was interviewed by ALRB Regional Office staff in July 2014, with her own legal counsel also present for the interview, she deliberately lied and stated that she had no idea who caused the work blockage. (48 RT 112:1-9, 52 RT 30:18-25, 52 RT 82:2-18, 52 RT 85:9-19 and 55 RT 48:15-49:9) Silvia testified that she “[did not] remember how any things[that she] lied to Silas about”. (52 RT 83:23-84:4) Silvia states that her reason for lying was bothto protect her son-in-law and because she didnottrust Silas Shawver. (52 RT 84:11-14) However, Silvia could have achievedthat end by beingtruthful about her own involvementin the blockage and only lying as to whetheror not her son-in- 142 law was a co-conspirator. (52 RT 114:5-12) Silvia testified that, more than anything,she lied because she did not trust Shawver. (52 RT 115:10-13 and 53 RT 95:12-96:4) Silvia also testified that she wasafraid that Shawver wouldreport her to the police or the company.*” (53 RT 96:22-25) Silvia claims that she did nottell Jovita Eligio that she (Silvia) lied to the ALRB Regional Office staff. (48 RT 120:8-10) Silvia also testified that Jovita nevertold her (Silvia) that Jovita lied to the ALRB RegionalOffice staff. (48 RT 120:11-15 and 55 RT 44:8-24) I reject the credibility of this testimony. It would accomplish nothing for Silvia to lie unless she knewthat her co-conspirators were also going to lie when interviewed by the ALRB RegionalOffice staff. Moreover, during the September 2014 prehearing conference, whenher counsel provided Petitioner’s mandatory discussion of the facts andissues ofthe case, the Petitioner continued to concealthat she had any involvementin the planning and implementation of the work blockage. In addition to the financial support from the Fruit Association, discussed earlier in this decision, Silvia Lopez confirmed herreceiptof financial support from the Center for Worker Freedom (“CWE”). (50 RT 22:2-1 1) However, based upon a preponderanceofthe evidence, I find that the CWF contributions were after the election. (50 RT 26:2-10) 37 See Exhibit GCX-34, bates number 0007276, for the Gerawan press release issued on the day of the work blockage, September 30, 2013. Thepress release suggests that the protesters are workers who wantedto vote on decertification and Dan Gerawan himself is quoted speaking supportively of those workers. 143 Belen Elsa Solano Lopez, who waswitness # 91, is the daughter of Petitioner Silvia Lopez. Duringher testimony, Belen sometimes seemed disoriented, looking in odd directions away from all of the parties. Belen indicated that she was sick, but able to competently testify. (61 RT 11:9-19) Belenrecalls working for Gerawanforthe first time in the latter half of July 2013. (59 RT 79:12-18 and 61 RT 119:2-11) Companyrecords show heractual start date to be on August 2, 2013. During Spring 2013, Belen worked for Home Depotin a seasonalsales associate position for two or three months. (61 RT 31:2-21) During 2010 to 2012, Belen did not do any agricultural work. (61 RT 30:21-25) Belen’s crew boss was Reynaldo Villavicencio. (59 RT 80:7-1 1) Belen’s mother, Silvia, wasalso in this crew. (59 RT 80:12-14) Silvia and Belen sometimes carpooled together. (59 RT 109:18-22, 61 RT 129:6-8 and 61 RT 151:14-16) The crew typically worked in the Kerman area. (59 RT 80:15-17) Belen only workedin the vineyards, not in the trees. (61 RT 26: 1-9) Mydetailed discussion of Belen’s spotty attendancerecord is located in the earlier section ofthis decision regarding factors requiring scrutiny of Silvia’s role as the decertification petitioner. While on the witness stand, Belen was somewhatevasive onthis topic. Belen stated that they workedfull days, but qualified her answer to saw that they did not work full daysif it was hot outor if they collected signatures. (61 RT 37:21-38:7 and 61 RT 133:17-18) Belen also indicated that she missed about ten days of work related to the decertification activities such as signature gathering and protests. (61 RT 136:3-15) 144 In October 2013, Belen left Reynaldo Villavicencio’s crew to become a checker in the grapes. (59 RT 81:3-82:23, 61 RT 132:6-10 and 61 RT 161:2-4) Belen’s sister, Lucerita, also became a grape-checker in 2013. In this decision, I interchangeably use the terms “checker”and “quality control worker”. The witnesses called by the General Counsel and the UFW predominantly used the former term, the witnesses called by the company andthePetitioner predominantly usedthelatter phraseology. Sometimes quality control was abbreviated as “QC”. (61 RT 160:14-17) Any difference or disagreementin the precise name ofthe position is inconsequential for purposes of analyzing the position’s duties. As discussed elsewherein this decision, I find that the grape-checker positions were non-supervisory. Belen states that she was interviewed for the checkerposition by supervisor Lucio Torres. (59 RT 85:8-87:5 and 61 RT 56:8-10) Belenstates that Lucio did not ask her how long she had worked for Gerawan. (61 RT 171:1 -4) Belentestified that she earned the same hourly rate as a checker as she had previously earned in the crew of Reynaldo Villavicencio. (61 RT 26:22-27:8) For his part, Lucio Torres, who waswitness # 126, states that he had as many as twenty to twenty-three grape-checkers working under him during 2013. (101 RT 72:9-12) Torres claimsthat he accepted every person whorequested to be a grape-checker who showed upatthe requiredtraining class. (101 RT 72:23-73:17) Belen testified that she first heard about the union when she began working at Gerawan. (59 RT 91:11-13 and 61 RT 48:20-24) I discredit this testimony. It is much more plausible that Belen heard about the union from one of 145 her family members before she started at Gerawan. Belen indicatesthat her family shared their feelings about the union with heronly after she started workingat Gerawan. (59 RT 95:22-25) Belen states that she saw signature gathering at her crew before she had ever discussed the topic with her mother. (59 RT 97:10-17 and 61 RT 43:12-18) Belen herself began gathering signatures shortly after she started working at Gerawan. (59 RT 100:11-17, 61 RT 43:2-5 and 61 RT 144:12-23) Belen would sometimes leave with her motherbefore lunchto collect signatures and then thereafter not return to her crew. (61 RT 38:21-39:5) Belen recalled that the work blockage occurred in approximately August 2013 and that the election was near Halloween in 2013. (61 RT 8:5-8 and 61 RT 21:13-22:4) Belen herself blocked several companyentrances, using ladders and tape. (61 RT 8:14-19, 61 RT 9:9-12 and 61 RT 68:19-20) Laterin the morning, Lucerita called Silvia and Belento tell them that Angel had been arrested. (61 RT 12:17-23) When Silvia and Belenarrived, Angel wassitting in the back of the Sheriff's vehicle. The officer handcuffed Belen andput herin the patrol car with Angel. (61 RT 15:5-22) (61 RT 15:2-3) Belen states that she and the Deputy Sheriff “cussed” each other out. (61 RT 16:5-9 and 61 RT 19:3-5) Thepolice then release Angel but took Belento the jail because “she was being aggressive.” (61 RT 19:9-12) Belen believes that her sister invited the media to the September 30, 2013 protest, but she was not certain. (61 RT 90:19-22 and 61 RT 91:10-17) Belen spoke to the media that day aboutthe protest, but did not mention that she was responsible for blocking companyentrances. (61 RT 84:14-17) Belen does not remember 146 anyone from the companyoffices asking if she was involved with the blockage. (61 RT 81:18-82:2) I generally discredited the testimony of Belen Solanoas unreliable. Belen often gave unresponsive answersto proffered questions. Moreover, with respect to several pertinent events, Belen’s memory wasinconsistent and lacking in details. 22. Direct Hire Crew of Alfredo Luis Zarate Three workerstestified regarding the crew of Alfredo Luis Zarate. These workers were Alberto Bermejo, Juan Cruz Lopez, and Agustine Garcia Rodriguez. Foreman Alfredo Luis Zarate also testified at the hearing. Alberto Bermejo, who was witness # 4, started working for Gerawan in 2011. (5 RT 78:18-19) In 2013, Alberto’s crew boss was Alfredo Luis Zarate. (5 RT 79:13-15) Five or six minutes before the 8:30 a.m. morning break, Bermejo saw two women, names unknown,about nine rows away, six trees into the row. (5 RT 91:15-17, 5 RT 93:10-16, 5 RT 94:2-14 and 5 RT 120:16-20) Bermejo estimated that the peach trees were seventeen to eighteen feet apart. (6 RT 15:3-16:2) Bermejotestified that Zarate was roughly half way in between him and women. (5 RT 100:25-101:7) After the morning break was called, Bermejo spoketo the two women, and they told him they were collecting signatures to decertify the union. (5 RT 102:3-18) Given the distance and intervening objects involved, I was not persuaded that Bermejo could tell what the women were doing until he saw them after the break wascalled. 147 Juan Cruz Lopez, who waswitness # 24, started working for Gerawan in 2010. (15 RT 12:10-11) I previously discussed someofhis testimony in the sub- section discussing the crew of Antonio Sanchez. On a day in October 2013 whenthe crews of Sanchez and Zarate were near one another, Juan and his co-worker Arnulfo Lopez asked Zarate if the crews were going to get sent to the grapes. (15 RT 22:20- 24:1) Juan recalled Zarate responding that he did not know,butthatifthey did not, it was their fault due to the union involvement. (15 RT 24:2-6) Agustine Garcia Rodriguez, who was witness # 36, started working for Gerawan in 2010. (19 RT 8:6-13) In 2013, Garcia’s crew boss was Alfredo Luis Zarate. (19 RT 9:11-13) Garcia did not personally see anyone gather signatures during work hours at his crew. (19 RT 63:17-20) Garcia became involved with the UF W andattended most ofthe contract negotiations. (19 RT 56:4-20) Garcia testified that Zarate told him that if the union was succeeded, the employer would take downthe peach and nectarine trees. (19 RT 57:9-18 and 19 RT 60:13-1 8) Garciastates that during the time of the 2013 peach harvest, he and a co-worker, Alberto Bermejo, asked Zarate for permission to gather signatures during work hours, with Zarate rejecting their request. (19 RT 62:19-63:16) Garciaalsorecalls one instance when Zarate told him to take off his pro-UFW button. (19 RT 59:18- 20) Alfredo Luis Zarate, who was witness # 107, workeddirectly for Gerawan from 2008 to 2014. (84 RT 110:12-111:2) Zarate has been a crew boss duringall of this time period. (84 RT 111:3-18) On the dayofthe September30, 148 2013 work blockage, Zarate saw people blocking the entrance but did not ask them whythey were blockingit. (84 RT 146:25-147:19) For the next twoto three hours, Zarate did not contact anyone with the company.. (84 RT 147:20-23 and 85 RT 20:19-25) Zarate’s crew worked for about two more weeksafter the blockage. (85 RT 17:10-13) Zarate did not recognize the name of Juan Cruz Lopez. (84 RT 130:16-24 and 85 RT 7:16-19) However, Zarate denied telling Juan Cruz Lopezthat a crew mightnot get work in the grapes dueto its union involvement. (85 RT 6:24- 7:12) Zarate recalled that both Bermejo and Garcia would wear UFWattire. (85 RT 19:15-20:3 and 85 RT 36:5-25) Zarate also denied telling Agustine Garcia Rodriguez that the employer would cut downthetrees if the union succeeded. (85 RT 8:22-25) Lastly, Zarate denied telling Agustine to take off his pro-UFW button. (85 RT 9:10-13) Zarate confirmed that Alberto Bermejo and Agustine Garcia Rodriguez asked him for permission to gather signatures during working hours. (85 RT 61:6- 18) Zarate told them that they could collect signatures during the break times orrest times, but not during working hours. (85 RT 61:19-23) I found that Juan Cruz Lopez and Alfredo Luis Zarate were both generally credible witnesses. Asto the alleged conversation between the two of them, I credit Zarate’s testimony as the more persuasive of the two. I also credited Zarate’s testimony that he did not ask Agustine Garcia Rodriguez to remove his pro- UFbutton. 149 23. Direct Hire Crew of Estella Aceves Gisela Judith Castro Lopez, who was witness # 92, worked directly for Gerawan from 1998 through 2014. (60 RT 8:12-21) In 2013, her crew boss was Estella Aceves. (60 RT 8:22-23) In 2013, Estella’s crew was large, with approximately eighty workers. (60 RT 131:5-7) Her husbandis crew bossis Bartolo Ortiz, who was witness # 101. (79 RT 21:25-22:5) Gisela decidedto unite with Angel Lopez to collect signatures and distribute flyers. (60 RT 14:21-24) She wouldget the flyers from Silvia Lopez and others. (60 RT 14:3-10) The group that organized a lot of the signature gathering included herself, Silvia Lopez, Angel Lopez, Jovita Eligio, Clara Cornejo and Virginia Chariez. (60 RT 146:12-147:3) Gisela testified that she remembereda meeting before the blockage | wherea tall, blonde “American man” cameand donated professionally printed posters in English. (60 RT 73:1-13, 60 RT 74:5-9 and 60 RT 75:6-8) Gisela only speaks Spanish, but co-workerstold her that the signs said “we want to vote”. (60 RT 6:1-3 and 60 RT 73:14-18) Gisela did not know the man’s name,but recalls him saying that he represented an organization. (60 RT 75:21-24) Onthat occasion, the tall, blond American man also tookt-shirts to them. (60 RT 74:7-9) Gisela stated that she and other workers, including Silvia Lopez and Angel Lopez, planned the work blockage. (60 RT 16:14-17:3) They knew that they had a limited amountoftime in 2013 to collect signatures for the second petition. (60 RT 82:10-13) Gisela suggested using the Gerawancoloredtapeorribbonthat was used at work, which she had available in her van. (60 RT 19:3-21:2 and 60 RT 150 137:1-17) Gisela gave six rolls of the tape to Angel Lopez. (60 RT 21:16-22 and 60 RT 88:4-16) A similar roll of red tape was marked as Exhibit GCX-76. (60 RT 138:14-139:24) Whensheleft early on the day ofthe blockage, he husband did not notice because he had been drinking the evening before. (60 RT 120:16-22) On the day of the blockage, Gisela was there for a few hours, and she gathered more signatures than she hadevergatheredin herlife. (60 RT 22:5-14) Gisela also saw Silvia Lopez gathering signatures that day. (60 RT 89:11-14) Even as her crew boss arrived at the block entrance, she and Angel Lopezwerecollecting signatures. (60 RT 86:1-15 and 60 RT 109:9-13) No one from the companyeverasked her to move her car that was blocking an entrance. (60 RT 87:15-17) However,there was a “neighbor” who had a housenear there who told them to movea car becauseit was blocking his entrance to his property. (60 RT 87:19-21 and 60 RT 116:18-1 17:10) The neighborthreatenedto call the police. (60 RT 117:23-24) On the dayofthe blockage, Gisela also distributed flyers. (60 RT 24:7-10) The group doingthe blockage “agreed that [they] weren’t goingto tell the truth, ever.” (60 RT 16:18-19, 60 RT 81:18-20 and 60 RT 101:10-25) After the work blockage, Gisela told her husband abouther involvement. (60 RT 121:7-15 and 60 RT 123:25-124:8) Bartolo responded that he did not wantGisela getting involved, and did not want any problems. (60 RT 121:13-15) After Silvia Lopez wasinterviewed by the ALRB Regional Office staff, she told Gisela “that she had denied everything because that’s what[they] had agreed upon”. (60 RT 103: 1-9) Gisela indicated that when she wasinterviewed by Silas Shawver,she lied and 15] denied having anything to do with the blockage. (60 RT 104:1-6 and 60 RT 106:15- 20) Gisela then told Silvia Lopez that she hadlied to Silas Shawver. (60 RT 150:25-151:3) Gisela testified that she lied to Shawver because she andthe other workers do nottrust him. (60 RT 104:8-14) Gisela states that Shawveralso “spooked”her children andlittle dog. (60 RT 104:11-14) I credited all of Gisela Castro’s testimony, including those topics whereit directly contradicted the testimony ofSilvia Lopez. 