The 2024 Arizona Legislative Session

March 12th, 2024

As we approach the midway point of the 2024 Arizona Legislative session, numerous key policy debates are occurring. The session started with a renewed focus on addressing issues that impact the state and its residents. From education and healthcare to economic development and environmental concerns, Arizona’s legislators have had a challenging session.

Water: As was expected, Legislators are working to address several crucial policy issues related to water management in the state. With Arizona facing ongoing challenges of water scarcity and drought, policymakers will likely focus on implementing sustainable strategies to ensure the long-term availability of this vital resource. Policy discussions have included the allocation of water rights, conservation measures and the development of innovative technologies for water treatment and reuse. As I write this (mid-February), a counter proposal to the Governor’s Water Council recommendation has been heard in committee. The outcome of this bill is far from certain, as stakeholders and experts anticipate a robust debate on these matters as Arizona seeks to secure its water future.

Education: Education is a top priority during the 2024 legislative session. Lawmakers will likely continue to focus on improving funding for public schools, expanding access to quality early childhood education and addressing the teacher shortage issue. Additionally, discussions around school choice, charter schools and educational equity have taken center stage.

Healthcare: Access to affordable and quality healthcare remains a pressing concern for many Arizonans. The session is likely to address healthcare policy issues such as expanding Medicaid coverage, improving mental health services and finding innovative solutions to reduce healthcare costs. The various long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic may also influence discussions on public health infrastructure and emergency preparedness.

Economic Development: Arizona’s economic growth and development will be a key area of focus during the 2024 legislative session. Lawmakers will likely explore ways to attract new businesses, promote entrepreneurship and support existing industries. Discussions on tax incentives, workforce development and infrastructure investments are expected to shape the economic agenda.

Criminal Justice Reform: After gaining significant attention in recent years, lawmakers may focus on issues such as reducing recidivism rates, addressing sentencing disparities and improving rehabilitation programs. Discussions on police accountability and community policing strategies may also take place.

Immigration: Given Arizona’s proximity to the U.S.-Mexico border, immigration policy is likely to be a prominent topic during the legislative session. Lawmakers may engage in discussions on border security, immigration enforcement and pathways to citizenship. Striking a balance between national security and compassionate immigration policies will be a complex challenge.

The 2024 Arizona Legislative Session holds great significance for the state and its residents. With a wide range of policy issues on the agenda, lawmakers will have the opportunity to shape the future of education, healthcare, economic development, the environment, criminal justice and immigration. It is crucial for legislators to engage in thoughtful and inclusive discussions, considering the diverse needs and perspectives of Arizona’s population. By addressing these policy issues effectively, the state can strive toward a brighter and more prosperous future for all its residents. Know that Western Growers will be watching and engaging, ensuring the Specialty Crop industry will thrive for years to come.

Carrying the Dispute Resolution Corporation Torch

March 6th, 2024

The implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994 revolutionized the North American fresh produce industry, creating a unified marketplace and opening significant cross-border trade and investment opportunities. Despite its advertised benefits, however, this transformation also amplified the potential for disputes, contract breaches and related issues that invariably arise in fresh produce transactions.

While the U.S. already had a dispute resolution systemin place under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), Canada’s regulatory framework proved ineffective in resolving most disputes, and Mexico lacked an international dispute settlement mechanism entirely. Consequently, U.S. and Canadian produce companies often resorted to costly court proceedings.

Recognizing this gap in member protection, WG played a pivotal role in creating the Dispute Resolution Corporation (DRC) in February 2000, providing a non-profit membership-based dispute resolution body to support the North American fruit and vegetable industry. The DRC offers its members harmonized standards, procedures and services that help them avoid (and mediate, if necessary) disputes.

Crucial to the establishment and early successes of this tri-national dispute resolution system was long-time WG legend Matt McInerney, who guided the DRC as chair its first17 years. (In another notable, related accomplishment, McInerney was also instrumental in securing passage of the PACA Trust amendment in 1984, granting domestic produce suppliers first-priority creditor status in buyer bankruptcies.) After an illustrious 43-year career serving the fresh produce industry, McInerney retired in his role as Executive Senior Vice President in March 2019.

As a third-generation agriculturalist and McInerney protégé, I hope to continue his legacy in my position as Commodity & Supply Chain Services Director. Over the last decade, I have supported the WG membership in various capacities and now serve as the association’s expert in PACA and dispute resolution matters.

After a several-year WG absence following McInerney’s retirement, I was honored to have the WG torch passed to me in December 2023 when my nomination to serve on the DRC board was approved by its current directors. Once again, WG will be at the table in setting the policies and trading standards of the DRC, which is governed by a board of 14 directors representing Canada, the U.S., Mexico and Chile.

In particular, I am committed to monitoring Canadian issues impacting the domestic fresh produce industry and upholding the legacy of collaboration in addressing the North American trade challenges faced by our members.

