ReportWire

Tag: ufw

  • ACLU filing: Sacramento Home Depot raid violated court order, high schooler among those arrested

    [ad_1]

    A recent Border Patrol raid at a Home Depot parking lot in the south Sacramento area broke a court order, according to a newly filed court motion. | PREVIOUS COVERAGE ABOVE | Florin Road Home Depot raid | CBP boasts capturing serious criminal offenderThe documents also claim an 18-year-old high school student who was walking to a nearby Ross clothing store across the street was swept up in the raid. On July 17, masked Border Patrol agents conducted operations in Sacramento, leading to at least 11 arrests. At the time, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said the arrests included a dangerous serial drug abuser and a dealer with 67 previous charges. In a motion filed Aug. 29, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and United Farm Workers (UFW) claim Border Patrol violated a court order during the Home Depot raid. The motion was filed as part of a previous case focused on a Kern County raid earlier this year. In April, a federal district court judge issued a preliminary injunction, preventing Border Patrol agents from conducting stops without reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully in the country. Read the full filing here.According to the latest motion, ACLU and UFW claim, “…Border Patrol agents targeted individuals based on their apparent ethnicity, apparent occupation, and presence at or near a Home Depot with no reason to believe the specific individuals they stopped were in the country unlawfully, and arrested them without assessing flight risk.”The documents state that one of those arrested was 18-year-old Selvin Osbeli Mejia Diaz. In a declaration signed by Diaz, he said he was walking from home to the Ross store on Florin Road after his aunt gave him money to buy a new shirt and shoes. He said that while he was walking, a masked man “dressed like a soldier” jumped out of a Chevy Silverado truck and started chasing him. He said he ran for about 10 steps before the agent threw him to the ground, handcuffed him and put him in the truck. Diaz said the agent didn’t identify himself before driving him to the Stockton ICE processing center and taking his phone. He said that’s when he was placed in a cell with about 11 other people who were arrested in Sacramento. He said later that night, he was taken to a detention center in Sacramento, where he slept on the floor with an aluminum blanket. He said he kept asking to call his aunt, but agents wouldn’t let him until about two or three days later. According to his declaration, Diaz fled Guatemala when he was 16 years old and was seeking asylum. He said he was living in Sacramento with his aunt, uncle and cousins and was attending Valley High School. Diaz said he had never committed any crime and was concerned he would never see his family again. The Aug. 29 motion said that less than two weeks after the arrests in Sacramento, two of the 11 people arrested were still in ICE custody, leading the plaintiffs to believe the others had already been deported. RELATED | Leaders, officials react to Border Patrol operations in SacramentoThree days before the motion was filed, KCRA 3’s Ashley Zavala spoke with El Centro Sector Chief Gregory Bovino via Zoom for a one-on-one interview. Bovino has been outspoken about the raids and has warned there will be more. Zavala asked him how Border Patrol was deciding which communities to focus on. “The communities that we go into and our law enforcement actions, like the one you saw in Sacramento, are based on what we call targeted enforcements,” Bovino answered. “We have predefined targets that we look to create a law enforcement function to go after. That’s what we did in Sacramento. That particular operation, there were some individuals that we were after. We did end up apprehending several individuals that were aggravated felons and some folks that you would not want walking the streets of your community with impunity … We go where the threat takes us.” He said Californians should expect to continue to see Border Agents on the street until more “dangerous felons” are taken off the street. Bovino also said the state’s sanctuary legislation is tying the hands of law enforcement and limiting cooperation between local agencies and federal immigration officials. KCRA 3 also reached out to DHS for a comment on the recent motion and has not received a statement. For more of Ashley Zavala’s conversation with Chief Bovino, along with a sit-down interview with Senator Alex Padilla responding to recent raids, watch California Politics 360 at 8:30 a.m. Sunday.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    A recent Border Patrol raid at a Home Depot parking lot in the south Sacramento area broke a court order, according to a newly filed court motion.

    | PREVIOUS COVERAGE ABOVE | Florin Road Home Depot raid | CBP boasts capturing serious criminal offender

    The documents also claim an 18-year-old high school student who was walking to a nearby Ross clothing store across the street was swept up in the raid.

    On July 17, masked Border Patrol agents conducted operations in Sacramento, leading to at least 11 arrests. At the time, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said the arrests included a dangerous serial drug abuser and a dealer with 67 previous charges.

