Register Now for Upcoming Western Growers University Courses

April 16th, 2024

Western Growers University’s latest in-person training sessions are rapidly approaching, but there’s still time to secure your spot with our experts. Registration is now available for the following courses scheduled for April, May and June, offered in both English and Spanish:

Preventing Discrimination and Harassment, Course for Supervisory Employees

Preventing Discrimination and Harassment, Course for Non-Supervisory Employees

Click here to view the course schedules and register.

Whether you’re a Western Growers member or non-member, we invite you to explore our tailored educational programs designed to elevate your career. To view the full 2024 Western Growers University course catalog, click here.

California Privacy Protection Agency Issues its First Enforcement Advisory

April 11th, 2024

The California Privacy Protection Agency (Agency) is responsible for creating and enforcing California’s Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) regulations that took effect March 29, 2024.

As discussed here, the CPRA amended and expanded the California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) by, among other things, giving consumers the right to correct inaccurate personal information collected by a covered business and to limit a covered business’s use and disclosure of “sensitive personal information” (e.g., social security number, racial or ethnic origin, religious beliefs, genetic data, precise geolocation) to specific identified purposes.

In its inaugural Enforcement Advisory No. 2024-01 (issued April 2, 2024), the Agency focuses on the importance of data minimization. “Data minimization” is a principle of data privacy that stipulates organizations should only collect, process, and store the minimum amount of personal data necessary to fulfill their purpose or service.

According to the Agency, data minimization serves several important functions such as supporting good data governance and reducing the risk that unintended persons or entities will access personal information. The Agency recommends an ongoing and periodic assessment of personal information collected, used, retained and shared by businesses. Such auditing will help to ensure information collected is relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purpose for which it is being collected, used and shared.

Whether information collected, used, retained or shared is reasonably necessary and proportionate to achieve the purpose identified, is based on the following:

  • The minimum personal information that is necessary to achieve the purpose identified (e.g., to complete onboarding procedures and send an email confirmation of documents sent to the consumer[i], an employer may need the consumer’s physical address, phone number and email address).
  • The possible negative impacts on consumers posed by the business’s collection or processing of the personal information (e.g., a possible negative impact of collecting precise geolocation information is that it may reveal other sensitive personal information about the consumer, such as health information based on visits to healthcare providers).
  • The existence of additional safeguards for the personal information to specifically address the possible negative impacts on consumers (e.g., a business may consider encryption or automatic deletion of personal information within a specific window of time as potential safeguards).

What Does it All Mean?

Data minimization, like all other CPRA mandates, does not lend itself to a ‘one-size fits all’ approach when it comes to compliance. Employers must review their own specific collection, use, retention and sharing practices to be able to effectively manage the personal information provided by employees for any given purpose (e.g., onboarding, promotions, providing healthcare and other benefits).

Employers can assess their data risk – and use data minimization to mitigate that risk – by asking the following questions:

  • What is the minimum personal information that is necessary to achieve any given purpose (e.g., identity verification)?
  • For any given purpose, what specific personal information do we already have? Do we need to ask for more personal information than we already have?
  • What are the possible negative impacts posed if we collect or use the personal information for the identified purpose?
  • Are there additional safeguards we could put in place to address the possible negative impacts?

 

[i] Consumer – in the employment context – means job applicant/candidate, current/former employee.

A Lesson in Arbitration

April 11th, 2024

The recent California case Vazquez v. Sanisure, Inc., provides an important lesson on one of the basic premises of arbitration; an arbitration agreement is tied to the underlying contract containing it and as such it can be revoked on the same grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.

Initially hired by the company in 2019, employee Vazquez signed, as part of the hiring process, an agreement to “utilize binding arbitration as the sole and exclusive means to resolve all disputes that may arise from or be related in any way to [her] employment.” The agreement also included a class or collective action waiver and noted that any changes to the agreement could only be made in writing.

