gno.law

Agricultural Labor Relations Board v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · D018411 · 1993-04-08 · Published · 15 Cal. App. 4th 749 · 18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 907 · 93 Daily Journal DAR 5755 · 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3354 · 1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 484

AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF IMPERIAL COUNTY, Respondent; MARIO SAIKHON Et Al., Real Parties in Interest

Area
civil
Panel
Kathryn Todd (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T07:31Z · confidence high

The trial court granted a stay of Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) administrative proceedings seeking to impose derivative liability on the Saikhon Family Trust and its trustees. The Court of Appeal granted a writ of mandate, directing the trial court to vacate the stay and dismiss the petition, holding that the ALRB has the authority to pursue derivative liability as part of its enforcement powers.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Stay of ALRB administrative proceedings seeking derivative liability
“We conclude the derivative liability proceedings are properly before the ALRB and should not have been stayed by the superior court.”
unclearerroragree with court
agree with court

Authorities

  • relied: Belridge Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 551 — The Agricultural Labor Relations Act is patterned after the National Labor Relations Act.
  • relied: Labor Board v. Deena Artware (1960) 361 U.S. 398 — Derivative liability for compliance with a judicially enforced unfair labor practice order may be imposed upon the employer’s officers, agents, successors and assigns, even if those parties were not charged in the initial complaint.
  • relied: N.L.R.B. v. C.C.C. Associates, Inc. (1962) 306 F.2d 534 — A proceeding to determine alter ego and successor responsibility is not a primary action to determine violations of law, but rather ancillary enforcement.
  • relied: Regal Knitwear Co. v. Board (1945) 324 U.S. 9 — The board has the authority to seek compliance from the primary wrongdoer, its alter ego, successors or assigns.
  • relied: Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 392 — Mandate is an appropriate remedy to compel respondent court to vacate its order staying the ALRB’s enforcement proceedings where there is no adequate remedy at law.
  • relied: United Nuclear Corp. v. Superior Court (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 359 — A peremptory writ is proper where an alternative writ would add nothing to the presentation.
  • relied: Goodenough v. Superior Court (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 692 — A peremptory writ is proper where an alternative writ would add nothing to the presentation.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the statutory mandate to follow NLRA precedents and cites binding U.S. Supreme Court authority establishing that derivative liability is an ancillary enforcement mechanism within the board's jurisdiction. The court properly identifies that the ALRB's failure to anticipate non-compliance in the initial phase does not strip it of the power to seek compliance from successors or alter egos later.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:32Z · confidence medium

The superior court granted an ex parte stay halting ALRB compliance proceedings that sought to impose derivative (alter ego/successor) liability for a multimillion-dollar backpay award on Mario Saikhon, the Saikhon Family Trust, and its trustees, on the theory that the Board's orders were final under Labor Code section 1160.3 once the record was filed in the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal granted the ALRB's petition and issued a peremptory writ in the first instance directing the superior court to vacate the stay and dismiss the Trust's petition, holding that derivative liability proceedings are ancillary enforcement properly conducted by the ALRB under NLRA precedent made applicable by section 1148.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Superior court's ex parte order staying the ALRB's derivative-liability compliance proceedings against Mario Saikhon, the Saikhon Family Trust, and its trustees
“We conclude the derivative liability proceedings are properly before the ALRB and should not have been stayed by the superior court.”
de novoerror (law misapplied)agree with court
The opinion never states a standard of review, but it resolves a pure question of law (whether the ALRB has authority to pursue derivative liability in compliance proceedings) without any deference to the superior court. Its conclusion is supported: section 1148 requires the ALRB to follow NLRA precedent, and Deena Artware, Regal Knitwear, and C.C.C. Associates treat alter ego/successor liability as ancillary enforcement of an existing order rather than a modification of it, which answers (though only implicitly) the Trust's section 1160.3 finality argument. The court does not expressly engage with section 1160.3 or explain why the NLRA cases, which involved court-supervised supplemental proceedings, translate to Board-conducted compliance hearings, but the result is consistent with established NLRB compliance practice.
Superior court's entertaining of the Trust's mandate petition challenging the ALRB's jurisdiction, which the Court of Appeal directed be dismissed
“Mandate is an appropriate remedy to compel respondent court to vacate its order staying the ALRB’s enforcement proceedings where there is no adequate remedy at law.”
de novoerror (procedure)agree with court
Relying on Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 392, the court treats superior court interference with the Board's processes as a proper subject for mandate. Because the Trust's sole claim was that the ALRB acted in excess of jurisdiction, the holding that the proceedings are properly before the Board disposes of the petition and leaves nothing for the superior court to decide; review of any derivative liability determination lies in the Court of Appeal. The opinion gives no separate explanation for ordering dismissal rather than a merits denial, but the result follows from its holding.

