In 1975, the California Legislature passed a law designed to end a century of exploitation of farm workers. The Agricultural Labor Relations Act raised hopes of finally letting farm workers determine their own destiny through free and fair elections.

But 31 years later that law is being subverted and its promise of free choice is being thwarted by some of this state’s largest agricultural corporations.

Between summer 2004 and summer 2005, five Central Valley farm workers died from the heat after working in temperatures exceeding 100 degrees. Two of them died in fields belonging to Giumarra Vineyards Corp., the largest table grape grower in the nation. Many others suffered from heat exhaustion and intolerable working conditions. Giumarra workers embarked on a grass roots campaign to organize.

Many Giumarra workers turned to the Delano offices of the United Farm Workers. With help from the UFW, workers filed a petition for a secret-ballot election on August 25, 2005.

To support the petition, 2,182 Giumarra workers out of 2,925 who were employed at the time signed cards authorizing the UFW to be their representative. That amounted to 74.5 percent of all workers then working for Giumarra.

The election was held on September 1, 2005. Exactly 2,530 votes were cast. Of these, there are 123 unresolved challenged ballots.

Despite overwhelming support demonstrated by 74.5 percent of the workers, the UFW lost the election by a narrow margin of 125 votes, ending up with 48 percent of the ballots cast.

One week prior to the election, 74.5 percent of Giumarra workers said they wanted to be represented by the UFW. Seven days later, the union received 48 percent of the vote. If any candidate in a political contest went from 74.5 percent to 48 percent in the last week before the election, it would raise serious questions among journalists and political observers.

What happened at Giumarra during that week prior to the election that caused more than 1,000 workers to change their minds about unionization? What did the Giumarras do to cause such a hemorrhaging of union support?

The Giumarras violated their workers’ most fundamental right guaranteed by the ALRA: the right to be free from employer threats and coercion when choosing whether or not to unionize.

The Giumarras used illegal threats against workers, interrogations and an illegal grant of a wage increase to cause workers to vote against the union. There were threats of workers losing their jobs, threats of company closure or bankruptcy, threats to change operations—causing widespread job losses and threats against undocumented workers, all if they voted for the UFW. These threats were made all the more real because many of them came from the company patriarch: President and owner Sal Giumarra.

_________________________________

The Giumarra’s massive operation covers about 55 miles across Kern and Tulare counties. In the 2005 harvest season, the company used 45 working crews, totaling 3,000 workers.

After the UFW filed its election petition, company President Sal Giumarra held captive audience meetings with many of the crews. From August 29 to August 31, he personally spoke with approximately 14 of the 45 crews that were gathered together by foremen. Company supervisors followed Sal Giumarra’s lead by making similar threats and engaging in other conduct that violated employee rights.

Let’s look at some examples. The information I am presenting and that you will hear from Giumarra workers today was contained in declarations submitted to the state or in personal testimony during administrative hearings, all sworn under penalty of perjury.

• On August 31, 2005, Sal Giumarra addressed 40 to 45 grape workers in foreperson Felicitas Rios’ Crew 24. Giuimarra asked those that were union supporters to raise their hands. Then he said there would be no more work for union supporters. He told the workers if the UFW won the election he was going to make juice or wine out of the grapes instead of table grapes. Turning table grapes into wine or juice means many workers would be without work because machines would be used in the harvest.

He also said if workers supported the UFW, he would bring in labor contractors and there would no longer be any work for the workers. Sal Giumarra told workers if the union won the election, the company could go bankrupt. Witnesses testified how some workers told Giumarra they were going to vote for the union. He responded, “There’s not going to be any work for you next year.”

• On August 31, Sal Giumarra spoke with about 73 of the workers at Crew 48 who were gathered together by the forelady, Merita Zepeda. Giumarra said the UFW had called for an election and “those who vote for the farm workers union will not have any work with us.”

• Also on August 31, Sal Giumarra visited foreman Manuel Navarro’s crew, number 59. Speaking with 45 to 50 workers, Giumarra told them if they voted for the union, they were not free to work there anymore. According to witnesses, Giumarra stated he had a lot of work for the workers and that if the workers wanted to continue working with him to vote against the UFW.

