Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Labor

Mushroom Workers Not "Agricultural Laborers"

Jay Kiiha
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has upheld a decision of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board ("PLRB") that held that the PLRB had jurisdiction to hear an unfair labor practice complaint brought by a labor union seeking to represent employees of a mushroom production operation. Vlasic Farms Inc. v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Bd., 777 A.2d 80, 83 (Pa. 2001). The court held that the PLRB had jurisdiction to hear the matter because the mushroom workers did not fall within the "agricultural laborer" exclusion set forth in the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act ("PLRA"), 43 P.S. §§ 211.1 - 211.3. See id.

The Comite de Trabajadores de Campbell Fresh ("Union") filed a representation petition with the PLRB "seeking to represent full and part-time employees involved in mushroom production and harvesting" at Vlasic Farms, Inc. ("Vlasic Farms"). See id. The PLRB conducted a representation election, even though Vlasic Farms objected. See id. In the representation election, "104 of the proposed unit members voted against representation, while 101 voted for it and twenty votes were challenged." Id. at 81.

After losing the election, the Union filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the PLRB against Vlasic Farms, asserting that Vlasic Farms "had threatened to close the mushroom production facility if the Union acquired representation status and had promised employees that it would establish an in-house grievance committee if the representation petition were withdrawn." Id. Vlasic Farms argued that the PLRB did not have jurisdiction to hear the Union's complaint because mushroom workers should be considered "agricultural laborers" under § 3(d) of the PLRA and therefore excluded from coverage under the PLRA. See id.

Section 3(d) guarantees employees "the right to join labor organizations and bargain collectively." Id. However, the PLRA specifically excludes "agricultural laborers" from the definition of "employees" and therefore from the scope of § 3(d). Id. The PLRA does not define "agricultural laborer." Id.

The PLRB hearing examiner issued a proposed decision and order explaining that "the PLRB, in exercising its administrative discretion, has consistently distinguished mushroom workers from agricultural laborers." Id. Thus, the hearing examiner determined that mushroom workers were within the PLRB's jurisdiction under the PLRA. See id. The hearing examiner also determined that Vlasic Farms had "engaged in several unfair labor practices" and ordered it to cease and desist from those unfair labor practices. Id. In addition, the hearing examiner ordered Vlasic Farms to post a copy of its decision and "to submit a list of all employees eligible to vote in an upcoming representation election." Id. Finally, the hearing examiner set aside the results of the representation election. See id.

Vlasic Farms filed exceptions to the hearing examiner's proposed order with the PLRB, arguing that the hearing examiner "erred in excluding mushroom workers from the definition of agricultural laborers" and in concluding that Vlasic Farms engaged in any unfair labor practices. Id. The PLRB dismissed these exceptions and finalized the hearing examiner's proposed decision and order. See id.

Vlasic Farms appealed the PLRB's determination to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. See id. The only argument that Vlasic Farms raised was that the PLRB "erred in exercising jurisdiction over the mushroom workers." Id. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the PLRB's determination. See id.

The Commonwealth Court explained that its decision in Blue Mountain Mushroom Co. v. PLRB, 735 A.2d 742 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999), was controlling over the issue at bar. See id. The court's decision in Blue Mountain was issued the same day as its decision in Vlasic Farms. See id.

In Blue Mountain, the court considered the relationship between the PLRA and the pre-1947 National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 151 - 169, which was the model for the PLRA. See id. The court explained that under the pre-1947 version of the NLRA, "mushroom workers were not considered to be agricultural laborers because mushroom production was classified as a horticultural activity." Id. In 1947 Congress expanded the NLRA's definition of "agricultural laborers" to include mushroom workers. See id. In Blue Mountain, the court noted that in 1969 the Pennsylvania legislature "unsuccessfully attempted to modify the PLRA . . . which would have included mushroom workers within the definition of agricultural laborers." Id. at 81-82.

In Blue Mountain the court considered and approved "[the] PLRB's rationale for classifying mushroom production as horticultural, namely, that 'mushrooms are not grown in soil but in man-made compost, where the temperature and composition [are] monitored and controlled.'" Id. at 82 (quoting Blue Mountain, 735 A.2d at 748) (additional citations omitted). Because it found "no authority to compel the PLRB to 'blindly' follow federal precedent," the Commonwealth Court affirmed the PLRB's exercise of jurisdiction over the mushroom workers. Id.

In the present case the Commonwealth Court ruled that based upon the rationale in Blue Mountain, "mushroom production, being similar to other horticultural activities, did not constitute agriculture." Id. (citation omitted). Thus, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the PLRB's determination that the mushroom workers were not considered "agricultural laborers" under the PLRA. See id.

Vlasic Farms appealed the Commonwealth Court's decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, arguing that the PLRB did not have jurisdiction to hear the Union's unfair labor practice complaint. See id. It argued that "the common and approved usage of the term 'agriculture' includes mushroom growing" and cited to several statutory and regulatory provisions, as well as prior case law, that it interpreted as supporting its position. Id. at 82-83. The PLRB argued that its interpretation of the agricultural laborer exception in the PLRA was correct for the reasons set forth in Blue Mountain. See id. at 83.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected Vlasic Farm's position, stating that

While . . . the legislative and regulatory provisions cited by [Vlasic Farms] manifest an intent to treat mushroom production as agricultural activity in some contexts, the General Assembly simply has not extended such interpretation to the PLRA. In this regard, Blue Mountain appropriately highlights the unsuccessful effort to secure such extension in the commonwealth via statutory amendment . . . and contrasts the experience at the federal level in light of the successful passage of a Congressional mandate expanding the definition of agricultural activity in the NLRA context.

Id. (internal citations omitted).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court expressly endorsed the holding in Blue Mountain concerning the classification of mushroom workers under the PLRA. See id. The court stated that because "the pertinent provisions of the PLRA were styled after a federal enactment pursuant to which mushroom workers were not considered agricultural laborers. . . the PLRB maintains a consistent and reasonable interpretation of the prevailing statute." Id. As such, the court held that it was appropriate to "enforce a consistent interpretation" of the PLRA by excluding mushroom workers from agricultural laborers "unless and until the [Pennsylvania] General Assembly alters course." Id.

The case was decided on July 25, 2001; this summary was posted February, 2003