The public position of 57% Oregon voters is that cannabis processors and retail stores should sign labor peace agreements before they can be licensed by the state. However, this issue has now been mooted.
Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission announced on May 29, that it would no longer be requiring cannabis companies to provide labor peace agreements when applying for licenses or renewing them. This requirement was adopted by the commission in December of 2024 following ballot passage. Measure 119.
According to the International Labor Union, the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555, the measure was filed in part “due to ambiguity” in federal laws that has resulted in cannabis workers not being granted their rights. This, the union claims, leads to “unsafe work environments, wage theft and abuses.”
Miles Eshaia is the spokesperson of Local 555. “Toxic chemical use, safety issues unchecked and lack proper PPE are all rampant.” Tell them to get on with it You can also find out more about the following: Oregon News Service In the run-up to the November election. Employers often make short cuts. You can prevent this by having a safety and collective bargaining agreement.
The OLCC reversed its decision to no longer support Measure 119, after U.S. District Court of Oregon judge Michael H. Simon ruled that it is in conflict with the National Labor Relations Act and the freedom of expression rights of cannabis companies.
According to a news release from the OLCC on May 29, “Given the ruling, and after consulting with the Oregon Department of Justice,” the OLCC no longer requires labor peace agreements in order to apply for cannabis licenses or renew licenses.
It was initially unclear whether Oregon’s Justice Department will appeal Simon’s 20 May ruling.
Prior to being overturned, Measure 119 required that cannabis licensees and license applicants “remain neutral”, with regard to a legitimate labor organization’s representative communicating with their workers. Simon ruled this was a violation of the First Amendment.
“Measure 119 is not limited to restricting only threatening, coercive, false, or misleading speech, but instead prohibits all speech by employers that is not ‘neutral’ toward unionization,” Simon Written by His opinion and order. Measure 119, therefore, violates the plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
The lawsuit was filed in February by Ascend Dispensary a cannabis retailer and Bubble’s Hash a cannabis processor, both of which are licensed to operate in Portland, Ore. Tina Kotek is a defendant, along with the state attorney general Dan Rayfield as well two OLCC employees.
They argued, among other things, that the NLRA could not be applied to cannabis companies sanctioned at the state level, since they are operating in a market illegal under federal law, controlled substances act. Simon’s answer addressed a question called “the threshold” that was raised in this case.
“The NLRA does not limit its jurisdiction to ‘lawful commerce’ or ‘legal substance,’ as some other federal laws do,” the judge wrote. “The NLRB’s issued Memoranda and other advisory materials In a document dated back to 2013, it stated that medical marijuana is under the NLRB jurisdiction if a business meets the NLRA jurisdictional monetary requirement.”
The states of California, Connecticut, New Jersey You can also find out more about the following: New York Some cannabis businesses are required to sign labor peace agreements in order to be licensed. A common misconception is that workers do not have the right of association under the National Labor Relations Act, and need state laws.
Jeff Toppel is a Partner at Bianchi & BrandtTell me if you can Cannabis Business Times This assumption is not valid in December 2023.
“The Premise of [Oregon’s] This false assumption is at the heart of a number of other laws that require agreements on labor peace. [cannabis workers are] Toppel claimed that they were not receiving the full protection of federal law and federal regulations, simply because cannabis was involved.
The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) decision to impose a wage freeze on workers is a good example. ruled Curaleaf acted in an unlawful manner in December of 2022, when the operator refused to go to the table for bargaining and to recognize the fact that workers at its Chicago dispensary voted in favor of joining the UFCW.
Toppel who has argued dozens of union cases in front of the NLRB said that forcing labor agreement through state legislation often leads employers to shop around for the best deals which does not always benefit employees.
The state of Oregon does not require cannabis companies to sign labor agreements. However, this doesn’t stop dispensary employees from organizing themselves.
Simon’s Oregon decision, on the other hand, clashes with a U.S. District Court of Southern California ruling from March 2025, in which Judge Todd W. Robinson ruled. A challenge was filed against the California law which requires applicants for cannabis licenses or those with at least 10 employees to sign labor agreements.
The lawsuit, filed by Ctrl Alt Destroy LLC on April 20, 2024, was brought against Embr in La Mesa (San Diego County), a marijuana dispensary, as per the California Department of Cannabis Control’s licensing database.
As plaintiffs, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, and DCC Director Nicole Elliott argued the court shouldn’t grant Ctrl Alt Destroy relief requested because it would facilitate illegal federal conduct.
Robinson agreed. He dismissed Ctrl Alt Destroy’s lawsuit on the grounds that the court’s judicial powers could not be used by a plaintiff who “wants to use that power in order to consummate a transaction that is clearly against the law.” [federal] law.”
A UFCW spokesperson from Local 555 in Oregon pointed out that the federal decisions were contradictory. KOIN 6 News.
The spokesperson stated that “we now have contradictory federal rulings. A judge in Oregon has put Measure 119 on pause while a Californian judge upheld an identical law.” One of these decisions is bound to be reversed on appeal. It is our strong suspicion that the Judge Simon opinion will be overturned, as it violates Supreme Court precedent.
The public position of 57% Oregon voters is that cannabis retailers and processing companies should sign labor agreements before they can be licensed by the state. However, this issue has now been moot.
Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission has announced that as of May 29, it no longer requires cannabis companies wishing to renew or apply for licenses to present labor peace agreement. This requirement was adopted by the commission in December of 2024 following ballot passage. Measure 119.
According to the International Labor Union, the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555, the measure was filed in part “due ambiguity” in federal laws that has resulted in cannabis workers not being granted their rights. This, the union claims, leads to “unsafe work environments, wage theft and abuses.”
Miles Eshaia, spokesperson for Local 555 said: “Toxic chemicals are rampant and unchecked concerns about safety have been ignored.” Tell them to get on with it You can also find out more about the following: Oregon News Service The lead-up to November’s elections. Employers often make short cuts. The compromises are made to both consumer and worker safety. You can avoid this with a bargained collective agreement.
The OLCC reversed its decision to no longer support Measure 119, after U.S. District Court of Oregon judge Michael H. Simon ruled that it is in conflict with the National Labor Relations Act and the freedom of expression rights of cannabis companies.
According to a news release from the OLCC on May 29, “Given the ruling, and after consulting with the Oregon Department of Justice,” the OLCC no longer requires labor peace agreements in order to apply for cannabis licenses or renew licenses.
It was initially unclear whether Oregon’s Justice Department will appeal Simon’s 20 May ruling.
Prior to being overturned, Measure 119 required that cannabis licensees and license applicants “remain neutral”, with regard to a legitimate labor organization’s representative communicating with their workers. Simon ruled this was a violation of the First Amendment.
“Measure 119 is not limited to restricting only threatening, coercive, false, or misleading speech, but instead prohibits all speech by employers that is not ‘neutral’ toward unionization,” Simon Written by His opinion and order. Measure 119, therefore, violates the plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
The lawsuit was filed in February by Ascend Dispensary – a cannabis retailer based in Portland, Oregon – and Bubble’s Hash – a cannabis processing company – naming Governor. Tina Kotek is a defendant, along with the state attorney general Dan Rayfield as well two OLCC employees.
They argued, among other things, that the NLRA could not be applied to state-sanctioned marijuana businesses which are operating in a federally prohibited market, under the Controlled Substances Act. Simon’s answer addressed a question called “threshold” that was raised in this case.
“The NLRA does not limit its jurisdiction to ‘lawful commerce’ or ‘legal substance,’ as some other federal laws do,” the judge wrote. “The NLRB’s issued Memoranda of advice In a document dated back to 2013, it stated that medical marijuana is under the NLRB jurisdiction if a business meets the NLRA jurisdictional monetary requirement.”
The states of California, Connecticut, New Jersey You can also find out more about the following: New York Some states require certain cannabis businesses that are licensed to have labor agreements. This is because they believe cannabis workers cannot organize as per the National Labor Relations Act.
Jeff Toppel is a Partner at Bianchi & BrandtTell me if you can Cannabis Business Times This assumption is not valid in December 2023.
The Premise of [Oregon’s] This false assumption is at the heart of a number of other laws that require agreements on labor peace. [cannabis workers are] Toppel claimed that they were not receiving the full protection of federal law and federal regulations, simply because cannabis was involved.
The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) decision to impose a wage freeze on workers is a good example. ruled Curaleaf acted in an unlawful manner in December of 2022, when the operator refused to go to the table for bargaining and to recognize the fact that workers at its Chicago dispensary voted in favor of joining the UFCW.
Toppel has argued countless cases of unions before the NLRB. He said forcing labor agreements into state laws often results in employers shopping for the best deal, and that doesn’t benefit employees.
The state of Oregon does not require cannabis companies to sign labor agreements. However, this doesn’t stop dispensary employees from organizing themselves.
Simon’s Oregon decision, on the other hand, clashes with a U.S. District Court of Southern California ruling from March 2025, in which Judge Todd W. Robinson ruled. A challenge was filed against the California law requiring cannabis licensees or applicants with at least 10 employees to sign labor agreements.
The lawsuit, filed in April of 2024, was brought by Ctrl Alt Destroy LLC. It is listed in the California Department of Cannabis Control’s (DCC) database as Embr.
As plaintiffs, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, and DCC Director Nicole Elliott argued the court shouldn’t grant Ctrl Alt Destroy relief requested because it would facilitate illegal federal conduct.
Robinson agreed. The court dismissed Ctrl Alt Destroy’s case on the basis that it could not grant judicial authority to someone who “wants to exercise that power with the intent of consummating an illegal transaction.” [federal] law.”
A UFCW spokesperson from Local 555 in Oregon pointed out that the federal decisions were contradictory. KOIN 6 News.
We now have two conflicting federal decisions. One judge from Oregon put Measure 119 in limbo, and another judge from California upheld the same law. One of these decisions is bound to be reversed on appeal. We have a strong suspicion that the opinion of Judge Simon, which is contrary to Supreme Court precedents, will be reversed.
Cannabis Law Resources in Poland
Browse essential legal pages on cannabis sales and cultivation in Poland. These guides will help you understand the legal requirements, such as certifications, permits, and compliance.
-
Polish News Registration and Interests of Cannabis Businesses
-
Permissions for Cannabis Sales in Poland
-
Authorization for Importing or Manufacturing Medical Products
-
Permission for Manufacturing or Importing Medical Products
-
Certificate of Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)
-
Registration of Medical Products in Poland