Farmers are accustomed to adapting quickly to changing conditions while churning out annual crop yields. As we have previously discussed, cannabis growers and the cannabis industry face additional concerns, including how their trade is federally illegal. Yet these employers must still navigate federal labor law along with 50 different sets of state regulations. The industry’s prohibitive taxation levels also lead companies to operate on such small margins that unionization could make business unsustainable for growers, producers, distributors, and retailers.

Then there’s the sketchy subject of cannabis labor peace agreement laws, which several states have adopted to mandate and/or strongly encourage companies to remain neutral – through Labor Peace Agreements, or LPAs – during union organizing campaigns. State licensure is typically influenced by employers’ adherence to these laws, which are the result of extensive UFCW lobbying with hefty Teamsters participation.

Employers in some states have attempted to push back:

In Rhode Island, a Greenleaf dispensary challenged an LPA law; however,  that case was dismissed without advancing the merits. 

In California, a district court dug slightly deeper into a case with Ctrl Alt Destroy v. Elliot. Yet this month, a judge issued a complicated ruling that essentially deemed it inappropriate for a federal court to grant a cannabis employer relief concerning a business that violates federal law. 

In Oregon, could the third time be the charm for such a challenge? We’ll see. The state’s labor peace law passed last fall, and this month, two companies – Bubble’s Hash and Ascend Dispensary – filed a lawsuit alleging that the LPA law violates free speech rights. These companies further argue that the NLRA should preempt state laws on labor issues, which could lead to an interesting precedent, regardless of how the judge rules.

Currently, the NLRA’s blanket applicability to cannabis remains a grey area due to some workers being classified as agricultural workers, who aren’t covered by the NLRA. Oregon’s attorney general is leaning on that ambiguity along with the fact that Oregon’s cannabis cannot cross state lines to be sold, which takes this product out of Congress’s interstate commerce purview. The employers, on the other hand, appear much more comfortable with the NLRA than with the free-for-all that takes place under state laws.

Thus far, however, the court has denied the employers’ request for a preliminary injunction on the state law; a hearing is set for April 29.

Here are a few more mini topics from this industry:

The BeLeaf Medical case is one that we are still watching for an NLRB ruling that could potentially transform the industry. At issue is whether the company’s post-harvest workers, who liken themselves to tobacco workers who ferment leaves, can bypass the “agricultural workers” label and unionize. Currently, the case remains open amid agency chaos.

The hemp dilemma: With the 2018 Farm Bill, the feds did step further into this industry regarding cannabis products that aren’t quite a controlled substance. However, the law saturated the hemp market with suppliers, which puts New York farmers and cultivators in danger of collapse because they cannot match the output and efficiency of larger California farms. Oof.

In other words, the cannabis industry remains anything but chill for employers, who will face continued challenges ahead in this leafy terrain.