The Supreme Court on Monday will take on a California property rights case whose outcome could have far-reaching implications for the future of organized labor.
The case, Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, arose out of a seemingly minor dispute between a strawberry nursery and union activists over a California labor rule. That law allows unions to recruit members three hours a day for 120 days out of the year. Union members availed themselves of it, entering the nursery before work hours one morning with bullhorns — and incurring the wrath of owners, who said the disruption amounted to a “taking” of their property.
WITH THIS MISSOURI CASE, THE SUPREME COURT COULD CURB ACTIVIST STATE JUDICIARIES
Along with another California fruit company, the Cedar Point nursery owners sued the state, arguing that the rule allowed union recruiters to take control of its property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. A federal district court ruled against the fruit companies, as did the reliably liberal U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The Supreme Court accepted the fruit companies’ appeal late last year.
The case since then has touched the central nerve of debates over organized labor. Those in favor of the rule argue that it protects racial minorities, many of whom do not speak English. In a brief describing a “climate of fear” among minority workers, the United Farm Workers of America wrote that the rule projected workers from abusive employers. The UFW, under the leadership of the activist Cesar Chavez, was instrumental in the state’s 1975 adoption of the rule.
Those opposed, on the other hand, make the case that California essentially allows trespassing, pointing out that it is the only state to do so.
“Secure property rights are a foundation of civil society,” attorneys for the fruit companies wrote this week. “Property rights are explicitly protected in the U.S. Constitution, and both workers and employers gain from America’s system of private property and free enterprise.”
In their appeal to the court, the fruit companies wrote that they have a “fundamental right” to exclude “unwanted persons from private property.”
But other advocates for organized labor warned that this argument could trigger a larger battle. By knocking the rule down, critics argue, the Supreme Court could open the door for private businesses not only to bar labor recruiters for entry, but also government inspectors and other non-employee entities.
Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse wrote in an amicus brief that the fruit companies were lobbying the Supreme Court for an unfair decision that, more than just restrict union activity, would “threaten a host of federal, state, and local public safety and welfare laws that require government access to private property.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“Fueled by self-interest and ideological antagonism toward government authority, petitioners seek to elevate private property rights over public safety and welfare, thereby erasing government authority — and hence the public interest — entirely from that balance,” wrote Whitehouse, along with several other Democratic senators.
The Supreme Court in the past has granted unions limited access to private property, as long as the access is limited to union organizers, does not take place near work areas, and only lasts as long as the union organizer meeting. The court’s decision is expected by the summer.
