Source: https://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/467/461/case.php
Timestamp: 2020-08-14 07:50:29
Document Index: 489404503

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2303', '§ 2303', '§ 2301', '§ 2303', '§ 2303', '§ 290', '§ 290', '§ 290', '§ 2305']

US Supreme Court Decisions On-Line> Volume 467 > MICH. C. & F. ASSN. V. AGRIC. M. & B. BD., 467 U. S. 461 (1984)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 467 U. S. 461
The federal Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 (AFPA) was enacted to enable individual farmers and other producers of agricultural commodities to join together voluntarily in cooperative associations in order to protect their marketing and bargaining position as against large and powerful agricultural processors. The AFPA makes it unlawful for "handlers" defined to include both processors and producers' associations -- to coerce any producer "in the exercise of his right to join . . . or to refrain from joining" a producers' association, 7 U.S.C. § 2303(a), or to coerce any producer to enter into or terminate a marketing contract with a producers' association or a contract with a handler, § 2303(e). The Michigan Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Act (Michigan Act) includes the same prohibitions as the AFPA, but goes beyond it by establishing a state-administered system by which producers' associations are organized and certified as exclusive bargaining agents for all producers of a particular commodity. Under this system, if an association's membership constitutes more than 50% of the producers of a particular commodity and its members' production accounts for more than 50% of the commodity's total production, the association may be accredited as the exclusive bargaining agent for all producers of that commodity. Upon accreditation of the association, all producers of the commodity, regardless of whether they have chosen to become members of the association, must pay a service fee to the association, and must abide by the contracts the association negotiates with processors. The Michigan Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Association (MACMA), a producers' association accredited under the Michigan Act, is the sole sales and bargaining representative for asparagus producers in the State. After the MACMA had negotiated contracts on behalf of Michigan asparagus growers to sell the asparagus crop for a certain year, appellant asparagus growers and association of asparagus processors sued MACMA in state court seeking a declaratory judgment that the provisions of the Michigan Act requiring service fees and mandatory adherence to an association-negotiated contract are preempted by the AFPA. The Michigan Supreme Court rejected appellants' claim, holding that the chanrobles.com-red
A perceived need to help the American farmer in his economic relations with large and powerful agricultural processors has moved Congress and various States to enact laws designed to bolster the farmer's bargaining power when bringing his goods to market. This case involves two such laws: the federal Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 and the State of Michigan's Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Act (Michigan Act). The question presented is whether certain provisions of the Michigan Act, which accord agricultural cooperative associations exclusive bargaining authority for the sale of agricultural products, are preempted by the federal Act. The Supreme Court of Michigan held that the Michigan Act is not preempted. 416 chanrobles.com-red
The federal Agricultural Fair Practices Act (AFPA), 82 Stat. 93, 7 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., protects the right of farmers and other producers [Footnote 1] of agricultural commodities to join cooperative associations through which to market their products. [Footnote 2] Responding to "the growing concentration of power in the hands of fewer and larger buyers [of agricultural products]," S.Rep. No. 474, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 2-3 (1967), Congress enacted the AFPA to rectify a perceived imbalance in bargaining position between producers and processors of such products. Although the Act's principal purpose is to protect individual producers from interference by processors when deciding whether to belong to a producers' association, the Act also protects the producer from coercion by associations of producers. The AFPA thus provides that it is unlawful for either a processor or a producers' association to engage in practices that interfere with a producer's freedom to choose whether to bring his products to market himself or to sell them through a producers' cooperative association. 7 U.S.C. § 2303. Specifically, § 2303(a) forbids "handlers" -- chanrobles.com-red
The Michigan Act, Mich.Comp.Laws § 290.701 et seq. (1984), also designed to facilitate collective action among producers, includes the same prohibitions as the federal Act. It goes beyond the federal statute, however, by extensively regulating the activities of producers' associations. Most importantly, the Michigan Act establishes a state-administered system by which producers' associations are organized and certified as exclusive bargaining agents for all producers of a particular commodity. §§ 290.703, 290.707. Under Michigan's system, if an association's membership constitutes more than 50% of the producers of a particular commodity, and its members' production accounts for more than 50% of the commodity's total production, the association may apply to the state Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Board for accreditation as the exclusive bargaining agent for all producers of that particular commodity. § 290.707(c). [Footnote 5] When the chanrobles.com-red
Board accredits an association as the agent for the producers of a particular commodity, all producers of that commodity, regardless of whether they have chosen to become members chanrobles.com-red
The Michigan Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. (MACMA), a producers' association accredited under the Michigan Act, is the sole sales and bargaining representative for asparagus producers in the State. [Footnote 7] In 1974, as permitted by the Michigan Act, MACMA negotiated contracts on behalf of Michigan asparagus growers to sell the 1974 asparagus crop. In response, appellants Dukesherer Farms and Ferris Pierson, asparagus growers that would be bound by the contract, along with the Michigan Canners & Freezers Association, Inc., an association of asparagus processors, [Footnote 8] sued MACMA in state court seeking a declaratory judgment that those provisions of the Michigan Act requiring service fees and mandatory adherence to an association-negotiated contract are preempted by the AFPA. The Supreme Court of Michigan rejected appellants' claim, holding that the Michigan Act operated in an area that the federal chanrobles.com-red
It is the last basis of preemption that applies in this case. The AFPA contains no preemptive language; nor does it reflect a congressional intent to occupy the entire field of agricultural product marketing. Indeed, the Act states that it "shall not be construed to change or modify existing State law." 7 U.S.C. § 2305(d). [Footnote 9] And, as this Court has recognized, chanrobles.com-red
The bill originally introduced in the Senate, S. 109, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965), did not explicitly protect the producer's right to remain independent from an association, and for that reason provoked considerable criticism in the hearings that followed. Critics of the bill offered several reasons for chanrobles.com-red
prohibiting association coercion to the same extent as processor coercion. First, some producers stated that they preferred to remain independent because they believed they could earn more money if they marketed their products themselves. [Footnote 11] Second, processors testified that, unless associations were also prohibited from pressuring producers, there would be a serious risk that the associations would attain a bargaining position of monopoly proportion, to the detriment of not only the processor but the consumer as well. [Footnote 12] Third, witnesses testified that a prohibition on interference by producers' associations would promote competition on the merits among associations seeking membership. [Footnote 13] Fourth, many handlers testified that they would be disadvantaged in the quality of the product they could buy as well as the price they would have to pay if producers' associations were permitted substantially to diminish the ranks of the independent producer. [Footnote 14] Finally, witnesses testified that the producer's right to remain independent of an association was simply "a basic American right" deserving of protection. [Footnote 15] chanrobles.com-red
113 Cong.Rec. 21411 (1967). chanrobles.com-red
Id. at 7464. chanrobles.com-red
Id. at 7465, 7469 (emphasis added). [Footnote 19] chanrobles.com-red
416 Mich., at 719, 332 N.W.2d at 139. The Michigan Act, however, empowers producers' associations to do precisely what the federal Act chanrobles.com-red