• One day before the election, Sal Giumarra visited the 70 workers from Crew 47, headed by foreman Eliseo Salazar. He said if workers voted for the UFW and Giumarra lost the election, the company would go bankrupt and there would be no work for anyone. Giumarra also asked the workers who paid them. This prompted workers to respond that Giumarra paid them, not the union.

• In the days prior to the September 1 election, foremen and supervisors distributed a double-sided flyer entitled “Happy Days/Gloomy Days”—usually just prior to Sal Giumarra’s captive audience speeches. This flyer communicated to workers the bold prediction that if they voted for the UFW it would cause a complete loss of jobs and the utter destruction of the employer’s fields.

• On August 22, the assistant foreman of Crew 47, Manuel Salazar, told workers if the UFW won the election, Giumarra would not pay workers any unemployment benefits.

• One day before the election, the foreman of Crew 6, Jaime Zepeda, gathered his 100 workers and told them that all who voted for the union would lose their jobs because he would become a labor contractor the following year. He also said if the workers voted for the UFW, those workers who did not have legal papers would not be able to work for Giumarra anymore.

• On August 23, union organizers entered the Giumarra fields at lunchtime to speak with workers under the ALRB’s access rule. Supervisor Inocencia Cardenas yelled out to the organizers “in case the union wins what guarantees will you give if the company discharges the coworkers that don’t have documents.” She spoke “forcefully” so all the workers in the crew could hear. After this threat, many of the workers in Cardenas’ crew stopped attending meetings during lunchtime access and began avoiding union organizers.

Federal reports show between 50 percent and two-thirds of U.S. farm workers are undocumented. Our experience in areas where we are active, including the Central Valley, is that it is 90 percent or more.
Illegally and immorally using immigration status to threaten immigrant workers who exercise their right to organize and freely vote can be a very effective tactic.

• In addition to the field workers who harvest the grapes, Giumarra employs about 200 workers who package harvested grapes in a packingshed. After the union organizing began, the company illegally gave the packing shed workers a pay raise in an attempt to thwart the UFW.

______________________________________

Within five days after the election, the UFW filed election objections challenging the validity of the election based on the Giumarras’ numerous violations of their workers rights. A two-week hearing was held in February and March 2006, in which union lawyers presented overwhelming evidence of illegal conduct by the Giumarra.

This month, a decision by the administrative judge hearing the election objections sustained four of the six objections on which the UFW presented evidence at a hearing. The judge was unwilling to recommend either the upholding or overturning of the election. In what the union believes to be an error, the judge only recommended further investigation by the farm labor board in Sacramento to determine if the closeness of the election was sufficient to merit the overturning of the election because of misconduct by the company.

We are optimistic that when the members of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board consider the case, they will throw out the 2005 election at Giumarra. It is unlikely there will be a decision from the ALRB until late this year or in early 2007.

Still, current law provides a most inadequate remedy. Even if the union prevails and the ALRB determines the employer illegally influenced the election in this case, the only possible remedy is to order a new election.
This remedy is inadequate because after waiting a year, the UFW can petition for a new election anyway. More importantly, the remedy does not address the damage already done to union support among the work force. The illegal statements by Sal Giumarra and others from management were made and workers will surely not forget them.

Even if a new election is held, the Giumarras and their foremen and supervisors can continue threatening workers prior to the balloting, with the only remedy being the ordering of a new election.

To summarize, within one week, the Giumarras were so successful in creating fear of losing jobs that more than 1,000 workers decided to no longer support the UFW. The result of the election in favor of a “No Union” choice was not the product of the free and un-coerced will of the workers but instead was the result of the employer’s unlawful acts.

Because the current remedy available to the union and the workers does nothing to address the damage caused by the employer’s illegal conduct, the law currently encourages growers like the Giumarras to freely violate their employee’s rights, with the only risk being another election.

________________________________

All members of this committee were elected to office in a free and democratic process. In America, voters choose their elected representatives free from coercion and intimidation.

So in closing, let me ask members of this committee what would happen if when voters in political elections went to the polls, candidates from one party or the other told voters they would lose their jobs if they vote for candidates from the other party?

What Giumarra did was much worse because the nation’s largest table grape producer has absolute control over the livelihood of its workers.

When elections in other countries degenerate into this kind of undemocratic behavior, America and other world democracies roundly condemn it.

What kind of a free and democratic system allows the Giumarras to behave like Third World dictators in the heart of California’s democratic society?

- end -