Thursday, May 7, 2026

In This Edition:

·        Impact of Cemex

·        Senate Leader Drinks Kool-Aid

·        Gallego Follows Patel’s Model

·        Hope for Diablo?

·        Trump PLA Policy Wins

·        Utah Water Emergency

·        No Chips for You!

Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC v. NLRB

The recent Ninth Circuit decision in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC v. NLRB is a major development for WECA contractors in California because it left in place a new, more union-friendly framework for organizing workplaces. The court refused to weigh in on the new National Labor Relations Board’s “Cemex” standard, which allows a union to demand recognition based on signed authorization cards—without first going through a traditional secret-ballot election. If an employer refuses that demand, they must promptly petition for an election, but even minor unfair labor practice findings during that process can result in the Board ordering the employer to recognize and bargain with the union anyway.

For contractors, the practical effect is a much narrower margin for error during any organizing effort. Routine management communications, missteps by supervisors, or allegations of interference, whether intentional or not, can now carry far greater consequences. Under the Cemex framework, those issues can effectively bypass an election entirely and trigger mandatory union recognition. This raises the stakes significantly compared to the prior standard, where elections were the default mechanism and remedies for employer violations were less likely to result in automatic recognition.

In California, a state which is already a highly regulated and labor-friendly environment, the decision adds another layer of risk for open-shop contractors. Construction firms, which often rely on decentralized jobsite supervision and rapidly shifting crews, may be especially vulnerable to claims of unfair labor practices during organizing campaigns. The ruling underscores the need for heightened training, careful communication protocols, and early legal guidance whenever organizing activity is suspected.

In short, the Ninth Circuit’s failure to overturn the NLRB’s Cemex standard shifts the balance of power toward unions by making it easier to secure recognition and harder for employers to rely on elections as a safeguard. For WECA contractors, it means that preparation, compliance, and disciplined responses to organizing efforts are now more critical than ever.

The implications of the Cemex decision could be significantly amplified if Congress enacts the Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA) (H.R. 5408 / S. 844). As discussed, Cemex lowers the threshold for union recognition by allowing card-check demands to trigger either rapid elections or, in the event of alleged employer missteps, mandatory recognition. FLCA would pick up where Cemex leaves off—imposing strict timelines for first-contract negotiations and, if no agreement is reached, requiring binding arbitration to set the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.

Together, these policies would create a compressed and high-risk pathway for non-union contractors: from organizing drive, to recognition, to a government-imposed contract in a matter of months. For contractors operating in California’s already labor-intensive regulatory environment, this combination would significantly reduce the ability to rely on traditional safeguards such as secret-ballot elections and extended good-faith bargaining. Instead, even minor alleged unfair labor practices could accelerate the process toward both union recognition and binding contract terms determined by a third party.

While FLCA faces meaningful legislative hurdles, particularly the 60-vote threshold in the U.S. Senate, it remains a live issue. A successful discharge petition in the House could force a floor vote, and bipartisan sponsorship suggests continued momentum. For open-shop contractors, the takeaway is clear: the evolving federal labor landscape is trending toward faster organizing timelines and reduced employer flexibility, making proactive compliance, supervisor training, and early-response strategies more important than ever.

—

SB 1256: Judicial Reform or Special Interest Bargaining Chip?

California has no shortage of obstacles to housing development. Between environmental review, local opposition, financing challenges, and litigation, even modest residential projects can spend years trapped in procedural limbo before a single foundation is poured. Senate Bill 1256 by State Senator Brian Jones was originally presented as an effort to address one narrow but increasingly common abuse of the development process: repetitive litigation.

The bill seeks to prevent plaintiffs from bringing a second lawsuit under the Subdivision Map Act after substantially similar claims have already been litigated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). According to the author, some opponents exhaust every CEQA claim against a housing project and then pivot to Map Act litigation to continue delaying or obstructing construction. SB 1256 attempts to establish that once those claims have been fully adjudicated, substantially similar challenges cannot simply be repackaged and relitigated under a different statute.

On its face, that is a legitimate public policy discussion. California’s courts are overloaded, housing projects routinely face years of delay, and duplicative litigation can become less about environmental protection and more about attrition. Reports surrounding the Harmony Grove Village South development in San Diego County, which is widely believed to be the catalyst for the bill, illustrate the frustration project applicants experience when litigation appears effectively endless.

Unfortunately, recent amendments to SB 1256 took the bill in an entirely different direction.

Rather than establishing a uniform legal standard applicable to all qualifying projects, the bill now conditions those litigation protections on the adoption of a Project Labor Agreement (PLA). In other words, a developer may only receive protection from duplicative litigation if they agree to a union-only labor framework for the project.

That changes the bill from a judicial efficiency measure into something far more troubling: a legislative exchange in which access to legal certainty is conditioned on granting special-interest economic concessions.

There is simply no logical connection between repetitive litigation and mandatory PLAs. A project either deserves protection from duplicative lawsuits because repetitive litigation is abusive, or it does not. The legal principle should apply equally regardless of whether a project uses union labor, merit shop contractors, or a mix of both.

Instead, SB 1256 creates a two-tiered system. Developers willing to sign a PLA receive procedural advantages unavailable to developers who choose open competition. That should concern anyone who believes California’s laws should operate neutrally rather than reward politically favored labor structures.

