Posts tagged Cannabis Industry

    Update: Labor Peace Agreements, the Cannabis Industry, and the NLRB

    September 23, 2025 // The intersection of LPAs, the cannabis industry, and the NLRB presents a legal landscape marked by uncertainty and rapid change. As states continue to require LPAs as a condition of licensure, and as the NLRB remains without a quorum, employers and unions must navigate a patchwork of state regulations without clear guidance. Until federal legalization or NLRB functionality brings greater clarity, businesses should work closely with legal counsel to ensure compliance with state requirements while preparing for potential shifts in federal enforcement. Ultimately, the future of labor relations in the cannabis sector will depend on how courts, regulators, and industry participants respond to these unprecedented challenges.

    Oregon Won’t Enforce LPA Requirement After Law Declared Illegal – Similar Laws in Other States Are Also Ripe for Challenge

    June 10, 2025 // While several other states (such as Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island) have LPA requirements, this ruling applies only to the Oregon law. Similar laws in other states are also ripe for challenge, and challenges are underway in some other states. Some industry players, however, have shied away from contesting the laws because of a desire not to upset the regulators upon whose good will they need to operate.

    Oregon Voters to Consider Ballot Proposal Allowing Cannabis Industry Workers to Unionize

    August 9, 2024 // Oregon voters will decide this November whether workers in the state’s struggling cannabis industry should be allowed to unionize, Willamette Week reports. The ballot initiative, Measure 119, was organized by the United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) labor union after state lawmakers this year considered but ultimately failed to adopt the reforms. The legislation died in the House Business and Labor Committee — Rep. Paul Holvey (D), who chairs the committee, said that he let the bill die because the reforms would likely violate federal law.