One immediate area of focus is the Canadian legislative bill C-280, the Financial Protection for Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Farmers Act, which was passed in the House of Commons with all-party support on October25, 2023. If passed by the Canadian Senate, Bill C-280 would establish a trust mechanism for fresh produce growers and sellers in Canada, similar to the PACA Trust for U.S. producers, to ensure payment in the event of buyer bankruptcy.

The establishment of a PACA-inspired system in Canada has been a longstanding objective for the DRC, WG, and the wider North American fresh fruit and vegetable sector. The progress of this Canadian bill underscores the ongoing significance of the DRC in safeguarding WG members and highlights the pivotal role our association can fulfill in ensuring its sustained efficacy.

Thanks to his mentorship and the early influence he had on my career at WG, I am confident that my approach will closely mirror the legacy of the McInerney tradition.

To Be Disfavored by Sacramento

March 1st, 2024

Sometimes we might feel that we are alone in California. The state legislature and regulatory agencies – spurred on by myriad special interests on the left, ranging from labor unions to environmental activists and others – moves from one new mandate on agriculture to another without pause and lacking any interest in the economic consequences to come.

But we are not alone, as the Wall Street Journal noted in a recent editorial that spotlighted Chevron’s decision to write down many of its California assets due to “continuing regulatory challenges.” It isn’t a small thing, given the economic output of Chevron and its competitors in California’s energy – rich regions, particularly Kern County.

In a comment letter to the California Energy Commission, one of the agencies with regulatory authority over energy production in the state, Andy Walz, President of Chevron’s Products Division, itemized the many state policies that have been layered on top of the state’s energy producers, drawing a conclusion that should be obvious to anyone who passed Economics 101:

California’s policies have made Chevron’s investments in its home state riskier than investing in other states, with projects being lower in quality and higher in cost. Chevron alone has reduced spending in California by hundreds of millions of dollars since 2022–California’s policies have made it a difficult place to invest so we have rejected capital projects in the state. Such capital flight reflects the state’s inadequate returns and adversarial business climate.

Walz goes on to note that Chevron has rejected and canceled capital projects – job – creating investments – due to “permitting challenges” and emphasizes that while the state’s policymakers may be attempting to drive petroleum production out of the state, its hostile policies will force companies like Chevron to reduce investment across their California portfolio, renewable energy included. That can’t be what Sacramento really wants, but that’s what happens when public policy is disconnected from economic reality.

Why would California legislators and regulators consign many thousands of their fellow Californians who work in energy – related industries to a bleak future of job cuts, regional economic stress and community disruption? Again feeling it necessary to memorialize the obvious, Walz writes that California’s “arbitrary attacks on a disfavored industry…signal to every industry, entrepreneur, manufacturer, and employer that California is closed for business.”

What struck me as I read all of this was the fact that without too much creative editing, one could easily swap out the words “Chevron” and “energy” and insert “farming” and “agriculture.” The result would be an accurate reflection of the truth of the indictment of California’s hostile policies “on a disfavored industry,” as Walz put it.

As with the energy industry, California presents natural advantages that attracted investment from the earliest days of our state’s history. That might lead policymakers in Sacramento to believe that because the land can’t move and the state’s Mediterranean climate exists nowhere else in the U.S., farming won’t leave. But the capital it takes to operate in California can be deployed elsewhere, and we’ve been seeing that increasingly in recent years.

With advancing plant breeding technologies, what is grown fresh in California can often be grown fresh in other states and countries and delivered to consumers with little or no difference in appearance, freshness and quality. And other places in the world present a very attractive offer: Ample water, labor and land along with national and regional governments that welcome agriculture investments and the jobs they create.

It is probably a safe bet that agriculture will continue to be a substantial contributor to California’s economy for now and perhaps for many years to come. The question is whether that contribution will increase or decrease, and if a decrease, what that means to real people in places like the Central Valley, the central coast and the desert regions.

We are left to posit two questions to California’s public policymakers: Is agriculture “disfavored” as a matter of public policy, and if so, why on earth would any government do that, and, do you understand the consequences you are forcing onto millions of Californians who are directly and indirectly intertwined with agriculture?

It’s not too late to turn this around. All it takes are elected leaders with the courage to reset their party’s relationship with the Californians who produce healthy foods for the world.

California’s Ag Overtime Law: Good Intentions, Unintended Consequences

March 4th, 2024

The enactment of AB 1066 in 2019, expanding overtime pay for agricultural workers in California, was celebrated as a progressive step toward equity in the labor market. However, the nuances and complexities of agricultural economics have rendered the law’s impact less straightforward and, in many cases, counterproductive.

In her article, California’s Overtime Law for Agricultural Workers: What Happened to Worker Hours and Pay? Dr. Alexandra E. Hill, assistant professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at U.C. Berkely, has provided empirical evidence supporting what many in the agricultural community anticipated: a reduction in weekly working hours and earnings for crop workers. This outcome underscores a fundamental misalignment between the legislation’s intentions and the realities of agricultural operations.

