Farm Board Is All but Dead, Departing Member Charges

SACRAMENTO — Jorge Carrillo is preparing to leave the state farm labor board after more than 10 years with the embattled agency, the last four as a board member, and he is not happy about the situation he is leaving behind.

The Agricultural Labor Relations Board, established in 1975 to bring labor peace to California’s fields and orchards, is “pretty much a dead agency,” and its effectiveness has “hit rock-bottom,” he said.

Carrillo, a third-generation farm worker who went on to become a labor relations board staff attorney and the board’s executive secretary, is one of two remaining appointees of former Democratic Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. on the panel.

Last year, board member John McCarthy, a Brown appointee who was reappointed by Republican Gov. George Deukmejian, described Carrillo as a moderate on a board split between liberals and conservatives.

Carrillo’s term expires in January, and he does not expect to be reappointed by Deukmejian.

“I’m doubtful that even if I was offered reappointment that I would take it because I think the agency as it stands now is pretty much a dead agency,” he said in a recent interview. “It’s not doing anything.”

The number of charges of unfair labor practice filed with the agency, the number of complaints filed by the general counsel and the number of decisions issued by the board are all down.

In addition, there is a sizable backlog of final rulings that have not been carried out--about 114, according to officials in the board’s executive secretary’s office.

“I don’t want to say there’s been no effort or progress, but our record is very dismal,” Carrillo said. “We still have several cases that are maybe 5 or 6 years old, and we haven’t collected the money that’s owed.”

David Stirling, the board’s general counsel and chief prosecutor, may also be preparing to leave. He acknowledged that the board is not the same agency it was a few years ago, but denies that it is dead.

“The board’s got a lot of work pending over there. I just settled a case last week against (an Imperial Valley grower) for almost $2.2 million, the highest sum of money this agency’s ever been involved in,” Stirling said. “We can’t be too dead.”

But Stirling, a Deukmejian appointee, also said: “The agenda of Gov. Brown is truly coming to an end. The (United Farm Workers’) agenda and expectations of what this agency is supposed to do, that’s coming to an end. . . . The agency now tends to be more strict constructionist.”

More than a decade after Brown put together a grower-union alliance to create the board and set up a collective bargaining system for farm workers, the board remains one of the most controversial agencies in state government.

The UFW union and its urban Democratic allies in the Legislature contend that Deukmejian has turned the labor relations board into a do-little agency to please his friends in the grower community, who have contributed a small fortune to the governor’s election campaigns.

On the other hand, Deukmejian claimed that his appointees have ended a board bias that favored the UFW, which has given large amounts of money to Democratic candidates.

The board will undoubtedly take on even more of a Deukmejian hue after the first of the year. Carrillo’s departure would leave only one Brown appointee on the five-member panel, Patrick Henning, the son of state labor leader John Henning.

A Deukmejian appointee, board Chairwoman Jyrl James-Massengale, is also leaving in the January, resigning in mid-term, but her departure is likely to result in little or no philosophical change.

Stirling, a former Republican assemblyman from Hacienda Heights, also talks as if he might be leaving soon. Under one interpretation of the law, his term ends Jan. 24. Under another, it will not end until November, 1988.

Stirling said he will not remain with the board that long but might stay past January “just because the statute provides that I can stay here 90 days after expiration of the term.”

“Or I might accept reappointment, which would allow me to stay here an indefinite amount of time,” he added, contending he could be reconfirmed by the state Senate despite claims that he has been a lax prosecutor of unfair labor practice charges against growers.

“Eventually I’m going to want to do something different,” Stirling said. “Exactly when that will be, I can’t say.”

He said he has not discussed with Deukmejian a possible appointment to another position.

Carrillo said it is his hope that if Stirling leaves, Deukmejian will appoint a general counsel who will get along better with the UFW and will be “more aggressive about enforcing the law.”

But it is more likely that growers and the governor will want a new general counsel “who is going to keep it basically a low-level position” and is not concerned about “trying to establish an atmosphere of cooperation” between growers and unions, Carrillo said.

