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.