1.Emails that you receive are current cases at the NLRB that H. Sanford Rudnick & Associates are working on at the NLRB throughout the US. 2.Now it is legal for recreational use in 24 states, the cannabis industry has become a major economic force in the United States, employing over 400,000 people. While cannabis is still unlawful under federal law , state-level legalization has made cannabis less of a black market, as run-of-the-mill health codes, employment laws, and other regulations now apply to cannabis businesses. 3.So does the National Labor Relations Act. While some cannabis workers (i.e. those who grow and harvest the plant) are agricultural employees outside the NLRA’s purview, many others who work in dispensaries and processing facilities are subject to federal labor law, as Michelle outlined here . In recent years, unions including the United Food and Commercial Workers and the Teamsters have organized cannabis workers, now representing tens of thousands of them. Understanding Labor Peace Requirements 4.But states have also passed their own laws impacting labor relations in the cannabis industry. California law requires any cannabis business with 10 or more employees to enter into a “labor peace agreement” with a “bona fide labor organization,” i.e. a union. Several other states also encourage the agreements in some form in the cannabis industry. A labor peace agreement is a contract between an employer and a union in which the union agrees not to disrupt the employer’s operations, typically by refraining from any strikes, pickets, boycotts, or other campaigns. 5.On their face, labor peace agreements may appear to hinder unions, because the unions surrender their most powerful forms of collective action. But in practice, employers must offer unions significant concessions in order to get the unions to sign these agreements, often granting the unions the right to organize the employers’ workforces on favorable terms such as card check. 6. Accordingly, as the Ninth Circuit has observed , unions often advocate for states and cities to require labor peace agreements in certain sectors. Because these agreements transform the playing field for union organizing, states and cities typically craft labor peace requirements to fall within the market participant exception to federal labor preemption (the contours of which I have analyzed here ), applying them to government-backed or government-owned ventures like airports and infrastructure projects. 7.If an Employer has any issues regarding a union in the cannabis Industry or any other labor relations issue at the NLRB, please contact Sanford Rudnick JD At 1-800-326 3046 sandy@rudnickpro.com or www.Theunionexpert.com

1.Employers should note that the weekly emails that are being sent from H. Sanford Rudnick & Associates are current cases at the NLRB or audits by Trust Funds. 2.A Trust Fund audited an Employer for health and welfare payments. 3.The Trust Fund stated the Employer owed over $100,000. 4.The Employer stated there was an oral agreement between the Union and the Employer and that the Employer did not need to make benefit payments. 5.According to Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Kroger Co., 226 F.3d 903 (7th Cir. 2000) the court held: In this case, the employer argued that the union orally agreed that certain contributions were not required. The court considered the issue of whether an oral agreement could override the written terms of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The court held that while oral agreements might be considered in some contexts, they cannot modify the explicit terms of a CBA unless there is a clear and mutual understanding between the parties. 6.Since the employer and the union had a specific in writing concerning the oral agreement, the trust fund allowed the audit to be modified to reflect the oral Agreement. 7. If your Company is going through an Trust Audit and needs some defenses to the audit, please contact H. Sanford Rudnick & Associates at 1-800-326-3046.

1.When is legal for the Federal Government by ICE or HLS to Arrest an illegal immigrant. 2.INTRODUCTION The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), lawfully apprehended the Respondent, an undocumented alien present in the United States without lawful status, based on probable cause that Respondent posed a threat to public safety and was removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Respondent has a documented history of criminal activity, including [e.g., felony conviction, gang affiliation, or violent conduct], making the arrest not only lawful but necessary to protect the community. 3.ARGUMENT 4. ICE Possesses Statutory Authority to Arrest Removable Aliens 4(A) Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), ICE officers are authorized to: "...arrest any alien in the United States if the officer has reason to believe that the alien is in the United States in violation of any law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest." The Respondent, an undocumented immigrant, is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). These provisions clearly grant ICE the authority to detain and initiate removal proceedings. 4(B). The Arrest Was Based on Probable Cause and Respondent’s Criminal Conduct Probable cause existed for the arrest, based on: - Information that the Respondent lacked valid immigration documentation; - A prior [e.g., felony conviction for assault, DUI, drug trafficking]; - Verified information from local law enforcement or a national database (NCIC, IDENT, etc.); - Evidence of gang or cartel affiliation (if applicable). In United States v. Olivares-Rangel, 458 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. 2006), the court held that immigration arrests are lawful if supported by probable cause and executed under statutory authority. Here, ICE acted fully within legal limits. 4 (C). There Was No Constitutional Violation ICE officers conducted the arrest in accordance with Fourth Amendment standards, including: - No unreasonable search or seizure; - No use of excessive force; - Arrest conducted in a public place or pursuant to valid administrative warrant. Under INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984), civil immigration enforcement actions do not trigger the same exclusionary rule protections as criminal proceedings unless there is egregious conduct—which is not alleged or evidenced here. 11 4 (D). Public Safety Justifies Detention Pending Proceedings Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), ICE is required to detain certain categories of aliens, including those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude, controlled substances, or crimes of violence. The Respondent falls within these categories. Given the Respondent’s background, their continued presence in the community poses an unacceptable risk, justifying detention without bond pending resolution of removal proceedings. 5.CONCLUSION The arrest and detention of the Respondent were entirely lawful under federal immigration law and constitutional principles. ICE officers acted within their legal authority and in the interest of public safety. 6.If an Employer has any issues regarding the arrest of one of your employees since they were an illegal immigrant which might violate the NLRB Act as well, or any other labor relations issue at the NLRB, please contact Sanford Rudnick JD At 1-800-326-3046 sandy@rudnickpro.com or www.Theunionexpert.com