Vazquez terminated her employment in May 2021. Four months later she negotiated a new employment offer and returned to work. During negotiations the parties did not discuss whether Vazquez would be required to sign a new arbitration agreement or whether claims related to her employment would be subject to arbitration. Vazquez’s second stint of employment ended in July 2022.

In October of that year, Vazquez filed a class action suit alleging a failure to provide accurate wage statements during her second stint of employment. The employer requested Vazquez submit her claims to binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement she signed when initially hired in 2019. This attempt to compel the matter to arbitration was denied and a subsequent appeal was filed.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s denial finding that while an employer and employee can agree to arbitrate claims related to their employment relationship, termination of that relationship can revoke the arbitration agreement.

What Does It All Mean?

An arbitration agreement, absent language to the contrary, is applicable only to the current employment relationship. Under such circumstances, subsequent employment requires the parties to enter into a new arbitration agreement that will govern the renewed/subsequent employment relationship.

In other words, when there is no evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate claims arising from a subsequent employment relationship, any claims arising solely from that subsequent relationship are likely not subject to arbitration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cal/OSHA Issues FAQs for Workplace Violence Prevention

April 11th, 2024

California Senate Bill 553  amended the California Labor Code to create new requirements for addressing workplace violence. These new requirements include a July 1, 2024 effective date for employers to establish and implement an effective Workplace Violence Prevention Plan (WVPP).

As discussed here, to assist employers in meeting this regulatory deadline, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) released its downloadable Model WVPP. In addition to its model WVPP, Cal/OSHA has developed and recently released its Frequently Asked Questions about Workplace Violence Prevention in General Industry.

The FAQs cover topics such as:

  • Definition of terms related to workplace violence
  • Employer applicability (exceptions to specific employers or circumstances)
  • WVPP
  • Violent Incident Log
  • Training
  • Recordkeeping
  • Enforcement deadlines and future standard proposals and adoption

Key clarifications include:

  • Initial training on employer WVPP must be provided by the July 1, 2024 effective date; and
  • Employers are responsible for making sure their WVPP is not generic, but “specific to the hazards and corrective measures for each work area and operation.”

Employers should also be aware that Cal/OSHA continues to work toward developing new regulations on workplace violence prevention in accordance with SB 553. In addition, statutory mandates require Cal/OSHA to develop and submit a workplace violence prevention standard to the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board no later than December 31, 2025. Thereafter the Standards Board is required to adopt the standard no later than December 31, 2026.

Keep updated on regulatory progress by visiting Cal/OSHA’s Advisory Meetings webpage.

 

 

Stuart Woolf Talks Almonds on this Week’s Voices of the Valley

April 9th, 2024

Almonds have been cultivated for thousands of years, and as it turns out, California is the largest producer of almonds globally, accounting for more than 80% of the world’s almond production.

In this episode of Voices of the Valley, Stuart Woolf, President and CEO of Woolf Farming & Processing and Chair of the Western Growers Board of Directors, joins Western Growers Communications Managers Michelle Rivera and Kara Timmins to talk about the wonderful world of almonds!

Listen to the full episode here.

U.S. Court of Appeals Refuses to Enforce NLRB Finding of Unfair Labor Practices

April 4th, 2024

A U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has refused to enforce a National Labor Relations Board (Board) finding of unfair labor practices calling out the Board’s rational as “nonsense.”

In the case Stern Produce Company Inc., v. NLRB the Court found the employer’s actions had not created the impression of surveilling union organizing activity nor risen to the level of retaliation against an employee for participating in unionization efforts.

The actions at issue were: 1) a text message sent by a supervisor to one of the company’s truck drivers letting him know that covering up the truck’s inward facing camera – even during a lunch break – was against company policy; and 2) the company’s issuance of a written warning (as opposed to a verbal warning) to another driver for the first-time offense of using “disparaging or abusive words, phrases, slurs, and negative stereotyping” in violation of company policy.

