March 2, 2021

Volume XI, Number 61

Advertisement

March 01, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Certain Cannabis Workers Are Not Protected by the NLRA

In a recent advice memo, the National Labor Relations Board determined that a Pennsylvania cannabis grower did not violate the NLRA when it fired two workers who attempted to organize their coworkers. The decision held that because the workers (a cultivation associate and a trimmer) were agricultural workers, they were not protected under the NLRA.

Since the enactment of the NLRA, agricultural laborers have been excluded from the NLRA’s definition of “employee,” and are thus not protected by the NLRA. Congress has instructed that the NLRB use the expansive definition of “agriculture” supplied by Section 3(f) of the FLSA. Under the FLSA, when determining whether a worker is an “agricultural employee” or a statutory “employee,” the NLRB must look to whether the workers “perform a substantial amount of agricultural functions,” “i.e., cultivating, growing, harvesting, and preparing for market the raw plants, a horticultural commodity.” 

The NLRB Office of the General Counsel held that the workers at issue in this case performed a substantial amount of agricultural functions, and thus were not entitled to the NLRA protections. Indeed, the cultivation associate “spent approximately 70 percent of work time harvesting, de-fanning, and skirting the plants, which included cutting plants from their stalks, taping on labels, hanging plants to be cured, pruning the plants by removing large leaves, and removing the bottoms of the plants.” Likewise, the trimmer “cleaned, planted, harvested, and packaged the plants and spent a substantial amount of time hand-sorting buds based on their salability. The two employees both worked by hand” and there was “no evidence either employee used a machine” or engaged in the processing of the plants from their raw state. Because the NLRB determined these workers were agricultural workers and not employees, the charge was required to be dismissed.

This ruling is a welcome sign from the NLRB to employers in the cannabis industry, as most states do not protect the right of agricultural workers to unionize. Without federal protection, these cannabis industry workers may not be able to organize at all.

Advertisement
© 2020 BARNES & THORNBURG LLPNational Law Review, Volume XI, Number 49
Advertisement
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Frank T. Mamat Labor Relations Lawyer Barnes and Thornburg
Attorney in Charge

A range of entities, from the United Nations to small, two-person businesses, along with construction companies, and trade and business associations – come to Frank because of his nearly 45 years of deep experience helping companies, contractors and employers with their complex labor and union matters.

Through the years, Frank has successfully counseled clients on virtually every type of labor matter. He also helped the Michigan Senate in 2012 prepare Michigan's "Right to Work" law.

In particular, he provides counsel...

947-215-1320
Associate

Alex focuses his practice on assisting employers facing various employment litigation issues in federal and state courts. Specifically, he counsels and represents employers in a range of actions involving harassment, retaliation, discrimination, wrongful termination, and wage and hour claims.

He understands the nuances of helping clients document and present a strong case. His litigation experience includes serving as, while with a Michigan law firm, a special assistant attorney general representing the Michigan Department of Transportation in various litigation proceedings. For...

947-215-1322
Advertisement
Advertisement