Rely on Political Sources

“I see both the UFW and the growers right now trying to rely on political sources, and I see no desire on the part of either the UFW or growers to put all this behind them and do things I think are necessary to make this agency work the way it should work,” he said.

Stirling’s critics claim that he dismisses too many charges, most of which are filed by workers or the UFW; is willing to settle complaints for too little money; and acted improperly in criticizing the UFW and its leader, Cesar Chavez.

“I think that a lot of the problems that we face are brought about by attitudes that are projected by both the parties and officials within the (board),” Carrillo said.

“And one of the attitudes that disturb me is that the general counsel felt free to make attacks against the UFW. These remarks are inconsistent with the impartiality that’s required. . . . “

Stirling contended that he was within his rights to criticize the union and was responding to attacks on the way he has run his office. “I don’t believe I have ever mischaracterized that union or what they are doing,” he said.

Rate of Dismissals

Stirling acknowledged that he has dismissed a high percentage of charges, which typically accuse a grower of punishing or dismissing a worker for union activity or failing to bargain for a contract in good faith.

But he disputed Carrillo’s claim that he dismisses 90% of the charges he receives. “The percentage of dismissals is probably in the area of 60% to 70%,” he said, contending that when charges are dismissed “the evidence just isn’t there.”

Carrillo praised Stirling’s emphasis on settling charges instead of pursuing a complaint, but he contended that Stirling tends to get too little money from settlements because growers know he is not eager to prosecute.

Stirling responded by saying that “most of the settlements we have put together have been approved by Brown appointees on the board.”

The general counsel decides which charges are prosecuted and therefore which cases reach the board. In the first 11 months of 1986, the board issued only 24 decisions, contrasted with 105 in 1982, the year before Stirling came to the agency, according to board figures.

Fewer Decisions

In the nearly four years that Stirling has been general counsel, the board has averaged 48 decisions a year, contrasted with an average of 71 a year in the four years before he took office.

In 1982, before Stirling took office, there were 1,028 charges filed by workers, growers and unions. A total of 294 went to complaints, 54 were settled, 495--about 48%--were dismissed and 181 were withdrawn. Four are still pending.

Last year, there were 665 charges filed. So far, 440 of those cases--about 66%--have been dismissed, 44 have been settled, 57 have been withdrawn and 57 have resulted in complaints.

There were 294 charges filed in 1986 through Nov. 17. Of those, five resulted in complaints, 75 were dismissed, 12 settled and 14 withdrawn. The rest are pending.

Carrillo said the number of charges are down in part because the UFW, the principal union involved in representing farm workers, is concentrating on a grape boycott instead of stressing organization of workers.

Won’t Get Fair Shake

Dianna Lyons, a UFW attorney, said that it is because the union is convinced that it will not get a fair shake from Stirling. “There’s activity in organizing and bargaining, but we don’t file charges unless we know we can hand them the case on a silver platter. . . ,” he said.

The cases that reach the board now tend to be “very simple, straightforward cases that involve the discharge of one or two employees or perhaps a written disciplinary slip against another employee,” Carrillo said.

“We haven’t seen any complaints reach the board where the general counsel has been arguing that the grower engaged in (insincere) surface bargaining.

“On the contrary, the only case we have seen that alleged bad-faith bargaining and there was a request for make whole (to make up for wages lost because of the lack of a contract) has been against the UFW.”

Carrillo said he does not see any pro-grower bias among board members. What he does see is a conservative board that has a “very definite concern” that decisions that go against growers be as diplomatic as possible.

Drafts Often Changes

“We get drafts that are sometimes changed five or six times to get it to read in a manner that won’t be offensive to the grower community,” Carrillo said. “There is no similar concern that I discern when they are dismissing a complaint against an employer or they are dealing with a case that involves a possible violation against the UFW.”

The board will “follow the law,” Carrillo said. “(But) where there are going to be significant changes in an area where there is no direct law on point, where perhaps there is a novel argument being made, then I think they will be very conservative in the way they interpret the statute, not necessarily to favor growers but just not to be very creative with the law.”