Western Growers, alongside myriad voices within the agricultural community, sounded the clarion call, warning of the repercussions that such legislation might engender. We explained that agriculture, unlike many other industries, is inherently tied to the rhythms of nature and the seasons. Factors such as weather variability, pest pressures and the perishable nature of crops dictate work schedules that are often incompatible with standard overtime regulations. Additionally, the labor-intensive nature of many agricultural tasks during peak seasons means that working hours can be long and unpredictable, necessitating a flexibility that AB 1066 does not afford.

The increased labor costs resulting from the law have prompted many producers, particularly small family farmers, to seek alternatives. This has led to a surge in mechanization and reliance on the H-2A visa program for temporary agricultural workers. While these strategies may address labor costs, they also introduce new challenges, including capital investment requirements for mechanization and building or otherwise providing free housing for H-2A employees.

Moreover, the broader economic context cannot be ignored. California’s agricultural sector is not only competing domestically but also on a global scale, where producers often face lower wage and regulatory burdens. This global competition puts additional pressure on California farmers to maintain cost competitiveness, further exacerbating the challenges posed by AB 1066. As a result, many farmers are either moving their operations to other states and countries, or shutting down their operations, rather than saddling the next generation with an unsustainable burden of high labor costs and regulatory constraints that undermine the farm’s economic viability and the traditional family farming way of life.

The implementation of AB 1066 has had profound effects on farmworkers, impacting not just their work life but also their personal and family well-being. The reduction in hours and earnings means more than just smaller paychecks; it translates into real hardships for individuals and families reliant on these wages. Workers face increased financial stress, struggling to cover basic living expenses such as housing, food, fuel and health care.

A July 2023 NPR piece says it all: “These farmworkers thought a new overtime law would help them. Now they want it gone.” That piece tells how reduced hours caused by new overtime laws has cut take-home pay and forced farmworkers to work two jobs instead of one, resulting in new economic pressure and a reduced quality of life.

The ripple effects extend into local communities, where decreased spending by agricultural workers results in less business for local shops and services, further straining rural economies. This cycle of economic contraction exacerbates the vulnerabilities of already struggling communities, underscoring the need for legislation that truly reflects the realities of agricultural labor and supports the well-being of workers and their families.

What, then, is the path forward? The findings from Dr. Hill’s study and the lived experiences of California’s agricultural community point to the need for a more tailored approach to labor legislation in the sector. This approach should account for the unique demands of agricultural production, offering flexibility to accommodate peak seasons while not incentivizing the reduction of hours offered.

Other states have adopted varied strategies to address the implications of overtime laws for farmworkers. For example, New York offers a tax credit to offset the additional costs farmers incur from overtime premiums, as part of a gradual rollout of its overtime legislation over several years. Colorado, on the other hand, has set a higher overtime threshold for small farms and seasonal work, allowing for a more flexible application of overtime pay rules to accommodate the specific needs of the agricultural sector. These approaches reflect an attempt to balance the protection of farmworkers with the operational realities of farming, providing potential models for refining California’s approach to agricultural labor laws.

While AB 1066 was rooted in a well-intentioned desire to improve conditions for agricultural workers, its real-world implementation has resulted in precisely the opposite effect. It has painted in stark relief the complexity of applying one-size-fits-all solutions to the agricultural sector. Moving forward requires nuanced, collaborative efforts that not only respect the unique characteristics of agricultural work and strive for fairness for agricultural employees, but also recognize the vital role of California’s specialty crop industry in feeding the nation and “…the economic realities of producing food in a state that leads the nation in agricultural innovation but faces unparalleled regulatory and cost pressures.”

A Lesson from the California Supreme Court on Compensable Time

March 28th, 2024

A recent California Supreme Court ruling clarifies California’s Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order (WO) requirements entitling employees to at least minimum wage compensation for all “hours worked.”

In the case Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors , the Court focused on three specific questions centered on the applicability of the term ‘hours worked’ as found in WO #16.  Although WO #16 does not govern agriculture, the term ‘hours worked’ is similarly defined in all wage orders regardless of industry. The Court’s findings are therefore worth taking note of as they can be applied to similar situations across a wide array of industries/occupations, including agriculture.

Questions Addressed by the Court and its Findings:

1. Compensability of Time Spent Undergoing Employer-Mandated Exit Procedure:

  • The first question addressed by the Court was whether employee time spent on the employer’s premises awaiting/undergoing employer-mandated exit procedures is compensable as “hours worked.”
  • The Court found that employees awaiting/undergoing such procedures (e.g., time spent waiting to scan identification badges, performing vehicle inspections and then exiting a security gate) are entitled to compensation for “hours worked” as that term is defined under the applicable WO.
  • With limited exception, across all WO’s, ‘hours worked’ is defined as “the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so.”

