Benjamin Sachs is the Kestnbaum Professor of Labor and Industry at Harvard Law School and a leading expert in the field of labor law and labor relations. He is also faculty director of the Center for Labor and a Just Economy. Professor Sachs teaches courses in labor law, employment law, and law and social change, and his writing focuses on union organizing and unions in American politics. Prior to joining the Harvard faculty in 2008, Professor Sachs was the Joseph Goldstein Fellow at Yale Law School. From 2002-2006, he served as Assistant General Counsel of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in Washington, D.C. Professor Sachs graduated from Yale Law School in 1998, and served as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Stephen Reinhardt of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. His writing has appeared in the Harvard Law Review, the Yale Law Journal, the Columbia Law Review, the New York Times and elsewhere. Professor Sachs received the Yale Law School teaching award in 2007 and in 2013 received the Sacks-Freund Award for Teaching Excellence at Harvard Law School. He can be reached at [email protected].
We will have a full analysis of Cemex soon, but among the critical holdings in the (132 page) opinion is this one:
“We conclude that an employer confronted with a demand for recognition may, instead of agreeing to recognize the union, and without committing an 8(a)(5) violation, promptly file a petition pursuant to Section 9(c)(1)(B) to test the union’s majority support and/or challenge the appropriateness of the
unit or may await the processing of a petition previously filed by the union.
However, if the employer commits an unfair labor practice that requires setting aside the election, the petition (whether filed by the employer or the union) will be dismissed, and the employer will be subject to a remedial bargaining order.”
Put somewhat differently, under the rule announced in Cemex (and based on my initial read), an employer presented with a demand for card-check recognition may respond by promptly petitioning for a Board-conducted election. But, if the employer then commits an unfair labor practice that requires invalidating the results of that election, the employer doesn’t get a new election; it gets an order to recognize and bargain with the union. Hence, Cemex establishes a new and quite promising disincentive to employer unfair labor practices: the employer that commits ulp’s in the Cemex context (ones that warrant setting aside the election) must comply with the results of a card check.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
October 8
In today’s news and commentary, the Trump administration threatens no back pay for furloughed federal workers; the Second Circuit denies a request from the NFL for an en banc review in the Brian Flores case; and Governor Gavin Newsom signs an agreement to create a pathway for unionization for Uber and Lyft drivers.
October 7
The Supreme Court kicks off its latest term, granting and declining certiorari in several labor-related cases.
October 6
EEOC regains quorum; Second Circuit issues opinion on DEI causing hostile work environment.
October 5
In today’s news and commentary, HELP committee schedules a vote on Trump’s NLRB nominees, the 5th Circuit rejects Amazon’s request for en banc review, and TV production workers win their first union contract. After a nomination hearing on Wednesday, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee scheduled a committee vote on President Trump’s NLRB nominees […]
October 3
California legislation empowers state labor board; ChatGPT used in hostile workplace case; more lawsuits challenge ICE arrests
October 2
AFGE and AFSCME sue in response to the threat of mass firings; another preliminary injunction preventing Trump from stripping some federal workers of collective bargaining rights; and challenges to state laws banning captive audience meetings.