Judges: Robert Abrams, Attorney General
Filed Date: 11/25/1991
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Requestor: Hon. Thomas Hines, Acting Commissioner New York State Department of Labor State Office Building Campus Building No. 12 Albany, New York 12240
Written by: Robert Abrams, Attorney General
You have requested our opinion as to whether (1) migrant farmworkers, living in housing provided by their agricultural employers in New York, have a legal right to receive clergy, medical or other service providers, lawyers, representatives of labor organizations, the press and other visitors without interference by their employers; (2) such visitors are subject to prosecution for criminal trespass (§§ 140.00-140.17 of the New York Penal Law) when they meet with migrant workers in labor camps owned by their employers; and (3) migrant farmworkers may assert the common law rights of tenants to see business invitees in their labor camp housing?
As noted in a report issued in 1990 by the Governor's Task Force on Agricultural Employment, Education and Labor ("Governor's Report"), "[t]here is no explicit state law which provides a general right of access or visitation right to farmworkers by labor union, legal services or other governmental agencies at farm labor camps, even during non-working hours."1 There is also no Federal law which expressly provides a right of access to migrant labor camps. For the reasons given below, we conclude that migrant farmworkers have the legal right to be visited in labor camps by doctors, lawyers, labor union representatives, the clergy or other persons during non-working hours without interference by their employers or owners of the labor camps.
According to information which you have supplied to us, there were 250 licensed migrant labor camps in New York State in 1987. Memorandum from Counsel's Office, New York State Department of Labor, dated March 29, 1991 ("DOL Memorandum"). It is believed that an equal number of camps are unlicensed. Ibid. While the quality of housing in labor camps varies from farm to farm and state to state, it is widely recognized that housing of migrant farmworkers ranks as the poorest of all housing in the nation.Research on Migratory Farm Workers, Cornell University (1986), p 9. To address the housing problem for farmworkers, New York State established minimum housing standards for migrant labor camps. New York Public Health Law §
Of the approximately 20,000 to 40,000 migrant workers who work in New York each year only about 13% report that they are provided free housing and utilities. DOL Memorandum. Other farmworkers may pay rent which is deducted from their earnings. Ibid. The New York State Labor Law, Article 19-A, permits employers to charge migrants for housing so long as such charges do not lower their earnings below the minimum wage rates set by the Labor Law. Labor Law §
Migrant farmworkers who reside in farm labor camp housing supplied by their employers live in that housing for the duration of their employment which lasts between one and seven months. Id. A sizable minority of these workers, however, are employed by more than one employer during this period of time. Id. Their average stay is approximately three to four months. Id. Once migrant workers complete their employment with their employers, they are required to vacate their housing immediately. Id.
Though labor camps only provide temporary shelter to migrant farmworkers, the camps are nonetheless the residences of the farmworkers who are lodged there. In our view, migrant farmworkers living in labor camps are tenants within the meaning of New York State's Real Property Law. As tenants, migrant farmworkers have the common law right to receive guests of their choice. Thousand Island Park Assn. v Tucker,
The test for determining whether an employee residing in housing furnished by his or her employer is a tenant or a common law servant was articulated by the New York State Court of Appeals in Kerrains v Peopleof the State of New York,
"There is no inconsistency in the relation of master and servant with that of landlord and tenant. A master may pay his servant by conferring on him an interest in real property, either in fee for years or at will, or for any other estate or interest and if he does so the servant then becomes entitled to the legal incidents of the estate, as much as if it were purchased for any other consideration . . . And, as there is nothing in the facts stated to show that the claimant was required to occupy the house for the performance of his services, or did occupy in order to their performance, or that it was conducive to that purpose more than any house which he might have paid for in any other way than by his services and as the case expressly finds that he had the house as part remuneration for his services, we cannot say that the conclusion at which the revising barrister has arrived is wrong."
Id.,
Migrant farmworkers satisfy other indicators of tenancy. One way or another, migrant farmworkers pay for housing in the labor camps. Some farmworkers pay rent for housing which is deducted from their earnings. Under Article 19-A of the New York Labor Law, an employer may charge migrant farmworkers for housing so long as such charges do not lower their earnings below the minimum wage rates set by law. Other farmworkers are provided free housing in migrant labor camps. Practically speaking, even if a migrant farmworker does not have to pay for housing, a portion of the migrant farmworker's compensation is for housing. Although the grower or farm owner may specify to the farm labor contractor that housing is rent free as an inducement to secure a work force, the free rent aspect of the labor camp justifies the low or minimum wages paid the farmworkers. See, State v Schack,
The farmworker also normally occupies housing in a migrant labor camp for an agreed upon term — the harvest season or the length of employment on the farm. This type of occupancy is recognized as tenancy for a term under New York's Real Property Law §§
A 1969 amendment to the New York Labor Law established minimum wage standards for migrant farmworkers, including a provision which expressly limited the "hours worked" for a migrant farmworker to time "worked in the fields or at an assigned place of work". New York Labor Law §
Thus, migrant farmworkers enjoy the rights of tenants while residing in labor camps. One of those rights is the right to receive guests of their choice without interference from the farmer or landowner who acts as their landlord. Thousand Island Park Assn. v Tucker, supra,
A trespass action cannot be maintained by a farmer against a guest of a tenant migrant worker. Thousand Island Park Association v Tucker, supra,
In our view, a provision in a lease for migrant farmworker housing which would prevent access to visitors supplying essential services would offend public policy, affronts the sense of decency and would be unconscionable. Most migrants who work in this State could not accept job offers unless their employer provided housing for them. DOL Memorandum from Counsel's Office, New York State Department of Labor, dated March 29, 1991. Once they arrive at the camp they are usually penniless and lack resources to pay rent until after they receive their first paycheck. Ibid. Consequently, migrant workers lack the ability to bargain or negotiate with their employers about housing conditions. Ibid.
