The Los Angeles Times from Los Angeles, California • 31

lot angck Cimts Nov. 17, 1975-Port Why the Farm Labor Act Isn't Working The United Farm Workers vs. the Teamsters SjL? IP IRS omits fon'ijin-an ounl inquiry on lax form. News item Chief of Farm Group Calls It a Case of 'Too Much, Too Soon' BY LLOYD EVELAND Thousands of words have already been written about California's Agricultural Labor Relations Act, and rightly so. For the first time in America's history, agricultural employes have the jrlght to decide whether or not they want to be represented by a labor union.

However, most news reports on the law's implementation have been in the style of sports-page box scores: how many elections the United Farm Workers of America and the Teamsters have each won, and by how much. But there is much more to the story of this law than a contest between unions to see who can get the most workers and ultimately negotiate the most contracts for the highest wages and fringe benefits. The real issue, despite the controvery over organizing techniques and the way elections are being run, is what the unionization of California farm workers is going to mean to consumers when growers are forced to pass along increased labor costs. But the most immediate problem is with the farm labor law itself. It is not working.

The ALRA's preamble proclaims that "the people of California seek to insure peace in the agricultural fields by guaranteeing justice for all agricultural workers and stability in labor relations." Unfortunately, the system by which those sentiments were to be translated into reality has proved inadequate to the task. Perhaps it has been a case of "too much, too soon." Under pressure from the governor and the unions, the Agricultural Labor Relations Lloyd Eveland, a Woodland farmer, is president of the Council of California Growers. Board had only a few weeks to put together a set of administrative rules and regulations and hire a staff. As a result, many mistakes have been made, and many questions remain unanswered. The composition of the board, Whose five members were appointed by Gov.

Brown, is another sore point with employers. The governor said he was going to name people with judicial qualifications who had no con- nections with either the unions or agriculture. As it turned out, the governor's appointees were a former UFW official, a Roman Catholic bishop known to be sympathetic to the UFW, an attorney active in civil-rights and "social-justice groups, a law professor-attorney who has represented unions and, finally, the representative of an agricultural organization. However honest and well-intentioned these people may be, the past associations of most of them open their decisions to question. Growers, for instance, are extremely upset with the ALRB's administrative ruling (upheld by the State Supreme Court) which allows union organizers to enter fields without owner permission to talk to workers for an hour before and after work and during the lunch break.

As property owners, we believe this rule is unlawful, violating not only a grower's rights but also those of a worker, who may not want to be put in a position of having to talk to a union representative. The result is that an incredible number of charges and challenges have been filed both serious and trivial in connection with nearly every representation election held to date. We growers contend that the rule permitting access to the fields was never needed. The UFW argues that it is not being properly enforced. We argue that, if the board's membership had been properly balanced, the rule, and the unnecessary furore that it has Cesar Chavez Points to Collusion Between Growers, Teamsters BY CESAR CHAVEZ 'California's Agricultural Labor Relations iAct Is a good law.

It guarantees the right of 'farm workers to organize a union of their own; free from interference or intimidation by their employers. But the law is not being enforced. In fact, it has been so badly administered that many farm workers no longer feel that they can obtain justice through the electoral process. "If our United Farm Workers union had suffered major defeats in this fall's farm labor elections, this charge might be dismissed out of hand. But we have endured ho such losses.

As of Nov. 13, the UFW has won 167 elections and now represents 24,334 workers, 49,1. of the 49,569 who cast ballots. The Teamsters have won 95 elections involving 23.8 of the total. In 16 elections, workers decided they wanted no union at 1 1 Yet, according to two top officials of the Agricultural Labor.

Relations Bo-d, "the UFW would have won between 15-20 more votes in the elections so far, if there had been no distortions." It is precisely those violations of. the law, such as the firing of 1,165 workers in September and October, which cause us to cry foul. Let me give you some examples that go back to the beginning of this fall's elections: It was 5:30 a.m. and still dark on Sept. 9, when we pulled up to the labor camp at Elmco, Vineyards northeast of Delano.