That outcome directly conflicts with California’s stated goals of expanding housing production and increasing opportunities for small and emerging contractors. At a time when policymakers routinely discuss affordability, workforce shortages, and supplier diversity, SB 1256 runs counter to this by tying legal protections to exclusionary labor mandates.

Perhaps most concerning is the precedent this establishes. If the Legislature can condition protection from duplicative litigation on a PLA today, what comes next? Will expedited permitting, CEQA streamlining, tax incentives, financing assistance, or other legal protections similarly become contingent upon adopting favored labor agreements?

Judicial reforms should be based on sound legal principles, not leveraged as bargaining chips for special interests.

If duplicative CEQA and Map Act litigation is truly a statewide problem, then the solution should apply equally to all projects meeting the legal standard. California should not create a system where developers must effectively purchase access to legal certainty by surrendering control over workforce decisions.

WECA supports fair and open competition. We support efforts to reduce abusive litigation tactics that unnecessarily delay housing construction. But those reforms must apply uniformly, not only to projects willing to grant unions exclusive control over construction labor.

SB 1256 began as a discussion about judicial efficiency. It is rapidly becoming a case study in how even broadly supported reforms in Sacramento can be transformed into vehicles for expanding PLA mandates.

WECA members are encouraged to contact Jones and share their concerns.

·        Sacramento: (916) 651-4040

·        Escondido: (760) 796-4655

—

Ruben Gallego’s CODEL Antics Raise Eyebrows

(A CODEL is a COngressional DELegation, which is an official trip taken by Members of Congress to meet with leaders outside of Washington, both in the United States and abroad.) Multiple sources said that the Arizona Democrat’s behavior on a government trip to Colombia last summer raised concerns among U.S. officials. Embassy staff in Bogotá became aware of what they believed was a credible threat to his life and dispatched security personnel to meet Gallego and pick him up after dinner. After a discussion, Gallego decided to stay out, eventually walking to a nearby nightclub where he stayed until the wee hours.

At the club, Gallego and his chief of staff texted multiple embassy staff members, inviting them to join. At least one female embassy employee told her State Department colleagues about the outreach, Reese reports. It is unclear whether any staff took Gallego and his aide up on their offer, and there are no allegations that Gallego engaged in inappropriate behavior with any embassy staff member.

The next morning, Gallego did not show up for a scheduled bus that was set to take members of the traveling party to the airport for their return flight. The chief of staff had to get a copy of Gallego’s hotel key and get him from his room.

Gallego’s response: The senator “coordinated closely with embassy security throughout the trip, including on the evening in question, and followed all security guidance,” a spokesperson said. “While at dinner at the conclusion of a successful congressional delegation trip, the Senator and his Chief of Staff invited Embassy staff to join them, a common way to recognize the work of those who support these visits.”

—

Watt’s Next?

A coalition of business, labor, and energy groups announced the creation of Diablo Canyon 2045, an alliance of 25 organizations that hopes to push legislators to extend the Diablo Canyon Power Plant’s operations beyond its current 2030 limit to 2045. The announcement signals that Diablo Canyon supporters intend to pressure the California Legislature to pass a bill this year to extend operations. The coalition includes the Bay Area Council and a bevy of other regional business groups, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers local 1245, which represents workers at the plant, and pro-nuclear advocacy groups like Mothers for Nuclear and the Clean Air Task Force.

—

Court Affirms Biden-Era PLA Mandate

Former President Joe Biden’s project labor agreement mandate has won another battle, further cementing it as policy even after President Donald Trump’s administration took office.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Tuesday affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction to halt the PLA mandate, which impacts projects receiving $35 million or more in federal funding. Associated Builders and Contractors and its Florida First Coast chapter filed the appeal for an injunction.

In the decision, Chief Judge William Pryor said the appeal would likely fail because the Office of Management and Budget issued a memo confirming that the Biden-era order would remain in effect, even under the Trump administration.

ABC has long opposed the requirement of PLAs, saying the mandate unfairly locks out nonunion builders from winning federal contracts. In a statement shared with Construction Dive, ABC President and CEO Michael Bellaman said the group will continue to fight against the mandate.

“At no point, under any administration, have federal contractors ever been prevented from voluntarily entering into a PLA when such an agreement makes sense for their workforce,” Bellaman said. “Every qualified contractor should have the opportunity to build America.”

—

Cox Says Utah Drought Declaration is “Coming fairly soon.”

Utah’s water landscape doesn’t look good. After an abysmally low winter for snow, 100% of the state is already in drought. Plus, negotiations on the future of the Colorado River are still going nowhere. Gov. Spencer Cox thinks that grim reality could actually lead to more cooperation on the future of the Colorado River. One of the main sticking points is that nobody at the table could agree on what would happen in a worst-case scenario. Story

—

Worker Microchipping Laws Enacted in Dozen States

At least 11 states have laws in effect prohibiting employers from requiring employees to be implanted with a microchip or other permanent identification marker as a condition of employment (Damn! Another great HR idea squashed!), according to LexisNexis® data. Washington enacted a worker microchipping ban (HB 2303) this year that takes effect on June 11, and three other states considered bills dealing with worker microchipping. Story