24. Testimony of Angel Lopez (Petitioner’s Son-in-Law) Angel Lopez, who was witness # 98, worked directly for Gerawan from 2009 through 2014. (71 RT 11:23-25) Angeltestified that, “I am blessedto workat that great company.” (71 RT 10:20-22) His wife is Lucerita Lopez, whois the daughter of Petitioner Silvia Lopez. (71 RT 25:4-7 and 71 RT 25:16-21) Angel could not rememberthefirst year that Lucerita worked for Gerawan. (74 RT 81:14- 16) From 2009 to 2015, he and his wife lived in the same home asSilvia Lopez and Mario Montes. (73 RT 163:16-21) In 2013, his crew bossesincluded Bartolo Ortiz, Juan Berdejo and Francisco Maldonado. (71 RT 11:5-11) For three months, Angel also worked as a forklift driver directly for supervisor Lupe Elizondo. (71 RT 126:13-128:7) In December 2012, Angel played soccer with some of his work colleagues and they asked him about the union. (71 RT 21:25-22:11) Angel explained that when a student asks a teacher a question, they mustbeprepared, so he investigated the issue. (71 RT 18:14-23) When Angelhas questions,hetries to ask 152 people whoare at least twice his age. (71 RT 23:12-13) Angel spokewith his wife’s grandfather, Mario Lopez, whotold him that unions are goodfor nothing andsteal from people. (71 RT 24:16-25:3) Specifically, Mario Lopez told him that “some people prepare or educate themselvesto steal from the poor”. (71 RT 27:7-8) Mario Lopez is the father of Silvia Lopez. (71 RT 26:24-27:1) Noneofthe parties called Mario Lopez as a witness. Silvia Lopez told him that the union was a bunch of crooks and, on top ofthat, the union was against the immigrants. (73 RT 161:6-18) A co-worker invited Angel Lopez to a half-hour long meeting in Fresno where he saw both ArmandoElenes and Jose Erevia. (71 RT 31:12-14, 71 RT 33:21-23 and 71 RT 37:1-2) Angel does not rememberthe co-worker’s name. (71 RT 42:8-12) Armando Elenes told Angelthat he could notsit at a particular table, but rather needed to sit in the corner. (71 RT 31:6-11) Angel was offended by that requirement. (71 RT 38:4-8) Angelrecalls that the meeting was held in English and the parties negotiated regarding the workerslike they were “some small animals”. (71 RT 32:19-23) The same unnamed co-workerlater invited him to a subsequent meeting in Modesto. (71 RT 42:4-7) Silvia Lopez drove Angel, Lucerita and Felix Eligio to the Modesto meeting in her Toyota Avalon. (71 RT 46:4-47:6) At the time, Silvia did not work for Gerawan. (71 RT 52:18-20 and 74 RT 35:25-36:4) They wentto the wrong location, but they ran into this “great person, Paul [Bauer], the attorney”. (71 RT 48:2-7) The group then wentto the correct location, but was not permitted to enter. (71 RT 48:17-18) They then asked for Paul Bauer’s help and he gave them an 153 appointmentat his Fresno office. (71 RT 48:19-22 and 71 RT 49:21 -25) Angel went to the meeting with Paul Bauer, along with Silvia, Lucerita, Belen Solano, Jovita Eligio Hernandez, Rosa Madrigal and Martina. (71 RT 57:13-59: 14) Paul Bauertold them that he wanted “one personto be in frontofall ofthis”. (71 RT 65:15-16) Bauer ultimately just represented Silvia as the Petitioner. (71 RT 66:20- 23) The group then took the initiative to gather signatures to decertify the union. (71 RT 119:20-21) Angel himself collected signatures on betweenten and twenty different days. (71 RT 123:16-20) Approximately three ofthe times when Angel wentto collect signatures, he wore a laminated name badge with the words “Gerawan Farming”on it. (73 RT 138:22-139:1) Someof the other signature gatherers, including Silvia Lopez, had a similar badge. (74 RT 91 17-15) Exhibit GCX-83 is a photograph of Angel Lopez wearing that badge. (Exhibit GCX-83) On one day, Angel and RolandoPadilla took off from work to go to different crews to recruit signature gathering help. (71 RT 130:9-25) Angeltried to identify possible sympathizers by asking them “Are youwilling to give three percent, to give away your money, or would you rather open up an accountfor your child so that there’s money when he’s older?” (73 RT 123:12-18) Angel was disappointed in Silas Shawver because Shawver denied their petition. (71 RT 135:16-17) Angel and someofhis closest co-workers then decidedto block the company entrances. (71 RT 141:16-20) Angel called approximately six co-workers and they then called approximately nine moreco- 154 workers. (71 RT 142:20-143:8) Three ofthe people that Angel called were Felix Eligio Hernandez andtwo ofFelix’s relatives. (71 RT 143:9-23) In the calls, he and the co-workers planned blocking the companyentrances to achieve the work stoppage. (71 RT 147:12-16) Angel spoke with Silvia Lopezbeforehecalled the other people. (71 RT 144:14-21) Oneofthe reasonsthat they did the blockage was because they had a short period oftime to collect the signatures.*® (71 RT 145:16- 146:4 and 74 RT 60:3-10) Jovita Eligio Hernandez told him that they were able to collect over one thousand decertification petition signatures on the day of the work blockage. (74 RT 69:3-6) On the day of the blockage, Angel’s co-workerstold the police that Angel was in charge of the work blockage. (74 RT 72:5-1 1) On that day, a police officer told him that he needed to movethecars blocking the company entrances. (73 RT 20:22-25) When Angel tried to movehis personal car, it would notstart. (73 RT 21:7-8) The police officer then told Angel to get out of his car and handcuffed him. (73 RT 21:11-13) Shortly thereafter Silvia Lopez and Belen Solano arrived. (73 RT 24:23-25) Angel described Belen as having a “very aggressive nature”. (73 RT 25:2-4) Later that day, at the protest, Angel saw ALRB field examiner Salvatore Alatorre driving a van displaying the ALRB logo near the protesters. (73 RT 45:21- 22) Someofthe protesters began pounding and bangingon the van. (73 RT 46:7-9) 38 On the day of the blockage, September 30, 2013, at 9:53 a.m., Petitioner’s attorney Paul Bauer issued a press release about the protest, stating the location of the protesting workers and noting that the workers were gathering signatures. (See Exhibit GCX-39, bates number 0007300) 155 Angelstates that he was the last person to leave the protest that day. (73 RT 47:23- 25) Angeltestified that next they decidedto goto talk to the ALRB in Sacramento because they knew that they could nottrust Silas Shawver. (73 RT 50:14-16) Silas Shawver even refused to let the protesting workers use the bathroomsat the Visalia office because hesaid that there were too many workers there. (73 RT 50:18-19 and 73 RT 129:15-17) In 2014, Angel wasinterviewed by the ALRB RegionalOffice staff, in the presence ofPetition’s legal counsel. (73 RT 51:8-19 and 74 RT 38:4-9) During this interview, Angellied to the ALRB Regional Office staff, and told them that he was not involved with blockingthe entrances to the company’s fields. (73 RT 51:20-52:1) Angelstated that he lied becauseSilas Shawverhad lied to the workers and wouldn’t do anything for them. (73 RT 52:5- 12) In his testimony, Angel emphasizedthat, if he was under the same circumstances, he wouldlie again to Silas Shawver. (73 RT 124:24-125:5, 73 RT 129:25-130:3 and 74 RT 37:15-21) Angel Lopeztestified that he never told his mother-in-law that he was interviewed by Silas Shawver. (74 RT 85:3-6) Nor did Silvia Lopeztell him that the ALRB staff had interviewed her. (74 RT 84:18-85:2) Nor did Angel ever have such discussions with Jovita Eligio Hernandez or Gisela Castro. (74 RT 85:11-24) I do not believe Angel’s testimony on this topic. At a minimum,I am confident that Angel and Silvia discussed with each other the circumstancesoftheir investigative interviews by the ALRB Regional Office staff. 156 Silvia Lopez arranged the October 2, 2013 trip to Sacramento “some days prior”. (73 RT 56:5-7) Atthis juncture, Angel may have been directly working for supervisor Lupe Elizondo. (73 RT 62:23-63:2) Silvia told Angel that “Barry © Bedwell” had donatedthe seven or eight buses that were parked outside the company office. (73 RT 54:13-56:21 and 74 RT 71:16-18) In Sacramento, they went to the ALRB andthen the Capitol. (73 RT 58:18-19) Outside the ALRB building, they were met by Antonio Barbosaand a “very nice” lady. (73 RT 59:1-3) Only the workers with California identification were allowed to enter the ALRB building. (73 RT 59:14-17) Angel heard that those workers were told that they neededto talk with Silas Shawverin Visalia. (73 RT 59:21-23) The workers then wentto see the Governor. Angel testified that when he openedthe door, all he saw wasofficers laughing. (73 RT 60:5-10) Then six or seven workers were allowed to go in to speak with a staff person. (73 RT 60:16-20) Afterward, the workers also knocked on the doors of Membersof the State Legislature. (73 RT 61:1-3) Angel testified that, on this trip to Sacramento,attorney Joanna MacMillan brought food to all of the workers. (74 RT 80:1-4 and 74 RT 82:21-83:7) After the second petition was denied, Angel and someofhis co- workers hid someofthe tractors and wheelbarrowsto facilitate another Visalia protest. (73 RT 64:12-67:20, 73 RT 69:13-14 and 74 RT 71 :23-72:1) An upset supervisor, “Gus” or “Gustavo”, came by and asked who was responsible and his co- workers responded “Angel”. (73 RT 70:1-7 and 73 RT 73:21-22) Angel heard the supervisor on his cellphone mention his name, “Angel Lopez”. (73 RT 70:25-71:1) 157 Angel said that he was hiding and afraid because Gustavo wastall and knew karate. (73 RT 70:8-17 and 73 RT 71:3-5) Angel and his wife then left for Visalia. (73 RT 75:10-12) Angel believes that approximately nine hundred workersprotested at the ALRB RegionalOffice in Visalia that day. (73 RT 77:25-78:2) Angel was never disciplined by the companyforhis role in either the blockage of company entrances or the hiding of company equipment. (73 RT 146:14-17) Angeltestified that there was one timeprior to the election when he wasinterviewed by Univision. (73 RT 103:22-104:7) Angel knewthat Gisela Castro was married to foreman Bartolo Ortiz and that Rolando Padilla was the brother of foreman Jesus Padilla. (74 RT 84:7-17) Angelrecalled receiving a t-shirt that said “No UFW”onit prior to the election. (74 RT 83:8-14) Angelalsotestified that he received a DVD from the companyregarding the union, but Angelthrew the DVDawaywithout watching it. (74 RT 17:7-25) 25. Testimony of Jorge Rueda Jorge Rueda, who was witness # 15, worked at Gerawan from 2006to 2013. (11 RT 162:23-163:5) When Rueda worked directly for the company, he was a non-supervisory worker. In 2013, during the summer and fall months, Rueda was a crew bossfrom a farm labor contractor called Ramirez and Sons. (11 RT 164:14- 25 and 32 RT 7:7-11) His crew had between fifty and sixty workers. (11 RT 165:4- 6 and 32 RT 7:24-8:1) By the time that Rueda met with ALRB Regional Office staff, he worked fora different farm labor contractor, Mid-Valley, which did not work on Gerawanproperties. (11 RT 249:13-252:21 and 32 RT 65:8-11) 158 In spring 2012, Rueda recalled receiving a leaflet from the company aboutthe union. (32 RT 12:4-8) On cross-examination, Rueda corrected himself and notedthat it was spring 2013 whenhehadreceived this leaflet. (32 RT 68:20- 24) When Rueda was a crew boss, two women,Jovita Eligio Hernandez and Virginia Chairez, came to his crew during work hours soliciting decertification petition signatures. (32 RT 12:18-14:9) Noneofthe parties called Virginia Chairez as a witness. Rueda heard the womentell his crew membersto sign a paperto get rid of the union. (32 RT 15:16-20) By the time Rueda saw the two women,they appearedto be finishing up, and he only saw them there collecting signatures for five to ten minutes of work time. (32 RT 17:15-18:7 and 32 RT 51:4-8) At no time did Ruedaask the womento leave. (32 RT 20:17-18) In fact, Ruedatestified that he signed a paper for Chairez before she explained to him the paper’s purpose. (32 RT 27:7-15) In the brief momentbeforethey left, Rueda did not ask them to remove his signature from the paper. (32 RT 114:5-20) Ruedatestified as to a second occasion when Silvia Lopez cameto his crew collecting signatures, arriving ten minutes after the lunch hour had ended. (32 RT 20:19-23:8) Silvia was there for about fifteen minutes and told Ruedathat she could nottalk with him. (32 RT 24:20-25:2) Rueda estimated that Silvia collected fifteen signatures because that all of these workers came up to talk with him afterwards. (32 RT 54:1-25) Ruedaalso heard supervisor Lupe Elizondotell a co- workerthat if the union camein, the company would removeall ofthe vineyards. (32 RT 35:10-25) 159 On November1, 2013, which was Rueda’s birthday, he was working as a direct hire employee for the company. (11 RT 261:24-262:1) Rueda workedin the crew of Juan Berdejo. (11 RT 257:20-21 and 32 RT 76:23-77:1) Rueda saw company entrances blocked with cars,tractors and red tape. (11 RT 256:8-12 and 11 RT 263:12-15) Berdejo told Rueda that they were going to a protest in Visalia. (11 RT 257:22-24) Rueda saw supervisor Gasol and grape-checker Virginia Chairez directing people to goto the protest. (11 RT 260:8-17) I discreditedthis testimony because there was no other testimony that workers’ cars were used to block company entrances on November1, 2013, just on September30, 2013. While I believe that Jovita and Chairez came to Rueda’s crew to gather signatures in 2013, and that there was a protest on November1, 2013, I found the remainder of Rueda’s testimony too unreliable to credit. Moreover, Rueda’s farm labor contractor crew was no longer working at Gerawan by the time of the election. 26. Testimony of Sandalio Ruperto Santos Sandalio Ruperto Santos, who was witness # 40, worked in 2013 for a farm labor contractor called R & T Grafting, owned by Rosa Zepeda, who was witness # 52. (20 RT 190:13-191:9 and 28 RT 109:5-110:2) His crew only worked on Gerawan property for two or three weeks. (20 RT 190:1-12) Santos only recalls the foreman’s first name, Sylvano. (20 RT 191:17-20) Santos recalls his foreman asking him to sign a paperto get rid of the union. (20 RT 192:23-193:7) Santos is a long-timefriend ofUFW organizer Antonio Cortes. (20 RT 212:13-23 and 20 RT 214:22-25) Noneofthe parties called Sylvano as a witness. While no testimony 160 waspresented to contradict Santos’ testimony,I did notfindit sufficiently detailed or reliable to credit it. Moreover, Sylvano’s farm labor contractor crew was no longer working at Gerawan bythetime oftheelection. M. Meetings for Training and Advocacy | There were several types of training and meetings that warrant mention. First, both the company and the ALRB providedtraining to Gerawan workers regarding issuesrelated to the Agricultural Labor Relations Act. Second, the company conducted multiple waves of captive audience meetings with the non- supervisory workers, including a later wave whichdirectly urged the workers to vote “No Union”. 