Right to Work Foundation Urges Court to Reject Law Granting Union Bosses Power Over Cannabis Workers

*SAN FRANCISCO* – The National Right to Work Foundation has filed an amicus
brief at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Ctrl Alt Destroy v.
Elliott, arguing that California’s regulatory regime imposing so-called
“labor peace agreements” on the cannabis industry violates federal law.

These so-called “agreements,” which cannabis companies must adhere to in
order to maintain a license under California law, rig the law against
workers opposed to union control by censoring speech critical of
unionization. They also mandate that employers grant union campaigners
access to employees.

The Foundation’s amicus brief argues in particular that the National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA) preempts California’s “labor peace agreement”
statutes. The NLRA is the federal law that governs most private sector
labor relations. The four conditions mandated for cannabis companies under
California law, “an agreement with a…union, a ban on disrupting union
organizing, a ban on union members picketing, boycotting, or striking, and
a clause granting union organizers access to employees at work” all concern
activity that the U.S. Congress intended the NLRA to deal with – not state
law.

Notably, the brief explains that California’s labor law requires cannabis
employers to bargain with union officials – even if a majority of employees
have not expressed that they want a union in the workplace. “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 brief says. “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.”

Federal law also preempts California’s mandate that cannabis employers
provide union bosses access to workers, the brief contends. The mandate
lets union agitators intrude on private property so they can subject
employees to campaign activity whether they want it or not. “This
requirement unconstitutionally deprives employers of their property
rights,” the brief reads. “The requirement also deprives employees who
oppose unions of being able to work free from unwanted solicitations by
outside union organizers.”