Posts tagged NLRA
Commentary: AB 1340 Is a Death-Knell to Rideshare Independence for California Drivers
October 9, 2025 // Long odds predict that, just as with the fallout from AB5, rideshare drivers will ultimately not like the end result. Just as California’s AB5 has infected the nation, with AB5-like restrictive measures being considered in Minnesota and New Jersey, this new California law is a bellwether to the erosion of the rideshare model in other states.
Right to Work Foundation Urges Ninth Circuit to Reject CA Law Granting Union Bosses Massive Power Over Cannabis Industry Workers
October 9, 2025 // 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.
Pratt & Whitney Employee Slams IAM Union With Federal Charges For Imposing Illegal Post-Strike Discipline
October 6, 2025 // Union officials insulted worker for wanting to resign membership and keep working, incorrectly told workers P&W was “closed shop”
Trump’s NLRB Nominees Get Grilled While Board Faces Uncertain Future
October 3, 2025 // If confirmed by the whole Senate, Mayer and Murphy will join the NLRB’s only member, Democratic appointee David A. Prouty, returning the usually five-person board to a three-person quorum with two GOP members and one Democratic one. Historically, the political affiliation of the board members breaks along a 3-2 split, with the majority coming from the president’s political party. With a quorum, the board should be able to return to its work of helping settle labor disputes as outlined under the National Labor Relations Act.
California to weigh in on private labor disputes if NLRB can’t
October 2, 2025 // AB 288 expands the state Public Employment Relations Board's powers over private sector labor disputes like unfair labor practice charges and enforcing collective bargaining agreements. Other blue states, including New York, are trying to expand their state labor agencies' powers over issues that would normally be decided under the National Labor Relations Act, citing Trump's antipathy to organized labor.
A crackdown on political violence that quietly worked
October 1, 2025 // First, various arms of the federal government have conflicting interpretations over whether employers have the obligation to protect workers from union-related harassment in the workplace or are prohibited from protecting workers from union-related harassment in the workplace. The Institute for the American Worker (I4AW), a labor-policy think tank aligned with the Taft-Hartley Consensus, calls this paradox the “Battle of the 7s” after the relevant, conflicting portions of law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (CRA) and Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which enforces the CRA, requires employers to prevent workplace harassment, and I4AW reports that its guidance has held that “insults and slurs could trigger liability under Title VII.” Meanwhile, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under the Biden administration ruled that the NLRA protected certain “blatantly discriminatory or harassing language in the workplace, so long as the comments are made in the context of labor union activity.” In addition to creating an apparently unresolvable legal paradox for an employer, this dichotomy seems to tell Big Labor that its misconduct does not matter to public policy and is a wink-and-nod tolerance of it.
IBEW Local 16 Folds in Case Concerning Illegal $1.29 Million Retaliatory ‘Fine’ Threat Against Local Electrician
October 1, 2025 // The settlement requires union officials to rescind all fines against Head, expunge all records of them, and refrain from interfering with workers who exercise their right to resign their union membership in the future. The union is also required to notify other workers of their legal right to resign their union membership without restriction, and be free of any attempt to impose internal union fines post-resignation.
Anonymous graduate student worker group files unfair labor practice charge against SWC-UAW
October 1, 2025 // Graduate Researchers Against Discrimination and Suppression, a new group, alleges that the union is halting bargaining for issues unrelated to employment.The group filed the charge amid stalled negotiations between the University and the union for a new contract after its first contract expired on June 30. The negotiations have halted over the University’s refusal to let the union broadcast bargaining sessions over Zoom for its members or let its president Grant Miner, who the University expelled in March, attend negotiations. The parties have not met since March. The union’s bylaws state that bargaining sessions must be “made accessible to the entire membership via Zoom or an equivalent platform.” The union conducted negotiations for its first contract in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic over Zoom and argues that its members who have fled the country fearing deportation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, such as Ranjani Srinivasan, a Ph.D. candidate at the Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, deserve to witness bargaining.
Electric Utility Worker Asks Trump NLRB to Prosecute IBEW’s Restrictive Policies That Compel Workers to Fund Union Politics
September 24, 2025 // Electric utility worker asks NLRB General Counsel to seek Board ruling against union policies that force nonmembers to fund union political spending
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.