The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of California agriculture growers in a decision that prohibits some forms of union organizing on private worksites, raising questions about how the case will impact other union recruitment efforts.
The court’s 6-3 decision was delivered June 23 in Cedar Point Nursery et al. v. Hassid et al.
The property owners argued against a regulation specific to California that allowed unions regular access to agricultural worksites to find new members, Joshua Thompson, senior attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), who argued the case before the Supreme Court, told the Northern California Record.
“The court’s key finding is when the government authorizes an invasion or entrance onto private property, they have to pay for that invasion; it doesn’t have free rein to invade private property without repercussions,” Thompson said.
An NPR story reports the ruling has engendered debate as to how other union organizing activities will be affected. Thompson noted the case arose in the context of the California regulation, and the court’s decision sustains property right protections under the U.S. Constitution.
“When the government wants to authorize third parties to come onto private property, the Constitution requires that they pay compensation for that taking, and the Supreme Court’s decision is a landmark decision respecting the private property owner’s right to exclude and include visitors to his or her property as he or she sees fit,” Thompson said.
Among the cases the court cited was Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, which addressed the issue of per se takings requiring just compensation under the Constitution. “I think [that case] was the most helpful to the result that the Supreme Court reached,” Thompson said.
In the Cedar Point ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that, “we have stated that the right to exclude is ‘universally held to be a fundamental element of the property right.’”
A PLF news release said the case began in 2015 after union organizers with bullhorns arrived at Cedar Point – a strawberry farm in Siskiyou County – and sought to enroll members while disrupting the workday.
“The fact that you are taking up the physical space automatically requires compensation,” Thompson said. “When you have to allow these people on your property three hours a day, when you lose the right to exclude people, when invasions are authorized, it requires compensation per se.”
Concerns have been raised about how the decision could impact routine business inspections for cleanliness, fire code, or other safety standards.
“I think the Supreme Court opinion makes plain that those types of regulations are not affected by this decision,” Thompson said. “There is no avenue under this opinion for those types of regulations to be challenged.”
California’s rule was unique, said Thompson, adding that no other state has a similar one.
“In fact, I don't know of any other area of union work where unions are allowed access to private property,” Thompson said. “The auto worker union can’t enter into auto plants that aren’t unionized.”
Thompson added there is no right of unions that was taken away by the Supreme Court's decision.
“In fact, even if California Labor wants to have access to private property in the same way, they can still do it, they could do this exact same thing, they just have to pay the property owner for the easement. In this case, easement means the right of union organizers to go on to that property that they take,” Thompson said. “So there's no change in Labor law here, other than to say that when the government appropriates an interest in property that they have to pay the property owner for that that taking.”
Thompson noted California has some options to consider.
“It can repeal the regulation, or it can pass a new regulation that attempts to compensate the owner for the incursion,” Thompson said. “The ball is essentially in California’s court as to how it wants to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision.”
“I'm very grateful for our clients in this case – two farms in California that were willing to stand up for their constitutional rights,” Thompson said. “We’ve been in this battle for six years, and to have what we have been saying from the beginning vindicated is weight off their shoulders and just demonstrates their tenacity and their willingness to fight.”