    In a motion filed Aug. 29, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and United Farm Workers (UFW) claim Border Patrol violated a court order during the Home Depot raid. The motion was filed as part of a previous case focused on a Kern County raid earlier this year. In April, a federal district court judge issued a preliminary injunction, preventing Border Patrol agents from conducting stops without reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully in the country.

    Read the full filing here.

    According to the latest motion, ACLU and UFW claim, “…Border Patrol agents targeted individuals based on their apparent ethnicity, apparent occupation, and presence at or near a Home Depot with no reason to believe the specific individuals they stopped were in the country unlawfully, and arrested them without assessing flight risk.”

    The documents state that one of those arrested was 18-year-old Selvin Osbeli Mejia Diaz. In a declaration signed by Diaz, he said he was walking from home to the Ross store on Florin Road after his aunt gave him money to buy a new shirt and shoes. He said that while he was walking, a masked man “dressed like a soldier” jumped out of a Chevy Silverado truck and started chasing him. He said he ran for about 10 steps before the agent threw him to the ground, handcuffed him and put him in the truck.

    Diaz said the agent didn’t identify himself before driving him to the Stockton ICE processing center and taking his phone. He said that’s when he was placed in a cell with about 11 other people who were arrested in Sacramento. He said later that night, he was taken to a detention center in Sacramento, where he slept on the floor with an aluminum blanket. He said he kept asking to call his aunt, but agents wouldn’t let him until about two or three days later.

    According to his declaration, Diaz fled Guatemala when he was 16 years old and was seeking asylum. He said he was living in Sacramento with his aunt, uncle and cousins and was attending Valley High School. Diaz said he had never committed any crime and was concerned he would never see his family again.

    The Aug. 29 motion said that less than two weeks after the arrests in Sacramento, two of the 11 people arrested were still in ICE custody, leading the plaintiffs to believe the others had already been deported.

    RELATED | Leaders, officials react to Border Patrol operations in Sacramento

    Three days before the motion was filed, KCRA 3’s Ashley Zavala spoke with El Centro Sector Chief Gregory Bovino via Zoom for a one-on-one interview. Bovino has been outspoken about the raids and has warned there will be more. Zavala asked him how Border Patrol was deciding which communities to focus on.

    “The communities that we go into and our law enforcement actions, like the one you saw in Sacramento, are based on what we call targeted enforcements,” Bovino answered. “We have predefined targets that we look to create a law enforcement function to go after. That’s what we did in Sacramento. That particular operation, there were some individuals that we were after. We did end up apprehending several individuals that were aggravated felons and some folks that you would not want walking the streets of your community with impunity … We go where the threat takes us.”

    He said Californians should expect to continue to see Border Agents on the street until more “dangerous felons” are taken off the street. Bovino also said the state’s sanctuary legislation is tying the hands of law enforcement and limiting cooperation between local agencies and federal immigration officials.

    KCRA 3 also reached out to DHS for a comment on the recent motion and has not received a statement.

    For more of Ashley Zavala’s conversation with Chief Bovino, along with a sit-down interview with Senator Alex Padilla responding to recent raids, watch California Politics 360 at 8:30 a.m. Sunday.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge grants Wonderful’s request to halt UFW effort to unionize company’s workers

    Judge grants Wonderful’s request to halt UFW effort to unionize company’s workers

    [ad_1]

    After more than a month of deliberation, a Kern County Superior Court judge has sided with Wonderful Co. and issued a preliminary injunction that will temporarily halt a contentious bargaining process between the agricultural giant and the state’s largest farmworker union.

    In a ruling issued Thursday, Judge Bernard C. Barmann said Wonderful “was likely to prevail” in its legal challenge to the state’s relatively new system for organizing farmworkers and faced irreparable harm if the United Farm Workers is allowed to unionize the company’s nursery workers before the case is decided.

    “The court finds that the public interest weighs in favor of preliminary injunctive relief given the constitutional rights at stake in this matter,” Barmann wrote in the 21-page decision. Wonderful “has met its burden that a preliminary injunction should issue until the matter may be heard fully on the merits.”

    Wonderful, the $6-billion agricultural powerhouse owned by Stewart and Lynda Resnick, sued the state Agricultural Labor Relations Board in May, challenging the constitutionality of the state’s so-called card-check system, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law in 2022. Under its provisions, a union can organize farmworkers by inviting them to sign authorization cards at off-site meetings, without notifying an employer, rather than voting by secret ballot at a designated polling place.

    Union organizers had pressed for the revised card-check law, contending the secret ballot process left workers fearful of retaliation from their employer.

