Help-wanted ads during a strike must explicitly disclose the labor dispute, Labor Code section 973

STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT
LEGAL SECTION
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Room 3166
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 703-4150

H. THOMAS CADELL, JR., Chief Counsel

May 4, 1993

Vince Brown
Human Resources Director
Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc.
P.O. Box 1727
Stockton, CA 95201

Re: Labor Code § 973

Dear Mr. Brown:

It has come to the attention of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement that some advertisements placed by your firm soliciting help may be in violation of Labor Code § 973. It is our understanding that your firm is currently engaged in a strike with the Cannery Workers Union. On February 13, 1993, your firm ran an advertisement seeking help in the categories of, inter alia, maintenance mechanics. These workers, it is our understanding, would be within the category of workers covered by the terms of the expired CBA.

Labor Code § 973 requires that any advertisement soliciting help to work while a strike, lockout, or other trade dispute is still in active progress shall "plainly and explicitly mention... that a strike, lockout or other labor disturbance exists." The advertisement in the Stockton Record of Saturday, February 13, 1993, failed to state that there was a labor dispute in progress.

We assume that the failure to state that there exists a labor dispute was the result of inadvertence or mistake. However, we must point out that violation of Labor Code § 973 is a misdemeanor. We are reluctant to take any action, but unless future advertisements contain an explicit notice of the existence of a labor dispute, we will be forced to bring the matter to the attention of the District Attorney.

Thanking you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter, I remain,

Yours truly,

H. THOMAS CADELL, JR.
Chief Counsel

c.c. Victoria Bradshaw, State Labor Commissioner