Court Opinion

ID: 9603289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:04:36.461204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:10.323843
License: Public Domain

*356CLARK, J.,
Concurring and Dissenting. — Requesting the sheriff to enforce the law by arresting those engaged in criminal conduct does not constitute an unlawful labor practice by an employer.
In Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 392, 419 et seq. [128 Cal.Rptr. 183, 546 P.2d 687], the majority of this court held that the board’s access rule was an exception to the criminal trespass statute (Pen. Code, § 602), and that conduct violating the criminal trespass statute but authorized by the access rule was lawful. However, we did not hold that union organizers engaging in conduct in violation of both the trespass statute and the access rule are immune from arrest. They are not above the law — until today’s decision.
Today’s decision upholds the board’s determination that the employer committed an unlawful labor practice by simply seeking arrest of organizers violating both the access rule and the criminal trespass statute. (Ante, pp. 353-354.) The majority reach this conclusion claiming that ALRB access regulations may properly be interpreted to require warning criminal trespassers before arrest, "but I can find no language in the regulation allowing such interpretation.
Imposing administrative penalties on victims of criminal acts for merely asking the sheriff to perform his duty is ludicrous, bringing the law and this court into question. This approach suggests we free the burglar or rapist and rather jail his victim who reports the crime to the police.
With the foregoing exceptions, I concur in the conclusions reached by the majority opinion.