Authorities

  • relied: Belridge Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 551 — The ALRA is patterned after the NLRA, so federal precedent guides interpretation of the state act.
  • relied: Labor Board v. Deena Artware (1960) 361 U.S. 398 — Derivative liability for compliance with an unfair labor practice order may be imposed on officers, agents, successors, and assigns not named in the original complaint.
  • relied: N.L.R.B. v. C.C.C. Associates, Inc. (1962) 306 F.2d 534 — A proceeding to determine alter ego and successor responsibility is ancillary enforcement, not a primary action to determine violations of law.
  • relied: Regal Knitwear Co. v. Board (1945) 324 U.S. 9 — Labor board orders bind the employer's successors and assigns and may be enforced against them.
  • relied: Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 392 — Mandate lies to compel a superior court to vacate an order interfering with ALRB proceedings where there is no adequate remedy at law.
  • relied: United Nuclear Corp. v. Superior Court (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 359 — A peremptory writ may issue in the first instance where an alternative writ would add nothing.
  • relied: Goodenough v. Superior Court (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 692 — A peremptory writ in the first instance is appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1088 when the issues are fully presented.
  • missed: Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171 — Before issuing a peremptory writ in the first instance, the court must give notice to the parties that it is considering doing so and an opportunity to oppose; the opinion issues such a writ without citing or addressing Palma.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is defensible and rests on the correct framework: section 1148 incorporates NLRA precedent, and the federal cases treat alter ego and successor liability as ancillary enforcement that does not reopen or modify the underlying order, which undercuts the Trust's section 1160.3 argument. The opinion is very brief, never expressly confronts section 1160.3 or the Company's alternative argument that derivative liability belongs in superior court enforcement, and issues a peremptory writ in the first instance without addressing Palma's notice requirements.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion — Todd

Opinion

TODD, J.

The Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) petitions for a writ of mandate after the superior court stayed ALRB administrative proceedings seeking to impose derivative liability on Mario Saikhon, the *751 Saikhon Family Trust dated June 3, 1988, and its trustees. We conclude the derivative liability proceedings are properly before the ALRB and should not have been stayed by the superior court. Accordingly we grant the petition.

Factual and Procedural Background

The United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO (Union) filed a series of unfair labor practice charges against Mario Saikhon, Inc. (Company) beginning in 1979. Ultimately the ALRB found the Company liable for several million dollars in backpay to its workers. After review was denied or dismissed in this court and the Company failed to pay, the ALRB initiated compliance proceedings, including hearings on derivative liability directed toward Mario Saikhon as an individual, him and his wife Dora Saikhon as trustees of the Saikhon Family Trust, and the trust itself (collectively Trust).

On February 3, 1993, Trust petitioned for a writ of mandate in superior court seeking to halt the ALRB proceedings as in excess of jurisdiction. Specifically, Trust claimed the backpay orders were final under Labor Code 1 section 1160.3 2 and could not be modified by the ALRB because the record had already been filed in this court. The superior court granted Trust’s ex parte application for a stay and set a hearing for February 24. The ALRB then petitioned this court to halt the superior court proceedings, arguing it had the authority to seek derivative liability against Trust as part of enforcing compliance with its orders. We stayed the superior court action pending resolution of this petition.

Discussion

Trust contends the ALRB is too late in seeking derivative liability. It argues derivative liability is properly pursued in the second phase of bifurcated liability-compliance proceedings and here the orders are final. Company argues the ALRB should pursue derivative liability in the superior court as part of the enforcement process. Union and the ALRB respond derivative liability is properly determined by the ALRB and Trust may seek review in this court.

The Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA) (§ 1140 et seq.) is patterned after the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) (29 U.S.C. § 151 et *752 seq.). (Belridge Farms v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 551, 556 [147 Cal.Rptr. 165, 580 P.2d 665].) Section 1148 directs the ALRB “shall follow applicable precedents of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.” In Labor Board v. Deena Artware (1960) 361 U.S. 398, 402-404 [4 L.Ed.2d 400, 404-405, 80 S.Ct. 441], the Supreme Court stated derivative liability for compliance with a judicially enforced unfair labor practice order may be imposed upon the employer’s officers, agents, successors and assigns, even if those parties were not charged in the initial complaint. A proceeding to determine alter ego and successor responsibility is not a primary action to determine violations of law, but rather ancillary enforcement. (N.L.R.B. v. C.C.C. Associates, Inc. (1962) 306 F.2d 534, 538-539.)

Here, the ALRB determined Company conducted unfair labor practices against its employees and that determination was upheld. Although it is undisputed Company has failed to make the employees whole, it was not incumbent on the ALRB to anticipate that result as part of its initial proceedings. The ALRB has the authority to seek compliance from the primary wrongdoer, its alter ego, successors or assigns, (see Regal Knitwear Co. v. Board (1945) 324 U.S. 9, 14-15 [89 L.Ed. 661, 666-667, 65 S.Ct. 478].)

Mandate is an appropriate remedy to compel respondent court to vacate its order staying the ALRB’s enforcement proceedings where there is no adequate remedy at law. (Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 392, 401-402 [128 Cal.Rptr. 183, 546 P.2d 687].)

An alternative writ or order to show cause would add nothing to the presentation. A peremptory writ is proper. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1088; United Nuclear Corp. v. Superior Court (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 359 [169 Cal.Rptr. 827]; Goodenough v. Superior Court (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 692, 697 [96 Cal.Rptr. 165].)

Disposition

Let a peremptory writ issue directing the superior court to vacate its order granting a stay of proceedings and enter a new order denying a stay and *753 dismissing the petition. Trust’s request for stay is denied as moot. The stay issued by this court on February 23, 1993, is vacated.

Wiener, Acting P. J., and Huffman, J„ concurred.

The petition of real parties in interest for review by the Supreme Court was denied June 24, 1993. Panelli, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

1

All statutory references are to the Labor Code unless otherwise specified.

2

Section 1160.3 provides in part: “Until the record in a case shall have been filed in a court, as provided in this chapter, the board may, at any time upon reasonable notice and in such manner as it shall deem proper, modify or set aside, in whole or in part, any finding or order made or issued by it."

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by