Oveltive Mailuana Multistate operator that owns the new Jersey Relays in Canrsey earlier this month wants to eliminate the licensing requirements that apply to workers and the company’s “commercial penalty.”
In the space entered by Oct. 9 in court in New Jersey against the State Cansey Commission, Stamford’s lawyers, said that the state law that requires the law of cannabis requires the law of silence.
Approved in several Pro-Union states, including California and New York and New Jersey, the LPA is a pact where a business agrees to be neutral during the planning process. In return, the union agrees to default and bankruptcy.
Neither the New Jersey CRC nor Carleaf representatives immediately responded to requests for comment Tuesday.
According to its suit, Curaleaf had an LPA with unionized food and commercial workers (UFCW) of area 360 that expired in April after the Union and the company could not agree on a renewal.
The UFCW is one of two major unions that organize workers in the active cannabis industry and a global brotherhood of teams.
The lawsuit alleges that the LPAs violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
It is seeking a judicial declaration that New Jersey’s LPA requirement violates Federal law and is unenforceable and that regulators cannot punish them for not doing so.
The Curaleaf case is the latest challenge to pro-Union cannabis laws
Curaleaf’s challenge to the LPA requirement in New Jersey is the latest in a series of ongoing lawsuits seeking to amend the watch-friendly requirements seen in several US marijuana markets.
But it also follows a successful legislative effort to strike down the LPA requirement in Oregon.
In that case, a federal judge found that LPAs, which require that businesses be able to remain neutral during promotions, violate the first protections of free speech and the NLRA.
And it appears that time is limited for both that case in court and for more business changes for President Donald Trump’s Trump after the administration of a friendly bid, observers said.
“I believe that rulaleaf and those like them are trying to use the federal government and the (Trump) Administration, which is the Anti-Union Anti-Union Administration that I have seen in my work, that has been Mjbizdaily.
The UFCW is not a party to the suit.
Curaleaf Risks payment of six fines and commercial
In August, the new Jersey regulators fined $610,000 for violating the LPA requirement since April, according to an Aug. 25.
According to the lawsuit, state regulators also threatened to fine the company an additional $5,000 for every day the company remains illegal.
The regulators also indicated that they could ‘renew Crulaleaf’s licenses’ in full, according to the suit.
That’s because the permit for the company’s cannabis store in Bordentown, New Jersey, was renewed “when it secured the LPA on October 31,” the lawsuits say.
“That’s the commercial equivalent of a death sentence,” the company’s lawyers wrote.
Part of the pattern of resistance to the regulation of cannabis labor
Curaleaf has hired the firm of private law firm Littler Mendelson to represent it in this case.
The firm, which Starbucks also hired in its strike against Pro-Union Baristas, has a national reputation for being organized labor.
Curaleaf has also proven that he is willing to fight efforts to promote other means.
Subscribe to MJBIZ TRCROCK
Exclusive industry data and analysis to help you make informed business decisions and prevent costly missteps. All facts, no hype.
What you will get:
- Monthly and quarterly updates, with new data and insights
- Financial Forecasts + Financial Investment Trends
- A state-by-state guide to the state of regulations, taxation and market opportunities
- Annual survey of cannabis businesses
- Consumer understanding
- And more!
In July, a National Labor Labor Board (NLRB) judge found that Carleaf had illegally fired a worker in Arizona for pro-union work.
Unionized workers there have not been able to negotiate a contract with the company for several years.
Some companies have gone to great lengths and some observers say they have been overzealous in their efforts to avoid LPAS. This includes inking deals with so-called corporate unions or sham unions that have no intention of ultimately organizing workers.
Despite corporate opposition to them, LPAs have had mixed results for workers.
Frustrated by the slow progress in securing contracts, some unionized workers voted to end their unions.
Chris Roberts can be reached at chris.robert@mjbizdaily.com.
