SACRAMENTO -- In a victory for unions, a state appeals court has upheld a 2002 state law that authorizes binding arbitration to settle long-stalled farm labor contract negotiations.

The 2-1 ruling by the 3rd District Court of Appeal turned down a broad challenge to the law by the Hess Collection Winery of Napa. Among other arguments, the winery contended that the statute violated the state and federal constitutions' equal protection clauses, interfered with contract rights, created economic protectionism and improperly delegated legislative authority.

"The Legislature regards agriculture to be the state's most vital industry," Justices Rick Sims and Arthur Scotland said in their majority opinion, issued Wednesday. "It can certainly act to protect that industry by promoting stability in agriculture employment."

The law, signed by former Gov. Gray Davis, allows either an employer or a union to obtain arbitration to settle negotiations that have dragged on for up to six months on an initial farm labor contract.

If the sides fail to reach agreement after 30 days of arbitration, the arbitrator drafts a contract to settle the dispute and submits it to the state Agricultural Labor Relations Board. The board can approve the contract, order modifications or impose one of its own.

The arbitration option was sought by unions, which said some growers adamantly refused to negotiate contracts under California's landmark 1975 farm labor collective bargaining law.

"What good is a law if it isn't honored?" asked Arturo Rodriguez, president of the United Farm Workers of America. "It is our hope that with this (court) decision, the agricultural lobby will cease its virulent resistance to farmworker organizing, and more growers will be encouraged to bargain in good faith."

Dave Kranz, a spokesman for the California Farm Bureau Federation, said the state's largest grower group was disappointed by the ruling and hoped that it would be overturned on appeal.

The winery's president, Tom Selfridge, said company officials hadn't decided yet whether to appeal.

"I haven't seen the decision, so it's tough for me to comment on the specifics," he said Thursday. "We're disappointed with it. We disagree with it, and we're weighing our options now."

The Hess Collection Winery challenged the law after an arbitrator dictated the terms of its contract with the United Food and Commercial Workers Union in 2003. The winery and the union hadn't been able to reach an agreement, despite approximately 23 bargaining sessions dating back to 1999.

Hess contended that the law unreasonably interfered with the right to negotiate contracts, denied adequate judicial review, amounted to protectionism, denied equal protection, was an improper delegation of legislative authority, and was vague and overly broad.

Sims and Scotland disagreed with each of those claims.

They said the reported refusal of some growers to negotiate in good faith with unions indicated that there were "peculiar problems with the collective bargaining process between agricultural employers and agricultural employees."

"Those peculiar problems provide a rational basis for the enactment of interest arbitration legislation applicable to agricultural employers and employees, but not to employees of other businesses or industries," they said in responding to Hess' equal protection arguments.

Justice George Nicholson dissented, saying that the law violated the equal protection clauses and was an improper delegation of legislative powers.

"The Legislature delegated its power to a private (arbitrator) without setting fundamental public policy standards to guide that person's legislative acts," he said, adding that the arbitrator's decisions could result in a contract that "either bankrupts the employer or imposes great hardship on the employees."

He said the law violated equal protection requirements because it would result in different contract demands on each employer.

"The discrimination is arbitrary because there are no standards set forth pursuant to which the mediator's decision in this case will be the same as a mediator's decision in any other case," he said.

Sims and Scotland responded that arbitrators had to consider the terms of similar farm labor contracts in making their decisions.

The case is The Hess Collection Winery v. California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, C045405.

On the Net:

www.courtsinfo.ca.gov