1. An Employer can Install Cameras into their Trucks Without bargaining with the Union. 2. If a union that does not have any language in their contract about installation of cameras, it allows an Employer to install cameras into their trucks for safety purposes pursuant to its management rights clause. 3. The Employer cannot install cameras for union surveillance or monitoring of the employees which is a violation of the NLRB Act. 4. The installation of the cameras must be for strictly safety purposes. 5. Clear and Unmistakable Waiver: Employers need to ensure any waivers of bargaining rights related to camera installation are explicit and unambiguous. 6. If an Employer has any issues installing cameras into their trucks without bargaining with the union or any other labor relations issue at the NLRB, please contact Sanford Rudnick JD At 1-800-326-3046 sandy@rudnickpro.com or www.Theunionexpert.com

In the U.S., employers can generally require employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19, but there are important exceptions and limitations: 1. Medical and Religious Exemptions – Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employees may request exemptions for medical reasons or sincerely held religious beliefs. Employers must provide reasonable accommodations unless it creates an undue hardship. 2. State and Local Laws – Some states have passed laws that limit or prohibit employer vaccine mandates, especially for private employers. 3. Union and Employment Contracts – If an employee is covered by a union agreement or employment contract, the terms of that agreement may impact whether a vaccine mandate is enforceable. 4. At-Will Employment – In most states, employment is "at-will," meaning an employer can terminate employees who refuse a vaccine (except where exemptions apply). 5. Industry-Specific Rules – Healthcare facilities and government contractors may have different rules due to federal regulations. 6.If an Employer has any issues with requiring employees to get covid tests or any other labor relations issue at the NLRB, please contact Sanford Rudnick JD At 1-800-323046, sandy@rudnickpro.com or www.Theunionexpert.com

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

March 24, 2025 1. As you know every week, H. Sanford Rudnick & Associates tells Employers what the NLRB had ruled with my firms current cases. 2. This week I wanted to explain when a Whistleblower/employee files a complaint at the NLRB. 3. A Whistleblower is someone who reports illegal, unethical, or improper activities within an organization. This could include fraud, corruption, safety violations, or other misconduct. Whistleblowers can be employees, contractors, or even outsiders who have knowledge of wrongdoing. 4. Depending on the situation, whistleblowers may report to authorities such as government agencies, regulators, or the media. In many countries, there are laws that protect whistleblowers from retaliation, such as being fired or harassed for speaking out. 5. A whistleblower who was terminated for reporting labor law violations to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) may be entitled to remedies under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) . The NLRB protects employees from retaliation for engaging in protected concerted activity , including whistleblowing on unfair labor practices. 6. Potential Remedies for a Wrongfully Terminated Whistleblower: Reinstatement – The employee may be reinstated to their former position if the NLRB determines the termination was unlawful. Back Pay – Compensation for lost wages and benefits due to wrongful termination. Front Pay – If reinstatement isn’t feasible, the employee may receive compensation for future lost earnings. Expungement of Disciplinary Records – Any references to the wrongful termination may be removed from the employee's record. Cease and Desist Orders – The employer may be ordered to stop retaliatory practices. Notice Posting – The employer might be required to post a notice informing employees of their rights and the violation committed. Other Make-Whole Relief – This could include damages for harm suffered due to the retaliation. 8. If an Employer has any problems with a Whistleblower /employee in general or any other labor relations issue, please contact Sanford Rudnick JD At 1-800-326-3046, sandy@rudnickpro.com or www.Theunionexpert.com

March 10, 2025 Hood River Distillers v. NLRB (DC Cir 03/07/2025) http://case.lawmemo.com/dc/hood.pdf 1.The Court of Appeals enforced an NLRB order that held that the employer had unilaterally changed employment terms even though there was no impasse in negotiations. 2.During lengthy negotiations, the employer several times said they were at impasse, yet bargaining continued. 3.In the end, the employer recognized that the parties had made headway and said it had more room to give. Thus, the employer was not at impasse to implement the new terms and conditions. 4.If you need assistance in negotiations when you can implement your final proposal and you are at impasse, please contact H. Sanford Rudnick & Associates at 1-800-326-3046

LIFE VISION CONFLICT RESOLUTION