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
September 15
Documents reveal the inner workings of Amazon's union avoidance program; Washington state public sector unions reach tentative deals amid a difficult bargaining cycle; hundreds of Nevada Culinary Union members protest their union's health care changes.
September 14
NCAA and Big Ten file motion to dismiss in former star player's NIL suit; Seventh Circuit rules against former postal worker in discrimination suit.
September 13
Documents released on the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks show that city officials encouraged workers to return to Ground Zero despite knowing the risks of asbestos exposure, and new polls demonstrate continued widespread support for labor unions.
September 10
Amazon workers allege pregnancy discrimination; federal unions challenge USDA reorganization; NYC warns of silicosis risks.
September 9
Wynn Las Vegas employees allege anti-union retaliation; Amazon faces a class action over pregnancy accommodations; H-1B demand plunges following a six-figure visa fee.
September 8
In today’s News and Commentary, workers and unions across America celebrate Labor Day, California’s SEIU Local 1000 prepares for a strike authorization vote, and New York City creates the Office of Worker Power. On Monday, labor unions and workers gathered in cities across the United States in celebration of Labor Day. Parades and rallies took […]