It is hereby declared to be the policy of this state that the uninterrupted production, packing, processing, transporting and marketing of agricultural products are vital to the public interest. It is also declared to be the policy of this state that agricultural employees are free to organize, to take concerted action and, through representatives of their own choosing, to enter into collective bargaining contracts establishing their wages and terms and conditions of employment or to refrain from engaging in any or all of these activities. It is further declared that there now exists an inequality of bargaining power between agricultural employers and labor unions, arising out of the seasonal character and perishable nature of such agricultural products, the mobility of agricultural labor and the fundamental differences between agriculture and industry. While the right to strike is a basic right of organized labor, such right must take into account the perishable character and the seasonal nature of agricultural products and must be limited and regulated accordingly. It is the intent of the legislature to provide a means to bargain collectively that is fair and equitable to agricultural employers, labor organizations and employees, to provide orderly election procedures to resolve questions concerning representation of agricultural employees and to declare that certain acts are unfair labor practices that are prohibited and that are subject to control by the police power of this state. The overriding special interest of this state with respect to certain secondary boycott activities originating in this state, but extending across state lines and directed at employers in other states, must be recognized, and such acts must be made unlawful and subject to control by the police power of this state.
Notes of Decisions
United Farm Workers Nat'l Union v. Babbitt, 449 F. Supp. 449 (D. Ariz. 1978).
· cites it 24× “, seeking to have Arizona's Agricultural Employment Relations Act (AERA), A.R.S. §§ 23-1381, et seq., declared unconstitutional.”
Bruce Church, Inc. v. United Farm Workers of Am., 816 P.2d 919 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 8× “The basic issue on appeal is the geographic scope of the Arizona Agricultural Employment Relations Act, A.R.S. §§ 23-1381 to -1395. Because we conclude that the trial court improperly applied the Arizona statutes to conduct occurring outside this state that was arguably legal in…”
Trust v. Cnty. of Yuma, 69 P.3d 510 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “¶ 13 Further, in the context of agricultural employment relations, A.R.S. §§ 23-1381 to -1395 (1995), “ ‘Agriculture’ means all services performed on a farm as defined in § 23-603, including but not limited to the recruiting, housing and feeding of persons employed or to be…”
Sierra Club v. Yeutter, 911 F.2d 1405 (10th Cir. 1990).
“2d 895 (1979), the Court found first and fourteenth amendment challenges to the Arizona Agricultural Employement Relations Act, Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 23-1381 to 23-1395 (Supp.”
United Farm Workers of Am. v. Arizona Agric. Emp. Relations Bd., 672 P.2d 1327 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 23-1381 et seq. (Supp.1982). This comprehensive legislation dealt with such diverse subjects as elections of employee bargaining representatives, defining unfair labor practices, establishes various employee rights, and the proscription of a range of employer and union…”
Arizona Farmworkers Union v. Agric. Emp. Relations Bd., 712 P.2d 960 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “” See also A.R.S. § 23-1381. The Board points out that negotiation under collective bargaining may take months or years possibly followed by a contract involving two to three more years.”
Tirado v. Arizona Agric. Emp. Relations Bd., 694 P.2d 1236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“It involves a construction of the Agricultural Employment Relations Act, §§ 23-1381, et seq. We find that the election to decertify the union was valid for two reasons: 1) the union failed to insist on timely certification of the election at which it was originally selected to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.