2. Compensability of Travel Time:

  • The second question before the Court concerned ‘employer-mandated travel’ under WO #16 as well as ‘hours worked.’ The question was whether time spent on the employer’s premises in a personal vehicle, driving between a Security Gate and the employee parking lots, while subject to certain rules from the employer, is compensable as ‘hours worked’ or as ‘employer-mandated travel’?
  • The Court found that travel time between the Security Gate and employee parking lots is compensable as “employer-mandated travel” under section 5(A) of Wage Order No. 16 under certain circumstances (e.g., if the Security Gate is the first location where the employee’s presence is required for an employment-related reason). However, ordinary workplace rules (such as those under WO #14) imposed during travel do not render this time as “hours worked.”

3. Compensability of Unpaid Meal Periods:

  • The third and final question was whether time spent on the employer’s premises, when workers are prohibited from leaving but not required to engage in employer-mandated activities, is compensable as ‘hours worked’ within the meaning of the WO or under California Labor Code Section 1194, when that time was designated as an unpaid ‘meal period’ under a qualifying collective bargaining agreement?”
  • According to the Court, even if covered by a collective bargaining agreement providing for unpaid meal periods, time is compensable if the employer prohibits the employee from leaving the premises or designated area during the meal period, thereby preventing the employee from engaging in personal activities.

What Does It All Mean?

No matter the WO at issue, the Court’s ruling emphasizes the need to ensure that employees are accurately compensated for all hours worked, including time spent undergoing exit procedures and traveling between multiple sites on the employer’s premises. To accomplish this goal, agricultural employers should familiarize themselves with WO #14 covering agricultural occupations (or WO’s #8 [Industries Handling Products After Harvest] and #13 [Industries Preparing Agricultural Products for Market, on the Farm]); their definitions, rules governing hours and days of work, minimum wage requirements, reporting time pay, meal and lodging rules, and meal/rest period mandates.

Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Regulation Limbo – What Now?

March 28th, 2024

As discussed here, on March 22, 2024, the Cal/OSHA Standards Board took an unexpected step by unanimously approving an indoor heat illness prevention regulation. The approval has left California employers in a precarious state of limbo. What happens next?

Over the next 30 working days, the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) must review the rulemaking record to ensure agency requirements to pass the rule were satisfied. Depending on the outcome of this review it will either approve the rule for filing with the Secretary of State or reject it and send it back to be re-introduced for a revote.

What Does it All Mean?

Despite a likely circuitous route to finalization, preparation is the best course of action.  The best place to begin is to become familiar with the proposed rule. A few key points are outlined below.

For employers with indoor work areas where the temperature equals or exceed 82 degrees Fahrenheit when employees are present, the proposed rule would add the following requirements:

  • Cool-Down Areas: The term “cool-down area” in the regulation is used in lieu of the term “shade” to clarify that a cool-down area can be indoors or outdoors. This area must be maintained at a temperature below 82 degrees, blocked from direct sunlight, and shielded from other high radiant heat sources. In addition, employers will be required to allow and encourage employees to take preventative cool-down rests when they feel the need to do so to protect themselves from overheating.
  • Provision of Water: This requirement to provide water in indoor cool-down areas is to harmonize with existing drinking water requirements for outdoor hear illness protection and to ensure quick access to drinking water as a means of controlling heat illness. Specific water quantities are provided to ensure quantities sufficient to maximize the effectiveness of drinking water as a measure to prevent heat illness.
  • Training: This provision requires that supervisory and nonsupervisory employees be provided certain information before beginning work, including:
    • The role environmental and personal risk factors play in exacerbating the risk of heat illness;
    • A description of the employer’s procedures and employees’ rights;
    • An explanation of the importance of drinking small quantities of water frequently;
    • The importance of acclimatization and close observation;
    • The signs and symptoms of heat illness along with the appropriate first aid and the importance of immediately reporting signs and symptoms;
    • The employer’s procedures for responding to possible heat illness and for contacting emergency services; and
    • The employer’s procedures for ensuring that clear and precise directions are provided to emergency responders.
  • Emergency Response Procedures: Emergency response procedures must include maintaining effective communication; responding to signs and symptoms of possible heat illness; contacting emergency medical services; and ensuring that clear and precise directions to the work site are provided to emergency responders.
  • Observation During Acclimatization: Requires close observation of all employees where no effective engineering controls are in use to control the effect of outdoor heat on indoor temperature during a heat wave. The regulation identifies the trigger temperature or heat index that requires close observation of an employee who has been newly assigned to a work area, or work involving the use of clothing that restricts heat removal, or a high radiant heat area.
  • Heat Illness Prevention Plan (HIPP): Employers must establish, implement, and maintain an effective HIPP that is available in both English and the language understood by the majority of the employees and be available at the worksite to employees and to representatives of Cal/OSHA upon request. At a minimum, the HIPP must include:
    • Procedures for the provision of water and access to cool-down areas;
    • The assessment and control measures of work areas;
    • Emergency response procedures; and
    • Close observation during acclimatization.

