Cannabis company must bargain with union that lost election, US judge rules
Adds comment from the UFCW's lawyer in paragraphs 9-10
By Daniel Wiessner
May 14 (Reuters) -A federal judge in Boston on Tuesday ordered a cannabis dispensary operator to bargain with a union even though its workers voted against unionizing, in the first court ruling to apply a National Labor Relations Board decision creating a new path for unions to organize workers.
U.S. District Judge Myong Joun rejected claims by I.N.S.A. that a major 2023 NLRB ruling involving building materials company Cemex will likely be overturned by federal appeals courts and should not be applied to its case, saying he would not engage in "mere fortune-telling."
Joun granted the NLRB's request for a temporary injunction requiring I.N.S.A. to bargain with United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) and re-hire two union supporters at a Salem, Massachusetts store, who had been fired in the weeks before a 2022 election, pending the outcome of an underlying board case.
The store's staff voted 17-11 against joining the union. But Joun agreed with the board's general counsel that I.N.S.A. violated workers' rights, including by firing the pro-union employees, and tainted the election.
The Cemex decision says employers can be forced to bargain with unions if they engage in illegal labor practices during an organizing campaign, even when a union loses an election or one is never held, because that conduct can improperly discourage workers from unionizing.
Lawyers for I.N.S.A., which has denied wrongdoing, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo in a statement said Joun correctly determined that the company's conduct had a coercive effect on workers' rights to a fair election.
"We are pleased that the district court decision provides the critical interim relief that employees need to exercise their rights under the National Labor Relations Act," Abruzzo said.
Alex Robertson, a lawyer for UFCW, said the union was pleased with the ruling.
"As we argued in our brief, questions regarding the Board’s interpretation of the Act should be decided in the ordinary course of Board administrative litigation," he said.
An NLRB regional director sued the company last year seeking a court injunction pending a ruling in the underlying board case accusing I.N.S.A. of unlawful labor practices.
An administrative judge in September in the first ruling to apply Cemex ordered I.N.S.A. to bargain with the union. The five-member board, whose decisions can be appealed to federal appeals courts, is reviewing the judge's decision.
The Cemex ruling was seen as a major boon to organized labor, establishing a blueprint for unionizing outside of the formal election process that has been in place for decades. Cemex has appealed the decision to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The case is Sacks v. I.N.S.A. Inc, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 23-12368.
For the NLRB: Daniel Fein and Miriam Hasbun
For I.N.S.A.: Allison Anderson and Jonathan Keselenko of Foley Hoag
For the union: Alfred Gordon O'Connell and Alex Robertson of Pyle Rome Ehrenberg
Read more:
Cannabis company is first forced to bargain with union under new NLRB test
NLRB paves way for workers to unionize without formal elections
Unions poised to capitalize on U.S. labor board rulings that bolstered organizing
Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York
Asset collegati
Ultime news
Disclaimer: le entità di XM Group forniscono servizi di sola esecuzione e accesso al nostro servizio di trading online, che permette all'individuo di visualizzare e/o utilizzare i contenuti disponibili sul sito o attraverso di esso; non ha il proposito di modificare o espandere le proprie funzioni, né le modifica o espande. L'accesso e l'utilizzo sono sempre soggetti a: (i) Termini e condizioni; (ii) Avvertenza sui rischi e (iii) Disclaimer completo. Tali contenuti sono perciò forniti a scopo puramente informativo. Nello specifico, ti preghiamo di considerare che i contenuti del nostro servizio di trading online non rappresentano un sollecito né un'offerta ad operare sui mercati finanziari. Il trading su qualsiasi mercato finanziario comporta un notevole livello di rischio per il tuo capitale.
Tutto il materiale pubblicato sul nostro servizio di trading online è unicamente a scopo educativo e informativo, e non contiene (e non dovrebbe essere considerato come contenente) consigli e raccomandazioni di carattere finanziario, di trading o fiscale, né informazioni riguardanti i nostri prezzi di trading, offerte o solleciti riguardanti transazioni che possano coinvolgere strumenti finanziari, oppure promozioni finanziarie da te non richieste.
Tutti i contenuti di terze parti, oltre ai contenuti offerti da XM, siano essi opinioni, news, ricerca, analisi, prezzi, altre informazioni o link a siti di terzi presenti su questo sito, sono forniti "così com'è", e vanno considerati come commenti generali sui mercati; per questo motivo, non possono essere visti come consigli di investimento. Dato che tutti i contenuti sono intesi come ricerche di investimento, devi considerare e accettare che non sono stati preparati né creati seguendo i requisiti normativi pensati per promuovere l'indipendenza delle ricerche di investimento; per questo motivo, questi contenuti devono essere considerati come comunicazioni di marketing in base alle leggi e normative vigenti. Assicurati di avere letto e compreso pienamente la nostra Notifica sulla ricerca di investimento non indipendente e la nostra Informativa sul rischio riguardante le informazioni sopra citate; tali documenti sono consultabili qui.
