US Supreme Court Sides with Agricultural Employers in Takings Case by Tiffany.Dowell Texas Agri-Life Texas Agriculture Blog
T
he United States Supreme Court has issued an opinion in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, a case involving a California law requiring agricultural employers to allow union organizers to enter the employer’s property. The employers claimed this was a taking of private property without just compensation, and the US Supreme Court agreed. [Read Opinion at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-107_ihdj.pdf ]
Background California law gives agricultural employees the right to self-organization and prohibits employers from interfering with that right. The California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (CALRB) passed a regulation that requires labor organizations to have the right to access an agricultural employer’s property to meet and talk with employees and to seek their support for unionization. Under this regulation, agricultural employers must allow union organizers access to their property for up to three hours per day, 120 days per year. In order to have access, a labor organization must file a written notice with the CALRB and provide a copy to the employer. Organizers may enter the property for up to one hour before work, one hour after work and one hour during the lunch break. An employer who interferes with this right of access may be guilty of an unfair labor practice, resulting in sanctions. Cedar Point Nursery grows strawberries in Northern California. It employs over 400 seasonal workers and 100 full time workers. The workers do not live on the property. In October 2015, members of the United Farm Workers (UFW) entered Cedar Point’s property at 5 a.m., disturbing operations and causing some workers to join a protest, and others to leave the worksite all together. Cedar Point filed suit against UFW for taking access without giving the required notice. UFW counterclaimed that Cedar point committed an unfair labor practice. Fowler Packing Company grows and
ships grapes and citrus fruits. It has 1,8002,500 employees in its field operations and 500 in its packing facility. None of the workers live on the premises. In July 2015, UFW attempted to take access to Fowler’s property, but the company blocked entrance. UFW filed an unfair labor practice charge against Fowler, which was later withdrawn.
Litigation Because Cedar Point and Fowler believed UFW would likely attempt to enter their property again, they filed suit against several members of the CALRB in their official capacity. The growers claimed that the access regulation was unconstitutional as it was a per se physical taking of their property without just compensation. They requested declaratory and injunctive relief preventing the CALRB from enforcing the regulation against them. The trial court denied the motion for injunction and granted the CALRB’s motion to dismiss. The court found the regulation did not constitute a per se physical taking because it did not allow the public permanent and continuous access to the property. Instead, the court believed, this claim would fall under the Penn Central balancing test
YAVAPAI BOTTLE GAS
analysis of a taking, which the growers had not pled or attempted to satisfy. The growers appealed, and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court looked at the three categories of regulatory takings law: (1) regulations imposing permanent physical invasions; (2) regulations depriving an owner of all economically beneficial use of the property; and (3) the remaining regulatory actions analyzed pursuant to Penn Central. The Ninth Circuit found the access regulation here did not fall within the first two per se takings categories, and agreed with the trial court it should be analyzed under the Penn Central test. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Leavy viewed the access regulation as a physical occupation, even though it was not allowed to occur 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. Thus, he would have ruled in favor of the growers. The Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, but Judge Ikuta, joined by seven other judges, issued a dissent. She reasoned that because the regulation essentially granted a traditional property right (an easement in gross) to the union members, it was a per se physical taking. The growers’ Petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was granted.
928-776-9007 Toll Free: 877-928-8885 2150 N. Concord Dr. #B Dewey, AZ 86327
Visit us at: www.yavapaigas.com dc@yavapaigas.com
YAVAPAI COUNTY’S OLDEST LOCALLY OWNED PROPANE COMPANY SAME OWNER SAME VALUES SINCE 1987 “START WITH THE BEST – STAY WITH THE BEST”
AUGUST 2021
45