Lawsuit Challenges USCIS Fee Hikes

March 28th, 2024

A recent legal challenge has been mounted against the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) over its decision to significantly hike immigration filing fees, a move that could impose considerable financial burdens on H-2A employers. The new rule, set to take effect on April 1, 2024, introduces a 15% increase for unnamed H-2A workers, raising the filing fee from $460 to $530 per petition. More strikingly, the fee for named H-2A workers will see a 137% surge, jumping from $460 to an unprecedented $1,090 per petition, with a limit of 25 named workers for each H-2A petition. Smaller entities, including businesses with 25 or fewer employees and nonprofit organizations, face a more modest increase; the fee for unnamed H-2A workers remains at $460, while named H-2A worker petitions will incur an 18% fee increase to $545 per petition. Additionally, a new $600 Asylum Program Fee will be levied on certain employment-based immigration petitions, including H-2 petitions.

The lawsuit, spearheaded by several industry groups, aims to halt the implementation of the new fees, arguing that they were established without proper rulemaking procedures and impose unjust financial burdens on specific petitioner categories.

As of this writing, the fee increases are scheduled to go into effect on April 1. As the legal proceedings unfold, a ruling is expected that could delay or modify the impending fee increases.

Western Growers Science: Exploring Data Science Basics & Leveraging Your Data

March 25th, 2024

Join our webinar, where we will dive into key concepts and practical strategies on how to leverage your data. This webinar will unpack data science fundamentals, clarifying common terms and providing industry insights on how to best leverage data for food safety.

Details
Tuesday, April 9, 2024
10:00am – 11:00am
Virtual Webinar

Register Here

Western Growers Legal: Playing by the Non-Compete Rules Webinar

March 27th, 2024

Join us for the second in a series of webinars brought to you by Agribusiness Committee of the California Lawyers Association, Business Law Section.  This installment focuses on what members can and cannot do with non-compete agreements.

Our speakers, June Monroe from Fennemore LLP and Christopher Passerelli from Dickenson Peatman & Fogarty, explore the nuances of these contracts and provide actionable advice and strategies to safeguard your company’s interests while respecting legal boundaries.

You will enhance your understanding of non-compete agreements, enabling you to navigate them confidently and ethically within the agribusiness landscape.

Details
Wednesday, April 17, 2024
11:00am – 12:00pm
Virtual Webinar

Register Here

MCLE credit provided by Fennemore LLP.   This activity has been approved for MCLE credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of one (1) hour.  Fennemore LLP is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider and certifies that this activity conforms to the standards for approved education activities prescribed by the rules and regulations of the State Bar of California governing MCLE.

Pinnacle Kicks Off Broker Success Summit Series in Fresno

March 27th, 2024

More than two dozen brokers gathered at Pinnacle Claims Management’s Broker Success Summit in Fresno this week. The event, held at the Table Mountain Casino Resort, was designed to connect and empower brokers with tools and strategies to grow their business and learn more about the benefits of partnering with Pinnacle.

Presenters included Kyle Gerdts, VP of Sales and Account Management for Pinnacle; Don Anderson, VP, Pharmacy Benefit Management & Clinical Services for PinnacleRx Solutions; Martin Lutzeier, Regional Vice President, Anthem Blue Cross; and Kelly Liebman, Senior Vice President of Sales, Rightway Healthcare.

Following the presentations, attendees were invited to engage and interact with several kiosks and displays that showcased a Rightway Healthcare prototype, a Price is Right Edition for Pinnacle’s Mexico Cross-Border program, analytics reporting dashboard Springbuk and a PinnacleRx Solutions Savings Calculator. Brokers also had the opportunity to preview Pinnacle’s latest Self-Funding Design Lab, giving them the ability to craft tailored solutions to optimize plans, visualize cost-savings and maximize value for their clients.

Pinnacle will be holding additional broker events in Arizona and Southern and Northern California in the coming months.

For more details on future events, please contact Kyle Gerdts at [email protected].

Western Growers Science: The Next Frontier of Environmental Monitoring: Tracking & Tools Webinar

March 25th, 2024
Is your Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP) doing enough? New advancements in tools for EMPs suggest re-visiting what “good” looks like.

Testing one’s production environment for microorganisms like Listeria and Salmonella has become commonplace; however, is your program returning on your investment? How do you know, and what new tools are at your disposal to make sure your testing efforts are optimized for learning and controlling risks?

With new advancements in Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) and outbreak identification, there are BIG implications when EMPs are not optimized to “find” everything that might be in a facility, production area, or harvest equipment. Join Oxford Nanopore and Eurofins Microbiology as we learn more about new diagnostic approaches available to the industry and hear about ways to ensure your EMP delivers the protection and insight you want and need.

Details
Thursday, April 18, 2024
10:00am – 11:00am
Virtual Webinar

Register Here

California Ag Coalition Lodges Objections Regarding New H-2A Notice

March 21st, 2024

The California agricultural community, represented by Western Growers and a coalition of labor law attorneys and agricultural associations, has formally expressed their concerns regarding the Department of Industrial Relations’ (DIR) new Supplemental Notice related to the H-2A visa program. The letter submitted by the coalition focuses on several pivotal issues that could significantly impact both employers and H-2A workers in the agricultural sector. Below is a summary of the principal concerns raised by the coalition.