The compound was surrounded by a high chain-link fence topped with barbed wire. At the gate a Great Dane stood guard. Ve had gone there because, according to art ALRB ruling (affirmed by the State Supreme Court), farm labor organizers have the Cesar Chavez is president of the United Farm Workers of A merica, AFL-CIO. right to isit workers in camps, and to talk to them in the fields before and after work and at lunchtime. The workers, most of whom are Arabians, were already up and about.

Despite the court ruling Elmco's supervisors refused to unlock the gate and allow us inside or to permit the workers to leave the camp and speak to us. When about 30 workers tried to talk to us through the fence, a supervisor ordered them away. It was a sad beginning for one of the first union representation, elections. Later, as the Elmco workers were waiting in line to supervisors directed them to vote Teamster, as indicated by graphic symbols on- the ballots. "Vote for the horses and not the bird," one said.

Another supervisor walked along the line leading to voting booths; could plainly see the pistol grip of the handgun he regularly carries in his pants pocket. The night before, workers told us, two other supervisors had assembled workers in a. camp kitchen and 'threatened to fire them if they did not vote Teamster. We requested a delay in the Elmco election until the threats could be investigated. Our appeal was reject-' ed by ALRB director in Fresno.

The situation in the Salinas Valley was little different. As we drove by a lettuce field owned by Bud Antle, on the day before the election, 'we saw company supervisors stopping work to gather harvesters for a meeting, with the Teamsters. But when the workers asked us to speak to them, the foreman told us we would be arrested. "Why do you allow the Teamsters in?" I asked. "Well, they're all right," he replied.

Election day was even worse. In Salinas, the voting place was in the heart of company headquarters, surrounded by the firm's main of ficesi "cooling facilities and box plant. Antle supervisors rode on the buses that brought the crew to the polling place. Workers had to pass through three barbed-wire fences and a line of burly security guards, and were'watched by foremen and supervisors as they voted. It was one of the most fear-filled elections we had seen.

People were afraid to talk, afraid to smile, afraid to laugh, let alone cast an independent ballot We were not surprised that growers and Teamsters combined to distort the electoral process at Elmco, Antle and at dozens of other ranches. For nine years the history of California farm labor has been that of a at denying farm workers a democratic union. This conspiracy was necessary balloting. Workers were insulted and threatened, and some refused to vote because they feared UFW reprisals. Chavez and the UFW have themselves made a series of charges but, as usual, most are false or grossly exaggerated.

For example, Chavez has complained that workers were often taken in company to cast their ballots. How else were they to be brought in from the fields to vote? Moreover, in most cases union observers were allowed to accompany the workers in the buses. Chavez has demanded that elections be held on "neutral territory" such as in a local community hall, rather than on the ranches. But nearly all National Labor Relations Board elections are held in the place of business the most logical location and the one most convenient for employes. One of the UFVs pet charges is that there is collusion between growers and Teamsters.

This allegation has no foundation. The Teamsters are receiving no special favors. Rather, on ranches where they have contracts. Teamster representatives have been authorized to approach workers only in connection with contract matters: No organizing activity is allowed. Let me make anothr poiw1, regarding Teamster contracts: Where they exist, they remain ineffective until an election is certi-fied.

Even in cases where the UFW has an apparent majority of votes, the workers stilt are bound by the Teamster contract and all that goes with it including duc3 deductions until the board makes a final determination. With all of the objections, challenges, charges and other assorted paper work, attorneys are having a field day. The situation ia so confusing that some growers believe all elections should be declared void and conducted again. The growers are willing to do their part make the law work. All they want from the board is an even break.

because, without the growers' help, the Teamsters are impotent in the fields. They have no field organization, few organizers and no real relationship with workers. The keys to Teamster power are the company foremen and supervisors. The Teamsters derive their strength from the influence over the livelihood of the workers. We had expected the law to end this by forcing the Teamsters to compete without assistance from employers.