    But Wonderful, whose portfolio includes such well-known brands as FIJI Water and POM Wonderful, alleges in its lawsuit that the law deprives employers of due process on multiple fronts. Among them: forcing a company to enter a collective bargaining agreement even if it has formally appealed the ALRB’s certification of a union vote and presented what it believes is evidence that the voting process was fraudulent.

    The temporary injunction marks the latest twist in a tumultuous dispute over the UFW’s unionization campaign at Wonderful Nurseries in Wasco, the nation’s largest grapevine nursery.

    In late February, the UFW filed a petition with the labor relations board, asserting that a majority of the 600-plus farmworkers at the nursery had signed authorization cards and asking that the UFW be certified as their union representative.

    Within days, Wonderful accused the UFW of having baited farmworkers into signing the authorization cards under the guise of helping them apply for $600 in federal relief for farmworkers who labored during the pandemic. And the company submitted nearly 150 signed declarations from nursery workers saying they had not understood that by signing the cards they were voting to unionize.

    The UFW countered that Wonderful had intimidated workers into making false statements and had brought in a labor consultant with a reputation as a union buster to manipulate their emotions in the weeks that followed.

    The ALRB acknowledged receiving the worker declarations from Wonderful; nonetheless, the regional director of the labor board moved forward three days later to certify the union’s petition. She has said in subsequent hearings that she felt she had to move quickly under the timeline laid out in the card-check law, and that at the time she did not think the statute authorized her to investigate allegations of misconduct.

    Wonderful appealed the ALRB’s certification.

    Under the provisions of the card-check law, the UFW’s efforts to bargain with the company on behalf of its nursery workers moved forward, even as Wonderful’s appeal of the certification works its way through the ALRB’s administrative hearing process. The ALRB issued a ruling last week ordering Wonderful to enter into a mandatory mediation process to establish a collective bargaining agreement.

    In its lawsuit, filed in May, Wonderful challenges the constitutionality of the card-check system on multiple fronts. Among them: that the company’s due process rights were violated when the labor board moved to certify the UFW’s petition before investigating the company’s allegations that the vote was fraudulent; and more broadly that the card-check system does not have adequate safeguards in place to ensure the veracity of the voting process.

    The company asked the judge to halt the unionization effort at its nursery, as well as the ALRB’s administrative hearing process, while the lawsuit moved forward in Kern County court.

    In a statement released Thursday evening, Rob Yraceburu, president of Wonderful Nurseries, said the company was “gratified” by the court’s decision to pause the certification process until the constitutionality of the card check law can be “fully and properly considered.”

    “In addition,” Yraceburu said, “farmworkers had been wrongly barred from objecting to a union being forced on them, and this ruling states that Wonderful indeed has the standing to fight to ensure those constitutional rights of farmworkers, including their due process and First Amendment rights, are not violated.”

    UFW spokesperson Elizabeth Strater countered that the ruling “ignores 89 years of labor law precedent” and indicated the decision to grant the injunction would be appealed.

    “There is already a process to address wrongdoing in elections and Wonderful was in the middle of that process. Why does Wonderful want to halt that process and silence workers so their voices are not heard?” Strater said. “It’s very clear Wonderful is determined to use its considerable resources to deny farmworkers their rights.”

    In a May 30 filing, the state had urged the court to deny Wonderful’s request for an injunction. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, arguing on behalf of the ALRB, said Wonderful had failed to demonstrate that the card-check law was causing “irreparable harm or any likelihood of deprivation of its rights.” Bonta also argued that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction in the case.

    Santiago Avila-Gomez, executive secretary with the ALRB, said Thursday evening the agency is “reviewing the ruling carefully and won’t have further comment at this time.”

    The UFW, meanwhile, is pursuing its own legal action against Wonderful. The union has filed a formal complaint of unfair labor practices with the ALRB, accusing Wonderful of coercing workers into attending “captive audience” meetings to urge employees to reject UFW representation. ALRB General Counsel Julia Montgomery issued a complaint in April, similar to an indictment, alleging Wonderful committed unfair labor practices by unlawfully assisting them in drafting declarations to revoke their authorization cards.

    The company has largely denied the allegations.

    This article is part of The Times’ equity reporting initiative, funded by the James Irvine Foundation, exploring the challenges facing low-income workers and the efforts being made to address California’s economic divide.

    [ad_2]

    Melissa Gomez, Rebecca Plevin

    Source link