Compensable Travel Time: The coalition is concerned about the interpretation and enforcement of compensable travel time under the new notice. The language in the Supplemental Notice about what constitutes compensable travel time is inconsistent with state law and could lead to confusion and potential legal disputes.

Meal Periods: The provision of meal periods as outlined in the Supplemental Notice misstates the law on the requirements for providing meals.

Paid Sick Leave: The requirements for paid sick leave as described under the new notice are potentially more onerous than required and exceed state mandates.

Provision of Meals: The specifications for the provision of meals to H-2A workers, as detailed in the Supplemental Notice, are another point of contention. The coalition is concerned that the requirements as stated in the notice potentially conflict with the U.S. Department of Labor’s interpretation of the H-2A regulations.

Housing Rights: The coalition also raised significant concerns regarding the housing rights of H-2A workers as outlined in the new notice. The Supplemental Notice states that H-2A employees are “tenants” utilizing H-2A housing, which is contradicted by state law.

Listing of NGOs: The Supplemental Notice inappropriately lists several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as resources, including UFW, CRLA, and other organizations that are adversarial to agricultural employers, and is not an element required by AB 636, the law that was enacted to require the notice.

In addition to the letter, the Coalition submitted proposed revisions to the template notice that incorporates the changes requested in the letter.

We extend our gratitude to Rebecca Hause-Shultz from Fisher Philips, Carl Borden of the California Farm Bureau, Carmen Ponce with Tanimura & Antle, Jeanne Malitz from MalitzLaw, Jason Resnick of Western Growers, and Rob Roy, Ventura County Ag Association, for their invaluable contributions and collaborative efforts in addressing this critical issue, and many others who supported this effort.

To date, no response has been received from the DIR. Pursuant to AB 636 which amended Labor Code section 2810.5, commencing March 15, 2024, an employer of an H-2A employee admitted “shall comply … by giving workers a copy of the template developed by the Labor Commissioner…” (emphasis added). As of now, it is recommended that H-2A employers provide the current Supplemental Notice unless and until it is amended.

Best Practices: OSHA Complaints/Inspections

March 21st, 2024

Representatives of the U.S Occupational, Safety and Health Association (OSHA) as well as Cal/OSHA and Arizona’s ADOSH are authorized to inspect the workplace whenever they have reason to believe an employee may be in danger due to employment hazards.  Complaints of workplace hazards can manifest in several ways, but employee complaints are the most common. Below are a few key points when it comes to understanding employee-initiated OSHA complaints and how to handle inspection visits.

Employee Initiated Complaints

Employees have the right to submit complaints if they encounter safety or health hazards in the workplace. These complaints often involve ongoing issues that affect employee well-being. Common safety and health hazards include:

  • Unsafe Working Conditions: Employees can report hazardous conditions such as faulty equipment, inadequate safety measures, or lack of proper training.
  • Health Risks: Complaints related to exposure to harmful substances, poor ventilation, or inadequate personal protective equipment fall under this category.
  • Physical Hazards: These include risks like slippery floors, electrical hazards, or unsafe machinery.
  • Ergonomic Concerns: Employees can complain about uncomfortable workstations, repetitive strain injuries, or improper lifting techniques.

Employees who believe they have faced retaliation from their employer for raising safety or health concerns can also file complaints with OSHA. Retaliation may take various forms, such as:

  • Adverse Employment Action: If an employer takes adverse actions (such as termination, demotion, or reduced hours) against an employee for reporting hazards, it constitutes retaliation.
  • Intimidation: Threats, harassment, or creating a hostile work environment due to safety complaints are unacceptable.
  • Reduced Benefits or Pay: Retaliatory measures may include reducing benefits, pay, or denying promotions.

Handling Inspection Visits

OSHA inspectors often visit workplaces unannounced, typically during regular hours. Employers are advised to establish inspection procedures due to the unpredictable nature of these types of visits. Here are a few key steps to effectively interact with inspection officers:

  1. Upon arrival, instruct all employees to direct the inspector to a designated representative.
  2. Inform the inspector to wait for the company’s designated representative, typically the safety coordinator or plant manager. All managers should be notified of the inspector’s presence.
  3. If the designated representative is unavailable within 30 to 60 minutes, inform the inspector. Respectfully suggest rescheduling the inspection.
  4. If the representative is available, allow the inspector to conduct the opening conference. An employee representative may also attend.
  5. During the opening conference, ask the reason for the inspection and attempt to limit its scope.
  6. The inspector will initiate the investigation after the opening conference.
  7. The designated representative should accompany the inspector throughout the inspection, except when the inspector wishes to speak to employees privately.
  8. Employees should always answer inspection-related questions courteously and directly.
  9. The inspector may take samples and photographs; with trade secrets subject to confidentiality provisions.
  10. Keep a record of the inspection’s scope, interactions, and observations.
  11. Request a closing conference after the inspection. Multiple company representatives should attend.
  12. Prepare a report of the inspection marked “For Legal Review” and send it only to legal counsel for attorney-client privilege. Keep copies confidential.