1. Training Meetings Jose Erevia, who was witness # 99, was the Gerawan Employee Outreach and Regulatory Compliance Manager. (74 RT 105:10-13) Erevia explainedthat his position included a lot ofhuman resources functions. (74 RT 110:6-8 and 74 RT 112:10-22) Starting in approximately the year 2000, Erevia reported directly to Dan Gerawan and Mike Gerawan. (74 RT 111:11-16) Erevia indicated that in the past couple years, the owners and their legal counsel have had increased demandsfor information related to the union presence. (74 RT 114:1 -13) Erevia testified that the company did not have a written version of an organizational chart. (74 RT 132:22-25) Erevia explained that the chain of commandis the owners, then the managers, then the supervisors, and then the crew bosses. (74 RT 132:21-143:5) 16] While the parties stipulated that crew bosses are statutory supervisors, Erevia made clear that the crew bosses had the authority to interview and recommendthehiring of workers,to re-hire workers, to select an assistant crew boss, to request discipline, and to direct work assignments. (74 RT 147:4-148:9) The peachtree crews typically had between twenty-five and forty workers. (74 RT 150:7-14) In the vineyards, the crews typically had betweenthirty and sixty-seven workers. (74 RT 152:12-13) The crewsin the vineyards would sometimesbe split in half with the crew bosstypically supervising the workers packing the grapes, and an assistant crew bosssupervising the workers picking the grapes inside the vineyards. In October 2012, Dan Gerawan told Erevia that he was going to need to decide whether or not that he would recognize the union. (75 RT 209:15-17) Overa two-day period, Erevia went to mostorall of the crews and read a script. (75 RT 35:1-36:18) In the meetings and the flyers, workers were told that they could take their questions to Erevia. On November 16, 2012, Erevia held meetings with supervisors and crew bosses andtold them to refer all worker questions aboutthe union directly to him. (75 RT 87:19-88:4 and Exhibit R-2) There were also meetings on April 10, 2013, August 22-24, 2013, and September 12, 2013. (75 RT 98:6-127:19; see also Exhibits R3-R8, Exhibits GCX-77 and 85, and Exhibit U-11) At the August 24, 2013 meeting, ALRB Visalia Regional Director Silas Shawver madean hour-long presentation to the supervisors and crew bosses. (75 RT 121:20-122:25 and 94 RT 48:25-49:1) In late August 2013, Erevia also 162 coordinated with Shawverto provide training to the non-supervisory workers. (76 RT 76:12-18) Erevia also testified as to meetings when Dan and Norma Gerawan. visited the crewsin late September 2013. (75 RT 138:8-9) On the morning of the blockage, Erevia did not call any crew bosses.” (77 RT 108:1 5-19) Jose Erevia, Oscar Garcia and others also had meetings with the crewsduring the time period of October 30-31, 2013. (76 RT 13:2-14:12) Erevia stated that he was not present when Labor Relations Institute consultant Evelyn Fragoso spoke with the crews. (76 RT 17:6-12) Erevia also testified that he wasnot involvedin the distribution of the company DVD urging workers to vote “No Union”. (76 RT 157:22-25) Silas Marvin Shawver, who waswitness # 118, became a licensed attorney in 2006 and began his employment with the ALRB on April 30, 2012.” 39 However, crew boss Sonia Martinez indicated that Erevia had a conference call with a large numberofcrew bosses that morning, a meeting that was confirmed by subsequent testimony. (80 RT 75:21-78:9) The company took the position that the contents of that conferencecall, and the written statements completed by crew bosses, were attorney-client privileged material. After a lengthy discussion ofthe matter, the parties were given the opportunityto file briefs on the issue. (82 RT 34:15-44:24) Ultimately, I found the privilege to apply to both the contents of the conferencecall and to the contents of the crew bossstatements handwritten on the day ofthe blockage. (See California Evidence Code section 954; California Code of Civil Procedure section 2018.030; also Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal. 4th 480) This privilege is typically only waived if the companyputs the content of the conversation at issue in the case,e.g., using advice of counselas a legal defense to wrongdoing. In my Prehearing Conference Order dated September 12, 2014, I allowed both RegionalDirector Silas Shawverand Petitioner’s counsel Anthony Raimondoto remain as lead counsel even though both were expectedto be called as witnesses during the course of the hearing. My Orderprohibited counsel from examiningor cross- examining witnesses whose testimony would foreseeably overlap with their own (Footnote continued....) 163 (94 RT 106:13-16 and 94 RT 96:5-11) Shawver became the ALRB Visalia Acting RegionalDirector in January 2013 and becamethe permanent Regional Director in mid-August 2013. (94 RT 112:3-12) Shawvertestified that he is fluent in Spanish. (94 RT 24:1-4) Shawver wasthe only ALRB staff present for the August 2013 training of the Gerawanstatutory supervisors. (94 RT 12:9-12, 94 RT 49:2-6, and 94 RT 114:8-12) This training was actually done in two separate meetings covering the same material, with some supervisors attending the meeting in Kerman andthe others attending the meeting in Reedley. (94 RT 22:22-23:4 and 94 RT 75:7-13) Erevia waspresent for the two meetings with the crew bosses. (94 RT 76: 19-20) (Footnote continued) testimony. This ruling was necessary to avoid a substantial continuance in this matter. For the future, however, I have serious reservations regarding a Regional Director serving as the General Counsel’s lead prosecutor in an election matter. Pursuantto ALRB Regulation section 20370, subdivision (c), a Regional Director may participate in an investigative hearing to the extent necessary to ensure that the evidentiary hearing is fully developed. In the case of a consolidated election case, the election objections and unfair labor practice allegations are often inextricably intertwined. By assuming the “hat” as the General Counsel’s lead prosecutorin a consolidatedelection case, the Regional Director may simultaneously becomean unadulterated advocate for one side over the other as to the election objections, which then underminesthe Regional Director’s ability to be persuasive as a potential percipient witness. I will further note that, throughout the hearing, ALRB regional attorneys and UFW counsel would often pass post-it notes back andforth to one another. Regionalattorneys and UFW counsel would also sometimes huddle during short breaksin the testimony. I am certainly not suggesting that this collaboration is inherently inappropriate in all instances when you have a governmentprosecutorand a charging party. However, the record should make clear, should the General Counsel and UFW attempt to characterize their litigation strategy as completely independent, that portrayal would be inaccurate. 164 Shawverprepared an outline for the meeting, buttestified that he did notstill have that outline. (94 RT 24:21-25:12) Teams ofALRB staff were used to meet with the non-supervisory workers. (94 RT 80:8-20 and 94 RT 114:16-17) There were no company supervisors present when the teams met with the non-supervisory workers. (94 RT 85:22-86:6) Shawvertestified that the teams explained about the ALRB as an agency,its role, the workers’ rights, and how workers could contactthem. (94 RT 92:3-14) Shawveralsotestified that the teams gave the workersa short flyer discussingtheir rights and options, and providing contact information for the ALRB. (94 RT 89:4-17) I generally credited Shawver’s testimony as to the contentofthis training, but I am skeptical that he wouldnot haveretained his outline for such a high-profile matter. 2. Advocacy Meetings Oscar Garcia Bonilla, who was witness #116, worked for Gerawan from September 2010 through September 2014. (91 RT 8:22-24 and 91 RT 10:23- 24) Garcia served as Gerawan’s humanresourcedirector. (91 RT 10:7-9) Dan Gerawan was Garcia’s immediate supervisor. (91 RT 46:20-23) Gerawantold him manytimesthat it was important that the workers get a chance to vote on whether or notto be represented by the union. (91 RT 117:9-24) Gerawan also expressed that view in companypress releases. (91 RT 117:23-24) Garcia is unaware of any companyinvestigationas to the blockage of companyentrances. (91 RT 110: 12-16) 165 Garciatestified that he and Jose Erevia madepresentationsto forty or fifty crews about how the union dues would impact their wages. (91 RT 15:9-21, 91 RT 72:1- 11 and 91 RT 74:12-16) | In a later wave of captive audience meetings, Garcia also introduced LaborRelationsInstitute consultant Evelyn Fragoso to approximately fifty crews. (91 RT 26:17-27:15) These were mandatory work-time meetings. (91 RT 102:14- 103:12) Fragoso told her story of how she usedto be a union organizer, why she was opposed to the unions, and that the unions madefalse promises. (91 RT 60:19- 20, 91 RT 61:22-25 and 91 RT 102:12-13) There was also a DVD produced and distributed. Dan Gerawandirected Garcia to work with the Labor Relations Institute to produce this DVD. (91 RT 22:4-11) The DVD conveyedthe ownership’s opinion or preference aboutthe election results. (91 RT 20:22-21:7) The ownership’s message wasthat they preferred that the workers vote against the union. (91 RT 21:8-12) The DVDis exhibit U-9. The DVD had a sleeve that was exhibit U-10. Garcia watched the DVD multiple times before it was disseminated. (91 RT 124:24- 113:2) The companydistributed approximately two thousand DVDs directly to the field workers. (91 RT 28:4-8 and 91 RT 34:2-5) When I asked Dan Gerawan if he remembered if the DVD had a no union sign with a slash through it, Gerawan answered that he would be “shocked”if anything like that was in the DVD. (64 RT 81:22-25) Gerawanthen added that he would be “shocked” and “surprised”if the DVD had a messageto vote against the union. (64 RT 82:1-10) Garciaflatly refuted Gerawan’s testimony. Once the DVD 166 was completed, Garcia emailed a link to the DVD to Dan Gerawanfor his approval. (91 RT 25:12-16 and 91 RT 32:14-16) Even before that, the script had been emailed to Gerawan. (91 RT 69:1-9) Uponfurther examination, Garcia repeated that Gerawan approved the DVD. (91 RT 39:20-41:18) Even before seeing thescript, Garcia knew that the message would be to opposethe union because the company preferredto deal directly with the workers. (91 RT 81:14-23) I generally credited the testimony of Oscar Garcia. With respect to Dan Gerawan’s knowledgeofthe content of the DVD,I specifically credit the testimony of Oscar Garcia anddiscredit the testimony of Dan Gerawan. Dan Gerawan would not have sent two thousand DVDsto his workers withoutfirst watching it. Garcia first sent the script, and later the link to the final product, directly to Dan Gerawanfor his review and approval. Gerawan approved it. While Garcia wasnot standing over Gerawan’s shoulder when he reviewedthe script and final product, I do not believe that Gerawan would have approved the DVD without reviewingeither the script or the final product. Nor do I believe that this is just a memory lapse on Dan Gerawan’s part. Rather, I find that Dan Gerawan was being dishonestin his testimony expressing shock and surprise that the DVD urged the workers to vote “no union”. N. Wall Street Journal Article In a September 2013 Wall Street Journal article, Dan Gerawan is quoted as saying “I don’t think [the company] will survive”if the Governor signs Senate Bill 25. The article, which appears to be an editorial or opinion piece, 167 authored by Allysia Finley, explains that Dan Gerawan andhisbrotherstill toil in the fields alongside the workers, but that a union contract may force them out of business. Dan Gerawan testified that, in a telephone conversation,he told Finley that part of her piece was “not an accurate portrayal”, but conceded that he had originally said that Senate Bill 25 “could put [them] out of business”. (62 RT 86:13-88:1) Gerawan later posted this article on his company’s website. (62 RT 88:2-4 and 67 RT 44:24-45:1) There is no evidencethat the posting included a Spanish-language translation of the article. Gerawan testified that he did not actually believe that his company would go bankrupt if the mediator’s proposed contract was imposed. (67 RT 45:5-9) There was no evidence presented that the workers actually read this article, nor that the workers wereinfluenced byit. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The decertification process gives workers an opportunity to reject union representation. (California Labor Codesection 1 152) It is an unfair labor practice for an agricultural employerto interfere with agricultural employeesin the exercise of organizing, unionization or decertification. (California Labor Code sections 1152 and 1153, subdivision (a).) Interference and coercion does not turn on the employeror supervisor’s motive or success, but rather whetherit can be reasonablysaid that the misconducttendsto interfere with the free exercise of worker rights. (Merrill Farms v. ALRB (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 176, 184; MB. Zaninovich v. ALRB (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 665,679) 168 I am well aware that the length of the General Counsel’s investigation in terms of months puts more distance betweenactual events andthe date of testimony. This in turn makesit more difficult for witnesses forall parties to have a precise recollection of minordetails. The recollection of those minordetails sometimesplays a critical role in an administrative law judge’s assessmentof witness credibility when two witnesses describe mutually exclusive scenarios. A very long hearing such asthis one, spanning one hundred andfive days, and with one hundredandthirty witnesses, also means that the administrative law judgeis forced to compare the testimony of one witness whotestified in October 2014 with another witness whotestified in March 2015. Ironically enough, I am confident that these concerns have minimal impact on my ability to make manyofthecritical factual findings and analysis. The reasonfor this is because manyofthese facts are, more orless, ultimately undisputed bytheparties. A. IN OCTOBER2013, THE CALIFORNIA FRESH FRUIT ASSOCIATION AND BARRY BEDWELL GAVE TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARSTO PETITIONER SILVIA LOPEZ TO SUPPORT THE DECERTIFICATION EFFORT The direct financial support from Barry Bedwell and the California Fresh Fruit Association to Petitioner Silvia Lopez is undisputed. Byinviting her to Sacramento, Dan Gerawan introducedSilvia Lopez to Barry Bedwell. Barry Bedwell and the California Fresh Fruit Association, an association of agricultural 169 employers, later gave twenty thousanddollars to Petitioner Silvia Lopez to support the decertification effort. By this time, Petitioner Silvia Lopez hada veritable bevy of attorneys, including Anthony Raimondo, Joanne MacMillan and Paul Bauer. The California Fresh Fruit Association is a sophisticated entity with its own legal counsel and lobbyists. Silvia’s legal team allowed her to knowingly accept twenty thousand dollars from an association of agricultural employers, one of which Gerawan itself was a dues-paying member,to pay for buses, food and t-shirts. There can be no doubt of widespread dissemination of newsofthe bus trip and meals. The visual imageofthe t-shirts purchased by the Fruit Association also surely spread to most or all of the work force in a forceful cascade effect. California Labor Code section 1155.4 states as follows: 1155.4. It shall be unlawful for any agricultural employeror association of agricultural employers, or any person whoacts as a laborrelations expert, adviser, or consultant to an agricultural employer, or whoacts in the interest of an agricultural employer, to pay, lend, or deliver, any moneyorotherthing of value to any of the following: (a) Any representative of anyofhis agricultural employees. (b) Anyagricultural labor organization, or any officer or employee thereof, which represents, seeks to represent, or would admit to membership, any of the agricultural employees of such employer. (c) Any employee or group or committee of employees of such employerin excess of their normal compensation for the purpose of causing such employee or group or committee directly or indirectly to influence any other employeesin the exercise ofthe right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. (d) Any officer or employee of an agricultural labor organization with intent to influence him in respectto any ofhis actions, decisions, or duties as a representative of agricultural employeesor as such officer or employee of such labor organization. 