California unconstitutionally imposes mandatory arbitration for labor contracts in the agricultural sector

The general rule for labor arbitration between private employers and employees is that the state can force you to negotiate, but it can’t force you to accept any particular terms. In California, however, agricultural employers can be compelled, at the behest of a disgruntled union, to submit to a private mediator who in turn has the power to impose a collective bargaining “agreement” on the employer. The statute directs the mediator’s attention to a number of factors to consider in drafting the agreement, but does not provide a goal to be reached or a standard to guide the use and applications of the factors. This is the only such compulsory-bargaining law in the country.

A California court of appeal ruled last year that this system – the so-called Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation Process – is unconstitutional because it treats similarly situated employers differently, and because it delegates too much legislative power to private-party mediators. For example, the mediator has no backstop to the terms he may impose; his decision is not subject to de novo review; his assembling of the record is not subject to the Evidence Code; and his decisions take effect without any lengthy notice period. The California Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. PLF’s amicus brief addresses both constitutional issues, and makes the larger policy point that the Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation Process thwarts basic democratic principles of public deliberation and accountability.

The decision from the United States Supreme Court was unfavorable, in that the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was denied.