Opinion ID: 1281454
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Board's Order Was for Unrestricted Access

Text: (4) The Board's order here, like that considered in the first Court of Appeal decision in 8 ALRB 87, mandated unlimited and unrestricted access to the labor camp. The Court of Appeal here held, correctly, that the right of access is not unlimited but is subject to reasonable regulation. ( Sam Andrews' Sons v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., supra, 162 Cal. App.3d 923, 936; see also Petersen v. Talisman Sugar Corporation, supra, 478 F.2d 73, 82; United Farm Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. Mel Finerman Co. (D.Colo. 1973) 364 F. Supp. 326.) The Board, as it did on remand after the first Court of Appeal decision in 8 ALRB 87, attempts to justify its access order on the ground that, though unlimited, the order would not sanction abuses by the union and would not prevent the grower from filing unfair labor practice charges if such abuses occurred. Unfortunately, however, the Board's access order is in fact unlimited and is thus fundamentally at odds with the grower's right to promulgate reasonable time, place and manner regulations. First, the order is by its own terms explicitly unrestricted. It orders the grower to Cease and desist from ... [ p ] reventing, limiting, or restraining any union organizers or agents from entering and remaining on the premises of Respondent's labor camps for the purpose of contacting, visiting, or talking to any agricultural employee on the premises. (Italics added.) The grower is further forbidden In any like or related manner [from] interfering with, restraining, or coercing any agricultural employee in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by [the Act].... (Italics added.) Second, the unlimited camp access order is in stark contrast to the field access order. The field access order is expressly made subject to access at reasonable times. The labor camp access order is clearly not. Third, the Board's decision itself expressly  direct [ s ] the Regional Director to seek contempt citations against Respondent for any on-going or further violations of our access orders.  (Italics added.) Finally, the Board itself clearly intended to order unrestricted access as it candidly stated in respect to its almost identical order in 8 ALRB 87. The only plausible reading of the Board's decision and order is that it intended  exactly as stated  to preclude the grower from adopting any limitations or restrictions whatever on labor camp access. In view of the grower's right to make reasonable regulations as to camp access (see infra, section C.2.), the Court of Appeal properly held the order was overbroad and properly vacated the overbroad portion of the order. Its remand to the Board with directions to reframe its order to require the grower to allow reasonable access to the camp will be affirmed.