170 The California Court of Appeal has provided a detailed discussion of the history and purpose of California Labor Codesection 1155.4. (United Farm Workers ofAmerica v. Dutra Farms (2000) 83 Cal. App. 1146) In that case, a group of twoagricultural employers provided a worker group opposing the UF W both $500 in cash and $1,163 in the form ofportable toilet rentals for a protest. (/d. at 1150) After noting that Section 1155.4 was enactedaspart of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (“ALRA”), and the ARLA’s modelingafter the National Labor Relations Act, the court explains that Section 1155.4 was modeled after 29 United States Code section 186. (/d. at 1153) In finding Section 1155.4 applicable to the facts beforeit, the court expressed the importance of avoiding a loophole that would undermine the ALRA’s purposes. (Jd. at 1155) The court points out that California Labor Code section 1140, subdivision (c), states that the term “agricultural employer” shall be liberally construedto include anyassociation of persons engaged in agriculture. (/d.) In the instant case, Barry Bedwell testified under oath that the California Fresh Fruit Association is “an association of agricultural employers”. (33 RT 290:9-12) The court also notes that federal courts have applied 29 United State Code section 186 expansively so that its goals are strengthened rather than weakened. (Id. at 1156) The court also rejected the argument the Section 1155.5 unconstitutionally infringes upon free speech rights of employees and employers to make and solicit donations. (Jd. at 1160) Finally, the court notes that while Section 1155.4 describes violations 17] as “unlawful”, the same misconduct mayalso be considered an unfair labor practice underthe broad definitions of unfair labor practices in Section 1153. (Id. at 1162) B. FROM AUGUST12, 2013 TO OCTOBER20,2013, GERAWANGAVESILVIA LOPEZ A “VIRTUAL SABBATICAL” TO FACILITATE CIRCULATION OF THE DECERTIFICATION PETITIONS The Board hasaffirmed that an extended leave of absence from work to circulate petitions may comprise unlawful companyassistance. (Abatti Farms, Inc. (1981) 7 ALRB 36) The Gerawan employment manualstates that no leave of absence may be taken without advance written approval by the Company. (Exhibit GCX-47, bates number 0008565) The manualalso provides for possible discipline in instances of excessive absences, tardiness, or long lunch breaks. (Exhibit GCX- 47, bates number 0008557) It also bans the solicitation or distribution ofliterature during work hours on company property exceptas authorized by the companyor the law. (Exhibit GCX-47, bates number 0008551) Exhibit R-13 is the Spanish version of Exhibit GCX-47 In the instantcase, it is undisputed that, for the ten week period from August 12, 2013 to October 20, 2013, Lopez only worked an average of 8.3 hours per week, when other workers were working fifty hour weeks. Duringthis time, Lopez wasa visible and regular presence on company property collecting signatures. Silvia’s daughter Belen assisted herin collecting signatures. From, August 12, 2013 to September 15, 2013, Belen only worked an average of 9.7 hours per week. At one 172 point, Belen had missed forty out offifty-four days. It was thus evident to their colleagues that Silvia and Belen could miss work with impunity, but still travel almostat will upon companyproperty. Belen was a new Gerawan employee and Silvia had not workedthere for years. Even whenSilvia brought a minor child on companyproperty, she wasnotdisciplined. Yet Innocensio Bernal, who workedin the samecrew, lost his position by simply taking off two days inarow. The companydid not call crew boss Reynaldo Villavicencio as a witness to try to explain this disparate treatment.*? But when the UFW requested the companyto allow three or four workers to leave early to attend a negotiation session, the request was denied. C. | WHEN THE PETITIONER WAS ALMOSTOUT OF TIME TO COLLECT NEEDED SIGNATURES BEFORE THE 2013 PEAK SEASON ENDED, THE COMPANY ALLOWED HER TO PHYSICALLY BLOCK THE COMPANY ENTRANCESAND TO COLLECT ONE THOUSAND SIGNATURES DURING WORK HOURS THAT DAY Dueto the impending winter season, Silvia Lopez and her legal team knew that they had a limited amountoftimeto collect signatures in 2013 beforeit wasno longer a time of “peak”agricultural employment. Rather than waiting until Aparty’s failure to explain why it did notcall an important witness may support drawing an adverse inference. (Martin Luther King, Sr. Nursing Center (1977) 231 NLRB 15, footnote # 1) 173 spring 2014, Silvia Lopez, her son-in-law, and other key signature gatherersset up a plan to physically block company entrances, with their personal cars, ladders and a flimsy colored ribbon that was used to mark trees. I do not findthat the company knew aboutthe blockage until it actually occurred. However, some of the crew bosses acknowledged beingable to tell that it was the anti-union protesters who blocked specific company entrances. Underthetotality of the circumstances, that wasthe only plausible conclusion. Most of the crew bosses did not even botherto ask the workers why the entrances were physically blocked. Almost surreally, some crew bosses did not even call their supervisors for direction, but rather idly sat until called for a meeting at the office, the content of which meeting the company permissibly chose to keep cloaked under attorney-client privilege law. The knowledgeofthese supervisorsis attributed to the company. The companydid nothing to open the entrances(like using scissors or even bare handsto cut the red ribbon) and instead issueda pressrelease that day essentially praising the employees for holding a protest. The Petitioner’s group meets the definition of a labor organization found within California Labor Code section 1140.4, subdivision (f). As a result, it was an unfair labor practice under California Labor Codesections 1154 and 1152 for Petitioner’s groupto block company entrancesand, in so doing, to restrain or coerce other employees who may wishto refrain from such activities. (North American Meat Packers Union (1987) 287 NLRB 720; International Association ofMachinists andAerospace Workers (1970) 183 NLRB 1225) 174 As discussed elsewhere, pro-UFW workers asked crew bosses for permissionto collect signatures during work hours and were denied. Perhapsthe pro-UFW workers should have asked for permission to have a whole special day to collect signatures because, indeed, that is whatthe decertification group received. Based uponthe testimony of Dan Gerawan and Mike Gerawan, I conclude with absolute certainty that the company would not have voluntarily agreed to let the pro- UFW workers pick a day to physically block the companyentrances. Having coveredthese three issues, I will now address individuallyall of the categories of unfair labor practices and election objections that were before me at this consolidated election hearing. D. INSTIGATION(Charge # 42 and E.O.# 1) I find no persuasive evidence of companyinstigation in this matter. There is no evidence that Jose Erevia’s meeting with Carlos Uribe Estrada had any impact on Silvia Lopez becomingthepetitioner. There was no evidence of any special or secret payments by the companyto Silvia Lopez, Angel Lopez, their legal team, or to any ofthe signature gatherers. Thus, to find companyinstigation, I would haveto concludeas follows: (a) the company mailers and flyers manipulated the friends ofAngel Lopez into questioning the union presence,(b) their inquiries then resulted in Angel talking with his mother-in-law and wife’s grandfather, and (c) those conversations led to Silvia becomingthe decertification petitioner. This line of reasoning is notfrivolousin a theoretical sense, but I am not persuaded that causation wassufficiently proven in the instant case to show instigation. Because I 175 find that Silvia Lopez decided to becomethe decertification petitioner beforeeither she or her daughter Belen was hired by the company in 2013,I also reject the possibility that Belen’s hiring was a company enticementthat could comprise instigation. E. CIRCULATIONOF PETITION AND FLYERS, AND COERCION OF WORKERSINTO SIGNING PETITION (Charge # 27 and E.O.# 1) Asnoted at pages forty to forty-one of this decision, I find that FLC crew boss Jose Evangelista signed the decertification petition “on behalf of” eighteen to twenty crew members.” I also find that he told the crew members whathe did. * | also wish to addressthe subject matter of my Orderin this case, dated November 3, 2014. That Order denied the General Counsel’s requestto use at the hearing confidential evidence of employee support, denied the General Counsel’s objection to using the official interpreter to translate non-English declarations, and denied the UFW’s proposedtestimony as to the employer’s change of a medical provided network. On September 23, 2014, I issued an orderstriking the General Counsel’s proposed handwriting expert witness Patricia Fisher. In the September 23, 2014 order J noted that the ALRB representsto the public that petition signatures are kept confidential. I found that the confidentiality ofthe petition signatures, and maintaining worker confidencein that confidentiality, was the greater interest than the admittedly useful, relevant aspect of using those signatures to show possible involvement by companysupervisors. In the November3, 2014 order,I specifically note that the last sentence of ALRB Regulation section 20300, subdivision (j)(2), which discusses evidence of employee support submitted in connection with a petition for certification,states that “Authorization cards or other showing ofinterest shall be held confidential”. Pursuant to ALRB Regulation section 20390, subdivision (e), the proceduresset forth for processing certification petitions also apply to decertification petitions. For that reason, I found that the evidence of employee support discussed in ALRB Regulation section 20390, subdivision (c), must also be held confidential. In my order, I concluded thatit is inappropriate for the Regional Directorto provide or show confidential evidence of employee support to anyone, other than for the purpose of (Footnote continued....) 176 [also foundthat there was work timesignature gathering in six direct hire crews, namely, the crews of Martin Elizondo Cruz (decision, pages 55-63), Gloria Mendez (decision, pages 89-97), Francisco Mendoza (decision, pages 98- 101), Telesforo Mendoza(decision, pages 101-102), Leonel Nufiez Martinez (decision, pages 102-105), and (6) Santos Efrian Rios (decision, pages 116-120). For the reasons discussed below,I find that the work-time signature gathering seemedslightly less egregious in this case than what I had found occurred during the D’Arrigo consolidated election hearing that I conducted back in 2011. (D’Arrigo Bros. of California (2013) 39 ALRB No.4) In D’Arrigo, there were 1,665 agricultural workers who were eligible to vote in the election. (D’Arrigo Bros. of California (2013) 39 ALRB No. 4, ALJ decision at page 4) There are approximately thirty-six workers in a romainehearts harvesting crew. The crew workswith a large harvesting machine. The machine does not actually removethe romainehearts from the ground,the cutters do thattask. Rather, the harvesting machine enables the workers to complete all of the tasks in the (Footnote continued) assisting his or her administrative investigation to determineif there is an inadequate showing of employee support, or aspart ofa referral to a prosecuting authority for a perjury investigation and/or prosecution, in the absence of advance approval from either the Board or an administrative law judge. The General Counsel’s objection to using the official interpreter to translate non-English declarations was denied pursuant to ALRB Regulation section 20274, subdivision (a), which specifically mandates such a process. The UFW’sproposedtestimony regarding the employer’s change of a medical provider network was denied because that topic was the subject matter ofUFW election objection number twenty, which the Board had already dismissedin its decision at 39 ALRB No.20, at page twenty-two. Be 177 field, items such as cleaning the romainehearts, sealing them in a bag, and placing them ina box,etc. The configuration is such so that the crew foreperson or supervisor can typically, with a little bit of movement, see all of the subordinate workers at their stations. Even with the FLC crew layoffs before the election, the Gerawan workforce waslarger than that of D’Arrigo. With Gerawan, during the course of the year, most of the crews worked in the peachtrees or the vineyards. In the peach trees, the workers are separated by a greater distance andthere aretrees partially or completely obstructing the vision of some crew members from others. A crew boss typically cannotsee all of his or her workersat the same time. The sameis true for crews picking or pruning in the vineyards. A worker or crew boss cannotsee all of his or her co-workers or subordinates without substantial movement. Asa result, it is not surprising to methat for two of the Gerawan crews, namesthose of Gloria Mendez and Francisco Mendoza, where I found work-time signature gathering, there was nonetheless no persuasive evidence that suchsignature gathering wasactually seen by the crew boss. Each of the cases had an instance where a crew boss deliberately introduced a signature gatherer to his or her crew. In D’Arrigo, this was crew boss Santiaga Quinteros. (D’Arrigo Bros. of California (2013) 39 ALRB No. 4, ALJ decision at pages 16-17) With Gerawan, this was crew boss Leonel Nufiez. 