"Language, color, and culture isolate the migrant from the community where he works. Migrants live in labor camps, often miles from the nearest town; usually they do without private transportation. This severely limits access to nearby towns. Long working hours and money likewise limit the ability to leave camp.
"The most significant isolation, however, stems from the migrant's transience itself. Migrant farm workers `arrive, work and [depart] in isolation from the life of various communities whose fields they infiltrate and work.' They are never part of the communities where they work and because of this the communities rarely treat the migrant's problems as their own. Thus, the migrant can expect little from surrounding communities." Folgueras, supra, 331 F Supp at 620.
As a result, many migrant farmworkers must depend on visitors in order to receive essential services such as education of their children, medical help and legal assistance. DuFresne and McDonnell, The Migrant LaborCamps: Enclaves of Isolation In Our Midst, 40 Fordham L Rev 279 (1971).
In our view, in light of the above factors, a lease provision prohibiting access by migrants to essential services would constitute an unconscionable contract provision. State v Avco Financial Services,
By employing migrant farmworkers and offering them free or rented housing on their property, the farmer's rights to that property are not absolute. In permitting access to representatives of a legal services organization which sought to inform migrant farmworkers of their legal rights, the Federal District Court for the Southern District stated:
"Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by those who use it."
Mid-Hudson Legal Services, Inc. v G. U., Inc.,
Ownership of real property does not include the right to bar access to services available to migrant workers. Folgueras, supra,
"`The quest is for a fair adjustment of the competing needs of the parties, in the light of the realities of the relationship between the migrant worker and the operator of the housing facility.
"`Thus approaching the case, we find it unthinkable that the farmer-employer can assert a right to isolate the migrant worker in any respect significant for the worker's well-being. The farmer, of course, is entitled to pursue his farming activities without interference, and this defendants readily concede. But we see no legitimate need for a right in the farmer to deny the worker the opportunity for aid available from federal, State, or local services, or from recognized charitable groups seeking to assist him. Hence representatives of these agencies and organizations may enter upon the premises to seek out the worker at his living quarters. So, too, the migrant worker must be allowed to receive visitors there of his own choice, so long as there is no behavior hurtful to others, and members of the press may not be denied reasonable access to workers who do not object to seeing them.'"
Folgueras, supra,
In balancing the interests of private property rights of migrant labor camp owners and the fundamental rights of migrant farmworkers, the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit inN.L.R.B. v S H Grossinger's Inc.,
The property rights of a migrant camp owner do not include the right to prevent access to his camp to guests of migrant workers or to persons working for any governmental or private agency whose primary concern is the health and welfare of migrant workers. Folgueras, supra,
We conclude that migrant farmworkers have the right to be visited in labor camps where they reside by doctors, lawyers, labor union representatives, the clergy or other persons during non-working hours without interference by their employers or owners of the labor camp.
National Labor Relations Board v. S & H Grossinger's Inc. , 372 F.2d 26 ( 1967 )
Francisco Soler v. G. & U., Inc., and Secretary, United ... , 833 F.2d 1104 ( 1987 )
Illinois Migrant Council and Roy Villareal v. Campbell Soup ... , 519 F.2d 391 ( 1975 )
State v. Shack , 58 N.J. 297 ( 1971 )
Folgueras v. Hassle , 331 F. Supp. 615 ( 1971 )
Franceschina v. Morgan , 346 F. Supp. 833 ( 1972 )
Colbee 52nd Street Corp. v. Madison 52nd Corp. , 5 A.D.2d 971 ( 1958 )
Stauber v. Antelo , 163 A.D.2d 246 ( 1990 )
Kerrains v. . People of the State of N.Y. , 60 N.Y. 221 ( 1875 )
Thousand Island Park Assn. v. . Tucker , 173 N.Y. 203 ( 1903 )
Larned v. . Hudson , 60 N.Y. 102 ( 1875 )
State v. Avco Fin. Serv. , 50 N.Y.2d 383 ( 1980 )
Michael Tuch Foundation, Inc. v. C. Hazelcorn, Inc. , 188 Misc. 1046 ( 1947 )
Feder v. Caliguira , 8 N.Y.2d 400 ( 1960 )
Marsh v. Alabama , 66 S. Ct. 276 ( 1946 )
State v. Fox , 82 Wash. 2d 289 ( 1973 )
Michael Tuck Foundation, Inc. v. Hazelcorn , 187 Misc. 954 ( 1946 )
Colbee 52nd Street Corp. v. Madison 52nd Corp. , 8 Misc. 2d 175 ( 1957 )