Court Opinion

ID: 9723835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:34:57.911137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:52.484609
License: Public Domain

COLOGNE, J.
I concur in the majority opinion statement of the law, but respectfully dissent insofar as the opinion upholds the entire order of the Board because I believe certain portions of the order lack evidentiary support.
Under the provisions of Labor Code section 1160.8, if there is substantial evidence based on the record as a whole, the decision of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board is conclusive (Tex-Cal Land Man*956agement, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 335 [156 Cal.Rptr. 1, 595 P.2d 579]). I can appreciate Kawano, faced with rising costs of labor, taxes and materials, was prompted to cut back on its operation. A change in operations motivated by financial or economic reasons is not an unfair labor practice (N.L.R.B. v. Kingsford (6th Cir. 1963) 313 F.2d 826, 830). The test which must be applied, however, is whether economics or the antiunion animus was the predominant motivation for the action. This is a factual question which is within the province of the Board to resolve. There was evidence of Kawano’s enmity for the union. We are not at liberty to substitute our judgment for that of the Board.
The question remains, however, which employees were the victims of this unfair labor practice, and I do not believe we can summarily lump all the claimants into that category.
Those longtime employees who were active union supporters and applied for jobs in accordance with Kawano’s hiring practices but were rejected because of their union activities are clearly entitled to the relief granted by the Board. I concur with the majority upholding the Board’s order as it applies to those employees.1
The evidence in support of the Board’s order is weaker in the case of a second class of claimants who were denied work because they made application at the San Luis Rey office. Kawano never hired at that location. As was pointed out by the majority, National Labor Relations Board v. Anchor Rome Mills (5th Cir. 1956) 228 F.2d 775, holds the employees have a duty to make application for work in accordance with the company’s hiring practices. As in Anchor Rome Mills, Kawano had an “at the gate” hiring practice and the employees had an obligation to make their applications in accordance with that practice.
The evidence here, however, supports the conclusion applicants were misled, confused, intentionally misdirected or told to see an individual who never seemed to be available. This testimony supports the inference Kawano was intentionally providing barriers to make compliance with *957hiring practice very difficult, if not impossible. Again, this is a factual question to be resolved by the Board. Viewing the evidence most favorably to support the Board’s ruling, I am constrained to concur with the majority and uphold the board’s order as it applies to this class of employees.2
There is, however, a third class of employees where the evidence is totally lacking in one or more respects that should preclude them from being within an aggrieved classification.
Four employees testified they never made any application for work. This group includes Antonio Aleman, Herminio Vela Hernandez, Felipe Luna V. and Carmen Ortiz Mercado. Some of these people asked the drivers if there was work and became discouraged. The drivers were clearly not hiring agents and were at best able only to pass on rumors as to hiring practices. They had no actual or ostensible authority as the employer’s agent. There is no substantial evidence the claimants met the burden of showing they applied for an available position and were unequivocally rejected because of union affiliation (see Indiana Metal Products Corp. v. National Labor Rel. Bd. (7th Cir. 1953) 202 F.2d 613; Interlake Iron Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board (7th Cir. 1942) 131 F.2d 129, 134).
Others testified they applied—they did not personally testify—were in groups which applied.
Another subgroup within this class for which supporting evidence is totally lacking is the group for which there is no showing they were involved in any union activity to provide the basis for discrimination. These people did not even wear a union button which might provide notice of their sympathies. This group includes Vincenta L. Rios, Jose Arroyo and Josefa Ruiz.
Finally one person, Antonio Zamarripa, did not apply in 1976, and when he did apply in 1977 he was hired. He cannot claim discrimination.
*958There is in addition a fourth class of employees for which a modified recovery only should be allowed, namely those cases in which there is no evidence that they applied for work in 1976, but they did apply in 1977. It cannot be said that for this group Kawano’s discriminatory hiring practices affected them for the year 1976, since they had no personal knowledge—at least only rumor or hearsay—of any such practice at that time.3 Their denial of work for 1977, however, would provide a factual basis for pay entitlement under the Board’s findings for that year. This group includes Ramon Bravo, Martin Conriquez, Pablo David Fink, Gregorio Garcia, Luisa Garcia V., Mario Guerrero, Delfino Laros V., Antonio Mendoza, Maria Elena Perez, Juan Rios, Francisco Rubio V., Domingo Santos and Monica Zamarripa.
To apply a broad brush to these cases and allow everyone to benefit is, in my opinion, not supported by the evidence and totally unfair. To do this is to open the door for every unemployed worker in Southern California to receive compensation. I would modify the decision of the board to conform the remedy to the individual cases as supported by the evidence.
A petition for a rehearing was denied June 30, 1980, and petitioner’s application for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 17, 1980. Bird, C. J., did not participate therein.

Those employees, according to the evidence most favorable to the board, include: Javier Acosta, Francisco Garcia, Julian Gonzales, Refugio Vasquez, Catalina Barrios, Aurelio Higuera, Maria Mendez, Ezequiel Pedroza, Juan N. Rodriguez, Felipe de la Vega, Elisa Flores, Teresa Gomez, Hilario Veloz Gonzales, Luis Chavez Gutierrez, Martin Mora, Jose Aleman Juarez, Antonia de Ortiz, P., Gerardo Ruiz, Jose Luis Vasquez and Maria Luisa Diaz.

Those employees, according to the evidence most favorable to the board, include: Feliberta Escobedo, Juan Garcia, Ignacio Hernandez, Josefa Hernandez, Silveria Juarez, Miguel Rodriguez, Emma Saldana, Feliciano Rubalcava, Jose Sandoval, Jose Luis Montellano, Jesus Ramirez and Idelfonso Villa.

Several employees applied for work in 1976 and were rejected. The experience of that rejection in the earlier years could provide a basis for believing the rejection would come again in 1977, and these employees should of course be included in the first class entitled to full recompense.