178 Generally, the length or duration of the work-time signature gathering in Gerawan wasnot very great. The reality is that the workers only had a thirty- minute lunch break andthe core group ofsignature gatherers was notthat large as a percentage of the workforce. Going from onecrew to a nearby crew typically took at least five to ten minutes. This left verylittle time for a worker to collect signatures. Another noteworthy aspect of the D’Arrigo case wasthat petitioner Alvaro Santos admitted that he did the job of the cutters while they removedtheir gloves to sign. (D’Arrigo Bros. of California (2013) 39 ALRB No. 4, ALJ decision at page 29) There was no such equivalent circumstance in Gerawan. Aspreviously discussed in this decision,I find that the grape-checkers are not supervisors. In 2013, the grape-checkers, who are sometimescalled quality control crew, or “QC”, had noability to hire, fire or discipline employees. (101 RT 63:15-65:24) Nor could the grape-checkers responsibly direct work or reassign a worker to another task. (Oakwood Healthcare, Inc. (2006) 348 NLRB 686) Thus, any lunch-time signature gathering by grape-checkers was permissible. In the absence of any other violations, I would have foundthat the Gerawan work-time signature gathering was an unfair labor practice, but that, by itself, it fell slightly short of the standard to set aside an election as the Board discussed in the D Arrigo and Gallo cases. (D Arrigo Bros. ofCalifornia (2013) 39 ALRB No.4, at pages 28-29; Gallo Vineyards, Inc. (2004) 30 ALRB No.2) 179 F. GERAWAN ALLOWED ALLOWEDPRO- DECERTIFICATION WORKERSTO CIRCULATE A PETITION DURING WORK HOURS, BUT DID NOT ALLOW PRO-UFW WORKERSTO DO SO (Charge # 39 and E.O.# 2) There was persuasive credible evidence that pro-UFW workers requested permission from their crew bossesto circulate pro-UFW petitions during worktime, andthat the foremen rejected those requests. As noted in the D’Arrigo case: The record indicates that this [request] was motivatedin large part by a desire to prove that the company wouldtreat pro-union workers differently than those who supported the decertification effort. As the ALJ observed,the fact that the plan was hatched in the hopesof catching company supervisorstreating their side differently does not changethe factthatit reflects disparate treatment of decertification and pro-UFW activity in the application of companypolicy. (D’Arrigo Bros. of California (2013) 39 ALRB No.4,at page 14) G. UNILATERAL FLC WAGE INCREASES(Charge# 25 and E.O.#s 9 and 10) Asnoted early in this decision,I credited the testimony of FLC owner Guadalupe Morales that the wageincrease to nine dollars an hour was proposed by Gerawan,not by the FLC. While I find that this was a unilateral wage increase,I also find that this was unlikely to have had a significant effect on the electorate as 180 mostor all of the FLC crews had beenlaid off by the timeofthe decertification election on November5, 2013. H. UNILATERAL GRAPE-PACKER WAGE INCREASES AND NO NOTICE OR OPPORTUNITY TO BARGAIN OVER THE SAME(Charges# 58 and 60, and E.O.#s 11 and 12) Onthe day that the second decertification petition wasfiled, co-owner Michael Gerawan unilaterally increased the piece-rate for field grape-packers from $1.25 per box to $1.50 per box. Gloria Mendeztestified that the company also gave the workersfree pizza and tacosthat day. Michael Gerawan wascredible in testifying that the piece-rate was sometimes changeddueto the quality ofthe grapes, but concededthat his reason for increase on October 25th was as encouragement and a reward. Someof the workers left in the middle of the day on October 25, 2013, to participate in a protest timed to announcethefiling of the second decertification petition. This may haveresulted in the need the workersto stay later that evening to finish packing the grapes. There wascredible testimony that the grapes need to be packed quickly to be marketable. The companygavethe piece-rate increase for that day to workers wholeft mid-day for the protest as well as to those workers who stayed and worked the whole day. The “well-timed” piece-rate increase, along with the free pizza andtacos, likely created a celebratory atmosphere that workers would have unmistakably attributed to companyjoy overthe decertification petition filing. 181 1 COMPANYSOLICITATION OF GRIEVANCES AGAINST THE UNION AND INTERROGATION OF WORKERSABOUT UNION SUPPORT (Charges # 46 and 55, and E.O.#s 17 and 18) Gerawan impermissibly distributed a multitude of mailers, flyers, business cards and pay stubs whichrepeated the message that workers could successfully resolve their issues by calling Jose Erevia. The gravamenofthis message was that the UFW wasworthless and impotent. Some of these materials also gave purported contact information for the owners. Noneofthe parties presented any persuasive evidence to show that mailers, flyers and business cards were distributed in similar quantity and aggressivenessprior to the union issue escalating in fall 2012. The companyalso usedthis processto cull a list of anti-union employees to accompany Dan Gerawan on his trip to Sacramento. An employer whohas had a pastpolicy and practice of soliciting employee grievances may continue such a policy andpractice during an organizational campaign. (Carbonneau Industries (1977) 228 NLRB 597,at page 598, footnote # 1, citing Lasco Industries, Inc. (1975) 217 NLRB 527 and Reliance Electric Company, Madison Plant Mechanical Drivers Division (1971) 191 NLRB 44, 46) However, an employer cannot rely on past practice to justify solicitation of employee grievances where the employersignificantly alters its past manner, method, aggressiveness or frequencyofsolicitation. (Carbonneau Industries (1977) 182 228 NLRB 597,at page 598, footnote # 2, citing Grede Foundries, Inc. (1973), 205 NLRB 39; Rotek, Incorporated (1971) 194 NLRB 453; Flight Safety, Inc. (1972) 197 NLRB 223 and H. L. Meyer Company, Inc. (1969) 177 NLRB 565) J. DISCOUNT PROGRAMS, THREATS OF GOING OUT OF BUSINESS, AND ALLEGED VIOLENCE (Charges # 43, 62 and 63, and E.O. #s 19, 21 and 32) I did notfind persuasive evidence that the discount program was anything other than discounts generally available to the public. While a few witnesses claimed to hear company supervisors make specific comments about the company going out of business,I generally discredited that testimony. There was no evidencethat any of the workers read the Wall Street Journal opinion piece purportedly quoting Dan Gerawan. Thearticle or a link may have been posted on the company website, but there was no evidencethat a Spanish language version was madereadily available. Nor wasthere any evidence that workers would have found comments on the possible demise of the companyto becredible. With respectto the allegations of purported violence, I found them unpersuasive. The limited pushing and shovingthat occurredat the September30, 2013 protest wasnot significant. It appeared to comein the context of crowd members jockeying for position and wasrelatively tame. Whileit is very unfortunatethat, on that same date, that someonethrew a rockat the car of Fermin Lopez,there was nopersuasive testimonyas to the specific identity of the rock- thrower, let alone evidence that a company supervisor saw the incident. 183 K. CAPTIVE AUDIENCE MEETINGS AND DVDs As I described on page 166 ofthis decision, Oscar Garcia introduced LaborRelations Institute consultant Evelyn Fragoso to approximately fifty crews. These were mandatory work-time meetings where Fragoso explained why she was opposed to the unions, andthat the unions madefalse promises. The companyalso gave field workers two thousandcopies ofa professionally-produced DVD which conveyed the ownership’s messageto vote against the union. I discussed the captive audience issue in the D’Arrigo decision. (D’Arrigo Bros. of California (2013) 39 ALRB No.4, ALJ decision at pages 88-89) While such presentations may not constitute a stand-aloneviolation, whenplaced in tandemwith other unfair labor practices or objectionable conduct, then the presentations may reinforce or even amplify the consequencesof the other misconduct. L. ABANDONMENT On Thursday, September 18, 2014, the UFW filed a Motion in Limine to exclude evidence in support of Respondent’s “abandonment”defense. Opposition papers werefiled with respect to the motion by thePetitioner and Respondent on Friday, September 19, 2014, and Monday, September22, respectively. In my Order dated Thursday, September 25, 2014, I granted the motion in part and deniedit in part. In my Order, I granted the motion in thatI rejected the Respondent’s argument as being a defense per se. | also ruled that evidence would not be permitted for the purpose oftrying to establish the truth of whetheror not the UFW becameinactive at Gerawan Farming. The Respondenthad unsuccessfully raised that issue in the 184 mandatory mediation andconciliation matter. (Gerawan Farming (2013) 39 ALRB No.5, at pages three and four) I also madeclear that my Order permitted workers to testify that they felt abandoned by the UFW,usingthe concept of abandonment solely in a lay person or colloquial sense, rather than as a legal conclusion. (Order dated September 25, 2013, at page two) During the hearing, I addressed this topic again andreaffirmed myruling in the September 25, 201 3 prehearing order. (17 RT 241:8-242:1 and 17 RT 260:25-262:8) Generally speaking, I disallowed testimony aboutfacts taking place more than fouror five years before the decertification election. As a result, the record does not include evidence as to whether there was abandonmentornot, should the Board or anothercourt find that to be a viable legal defense to someorall of the findings.” M. ROLE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE To the extent that any of Petitioner’s or Respondent’s briefs may be construed as requesting the administrative law judge to find portions of the ARLA unconstitutional, those arguments are rejected as beyond the authority of the administrative law judge. Moreover, where the Boardissued a decision heard only * Since the end of the hearing, there are two court decisions that have issued warranting mention. Thefirst case is a Fifth Appellate District Court ofAppeal decision in Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. ALRB (May14, 201 5) 236 Cal. App. 4th 1024. However,that case is not citable as it was supersededby a grant ofreview. (Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. ALRB (July 8, 2015) 2015 Cal. LEXIS 4797) The second caseis a Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal decision in Tri-Fanucchi Farms vy. ALRB, (May 14, 2015) 236 Cal. App. 4th 1079. This decision is also not citable as it was superseded bya grant of review. (Tri-Fanucchi Farms v. ALRB (August 19, 2015) 2015 Cal. LEXIS 5635) E N E o S 185 by three members, and one Board Memberconcurred ordissented, the undersigned administrative law judge is going to apply the law directed by the majority. (See Jowa BeefPackers (1963) 144 NLRB 615,616, enfd. in part 331 F.2d 176 (8"Cir. 1964) N. CONCLUSION AND REMEDIES By providing unlawful assistance to the decertification effort, Gerawan committed unfair labor practices under California Labor Code section 1153. This assistance includedallowing work-timesignature gathering and granting the petitioner a “virtual sabbatical”to run the decertification campaign. Gerawan also committed unfair labor practices by its enhancedefforts to directly solicit grievances and by making a “well-timed”unilateral wage increase. Petitioner Silvia Lopez solicited and received an unlawful twenty thousand dollars donation from the California Fresh Fruit Association, an association of agricultural employers of which Gerawan wasa prominent dues-paying member. Herlegal team, specifically attorney Joanna MacMillan, assisted in this transaction. There is powerful circumstantial evidence to suggest that the company knew about this donation beforehand. The Petitioner also violated the rights of other workers by blocking companyentrances on September 30, 2013 as a meansto collect approximately one thousandsignatures from workers that day. Giventhetotality of these circumstances, and especially in tandem, the unlawfulactions of the California Fresh Fruit League, Gerawan Farming, and Petitioner Silvia Lopez makeit impossible to knowifthe signatures collected 186 represent the workers’ true sentiments. Similarly, the misconductcreated an environment which would have madeit impossible for true employee free choice whenit cametimeto vote. Asa result of the employer’s unlawful support andassistance, I am setting aside the decertification election and dismissing the decertification petition. (Abatti Farms (1981) 7 ALRB No.36,at page 15) Given that the unlawful conduct tainted the entire decertification process, any election results would not sufficiently reflect the unrestrained free expression of the bargaining unit members. Dated: September 17, 2015. (Ltonk(ZA ( Q 2 / MARK R. SOBLE Administrative Law Judge, ALRB 187 ORDER The Agricultural Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, GERAWANFARMING,INC.,its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall: 1. Cease anddesist from: (a) Aiding, assisting, participating in or encouraging any decertification campaign; and, (b) In anysimilaror related mannerinterfering with, restraining, or coercing, any agricultural employeesin the exercise oftheir rights guaranteed by California Labor Code section 1152. 2. Take the following affirmative steps which are found necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act: (a) (b) Sign the attached Notice to Agricultural Employees on page 192 of this decision and,after its translation by a Board agent into the appropriate languages, reproduce sufficient copies in each language for the purposesset forth below; Prepare copies of the attached Notice,in all appropriate languages,by placing a copy of such Noticein a plain stamped or metered envelope, with the ALRB’s return address, addressed individually to each and every 188 (c) (d) (e) agricultural worker employed by Respondentduring the time period of November 13, 2012 to September 17, 2015, and submit such addressed, stamped envelopesto the Visalia ALRB Regional Director (or Acting Regional Director) for her to mail within thirty (30) days after the Board’s Order becomesfinal; Post copies of the Notice, in all appropriate languages, in conspicuousplaces on its property for a sixty-days period, the specific dates and location of posting to be determined by the Visalia ALRB Regional Director, and exercise due care to replace any Notice which has been altered, defaced, covered or removed; Provide a copy of the attached Notice, in all appropriate languages, to each agricultural employee hired by Respondent during the twelve-months period following the date that the Order becomesfinal; Upon request of the Visalia ALRB RegionalDirector, provide the Regional Director with the dates ofthe present and next peak season. Should the peak season already have begun atthe time the Regional Director requests peak season dates, Respondent shall inform the Regional Director of when the present peak season began 189 (f) (g) and whenit is anticipated to end,in addition to informing the Regional Directorofthe anticipated dates of the next peak season; Arrange for Board agents to read the attached Notice in all appropriate languages to the assembled agricultural employees of Respondent on companytime,at times and places to be determined by the Visalia ALRB Regional Director. Following the reading, Board agents shall be given the opportunity, outside the presence of managementand supervisors, to answer any questions that the employees may have regarding the Notice of their rights under the Act. The Visalia ALRB Regional Director shall determine a reasonablerate to be paid by Respondentto all non-hourly wage employees to compensate them fortime lost at this reading and during the question and answerperiod; and, Within thirty (30) days after the date that this Order becomesfinal, Respondentshall notify the Visalia ALRB Regional Director in writing of the steps that Respondenthas taken to comply with it. Upon requestof the Regional Director, Respondentshall notify him eee 190 periodically thereafter in writing as to what further steps it has taken in compliance with this Order. 