Initially deemed by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) as evidence insufficient to create an impression of surveillance and actions not motivated by union animus, the original ALJ decision was reversed by the Board.

On appeal to the D.C. Circuit, the decision was again reversed, with the Court calling out the Board’s explanation for its reversal concerning the text message as “nonsense…unsound… and misguided.”  The Court also found the Board’s reasoning concerning the company’s anti-union animus insufficient to support the allegation of retaliation. Specifically, “an employer’s simple animus” and “general hostility” toward the union are insufficient on their own to support a claim of anti-union animus; there must be something more to connect the employer’s animus to the adverse action.

What Does It All Mean?

Consistency in enforcement and discipline will be key components of an employer’s risk mitigation plan as it is likely we’ll see further expansive rulings by the Board.

Next Steps

A key takeaway from Stern is the emphasis the Court places on the employer’s consistent enforcement of its own policies and its reasonable justification for deviating from its progressive disciplinary policy. A few key points:

  • Make decisions according to company rules, policies, and procedures to assure consistency and avoid potential claims of discrimination.
  • Strive to be professional and maintain a professional working environment. Don’t allow personal feelings to influence the treatment of employees.
  • Observe the following by basing all decisions and actions as to all employees on:
    • Company policy and procedure.
    • Work performance, including quantity of work, quality of work and conduct at work.
    • Past practices in the same circumstance.
  • Don’t allow degradation of the work environment through lack of enforcement when it comes to overtly rude or unprofessional behaviors.

OSHA Finalizes Controversial Rule Authorizing Third-Party Representation During Inspections

April 4th, 2024

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has finalized a new rule allowing workers to designate a third-party representative to accompany any OSHA inspector during a facility inspection. Because the rule does not require the representative to be a company employee or the facility to be unionized, the opportunity for union representatives to fill the role is concerning. As such, ahead of the rules effective date of May 1, 2024, employers should understand their rights when it comes to OSHA inspections. Below are a few key points:

1. Federal and State Rights. The new rule provides that “the representative(s) authorized by employees may be an employee of the employer or a third party.” The rule also authorizes a third party who – based on their relevant knowledge, skills, experience, language or communication skills – can assist OSHA during the inspection. However, neither of these provisions changes an employer’s Constitutional protections provided under Fourth Amendment or state property rights.

Such rights – absent a warrant – allow an employer to control how OSHA enters its property and the areas that may be accessed during an inspection. Insisting the inspector obtain or produce a warrant is well within an employer’s rights. However, doing so carries its own risks and rewards making it important for employers to seek legal counsel before making such a request.

Employers also retain the right to secure access to areas of the worksite containing trade secrets or other confidential information. This includes limiting access by non-OSHA personnel and insisting that any photos in these areas be marked as “trade secret.”

2. Update or Review Existing Inspection Procedures. Every worksite should have a written plan outlining the procedures that must be followed when an OSHA inspector arrives. Plans should designate a primary (and secondary) supervisory employee to act as the company’s contact person for the inspection. This individual will be responsible for accompanying the investigator throughout the inspection, except during interviews with non-supervisory personnel who do not request a manager’s presence. The contact person does not necessarily need to be the company’s safety manager, but the individual does need to be trained on inspection procedures and must be ready to take notes and their own photos, samplings and tests alongside those taken by the inspector.

3. Understand the Practicalities of an Inspection. OSHA Inspection plans should include a few practical tips and reminders such as:

  • Before an inspection begins it is permissible for the contact person to request that the inspector detail the scope of the inspection (e.g., the complaint(s) alleged, and the area(s) impacted).
  • It is permissible for inspectors to be accompanied by a company representative throughout the entire inspection. The company contact should be trained and confident in the knowledge that it is their job not only to accompany inspectors but to get them from one area to the next by the most expedient route. There is no requirement to allow access to areas considered outside the scope of the inspection.
  • It is permissible to prohibit interviews of managers or supervisors on the day of the inspection. Interviews cannot be flatly refused or postponed indefinitely, but nothing requires they be conducted on the day of the inspection.
  • On the day of the inspection employers are allowed to limit documentation provided to just the company’s OSHA 300 logs, 300A summaries, 301 forms, and relevant safety data sheets. Other documents may be required but need not be provided absent advanced notice.
  • Hazardous activities should be put on hold during the inspection.

