Right to Work Foundation Urges 9th Circuit to Reject California Union Rules for Cannabis Industry

[PRESS RELEASE] – SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 8, 2025 – The National Right to Work Foundation has filed an amicus brief at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Ctrl Alt Destroy v. Elliott, arguing that California’s regulatory regime imposing so-called “labor peace agreements” on the cannabis industry violates federal law.

These so-called “agreements,” which cannabis companies must adhere to in order to maintain a license under California law, rig the law against workers opposed to union control by censoring speech critical of unionization. They also mandate that employers grant union campaigners access to employees.

“Since 1968, the Foundation has been the nation’s leading litigation advocate for employee freedom to choose whether to associate with unions,” the amicus brief states. “The Foundation has an interest in this case because it concerns whether California can lawfully subject employees of cannabis retailers to union organizing agreements.”

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.

California Statutes Force Employers to Bargain With Union Bosses Their Employees Never Voted For

Notably, the brief explains that California’s labor law requires cannabis employers to bargain with union officials – even if a majority of employees have not expressed that they want a union in the workplace.

“California obligating employers to simply bargain with unions over labor peace agreements runs also afoul of [Supreme Court precedent] because the NLRA contains no such obligation,” the brief states. “The NLRA only requires employers to bargain with unions after a majority of employees choose that union to be their exclusive representative, but not before as California’s law does.”

Federal law also preempts California’s mandate that cannabis employers provide union bosses access to workers, the brief contends. The mandate lets union agitators intrude on private property so they can subject employees to campaign activity whether they want it or not.

“This requirement unconstitutionally deprives employers of their property rights,” the brief states. “The requirement also deprives employees who oppose unions of being able to work free from unwanted solicitations by outside union organizers.”

“California and several other states are pushing forward so-called ‘labor peace agreements’ to appease powerful union special interests, while workers and entrepreneurs in the fledgling American cannabis industry are left in the lurch,” National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix said. “While federal labor law certainly has its flaws, California’s statutes and similar ones around the country provide even less protection for workers, and seemingly treat employees’ free association rights as an obstacle to greater control over the industry.

“California’s scheme has no legal underpinning and will cause employees great harm. The Ninth Circuit should invalidate it.”