191 sa re nr ee ae NOTICE TO AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES After investigating a charge that wasfiled in the Visalia Regional Office ofthe Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB), the General Counsel of the ALRB issued a complaint alleging that we, Gerawan Farming,Inc., had violated the law. After a hearing at whichall parties had an opportunity to present evidence, the Board found that we did violate the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (Act) by assisting, supporting, and encouraging the decertification campaign. The ALRB has told us to postand publish this Notice. The Agricultural LaborRelations Actis a law that gives you andall other farm workers in California the following rights: 1. To organize yourselves; 2. To form,join or help a labor organization or bargaining representative; 3. To vote in a secret ballot election to decide whether you want a union to represent you, 4. To bargain with your employer about your wages and working conditions through a union chosen by a majority of the employees andcertified by the ALRB; 5. To act together with other workers to help and protect one another; and 6. To decide not to do anyofthese things. Because you havetheserights, we promise that: WE WILL NOTassist, support, or encourage any decertification campaign. WEWILLNOTinterfere with employeesexercising their rights under the Act in any similar or related matter, nor coerce or restrain employees from exercising such rights DATED: Gerawan Farming, Inc. By: (Representative) (Title) If you have any questions about your rights as farm workers or aboutthis Notice, you may contact any office of the ALRB. Oneofficeis located at 1642 W. Walnut Avenue, Visalia, CA 93277. The telephone number for the Visalia ALRB Regional Office is (559) 627-0995. This is an official notice of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, an agency ofthe State of California. DO NOT REMOVE OR MUTILATE 192 Agricultural Personnel Management Association’s 36" Annual Forum Keynote Speaker Speech Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 8:00 AM Monterey Plaza Hotel 400 Cannery Row, Monterey, CA 93940 William B. Gould IV, Chairman Agricultural Labor Relations Board (2014-—___) Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board (1994-1998) It is a pleasure to be here with you this morning and to keynote your 36" Annual APMA forum. You have beenat this for more than three decades playing a leading role in developing effective personnel managementwithin the Agri-Business Community, advising your members and the public through meetings, workshops, newsletters and bulletins as well as this annual forum. Mywork in Sacramento and in Washington beforethat has had its focus not only on strong labor law enforcementbut also on an approach rootedin the idea that dialogue between independent administrative agencies like both the NLRB and the ALRB and private parties who have hands on dayto day experience is good policy. We benefit from your thinking aboutthe paths that we will take going forward both because of your familiarity with the issues thatare likely to arise and because your experience has given rise to ideas that might not have occurredto us. So manyof the challenges that we face now are ones with which you are extremely familiar. Foremost amongst them atpresent, of course, is the droughtof at least four years which has affected water supply in agriculture, and this has produced surface water shortages and allocations which were approximately twenty five percent lower in 2015 than in 2014. The net water shortageto agriculture according to a University of California Davis report is approximately 67 percent more than it was in 2014 said. Said the report: “Cropland fallowing due to droughthas increased by 33 percent over 2014. The impacton direct farm-gate revenues is expected to decrease by a further6 percent. 2 Ground water, pumping costs . . increased bya further 31 percent compared to 2014, due to increased pumping volumesandincreased unit pumpingcosts as groundwater tables decline.”! Mostofthe idle landis in the Tulare Basin, producing job losses of nearly 21,000. Andthose workers lucky enoughto have jobs are working harder with fewer hours which often translates into less pay. Some workers have commented that they have never seen the plants they pick so wilted. The unalterable reality preceding the drought is even more harsh, i.e., desperate circumstances compoundedbythe fact that California agricultural workers have been living in the midst of poverty even when the industry and the state were considerably more prosperous. Thelines of workers at food pantries and other groups offering food aid service are frequently blocks long. In part this reflects the decreaseofthe past few years in total tonnageof fresh fruits and vegetables from California farms. Butit is indicative of so much more. When Governor Brownfirst invited meto takethis job almost two years ago in early 2014, I had beentold that the farmworkers were living in their cars at the time ofthe harvest in the Coachella Valley. But what I didn’t know - until I saw it with my own eyes — wasthat in townslike Meccatheyare not even able tolive in their cars. They must alternate between their cars and mats in the immediate vicinity of their cars * Richard Howitt, Duncan MacEwan,Jaosué Medelli-Azuara, Jay Lund, and Daniel Sumner, Economic Analysis of the 2015 Droughtfor California Agriculture, August 17, 2015 pp. 11, 12. 3 since three or four workersoften travel in a single car and notall can stretch outin the car to sleep at the same time! At one time we thought we were doing something about this. Just a little more than forty years ago — and wecelebrated the 40" anniversary of the ALRB and the ALRA last summer — the average wagerate for direct hire workers was $2.60 per hour which translates into a little more than $13.50 per hourin inflation adjusted dollars. In 2014, California’s farmers and ranchers reported an $11.33 per hour figure — that is more than two dollars per hour below what would have been necessary to keep up with inflation during the last 4 decades. Thefact that this decline orfailure to raise real wages in a period of labor shortage caused by thesealing of the border to Mexicois truly remarkable! Some employers are apparently embarking upon harvesting robotization of strawberry plants which, as the WallStreet Journal noted’, “.. have long required the trained discernment and backbreaking effort of tens of thousands of low-paid workers.” Professor Don Villarejo has pointed out’ that in ten of the communities in Tulare County, the per capita income is below that of Mexico — andin theseareas, private sector employmentis dominated by agriculture. How wegotfromthere to here is a complicated story andit does not lenditself to a short discussion this morning. Yet we can see that the fact that approximately 60 to 70 ? Ilan Brat, Goodbye Field Hand, Hello Fruit Packing Robot, Wall Street Journal, April 24, 2015 at B6 * Don Villarejo, A New Paradigm is Neededfor Labor Relationsin Agriculture: California Agriculture and Farm Labor, 1975-2014, June 24, 2015. percentofagricultural workers are undocumentedandthat the Department of Labor financial assistance for dislocated workers only goes to those whoare“legal”is an importantpart of the backdrop. So long as the immigration issue cannotbe resolved,this phenomenon, which Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor recognized more than 30 years ago’ would create an incentive for employers to employ the undocumented,will depress wages and working conditions and this remains unchangedto this very day. All of this was just beginning to unfold after the first blush of activity underour statute in the earlier Brown administration. Since then, union organizing has diminished to the point of non-existence! Indeed during these past two years while I have been Chairmanthere has not been onesingle representation petition filed under a statute which requires certification througha petition in order for a union to be recognized! (There are quite a few decertification petitions which have been with us, some of them well publicized.) Union organizationalactivity in California agriculture at this momentis completely moribund, notwithstanding the passage of morereform in the Davis and Brown administrations which alloweda collective bargaining agreement to be imposed through arbitration under some circumstances when the parties were notable to negotiate a first contract. (Amongstother issues, the constitutionality of this form of dispute resolution is now before the Supreme Court of California.) Whatis the role of the Board under such circumstances and what is the work that is confronting me and mycolleagues in 2016? Howisit relevant to your work? First, “ Sure Tan Inc.v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883 (1984). while union activity has completely disappeared, we continue to be confronted with a widevariety of cases involving concertedactivity arising out of spontaneous protest by employees who view their wages, hours and other conditions of employmentto be unfair. And, as the New York Times reported recently in setting forth what wascalled the “Nightmare of Sexual Violence”in the fields,” harassment, including violence against womenin the fields is a major problem. In 2014, our Board held that workers protests of sexual harassmentor violence is protected by the Act and canlead to appropriate remedies, including backpay until harassment ends.° You may knowthat employers are prohibited under our statute from retaliating against such concerted activity through warnings, suspensions and dismissals. These cases constitute the bulk of our work today. You and the public need to know that issues like sexual harassment may involve the ALRA as well as the fair employmentpractice Statutes. Thus, the ALRA,like the NLRA upon whichit is based, affects not only union organizing but the increasingly important workerprotests about employment conditions including wages and sexual harassment to which I have just referred. NowI think that we have addressed these new cases once they cometo the judicial side of the Board with dispatch. But problems remain. First, because Justice delayedis always justice denied, weare trying to expedite our procedures so that workers, unions * Jose R. Padilla and David Bacon, Protect Female Farmworkers, The New York Times, January 19, 2016 at A23 ° Sandhu Brothers 40 ALRB No.12 (November 13, 2014) 6 and growersare able to havetheir differences resolved without waiting for years as has happenedin some celebrated casesin recent times. Last summer, we adopted a proposed rule which will expedite our cases where there are alleged unfair labor practice charges engagedin during secret ballot box elections. Five years ago, near the beginning of Governor Brown’s first termthis time around, legislation was enacted which mandated expedited treatment of elections whetherthey beforcertification or decertification. But that significant reform has been undercut where unfair labor practice charges werefiled simultaneously and the twoissues, i.e., election objections and ULP’s,are consolidated. These cases drag on endlessly. Thus, last summer wedevised time mandatesto address the processing of these cases and we hopeto beableto finalize this rule changeearly in the New Year. Just three months ago, Governor Brown,in vetoing Assembly Bill 561 which would have imposed mandatedtimeperiods for the Board to resolve so-called “makewhole” cases, at least one of which haslasted for two decades — something that Charles Dickens wrote about a couple of centuries ago — expressed his concern. Said Governor Brown,“I amdirecting the Board to examinethe current process and make the necessary internal forms to provide for moretimely orders.” In responseto this, I convened a meeting ofmy Labor-Management Ad Hoc Committee- it has already metto considerthis issue on January 14 — and beforethat I convened an internal Expediting Committee to address Governor Brown’s charge. To date some of the ideas which we are considering involve so called bench decisions along the lines that were adopted in Washington when I was Chairman of the NLRB. This provides for decisions from the benchitself or on the basis oforal argument without the filing of brief with a decision forthcoming within 72 hoursofthe close of the hearing. Weare also looking at ways of having expedited oral argumentsor briefs prior to the completion ofthe transcripts under some circumstances. In the same vein, we will review the feasibility of explicit timetables for the processing of cases. And most importantofall, we are looking at the scheduling ofearly pre-hearing conferences which will promote more information about what divides the parties as well as the possible prospect of settlementitself in some circumstances. It is our experiencethat the best time for parties to resolve their differences is immediately following the issuance of a complaint when the amount of backpay may be limited and the machinery oflitigation has not yet commenced. These measures which will be considered by the Board shortly are designed to produce decisions more promptly, particularly where the issues largely involve credibility and the hearing is relatively short i.e. one or two days. Of course, the bench approach must be used cautiously, judiciously and sparingly ~ especially because credibility issues are different. They are not easy for our administrative lawjudges based (asthey are), upon the demeanorofthe witness and whetherhis orher story jibes. (I am often am remindedin these cases ofmy father’s admonition to me to look someonein the eye when I met them becausethat way,hesaid, that person would have more confidence in me. Andyetas soon that lesson was instilled, he told me that I was going to meet manypeoplein the course ofa lifetime who would be looking meright in the eye and who would be lying through their teeth — this then is the challenge for administrative law judges.) Notwithstandingthe difficulties, such judgments are better made while the Witnesses’ testimony and demeanorarefresh in the mind of the decision maker rather than weeks or monthslater in a dry transcript whenonetries to recall whothat person was,let alone determine whetherhisorher story ringstrue. It maybethat early pre-hearing conferences are even more important inasmuch as they clarify and narrow issues producinga better prospect of resolution through settlement. Settlements are almost alwayspreferable to lengthylitigation. Finally, I want to tell you aboutanotherinitiative that has been undertaken by the Board — this too was considered by our Ad Hoc Committee. It relates to the promotion of worker education regarding aspects ofthe statute by the Board agents during working time when the employeesare at the workplace. This initiative resulted from a series of hearings which the Board conductedin Septemberin Fresno, Salinas and Santa Maria. After the completion of the hearings, Board staff, requested by the Board to consider the agency’s authority to enter employer premises to conduct an onsite worker education program recommendedthecreation of such a worker education program in an extensive document which I commendto all of you.’ The starting point is our statute which provides that “applicable precedent” of the NLRA isto be followed by our Board. Within thefirst year of the ALRA,the Supreme Court of California held that employerproperty rights in the agricultural fields are not paramount to employees’ rights to effective access to information.® In so doing the Court concludedthat, “the Legislature intended [the Board] to select and follow only those precedents whichare relevantto the particular problemsof labor relations on the California agricultural scene.”” Equally important, the United States Supreme Court has madeit clear that under the NLRA “..the place of work is a place uniquely appropriate for dissemination of views ...and the various options open to the employees”.! Subsequently the Court again noted that the place of work was “the one place where [employees] clearly share common interests and wherethey traditionally seek to persuade fellow workers in matters affecting their union organizational life and other matters relatedto their status as employees.”!! Welearned a great deal aboutthe obstacles that stand in the way ofmost agricultural workers andtheir ability to learn about our statute and our procedures during the above-referenced informationalhearings. Particularly important in our view, was the ” Thomas Sobel, Administrative Law Judge, Eduardo Blanco, Special Legal Advisor, StaffProposalfor Education Access Regulationfor ConcertedActivity — November 23, 2015 8 In Agricultural Labor Relations Board v Superior Court of Tulare County (Pandol) 16 Cal 3d 392, 406 (1976). 7 Id. at p. 413. *°NLRB v. Magnavox Co., 415 U.S. 322,325 (1974) * Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB,437 U.S. 556, 574 (1978) 10 fact that the so-called indigenous workers constitute more than 20 percent of the work force. These workers speak a multitude ofnative languages, Mixteco, Zapotec, Triqui, Chatino, Purepecha, and are frequently not conversantin Spanish or in English. Most of them are notevenliterate in their own language. This meansthatit will be difficult to reach those workers through written materials, so that personal contact is necessitated. Notwithstanding the fact that the California Supreme Court has subordinated employer propertyrights to those of the ALRA andthatthe hearings documented the barriers of undocumentedstatus, numerous languages other than Spanish and English and illiteracy, the argument was made before both the Ad Hoc Committee andin the hearings that variousalternative methods of communication outside the workplace wereall that was appropriate. For instance, it was said that we could reach the workers through community outreach. But the outreach programs — and we wantto increase them in the future- would allow the agency to reach only less than 10 percentofall of California’s agricultural workers in over the next 24 years. Secondly, it was said that video trainings of the kind that I used when I was an Independent Monitor for the British multinational First Group Company were appropriate. But as one ofthe leading Labor Contractors who has hadbroadtrainer experiencesaid: “video trainings are ineffective because they are not interactive and people do notpayattention.” Similarly, the testimony before usin the hearings established the proposition that aside from the frequent unavailability of cell phone signals, few workers — particularly the indigenous — have had an opportunity to get on the 11 internet or to use so called smart phones, the use of which presupposesliteracy. And finally we founda great fear of retaliation and an awarenessoflack of knowledge about protections against the retaliation that would be available under labor laws. Myhopeis that we can move forward withthisinitiative and that I will obtain constructive commentary from you and others in the agricultural laborrelations community. Although we have provided that the worker education procedureis to be initiated by two or more workers whorequestit (the agency will not initiate it itself.), I think that not only is education about our law a goodidea but also thatit is desirable for both workers and supervisors- and I wantto see it available to both groups. Myhopeis that whenthis rule emergeslater this year it will establish a forum which allows for all parties to hear from us,albeit fora relatively brief period oftime. Let me thank youagainfor this opportunity to be with you here in beautiful Monterey, the homeofthe leading Jazz Festival which I attended just four months ago. I appreciate your invitation and I look forward to working with you in the months and years to come. 12 1/2016 DOL Form Report (Disclosure) Retum FORM LM-2 LABOR ORGANIZATION ANNUAL REPORT Form Approved Office ofLabor’ManagementStandards Otfceof Managementand BudgetWashington, DC 20210 MUST BE USED BY LABOR ORGANIZATIONS WITH $250,000 OR MORE IN TOTAL ANNUAL No. 1245-0003 ’ RECEIPTS AND LABOR ORGANIZATIONS IN TRUSTEESHIP Expires: 10-31-2013 S report is manadatory under P.L. 86-257, as amended. Failure to comply mayresult in criminal prosecution, fines, orcivil penalties as provided by 29 U.S.C. 439 or 440. READ THE INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE PREPARING THIS REPORT. 4. FILE NUMBER 2. PERIOD COVERED 8. (a) AMENDED- Is this an amended report: No -or Official Use Only , 000-323 From 01/01/2012 i (b) HARDSHIP- Filed under the hardship procedures: No Through 12/31/2012 i (c) TERMINAL- This is a terminal report: No \FFILIATION OR ORGANIZATION NAME 18. MAILING ADDRESS (Type orprint in capitalletters) 2M WORKERS,UNITED First Name Last Name RTURO RODRIGUEZ DESIGNATION(Local, Lodge,etc.) . DESIGNATION NBR TIONAL HEADQUARTERS IPO Box - Building and Room Number INIT NAME (F'any) © BOX 62 Numberand Street 29700 WOODFORD TEHACHAPI RD City KEENE \re your organization's records keptatits mailing address? Yes State IP Code + 4 A 3531 ‘h of the undersigned, duly authorized officers of the above labor organization, declares, under penalty of perjury and other applicable penalties of law,thatall of the information submitted in this report luding information contained in any accompanying documents) has been examined by the signatory andis,to the best of the undersignedindividual's knowledge andbelief, true, correct and compiete (See tion V on penalties in the instructions.) SIGNED: ARTURO S RODRIGUEZ PRESIDENT 71. SIGNED: SERGIO GUZMAN TREASURER 2 Apr 10, 2013 Telephone Number: 661-822-5571 Date: Apr 10, 2043 Telephone Number: 661-823-6105 n LM-2 (Revised 2010) MS 10 THROUGH 21 FILE NUMBER: 000-323 uring the reporting period did the labor organization create or participate in How many membersdid the labor organization have at the end of the reporting 4,443 administration of a trust or a fund or organization, as defined in the instructions, Yes " ch provides benefits for members or beneficiaries? . What are the labor rates of dues and fees? \). During the reporting period did the labor organization have a political action Yes mittee (PAC) fund? ’). During the reporting period did the labor organization have a subsidiary inization as defined in Section X of these Instructions? No uring the reporting period did the tabor organization have an audit or review of 90ks and records by an outside accountantor by a parent body Yes torfrepresentative? during the reporting period did the labor organization discover any loss or /olms.dol-esa.gov/query/orgReport.do 1/42 /2016 yrtage of funds or other assets? (Answer"Yes"evenif there has been ‘aymentor recovery.) Whatis the maximum amount recoverable under the labor organization's lity bond for a loss caused by anyofficer, employee or agentof the labor anization who handled union funds? During the reporting period did the labor organization acquire or dispose of any ets in a mannerother than purchaseor sale? Were anyof the labor organization's assets pledged as security or encumbered iny way at the endof the reporting period? Did the tabor organization have any contingentliabilities at the end of the orting period? During the reporting period did the labor organization have any changesin its \stitution or bylaws, otherthan rates of dues and fees, orin ctices/procedureslisted in the instructions? Whatis the date of the labor organization's next regular election of officers? m LM-2 (Revised 2010) \TEMENTA - ASSETSAND LIABILITIES ASSETS ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES LIABILITIES £5. NET ASSETS n LM-2 (Revised 2010) TEMENT8 - RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS ‘/olms.dol-esa.gov/query/orgReport.do DOL Form Report (Disclosure) No $500,000 Yes No No Yes 05/2016 Number FILE NUMBER: 000-323 $3,021 $3,727,675, $2,655,597 FILE NUMBER:000-323 2/42 /2016 DOL Form Report (Disclosure) CASH RECEIPTS AMOUNT CASH DISBURSEMENTS n LM-2 (Revised 2010) {EDULE 1 - ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AGING SCHEDULE Entity or Individual Name (A) | | 1 EDULE2 - LOANS RECEIVABLE Total Account 90-180 Days Receivable Past Due (B) (C) {(D) 180+ Days Past Due Account Receivable FILE NUMBER:000-323 FILE NUMBER: 000-323 List below loansto officers, employees, or members whichat any time during the Loans Loans Made Repayments Received During Period Loansporting period exceeded $250 andlist all loans to business enterprises regarless of Outstanding at During Period Outstanding atamount. Start of Period (C) Cash Other Than Cash End of Period (A) (B) (D)(1) {(D)(2) (E) | of loansnotlisted above | of all lines above $0: $0 $0 $0, $0i . - Item 24 Item 61 Hem 45 Item 69 Hem 24ls will be automatically enteredin... Column (A) with Explanation Column (B) | LM-2 (Revised 2010) EDULE 3 - SALE OF INVESTMENTS AND FIXED ASSETS FILE NUMBER:000-323 ‘olms.dol-esa.gov/query/orgReport.do T 3/42 (2016 DOL Form Report (Disclosure) Description(if land or buildings give location) Cost Book Value Gross Sales Price Amaunt Received n 4EDULE 4 - PURCHASE OF INVESTMENTS AND FIXED ASSETS FILE NUMBER:000-323 or n iEDULE 5 - INVESTMENTS : FILE NUMBER:000-323 Marketable Securities Other Investments ist 7 EDULE 6 - FIXED ASSETS FILE NUMBER:000-323 or Amount Expensed Description (A) Cost or Other Basis (B) Book Value (D) Value (E) ther Fixed Assets 27 | EDULE 7 - OTHER ASSETS FILE NUMBER:000-323 ‘olms.dol-esa.gov/query/orgReport.do 4/42, {/2016 m HEDULE 8 - ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AGING SCHEDULE Entity or Individual Name (A) accounts m HEDULE 9 - LOANS PAYABLE DOLForm Report (Disclosure) Payable Past Due FILE NUMBER:000-323 Payable FILE NUMBER:000-323 Source of Loans Payable at Any Loans Owed at Loans Obtained paraymentd oepavmeentd Loans Owed at Time During the Reporting Period Start of Period During Period 9 g Endof PeriodCash Other Than Cash(A) (B) (C) (D)(1) (D\(2) (E) YOTA $5,943 $0 $5,949) $0; $q al Loans Payable $5,945 $0 $5,949 $0 $0 . . - Item 31 item 44 Item 62 Item 69 Item 31als will be automatically enteredin... Column (C) with Explanation Column (D) 7 LM-2 (Revised 2010) (EDULE 10 - OTHER LIABILITIES al i {EDULE 11 - ALL OFFICERS AND DISBURSEMENTS TO OFFICERS FILE NUMBER:000-323 FILE NUMBER:000-323 (D) (E) (F) (G) (H)Lat Gross Salary Allowances Disbursements for Other TOTALSante Disbursements Disbursed Official Business Disbursements not reportedin ees (before any (D) through (F) . deductions) KASHKOOLI, GIEV NATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT $64,740 $1,200; $18,167: $84,107]c Schedule 16 i tSchedule 15 5 ig: on oy, schedule 17 3 chedule 18 chedule 19 RepresentationalActivities 22% Pais:ctivities and 44% ‘Contributions 4% eneral Overhead 16% heimnistraton 14% HERSHENBAUM, IRV i i i } i /olms.dol-esa.gov/query/orgReport.do 5/42 (2016 DOLForm Report (Disclosure) 1ST VICE PRESEIDENT $8.957 $0, $9234 $61,631C i chedule 16 :Schedule 15 9 Pr 5 gs a, sschedule 17 5 chedule 18 4 chedule 19 Representational Activities 44% Peaacs and 16% ‘Contributions 4% eneral Overhead 29% dministration 7% RODRIGUEZ, ARTURO S PRESIDENT $77,657; $6,600: $4,122; $88,379iC chedule 16 iSchedule 15 ° i: «age Schedule 17 Schedule 18 Schedule 19Representational Activities 14% Petsacies and 7% {Contributions 13% General Overhead 57% ‘Administration 9% BARAJAS, EFREN 2ND VICE PRESIDENT $44,205) $1,240; $18,138: $63,583C Schedule 16Schedule 15 9 ‘4 ate 9 ‘Schedule 17 chedule 18 oy, jochedule 19Representational Activities 85% Paces and 1% ‘Contributions 3% General Overhead o% ministration 11% ‘GUZMAN, SERGIO SECRETARY / TREASURER $70,227, $6,600; $8,834; $85,661iC chedule 16 iSchedule 15 ° “4; iti o, schedule 17 5 chedule 18 ° chedule 19RepresentationalActivities 35% Paterativities and 2% ‘Contributions 0% General Overhead 46% dministration 17% i NICHOLSON, ERIK NATIONALVICE PRESIDENT $62,362; $5,160: $52,059; $119,581iC Schedule 16 HfSchedule 15 rae on Schedule 17 6 chedule 18 5 chedule 19Representational Activities 82% Loobyes and 1% iContributions o% eneral Overhead 10% dministration 7% ORGOPEZA, ERIKA NATIONALVICE PRESIDENT $42,49. $4,800 $7,477} $54,771Cc chedule 16 iSchedule 15 45 ar iSchedule 17 , {Schedule 18 chedule 19RepresentationalActivities 56% Potsaeand 3% ‘Contributions 1 General Overhead 32% dministration 8% ELENES, ARMANDO NATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT $83,034, $4,800: $38,473 $126,307]Cc Schedule 16 iSchedule 15 4: sit o ischedule 17 chedule 18 chedule 19Representational Activities 79% sponges and 1% {Contributions 1% eneral Overhead 4% ministration 15% a1 Officer Disbursements $503,116 $30,400 $150,504 $0 $684,020 s Deductions $107,339Disbursements $576,681n LM-2 (Revised 2010) (EDULE 12 - DISBURSEMENTS TO EMPLOYEES FILE NUMBER:000-323 (D) (E) (F) (G) (H)1a a Gross Salary Allowances Disbursed Disbursements for Other Disbursements not TOTALnen e Creer Paver Disbursements Official Business reportedinset a ee (before any (D) through (F) deductions) GARCIA, RAQUEL PAYROLL CLERK $33,354! $261 $33,619C ‘/olms.dol-esa.gov/query/orgReport.do 6/42 (2016 DOLForm Report (Disclosure) Schedule 15 y, potedule 18 Schedule 17 chedule 18 chedule 19 Representational Activities o% Pstaanes and 1% ‘Contributions 0% (General Overhead 85% {Administration 14% YBARRA, MARIA pATE ENTRY CLERK $19,833 $386 $20,219 chedule 16 ySchedule 15 4 4 on Schedule 17 chedule 18 chedule 19. ge t % } Representational Activities 1% cbaes and o% ‘Contributions 9 eects Overhead 95 % dministration 3% YBARRA, TANIS SPECIAL ASSISTANT $46,169 $3,400 $23,302: $72,871 chedule 16 iSchedule 15 i: «aes iSchedule 17 Schedule 18 Schedule 19A age 8 % 3Representational Activities % Pics and 0% (Contributions 