The law is clear: Grower-Teamster collusion is illegal. But we miscalculated. The state has permitted the growers and Teamsters to continue their alliance. Ironically, the person most responsible for this is the ALRB's own general counsel, Walter Kintz, who has seriously damaged the electoral process through his failure to enforce the law and his adoption of discretionary policies that clearly favor our opposition. Let me explain: Kintz and Dennis Gladwell, an attorney for the Western Growers' at one point illegally agreed to impound thousands of.

farm-worker ballots, mainly from the Salinas Valley. By accepting such an agreement, Kintz was able to get the growers' association to drop an injunction they had pending against the ALRB. The impoundment lasted nearly two weeks, however, and denied our union the news of victories that would have heartened workers during a crucial period. With Kintz' consent, the Teamsters have used signatures on dues-authorization cards to qualify for elections. Kintz gave his approval despite the fact that, at ranches under Teamster contracts, workers must sign such cards or be fired.

Despite vigorous UFW objections and ALRB policy, Kintz directed that most elec-' tions be held on company property, where the growers can most easily intimidate the work force. Kintz has also failed to act on all but a handful of the hundreds of charges of unfair labor practices our union has filed. His policy is to deal with law violations only after elections are held. This means that workers must endure all the coercion and abuse the growers and Teamsters can dish out. It also means that new elections and many will be needed cannot be held until next year, since the harvest season has ended and the workers have moved on to other jobs.

Kintz has failed to prosecute growers who submit padded employe lists. (It is difficult to obtain the required number of signatures for any sort of election petition, if you are -prevented from finding out how many workers are on the ranch.) At Stockton, San Diego and Delano area ranches, workers have been fired for UFW activities even after we won elections. Some growers still deduct Teamster dues at farms which have voted UFW. Kintz has done nothing. Even on many of the ranches where we have won crushing majorities, the' board has not certified us so we can begin contract negotiations.

There is still a way to make the law work. Gov. Brown should dismiss Walter Kintz and replace him with a general counsel and staff which will enforce the law fairly and courageously. So long as he allows Kintz to remain in office, the governor will be failing on his pledge to bring justice to farm workers. In the long and sordid history of American agribusiness, there has never been a law enforced in behalf of farm workers.

Child labor, health and safety, and pesticide protection statutes have all been disregarded or forgotten. The ALRA is a good law, and we want it enforced. If nothing else, it is a law the growers must be made to respect. caused, would have never come about. The unions have plenty of opportunities to contact laborers during nonworking hours.

Most agricultural workers are no more isolated than industrial employes, whom unions have had little difficulty in contacting. Another example of board bias occurred in Fresno, where the local ALRB allowed the UFW to submit a master list of more than of its dues-authorization card holders in lieu of formal petitions necessary to qualify for representational elections. Using such a list is clearly a violation of the ALRA, which states that each union petition must be accompanied by signatures or cards specifically indicating a worker's support for that union's attempt to call an election. Confusion has also been fostered by the voting status accorded so-called "economic strikers." The law states that any worker who has been involved in a strike at a ranch anytime in the past three years must be allowed to vote in a representational election at that ranch even though he may not cur-, rently be employed there. Yet the board has never fully defined what an "economic striker" is.

If it follows precedent set by the National Labor Relations Act (as required specifically), the board would find few "economic strikers" in California. So far, however, the ALRB has ignored the NLRA guidelines. With the farm later act less than three months old, there have been hundreds of charges hurled by the growers, the UFW and the Teamsters. As a result, few elections have been certified. The growers' charges include intimidation of workers at the polls by UFW supporters, poor poll supervision by ALRB agents, allowing economic strikers to vote without showing proper identification and inconsistencies in polling hours.

In one case, at Salinas, UFW demonstrators including Cesar Chavez were allowed within a short distance of the polls during and the Shriver candidates Birch Bayh, Fred Harris, Morris Udall and perhaps Milton Shapp and Shriver himself. The vole will be sliced up too many ways to make a decisive winning margin likely for any one man. Unless, that is, the non-ideologically motivated Democrats coalesce behind one candidate on some other ground. Such as the man who makes much of wanting to carry on "the Kennedy legacy." Such as the only candidate who happens to be a Catholic, the only one who has expressed his unhappiness with the current wide availabili Scars and All, BY JAMES J. LONDON One night recently I organized the family for a little Italian dinner.

We walked a block or so from our hotel my wife, my son Christopher, his pregnant wife Gina and after a while we strolled back again. A few nights later, terrorists blew the Trattoria Fiori to bits. Nineteen persons were badly hurt. The wife of an American tourist had most of her scalp ripped off. Another woman lost a foot.