4. Weigh – in Advance – the Risk of Refusing Access to Third-Party representatives. Before finalizing an inspection plan, employers should discuss with their legal counsel the risks associated with refusing to allow third-party representatives access alongside OSHA inspectors. Allowing the OSHA inspector but not third-party representatives could be interpreted by the OSHA inspector onsite as a complete refusal; even where the employer makes clear the prohibition applies only to the third-party. Even a perceived refusal could have the effect of requiring the inspector to obtain a warrant before proceeding. Since there are various risks associated with requiring a warrant before inspection, the issue should be discussed with counsel.

Having an inspection plan takes the guesswork out of OSHA inspections and gives designated company contacts the confidence they need to manage all aspects of the inspection from the outset and ensure the process goes as smoothly as possible.

USCIS Fee Increase Lawsuit Denied

April 4th, 2024

A US district court has turned down a request to delay the start of new immigration fee increases scheduled for April 1. This request was made by a coalition of business groups and an EB-5 investor from Canada. They wanted to hold off on the new charges until their legal case was sorted out.

On January 31, 2024, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced a final rule in the Federal Register, revising fees for most immigration applications and petitions effective April 1, 2024. From April 1, 2024, fees for H-2A petitions will rise by 15% for unnamed workers and 137% for named workers, with the latter’s fee hitting $1,090 per petition and a 25-worker cap per petition. Smaller businesses and nonprofits face smaller increases, with a notable new $600 fee for certain employment-based petitions. Also, regarding Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, only the 04/01/24 edition will be accepted on or after this date, with no grace period for updates or fee adjustments.

On March 29, 2024, the District Court declined to issue a temporary restraining orders, so the April 1 effective date remains unchanged, and there is no grace period.

Lawsuit Challenges DOL Independent Contractor Rule

April 4th, 2024

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, alongside other business groups, has initiated legal action against the Department of Labor’s (DOL) latest regulation concerning the classification of workers as either employees or independent contractors. Filed on March 5 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the lawsuit challenges the rule that took effect on March 11, which revises the criteria used by the Wage and Hour Division to distinguish between employees and independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. This new rule is a departure from the definitions set by the 2021 final rule.

As discussed here, the contentious rule introduces a six-factor test for determining a worker’s status, focusing on aspects such as the worker’s chances for profit or loss, the permanency of the worker-employer relationship, and the degree of control exerted by the employer over the worker, among others.

Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su contends that this rule is intended to safeguard workers, particularly those most vulnerable to exploitation, by ensuring accurate classification. However, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argues that this new rule muddies the waters, creating “confusion and uncertainty” in the classification process and potentially limiting the freedom of individuals to operate as independent contractors—a choice many make for the sake of flexibility, autonomy, and the chance to be their own boss.

On March 21, a resolution (H.J. Res. 116) to overturn the rule received approval from the House Education and the Workforce Committee and is currently up for review by the entire House. However the resolution is expected to face challenges in the Senate, which is under Democratic control.

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.

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].

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.

Western Growers Next-Gen Ag Students are Ready for Internship Opportunities

April 16th, 2024

Are you ready to hire an intern?

In a coordinated effort between Western Growers and growers to identify key skill needs within fresh-produce agriculture, students throughout California have completed industry-specific college-level coursework. Students who have acquired the number of credits to qualify for internships are now ready for opportunities. Western Growers is also offering to offset internship costs by reimbursing $3,000 of a hired intern’s salary (about 40%).

Find the WGA Member Internship Request form here.

For more information, contact Carrie Peterson at [email protected] or (209) 602-4288.

“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.