44 General Overhead 51% dministration 37% URANDAY, ESTHER (NFRASTRUCTURE $45,329 $45,329 chedule 16 iHSchedule 15 ° ‘a5 on Schedule 17 Schedule 18 Schedule 19ae Pr yRepresentational Activities 21% lobby°tivities and 0% (Contributions BY eae Overhead 27% ministration 44% ARNOLD, ALISON pIRECT MARKETING MGR $46,623 $2,299 $48,922 chedule 16 iSchedule 15 rv 5 cet Schedule 17 chedule 18 chedule 19: “sg 149 Donrrb itiRepresentational Activities 4% bbyand 6% Contributions 0% sae Overhead 69% ministration 11% PINAL, ROMAN ORGANIZER $57,692 $1,200; $11,984 $70,876 chedule 16 iSchedule 15 Pa “ape o, iochedule 17 Schedule 18 Schedule 19 Representational Activities 93% Pesce and 3% Contributions 0% General Overhead 3% ministration 1% ESTRADA, JULIO TECHNOLOGY MGR $53,480 $1,200; $7,727; $62,407] chedule 16 \Schedule 15 5 ve on iSchedule 17 Schedule 18 chedule 19 Representational Activities 9% Pancts and 0% ‘Contributions 1" General Overhead 79% dministration 11% SARAJAS, LAURO REGIONAL DIRECTOR $49,478 $4,800 $15,902: $70,180 Schedule 16 iSchedule 15 4 a «igs o jechedule 17 chedule 18 Schedule 19 RepresentationalActivities 88 % Lobb and 4% iContributions 9 eneral Overhead 5% dministration 3% /IDALES, EVERARDO i VEMBERSHIP REP $38,987; $4,800; $11 74 $55,565 ~ chedule 16 ischedule 15 5 ra iti Schedule 17 chedule 18 chedule 19 Representational Activities 89 % lebng and 2% ‘Contributions 04 eneral Overhead 3% peau, 6% SORONA, JOSE G JRGANIZER COORDINATOR $54,223 $4,800 $20,151 $79,174 schedule 15 chedule 16 ‘Schedule 17 chedule 18 Schedule 19 2epresentationalActivities 94% Poca Activities and 3% ‘Contributions 0% {General Overhead 1% {Administration 2% ‘olms.dol-esa.gov/query/orgReport.do 7142 /2016 DOL Form Report (Disclosure) [Lobbying | I. | COORDINATOR $1 18Activities and OverheadActivities ASSISTANT 15 18 Overhead Activities Activities and , $12,541 $51,57 18 Overhead Activities and 6% Activities MEMBERSHIP 15 Activities Activities and 18Activities and Overhead Activities MEMBERSHIP ASSOC $8,91 Schedule 15 RepresentationalActivities 18Activities and Overhead GUEST WORKER FUNDRAISER C Schedule 15 RepresentationalActivities $4,1 18Activities and Overhead STAFF ACCOUNTANT Schedule 15 RepresentationalActivities Activities and =XECUTIVE ASSISTANT $1 “ 7 Activities and Schedule 15 RepresentationalActivities 18 Overhead 8/42 ‘olms.dol-esa.gov/query/orgReport.do /2016 DOLForm Report (Disclosure) MECARTNEY, MARY MEMBERSHIP ASSISTANT $41,87: $1,201 $12,817: $55,895‘C chedule 16 :Schedule 15 9, vei es Schedule 17 Schedule 18 5 chedule 19Representational Activities 28% Pattes and 1% ‘Contributions 1% pees Overhead 60 % ministration 10% SHERMAN, JOCELYN INTERNET MANAGER $56,554 $930 $1,722 $59,206C chedute 16Schedule 15 re + iti 5 ‘Schedule 17 chedule 18 5 chedule 19RepresentationalActivities 9% Pateace and 22% iContributions 4% eneral Overhead 49% ministration 16 % MORAN, JUAN M REGIONAL DIRECTOR $40,397] $4,809 $13,381 $58,578C chedule 16 i‘Schedule 15 sa rare o, ischedule 17 chedule 18 o chedule 19Representational Activities 89% Pesca and 2% {Contributions 0% pees Overhead 4% dministration 5% ALVAREZ, CASIMIRO REGIONAL DIRECTOR $5284! $4,800, $10,317; $67,965Cc chedule 16 5Schedule 15 6, a * cae gy, wschedule 17 chedule 18 chedule 19Representational Activities o% PataAtte and 1% iContributions 96 % eneral Overhead 0% ministration 3% RUELAS, ROSA STAFF ACCOUNTANT $43,631 $86 $43,717Cc chedule 16Schedule 15 9 a ae Schedule 17 o, jochedule 18 chedule 19 Representational Activities O% PotsActs and 0% Contributions o% General Overhead 97 % dministration 3% CERRITOS, FRANCISCO MEMBERSHIP REP $42,077 $4,800, $4,826: $51,703Cc Schedule 16 1Schedule 15 6 sa = ie gy, jchedule 17 5 chedule 18 a, jochedule 19RepresentationalActivities 95 % lobbyinges and 1% ‘Contributions 1% eneral Overhead 1% Administration 2% TORRES, VIANEY i ORGANIZER $36,847; $4,800 an $46,516C chedule 16 iSchedule 15 o a: age iSchedule 17 a, fochedule 18 ‘Schedule 19Representational Activities 80 % and 3% iContributions 1% eneral Overhead 3% ministration 3% FLORES, BENITO ORGANIZER $38,26' $4,800; $5,511 $48,579 chedule 16Schedule 15 5 fa A eae oy, schedule 17 oy jochedule 18 Schedule 19 RepresentationalActivities 79% Ipbyn.ctivities and 0% ‘Contributions 0% eneral Overhead 20% dministration 1% VIEJIA, OSCAR ORGANIZER $37221 $4,800 $12,731 $54,759 Schedule 16 iSchedule 15 5 a on ga, jochedule 17 oy, [schedule 18 chedule 19Representational Activities 89% Loboand 3% {Contributions o% eneral Overhead 34 dministration 5% -OPEZ, ARMANDO 4 i IRGANIZER $38,75: $4,801 : $8,574 $52,133 ‘olms.dol-esa.gov/query/orgReport.do 9/42 /2016 DOL Form Report (Disclosure) c | ! | i iSchedule 15 96% political Activities and 9% Schedule 17 o% Schedule 18 1% Schedule 19 1%Representational Activities Lobbying (Contributions eneral Overhead dministration QUINTERO, SANTOS REGIONALDIRECTOR $42,692; $4,800 $12,374 $59,866C Schedule 16 |Schedule 15 °, fg: age Schedule 17 9 Schedule 18 chedule 19RepresentationalActivities 83% hopbyng and 4% iContributions o% eneral Overhead 9% dministration 4% SOLANO, JUVENAL ORGANIZER $33,147} $4,800 $4,673 $42,626C Schedule 16 iSchedule 15 6 Pf itt y, jochedule 17 s chedule 18 Schedule 19‘Representational Activities 48% Lobby.tivities and 42% Contributions o% eneral Overhead 10% dministration 9% SOLANO, EULOGIO D ORGANIZER $20,040; $2,255 $2,688; $24,983Cc Pa 16 YSchedule 15 5 it iti o, schedule 17 », jochedule 18 o, [Schedule 19Representational Activities 90% Looptes and 3% {Contributions o% General Overhead 4% dministration 3% ROCKSTAD, LINDA iCONTOLLER $66,684 $2,899 $69,583C i chedule 16 iSchedule 15 9 rae on 9 iSchedule 17 5 chedule 18 a {schedule 19Representational Activities o% Patativities and o% {Contributions 1% neral Overhead 90% ministration 9% i CORTES, ANTONIO iORGANIZER $37,319 $4,800 $11,998 $54,117]Cc i Schedule 16 iSchedule 15 9, 4: iti y schedule 17 5 chedule 18 5 chedule 19Representational Activities 80 % Perescies and 1% Contributions 1% eneral Overhead 8 dministration 10% MACHUCA, MARIA COMMUNICATION $49,760 $1,801 $2,975; $54,535C Schedule 16Schedule 15 > he Da o, (Schedule 17 > chedule 18 , Schedule 19Representational Activities 5% Petes:ctivities and 10% {Contributions 3% eneral Overhead 76 % dministration 6% PADILLA, JAIME RESEARCH ANALYST $41,404 $1,160 $1,994: $44,559C chedule 16 iSchedule 15 6 i 5 ig o, jochedule 17 chedule 18 chedule 19Representational Activities 92% PotActes and 2% iContributions 1% eneral Overhead 24 dministration 3%i MOSQUEDA, JEANNETTE COMMUNITY LIASON $35,099 $72! $5,073 $40,892 Schedule 16 ischedule 15 5 A iti o, jachedule 17 5 chedule 18 5 chedule 19%epresentational Activities 38% Patstivities and 4% ‘Contributions 3% eneral Overhead 44 dministration 11% UBIO, JUAN M IRGANIZER $37,481 $4,800; $11,542 $53,823 Schedule 15 [Schedule 16 Schedule 17 i Schedule 18 Schedule 19 ‘olms.dol-esa,gov/query/orgReport.do 10/42 12016 DOL Form Report (Disclosure) Activities Activities and 2% Overhead 18Activities and Overhead Activities TTORNEY 15 Activities Activities and TTORNEY $1 15 18 Overhead Activities Activities and TION MGR $41,1 18 18 Overhead Activities andActivities ASSISTANT 18 Overhead Activities andActivities Cc Schedule 15 RepresentationalActivities 18Activities and Overhead PARA LEGAL $5.94c Schedule 15 RepresentationalActivities 18 Overhead Activities and 4.P CLERK Schedule 15 RepresentationalActivities 18 Overhead Activities and MEMBER BENEFITS COORDINAT~ $35,14 $14 Schedule 15 Representational Activities 18Activities and Overhead /olms.dol-esa.gov/query/orgReport.do 11/42 (2016 DOL Form Report (Disclosure) VASQUEZ, GUSTAVO j ORGANIZER $34,24 4.000 $4573 $43,613 i Schedule 15 chedule 16 iSchadule 17 fh) a 90% ‘a3 ops y } chedule 18 chedule 19RepresentationalActivities Peepcs and 4% (Contributions 1% eneral Overhead 34 dministration 2% VALENZUELA, JESUS EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT $27,535 $1,200 $6,954! $35,689 Schedule 16Schedule 15 A on iSchedule 17 chedule 18 ch } a 66% iP | oy} edule 19Representational Activities Pscites and 2% {Contributions 14 eneral Overhead 26% dministration 5% PATRICIO, STEPHANIE CRGANIZER $35,534 $4,400 $5,418: $45,352 Schedule 16 tSchedule 15 a: as 'Schedule 17 chedule 18 chisa: 64% Political Activities and % Schedule y edule 19Representational Activities Lobbying ities any 3% \Contributions 4 eneral Overhead 17% dministration 12% FLORES, OFELIA C ORGANIZER $30,069 $2,350 $4,015 $36,434 chedule 16 iSchedule 15 sa Sig Schedule 17 chedule 18 ched«a 95% Political Activit % ‘Schedule edule 19Representational Activities feobying les and 3% {Contributions a4 eneral Overhead 1% dministration 1% SOTO- MELENDREZ, INDIA . ORGANIZER 409 $4,80 $2,913: $41,821 Schedule 16 |Schedule 15 see rn chedule 17 chedule 18 chi ) _ 92 % Slit a edule 19RepresentationalActivities Lopbangnvtes and 3% {Contributions 04 General Overhead 3% dministration 2% BARRIENTOS, MANUEL ORGANIZER $34,108: $4,800 $4,294) $43,202 Schedule 16 iSchedule 15 as oe iSchedule 17 chedule 18 chedul ) — 92% |p oy e 19RepresentationalActivities 2 Potsaes and 3% iContributions o eneral Overhead 2% dministration 3% GUTIERREZ, ALEJANDRA * ORGANIZER $31,872; $4,800 $9,413 $46,085 hedule 16 {Schedule 15 one ° iSchedule 17 chedule 18 S ) — 93% fi oy 3 chedule 19Representational Activities Paescies and 2% {Contributions 1 eneral Overhead 1% dministration 3% SORONA, JESUS IRGANIZER $39,395 $4,0 $1,812; $45,207 . hedule 16 qSchedule 15 Ps OS ‘Schedule 17 chedule 18 s ) . 96% [Polit of d chedule 19Representational Activities Lobbying and 2% Contributions o4 General Overhead 2% dministration 0% FRUJILLIO, EFRAIN IRGANIZER $23,163 $1,785 $3,816 $28,764 : Schedule 16schedule 15 a: ae iSchedule 17 Schedule 18 ch. a 48% y% ? edule 19.epresentationalActivities Pete and 42% (Contributions o% General Overhead 10% dministration 0% SARGIA, DIANA ” i i ,ESEARCHER $15,901 } $224 $16,124 ‘olms.dol-esa.gov/query/orgReport.do 12/42 1/2016 DOL Form Report (Disclosure) ne 17 18 Activities : Activities and Overhead TION COORDINATOR 15 on 18 Activities Activities and Overhead $51 Activities and 18Activities Overhead iviti 18 Activities tical Activities and Overhead $4,1 ae 18 Activities Activities and Overhead $2, iviti 18 Activities Activities and Overhead $11 18Activities and Overhead Activities $7,71 15 Og: 18 Activities Activities and Overhead POLITICAL DIRECTOR $1; Cc Schedule 15 Sigs 18 RepresentationalActivities Activities and Overhead C ORGANIZER $14, C ‘olms.dol-esa.gov/query/orgReport.do 13/42 {2016 DOL Form Report (Disclosure) Activities and 17 2% 18 Overhead Activities 18Activities and Overhead Activities $2,17 18Activities and OverheadActivities ASSISTANT 15 18 Overhead Activities Activities and ASSISTANT $3, Activities and 18Activities 18Activities and Overhead Activities ASSISTANT $1 15 RepresentationalActivities 18 Overhead Activities and LAWAPPRENTICE c Schedule 15 RepresentationalActivities $4, 18Activities and Overhead LAW APPRENTICE Cc Schedule 15 Representational Activities $3, Activities and 18 ORGANIZER Schedule 15 Representational Activities 18 Overhead Activities and /olms.dot-esa.gov/query/orgReport.do 14/42 /2016 DOLForm Report (Disclosure) MARTINEZ, JOSE G [ NTL LABOR ADOVACATE $18,615 “7s $11,167: $30,561 Schedule 16Schedule 15 oe gs Schedule 17 Schedule 18 hi_ 94% [Political Activities and % Schedule chedute 19Representational Activities Lobbyin9 VINES an O% Contributions 0% General Overhead 5% dministration o% VALDEZ, CIZBETH ° ORGANIZER $15,322 $1,800 $1,167; $18,289 hedule 16 {Schedule 15 ene ° ‘Schedule 17 chedule 18a 90% [Political Activit % Schedule edule 1 chedule 19Representational Activities Lobbying Wvities and 4% iContributions eneral Overhead 6% dministration 0% MENDOZA, GRECIA ORGANIZER $14,720 $2,07. $1,505 $18,303 chedule 16 5Schedule 15 ss an iSchedule 17 Schedule 18 Sch«a 90% Political Activit % Schedule edule 19RepresentationalActivities Petes vities and 3% (Contributions 0% General Overhead 7% dministration 0% ROQUE, VICTOR ORGANIZER 59504 $2,037; $992; $16,597 chedule 16Schedule 15 as ae iSchedule 17 Schedule 18 Sia 91% Political Activit % Schedule chedule 19Representational Activities Pate ivities and 3% (Contributions 04 General Overhead 6% ministration 0% BARAJAS, MARIA F ORGANIZER 52 $4,800 $10,449 $47,437| chedule 16 iSchedule 15 ne ore ‘Schedule 17 chedule 18a 86% [Political Activit cule chedule 19Representational Activities obbying ivities and 4% (Contributions 1% General Overhead 3% dministration 6% Activities Disbursements EDULE 13 - MEMBERSHIP STATUS Activities and 1 Overhead $3,294,1 FILE NUMBER:000-323 ‘olms.dol-esagov/query/orgReport.do 15/42 12016 DOLForm Report (Disclosure) TAILED SUMMARYPAGE - SCHEDULES 14 THROUGH 19 FILE NUMBER:000-323 nN JEDULE 14 - OTHER RECEIPTS FILE NUMBER:000-323 Purpose60 'NEAPOLIS 59 Purpose Amount ) CAMFIELD AVE - ANGELES 40 Purpose Date Amount ‘olms.dol-esa.gov/query/orgReport.do 6/42 (2016 DOL Form Report (Disclosure) & Amount 3 AKARD ST #110 LLAS 02 O WILSHIRE BLVD STE 1612 > ANGELES 48 Purpose Amount CALIFORNIA ST STE 400 | FRANCISCO 34 Purpose Purpose Amount /olms.dol-esa.gov/query/orgReport.do 17/42 (2016 10 EAST JEFFERSON AVE TROIT 14 2 BULL ST STE 200 /ANNAH 01 3 W. VERNOR HWY ‘ROIT 19 16TH ST NW sHINGTON 16 ‘olms.dol-esa. gov/query/orgReport.do Purpose Date DOL Form Report (Disclosure) Purpose Amount 18/42 /2016 DOL Form Report (Disclosure) )N. CRESCENTDR SUITE 25 VERLY HILLS 210 Purpose > W. 14TH ST W YORK 14 ransactions Purpose 0 WEST JAMES M WOOD BLVD 3 ANGELES 06 Purpose Amount 3 23RD ST *RAMENTO 16 Amount 3 HOLLYWOODBLVD ANGELES 2B /olms.dol-esa.gov/query/orgReport.do 19/42 2016 JO DOLForm Report (Disclosure) Purpose Amount | N. CHERRY LN RT WORTH 108 NE PROVIDED NE PROVIDED SO CAUSEWAYST STON Purpose Amount | S. HILLCREST DR ' ANGELES 13 Purpose Amount ‘olms.dol-esa.gov/query/orgReport.do 20/42 1/2016 DOLForm Report (Disclosure) Purpose 91 NATORP BLVD \SON { 340 Purpose | BROADWAYSUITE 600 N DIEGO 01 Purpose Purpose Amount 0 BROADWAYSUITE 400 «LAND 12 Purpose ) STH AVE SUITE 300 | DIEGO 3 /olms.dol-esa.gov/query/orgReport.do 21/42 {2016 DOL Form Report (Disclosure) Cc Purpose Amount 75 K ST, N.W. \SHINGTON 306 Purpose Amount 15 ALTA VISTA DR KERSFIELD 305 S n {EDULE 15 - REPRESENTATIONALACTIVITIES FILE NUMBER:000-323 3 VARSITY CT JNTAINVIEW 40 Purpose Amount ALIFORNIA ST #680 FRANCISCO 1 ‘ype or /olms.dol-esa.gov/query/orgReport.do 22/42 /2016 DOL Form Report (Disclosure) SH- CONSULTING 16 CORBY AVE NTA ROSA tO7 Purpose Amount Purpose Purpose Amount Purpose OLD EAGLE SCHOOL RD #1 NE 7 olms.dol-esa.gov/query/orgReport.do 23/42 1/2016 DOLForm Report (Disclosure) Nameand Address Purpose 00 CHAOMAN HWY lOXVILLE 920 Purpose Amount 25 OLYMPIC BLVD STE 6000 NTA MONICA 4104 Purpose AmountLUNDY LN 3 ALTOS 24 ¢ Purpose Amount 0 SAN FERNANDO RD VALLEY 52 HUDSON ST #4 V YORK ‘4 /olms.dol-esa.gov/query/orgReport.do 24/42 12016 Name and Address 35 BRECKINRIDGE BLVD #100 LUTH 396 10 Excelsior Bivd neapolis 26 "B4 ANGELES 3 ‘olms.dol-esa.gov/query/orgReport.do DOL Form Report (Disclosure) Purpose Purpose Purpose Purpose Purpose Amount Amount Amount 25/42 12016 DOL Form Report (Disclosure) Name and Address Purpose 75 FARADAY AVE RLSBAD 308 H Purpose 11 INTERNATIONAL PRK WAY RROLLTON 107 Purpose AmountGRANDAVESUITE 1545