Those who were lacerated by razor shards of flying glass will bear the scars for life. We read the news accounts in horror and wonder: Why them? Why not us? There, we said, there but for the grace of God Then we saw in the papers that the crazies had been setting off bombs in the United States also. Truly it is a mad, mad, mad world, and the fears, worries and preoccupations of the British Isles are not vastly different from our own. The threat of terrorism is more pervasive in the cities of the United Kingdom than in the cities of the United States. Belfast, of course, is a special case; there the fear by night is as insidious as fog.

But lovely Edinburgh, far removed from the Irish scene, knows its bomb scares also. The Irish Republican Army is generally blamed (and it generally boasts of the blame) for these bloody and senseless acts. The IRA is not only feared; it is now thoroughly despised. A further observation on that point: An anti-American backlash is growing. It is no think sm Connection ty of legal abortions, and the only one who has had informal help from "right-to-life" activists.

Shriver does not flaunt any of this, except the Kennedy connection he claimed in his announcement last month. But when he was George McGovern's vice presidential running-mate in 1972, he specialized in campaigning among ethnic, largely Catholic groups; he went to Mass several times a week; he had Michael Novak, the Catholic philosopher, as a speechwriter. He did not hide his religious connections. Life Goes On K1LPATRK.K where denied on the contrary, it is universally conceded that the Irish terrorists are kept going in significant part by contributions from muddle-headed Irish-Americans in the United States. Their contributions, given in the humane name of relief, are swiftly channeled into arms and explosives.

Britons worry about this violence, just as we worry about crime. We share common economic worries also, but again, theirs are worse than ours. God knows the United Kingdom has its problems. Northern Ireland is a bleeding wound that festers and will not heal. Unemployment stays stubbornly high.

Inflation pinches. If the Scottish Nationalists prevail, the future may bring a disunited kingdom. The old glory is gone the glory of Drake and Nelson. Disraeli and Chruchill and the new socialism has a second-rate appeal to a second-class power. It no longer matters so much what England does.

All the same, the essence endures. Strength, courtesy, kindness, fortitude all these are preserved in this amber autumn. We of the United States ought to admire these qualities and to emulate them if we can. Step by step, we often seem to be following the British into socialism and second-rate status; we are experiencing the same aches and pains in health, education and the economy. It is well enough, for the moment, for American observers to say, there but for the grace of God We may be walking only a few hours, or a few evenings, behind.

Catholicism BY ERNEST B. FURCL'RSON WASHINGTON The assumption that being born a Roman Catholic effectively barred an American from being elected President was buried in 1960. That was the year it was demonstrated that being a Catholic could instead be a positive boost toward the Presidency. Although that premise has not been put directly to the test since then, it will be next year. Sargent Shriver is the only Catholic among 10 Democrats and two likely Republicans contesting the 1976 presidential primaries.

He just happens to be the brother-in-law of the Catholic who broke historic precedent in the matter four elections ago. As any brother-in-law should, he knows that John Kennedy carefully considered the religious makeup of the major states before he entered the competition for President, and used his findings as a selling point to other influential Democrats who were hesitant about his candidacy. And Shriver knows that in the final analysis, the heavy turnout of Catholic voters for Kennedy was a decisive factor in key states that determined the election. The Kennedys put together a list of 14 important states where the percentage of Catholics was great enough to be a plus rather than a minus. They included several states that have presidential primaries next year, for example: New York, 40; Pennsylvania.

29, Illinois, 30; New Jersey. 39; Massachusetts, 50; California, 22; Michigan, 24; Ohio, 20; Wisconsin, 31; and Maryland. 21. New Hampshire was too small to be on the Kennedy list, but its Catholic population is relatively high and, more important, most of it is concentrated in the Democratic Party. Not only that, but it comes first on the primary schedule, followed by Massachusetts a week later.

All the Democrats already know that anyone who can make a strong showing in both of those states has a running start toward the nomination. Most of the action there will be at the leftward end of the Democratic spectrum, which has produced the precinct enthusiasm that brought liberal candidates early successes in both of the past two election years. And that liberal end of the party is overloaded with it.