What Does It All Mean?

Employers should strive to take employee complaints seriously and address safety and health concerns promptly. At every opportunity encourage open communication, provide proper training, and create a safe work environment to prevent hazards and potential retaliation.

Remember, a proactive approach to safety benefits both employees and the organization.

“Uncharted Territory”: The Controversial Passage of Cal/OSHA’s Indoor Heat Standard

March 21st, 2024

In a surprising turn of events, the Cal/OSHA Standards Board took an unexpected step by unanimously approving an indoor heat illness prevention regulation, despite being advised to delay the vote. This decision thrust the Board into what Autumn Gonzalez, the Board Chief Counsel, described as “uncharted territory.” The backstory to this circus of a hearing is as intriguing as the decision itself.

The controversy began when the California Department of Finance (CDF) withdrew its endorsement of certain sections of the Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment, which is essential for the enactment of any new regulation. The withdrawal specifically targeted sections evaluating the financial impact on public institutions and, by extension, the taxpayers.

This development set the stage for a dramatic series of events at a meeting in San Diego, where labor advocates and activists were anticipating the ratification of the regulation they had long championed. Their response to the unexpected setback was swift and disruptive. Protesters vocally and noisily expressed their disapproval, bringing the meeting to a standstill until law enforcement intervened. Then an exasperated Board Chair, David Thomas, gaveled out and called the meeting “adjourned.” Later, after a number of citizens had departed the venue, the Board reconvened.

The Board decided to proceed with the vote over CDF’s objections. That decision plus the vote having taken place after the Chair struck the gavel to adjourn the meeting has raised significant questions about its legality. The future of the regulation remains uncertain. An emergency meeting of the Board might also be on the cards to finalize the standard before the current rulemaking period concludes in April. If not resolved by then, Cal/OSHA would be forced to return to square one on a regulation that has been in development since 2012, with the possibility that the fiscal analysis resubmission could extend beyond the April deadline.

Despite the regulatory hurdles and contentious atmosphere, the indoor heat illness prevention standard was passed. However, questions linger about its effect and the implications of the Board’s unconventional decision.

Bari Weiss to Keynote PAC Luncheon at Western Growers 2024 Annual Meeting

March 19th, 2024

Award-winning journalist and author Bari Weiss will be the PAC Luncheon speaker during the Western Growers 2024 Annual Meeting, which is set for Nov. 3-6 at the JW Marriott Scottsdale Camelback Inn Resort and Spa in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Bari is the founder and editor of The Free Press and host of the podcast Honestly. She is an ardent believer that the free exchange of ideas is central to a democratic society, which ultimately led to her resignation as opinion writer and editor at The New York Times in 2020. Before that, she was an op-ed and book review editor at The Wall Street Journal and a senior editor at Tablet Magazine.

Bari has won several awards, including the LA Press Club’s 2021 Daniel Pearl Award for Courage and Integrity in Journalism, the Per Ahlmark award in recognition of her moral courage and Reason Foundation’s 2018 Bastiat Prize, which honors writing that “best demonstrates the importance of freedom with originality, wit, and eloquence.” In 2019, Vanity Fair called Bari the Times’s “star opinion writer.”

Bari is a proud Pittsburgh native. Her first book, “How to Fight Anti-Semitism,” was the winner of a 2019 National Jewish Book Award.

A premier gathering for agricultural industry leaders, the Western Growers Annual Meeting promises unparalleled networking opportunities, distinguished speakers and world-class entertainment.

Visit the Annual Meeting website at wgannualmeeting.com, where we’ll be adding frequent updates, including registration information, keynote speakers, sponsorship opportunities and more.

Registration opens in May.

Farmworker Unionization Faces Legal Challenge Amidst Allegations of UFW Deception

March 19th, 2024

A dispute has erupted between the United Farm Workers (UFW) and Wonderful Nurseries LLC in Wasco over the unionization of over 600 employees. The Agricultural Labor Relations Board’s (ALRB) Regional Director’s decision to certify the UFW’s majority support petition (card check) has been challenged by Wonderful, alleging that workers were misled into signing union support cards under the impression they were applying for federal benefits.

One hundred forty-eight workers, or over one-third of the workers whose names appeared on “authorization cards,” submitted sworn statements to the ALRB claiming that the UFW misled them about the purpose of the cards they signed. Most of these employees said they believed they were applying for a $600 COVID-19 relief payment for agricultural workers, funded by a USDA grant program, not expressing a desire to join the union. Furthermore, these workers explicitly stated they had no intention of voting for the UFW, accusing the union of deceitfully acquiring their signatures under the guise of facilitating access to the relief funds.

Despite objections from Wonderful and sworn statements from employees wishing to withdraw their purported support for the union, the Regional Director confirmed the UFW’s representation. This decision has sparked considerable debate over the fairness of the card check procedure authorized by Gov. Gavin Newsom in late 2022 and amended shortly thereafter by AB 113. The law enables the UFW to circumvent traditional secret ballot elections, raising concerns about the integrity of the unionization process. The ensuing legal conflict and claims of deceit highlight the validity of earlier worries regarding the protection of workers’ rights and the equitable enforcement of the card check framework.

