View
full sizeFederal
labor investigators stopped shipments of valuable
blueberries while investigating labor practices at
Oregon farms.Farm labor law investigations are often contentious, especially involving fruit pickers working on a "piece rate" basis rather than an hourly wage. But these cases took an unusual turn as the labor department's Wage and Hour Division staff in Portland dropped the hammer.
In a move Oregon's congressional delegation and the Oregon Farm Bureau say was unprecedented and deeply unfair, the department invoked a "hot goods" provision of labor law that prohibited shipment of the berries. Labor officials also notified wholesalers that berries from the farms would be subject to the order and should not be processed or shipped.
Suddenly, the growers were stuck holding perishable berries worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. The labor department offered a way out: Pay a fine and back wages and sign a consent judgment admitting wrong and agreeing not to contest the order even if subsequent information exonerated the farms.
Greg Ditchen, a third-generation Silverton farmer whose B&G Ditchen Farm paid the $169,816 in back wages and penalties, called the department's action "extortion." Half his crop was at risk and there was no time to offer a defense or pursue other legal options.
"They put a hot goods order on our fruit, and after they had the money they said we had to sign a paper saying we were wrong," Ditchen said. "We had to make a business decision and sign the paper."
A second farm, E&S Farms Inc. of Woodburn, paid $11,301 in back wages and a $10,500 penalty. Earlier this month, the Department of Labor said Pan-American Berry Growers of Salem signed a consent order to pay $41,778 in back wages and a $7,040 civil penalty.
A retired federal Wage and Hour Division investigator who reviewed two of the cases for an attorney representing the farmers said the agency's action was hasty and alarmingly incomplete.
"They put a noose around the neck of these farmers right off. That is not what Wage and Hour is about," said Manuel Lopez of Eugene, who was a labor investigator for 27 years.
Oregon officials are furious. The state's labor commissioner, agriculture director and most of the state's congressional delegation asked the labor department to explain its action.
Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian was the most direct. In an Aug. 15 letter to the federal agency, he said seizing perishable crops probably violates the constitutional search and seizure and due process rights of farmers "who have yet to be found guilty of anything."
Avakian asked the department to immediately cease using the "hot goods" provision, which refers to a clause in the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act originally intended to halt abuses in the garment industry.
Avakian said the department should use an enforcement tool that "does not result in irreparable harm prior to full investigation and a fair process of adjudication."
In an Aug. 17 letter, the congressional delegation said the federal Department of Labor "may have abandoned normal due process mechanisms." Use of a "hot goods" order is reserved for cases in which farm labor violations are "willful, egregious and/or repeated," the letter said.
Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley signed the letter, as did representatives Kurt Schrader, Peter DeFazio, Greg Walden and Suzanne Bonamici.
Oregon Agriculture Department Director Katy Coba also complained, saying hot goods orders are "being issued as a first step in the compliance process instead of the last resort."
"This appears to be a very heavy handed approach," she said in an Aug. 15 letter to U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis.
U.S. Labor spokeswoman Deanne Amaden said the department is "not in a position to discuss cases in greater detail right now," but may have a more detailed response within two weeks.
Enforcement action involving the Fair Labor Standards Act are intended to protect workers and level the playing field for employers, she said.
Tim Bernasek, a Portland attorney representing B&G Ditchen Farm and E&S Farms, said the signed consent judgments may limit his clients' appeal options. Along with the Farm Bureau, he hopes to continue discussions with the Labor Department and halt the use of hot goods orders in future investigations.
Dave Dillon, the Farm Bureau's executive vice president, said labor investigations can be sorted out over time.
"Farmers are not in a business that's going to pack it up in a truck tonight and head to another state," he said. "What's the urgency of saying stop your whole business until you admit guilt, pay a fee and have no due process?"
Farm labor law is complicated. Fruit and berry pickers often are hired and supervised by contractors, but Oregon farmers nonetheless bear responsibility in a system that requires them to carefully track employees, hours worked and wages paid. If an investigation shows they messed up, through carelessness or otherwise, they can expect to pay back wages and fines.
Most harvest workers prefer to work on a "piece rate," or per-pound basis, because they can make more money than settling for the fixed, minimum wage. It is a farmer's obligation, however, to track hours and picking totals to ensure workers earn at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. The law has exceptions and exemptions that further complicate matters.
