Right to Work Foundation challenges California cannabis labor agreement rules at Ninth Circuit

The brief contends that California’s laws are preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which governs private sector labor relations at the federal level. The four requirements under California law—mandatory union agreements, restrictions on anti-union speech, bans on certain union activities like picketing or striking, and mandatory access for union organizers—are described as matters Congress intended only federal law to address.

Additionally, the Foundation highlights that California’s statutes force employers in the cannabis industry to bargain with unions even if their employees have not chosen union representation. The brief notes: “California obligating employers to simply bargain with unions over labor peace agreements runs also afoul of [Supreme Court precedent] because the NLRA contains no such obligation. The NLRA only requires employers to bargain with unions after a majority of employees choose that union to be their exclusive representative, but not before as California’s law does.”

The Foundation further asserts that requiring employer access for union representatives infringes upon both employer property rights and employees’ ability to work without unwanted solicitation: “This requirement unconstitutionally deprives employers of their property rights,” according to the filing. “The requirement also deprives employees who oppose unions of being able to work free from unwanted solicitations by outside union organizers.”

National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix commented on what he described as broader trends among states: “California and several other states are pushing forward so-called ‘labor peace agreements’ to appease powerful union special interests, while workers and entrepreneurs in the fledgling American cannabis industry are left in the lurch,” he said. “While federal labor law certainly has its flaws, California’s statutes and similar ones around the country provide even less protection for workers, and seemingly treat employees’ free association rights as an obstacle to greater control over the industry.”

Mix added: “California’s scheme has no legal underpinning and will cause employees great harm. The Ninth Circuit should invalidate it.”