Previous versions of similar legislation were vetoed by Governor Newsom in 2021, and before him by former Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2009 and Jerry Brown in 2011, due to concerns about undermining secret ballot elections. In his 2021 veto message for AB 616, authored by Assemblyman Mark Stone, Governor Newsom pointed out “various inconsistencies and procedural issues related to the collection and review of ballot cards.” These concerns have manifested in the initial certifications under AB 113, demonstrating the practical implications of the issues Newsom and the former governors highlighted.

Voices of the Valley Available to Stream on YouTube and Spotify

March 13th, 2024

Exciting news for fans of Voices of the Valley! The podcast is back with a fresh new look and is now available for streaming on both Spotify and YouTube.

In this season’s debut episode, “2024 Look Ahead: Agriculture’s Biggest Challenges,” Center of Innovation and Technology Director Dennis Donohue and Environment and Climate Director Jeana Cadby lead a compelling discussion on the industry’s most pressing issues. From addressing challenges in innovation to navigating the complexities of environmental sustainability, this episode provides invaluable insights into the strategies that are driving progress in the agriculture industry.

In the second episode of the new season, “Do You Really Know Where Your Food Comes From,” listeners join Celeste Alonzo of Junior Enterprises and Western Growers’ Social Media Manager Julia Nellis. This episode sheds light on misconceptions within the fresh produce industry, unraveling the complexities behind food production and distribution.

2024 LGMA Amendment Process Update: Priority Setting

March 13th, 2024

During the month of February, Western Growers facilitated the California LGMA priority setting process. The priority setting process consisted of five main steps:

  1. Selection of the Priority Setting Committee: A committee of nine participants, representing California, Arizona, LGMA staff, industry and academia, was chosen to lead the priority setting process.
  2. Topic Submission: 11 priorities were submitted by stakeholders for evaluation.
  3. Discussion Meetings: In-depth discussions were held to explore each priority’s implications and feasibility.
  4. Priority Voting: Following discussions, the committee voted to determine the most critical priorities.
  5. Priority Selection: Two key priorities have emerged from this process:
    1. Ag Water Standards
      1. Review of Type B to A water standards.
      2. Review variable water quality and sampling standards as they relate to generic E. coli.
    2. Harvesting Equipment Sanitation
      1. Harvest Equipment Sanitation – review key changes (initial process as part of a long-term effort)

For more information, visit leafygreenguidance.com. You can also access the Priority Setting report.

What’s Next?

Priority Working Group: Western Growers will facilitate industry representatives and subject matter discussions to generate comments and propose changes aligned with the selected priorities.

30-day Comment Period: Western Growers will open a 30-day comment period, inviting stakeholders to contribute their insights.

Web-based Discussion: After the comment period, a web-based discussion will be hosted to allow submitters to present their proposals and engage in constructive dialogue.

Save the Date for the 2024 Western Growers Annual Meeting

March 12th, 2024

Mark your calendars! We are pleased to announce the 98th Western Growers Annual Meeting will be held at the JW Marriott Scottsdale Camelback Inn Resort and Spa on November 3-6, 2024.

Set against the stunning backdrop of Scottsdale, Arizona’s expansive desert landscape, this premier gathering for agricultural industry leaders promises unparalleled networking opportunities, distinguished speakers and world-class entertainment.

Please be sure to visit the Annual Meeting website at wgannualmeeting.com, where we’ll be adding frequent updates, including registration information, keynote speakers and more.

New NLRB Joint Employer Final Rule Struck Down by Federal Court

March 14th, 2024

As discussed here, on October 26, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (Board) issued a new Final Rule affecting joint employment under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The new rule rescinded the Board’s prior rule enacted in 2020 (“2020 Rule”) and instead set forth a new test expanding the circumstances under which an employer is deemed a ‘joint employer.’

Legal challenges saw the new rule’s effective date pushed back multiple times from December 26, 2023, to February 26, 2024, and then to March 11, 2024.  On March 8, 2024, a U.S. District Judge of the Eastern District of Texas vacated the new Final Rule finding the Board’s attempt at recission unlawful as well as arbitrary and capricious.  This decision restores the 2020 Rule.

What is the 2020 Rule?

In 2020, the Board issued a final rule (“2020 Rule”) under which one entity can be considered a joint employer of another entity’s employees only if it exercises actual “substantial direct and immediate control” over the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment (i.e., wages, benefits, hours of work, hiring, discharge, discipline, supervision, and direction) in a manner that is not sporadic and isolated. In other words, indirect control – or the reserved but unexercised right to control – is not considered sufficient to establish a joint-employer relationship.

It is unknown whether this ruling will be further challenged.

Employers should continue to keep in mind that the NLRA joint-employer rule is not the same rule applied by the U.S. Department of Labor for purposes of the Federal Labor Standards Act.