In some cases, two or more workers -- often family members -- will pick on the same ticket. Attorneys and the Farm Bureau discourage that practice, because it complicates record-keeping.
In the Ditchen Farm case, documents indicate blueberry pickers earned 33 cents per pound. A worker picking two buckets an hour, for example, approximately 28 pounds, would earn the equivalent of $9.24 an hour. Farmers and others say the best pickers can earn $30 an hour or more.
Bernasek, the attorney, said labor investigators concluded anyone picking more than 60 pounds an hour at the Ditchen farm must have had someone else picking with them, and docked the farm for back wages due those workers. But Bernasek suggested such "ghost workers" are unidentified and may not exist, and said back wages collected on their behalf will never be distributed.
Lopez, the former labor investigator, said he did a one-hour time study at the farm involving 17 pickers. The workers picked from 112 to 196 pounds in an hour, well over the department's 60-pound standard.
"They didn't do a complete investigation," he said.
Lopez said the Ditchen farm may have committed some "record keeping" violations, but said the hot goods order wasn't necessary.
Greg Ditchen, the farm owner, said he's never been in trouble before and may use only mechanized harvesters in the future.
"It's not the labor," he said, "it's the people who come out and tell us we're doing wrong."
--Eric Mortenson
====================================================
Followed by:
‘EXTORTION’: WHY DID THE LABOR DEPARTMENT ‘DROP THE HAMMER’ ON OREGON FARMERS?
Oregon
farmers and state officials are furious with the U.S.
Labor Department after federal authorities in July put a
hold on thousands of dollars worth of blueberries,
citing “widespread” record-keeping and minimum wage
violations, Eric Mortenson reports for The
Oregonian.
“[T]he department invoked a “hot goods” provisionof labor law that prohibited shipment of the berries. Labor officials also notified wholesalers that berries from the farms would be subject to the order and should not be processed or shipped,” according to the report.
“Hot goods” orders are used by the department’s Wage and Hour Division to halt the production and/or sale of goods its believes were produced in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
But here‘s what has members of Oregon’s congressional delegation and the Oregon Farm Bureau particularly disturbed: The federal agency told the farmers that they could make everything go away if they paid “a fine and back wages and sign a consent judgment admitting wrong and agreeing not to contest the order even if subsequent information exonerated the farms.”
It’s “extortion,” said Greg Ditchen whose farm had to pay $169,816 in back wages and penalties. He had no other choice. It was either that or let his crops go to waste.
“They put a hot goods order on our fruit, and after they had the money they said we had to sign a paper saying we were wrong,” Ditchen said. “We had to make a business decision and sign the paper.”
And he wasn’t the only farmer to take a hit.
“A second farm, E&S Farms Inc. of Woodburn, paid $11,301 in back wages and a $10,500 penalty. Earlier this month, the Department of Labor said Pan-American Berry Growers of Salem signed a consent order to pay $41,778 in back wages and a $7,040 civil penalty,” Mortenson reports.
Since imposing the heavy-handed fees and giving the growers no other choice but to pay them, Oregon’s labor commissioner, agriculture director, and members of the state’s congressional delegation have demanded the labor department explain itself.
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis pauses during a news conference at the G20 Labor and Employment Ministers Meeting at the Labor Department on Wednesday, April 21, 2010 in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian told the fed agency in a letter that they most likely violated the constitutional search and seizure and due process rights of farmers “who have yet to be found guilty of anything.”
As for members of the Oregon’s congressional delegation, they told the feds in a letter that the agency “may have abandoned normal due process mechanisms,“ adding that ”hot goods“ orders are reserved specifically for cases in which labor violations are ”willful, egregious and/or repeated.”
Senators Ron Wyden (D) and Jeff Merkley (D) signed the letter, as did representatives Kurt Schrader (D), Peter DeFazio (D), Greg Walden (R), and Suzanne Bonamici (D).
“This appears to be a very heavy handed approach,” said Oregon Agriculture Department Director Katy Coba, adding that the fed agency is using the “hot goods” provision “as a first step in the compliance process instead of the last resort.”
A U.S. Labor spokesperson declined to comment on the details of the ordeal.
And what do you think this sort of heavy-handed enforcement will encourage the farm owners to do? Switch over to mechanical harvesters, of course.
“It’s not the labor,” said Ditchen, “it‘s the people who come out and tell us we’re doing wrong.”