# Lindeleaf v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

> California Supreme Court · May 29, 1986 · 41 Cal. 3d 861

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541785

## Case

- **Full name:** ROBERT J. LINDELEAF, Petitioner, v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent; UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Real Party in Interest
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 29, 1986
- **Citations:** 41 Cal. 3d 861; 226 Cal. Rptr. 119; 718 P.2d 106; 1986 Cal. LEXIS 180
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Panelli
- **Judges:** Mosk, Panelli
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541785

## Opinion text

PANELLI, J.
I respectfully dissent.
The majority upholds the imposition of the make-whole remedy based on the board’s conclusion that Lindeleaf’s refusal to bargain was not in good faith and, specifically, that Lindeleaf did not have a reasonable litigation posture at the time it refused to bargain. By the time the matter reached this court, however, the board had been proved wrong. A majority on the panel of the Court of Appeal which heard Lindeleaf’s complaints agreed with the grower and annulled the ALRB certification of the union as the exclusive bargaining representative.
Although this court may disagree with the Court of Appeal, as we have in this case, on the merits of the questions presented for review, I do not believe we can any longer rely on Lindeleaf’s “litigation posture”—the board’s assessment of Lindeleaf’s prospects for success in the judicial forum—as the basis for imposing the drastic remedy of make-whole. As the matter now stands, it is incongruous to say that Lindeleaf pursued judicial relief in bad faith—that it sought review of “frivolous” election challenges as a dilatory tactic, for the purpose of delay.
*882 Absent any other justification in the record, the grant of make-whole relief is inappropriate.
Lucas, J., and Low (Harry W.), J., * concurred.
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, First District, Division Five, assigned by the Acting Chairperson of the Judicial Council.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541785. Public record. Not legal advice.