Report ·
The Labor Board Charge Behind The Cannabis Place's Claim
Orduña says TCP filed NLRB charges against UFCW Local 360 in August. There is a charge on file. The record lists an individual as the filer.
Open NLRB case · 22-CB-393110 · Filed 18 Aug 2026 · Region 22, Newark · Charging party: Individual
How to read this
- Documented
- A public record exists — USPTO filing, court docket, state licence, dated press release, or a dated post I read directly.
- Reported
- Stated by a named, credible industry figure or publication, but not verified against a primary record.
- Claimed
- One party's assertion about a contested fact. Recorded because it was said, not because it is established.
Osbert Orduña says The Cannabis Place filed unfair labor practice charges against UFCW Local 360 in August. I went looking for them in the federal labor board's public records. There is a charge on file. The record just tells a slightly different story than he did.
THE SHORT ANSWER
What the record shows
There is one open charge against UFCW Local 360 tied to The Cannabis Place: case 22-CB-393110, filed August 18, 2026, with the National Labor Relations Board's Newark office.Documented
The charging party is listed as "Individual." The Cannabis Place 420 Corp is listed as the "Involved Party," under Employer.Documented
The public page leaves the individual's name blank. So the record confirms a charge exists and matches the month Orduña gave. It doesn't show the company as the one who filed it.
THE CHARGE
What it alleges
| Field | What the record says |
|---|---|
| Case number | 22-CB-393110 |
| Filed | 18 Aug 2026 |
| Status | Open |
| NLRB office | Region 22, Newark |
| Charged party | United Food and Commercial Workers Local 360 |
| Charging party | Individual |
| Employer involved | The Cannabis Place 420 Corp, Jersey City |
| Allegations | 8(b)(1)(A) coercion, including statements and violence, and 8(b)(5) |
"CB" means the charge is against a union. In plain words, Section 8(b)(1)(A) covers a union restraining or coercing workers in their labor rights. The record lists this one under coercion, including statements and violence. That's the board's category name, and it doesn't say what was actually alleged.Documented
Section 8(b)(5) covers a union charging excessive or discriminatory membership fees.Documented
The docket shows one entry so far: the signed charge, dated August 18. The NLRB marks that document as one that may need redactions, available through a public records request.Documented
A charge is an accusation. The regional office investigates and then decides whether to issue a complaint or dismiss it. Nothing on the public docket shows that step yet.
LINING IT UP
The claim against the record
After UFCW Local 360 put out its October 19 statement, Orduña told Heady NJ that TCP had filed unfair labor practice charges against the union in August.Claimed
The month matches. The filer field doesn't. A few explanations fit. Orduña or a TCP lawyer could have filed in their own name, a worker could have filed it, or someone else could have. The record can't tell them apart, and I'm not going to guess.
A name search on the NLRB site turned up no other case naming The Cannabis Place, either against the union or against TCP.
ONE MORE
Another open charge against the same local
Case 04-CB-390961, filed July 20, 2026, names UFCW Local 360 with Curaleaf's Hammonton site as the employer. It was also filed by an individual. It alleges bad faith bargaining under Section 8(b)(3) and a duty of fair representation issue under 8(b)(1)(A).Documented
So there are two open charges against the same local in two months, tied to two of the three companies suing over New Jersey's labor peace rule. That's worth watching. On its own it proves nothing about either case.
Here's what I'd do
- Treat "TCP filed charges against the union" as unconfirmed until someone shows the charge itself.
- Ask TCP who filed 22-CB-393110 and what it says.
- Request the charge document through the NLRB's public records process. That's how the board says to get it.
- Follow both cases on nlrb.gov. The pages are public and update when the regional office acts.
Sources
- Case 22-CB-393110, UFCW Local 360 (National Labor Relations Board)
- Case 04-CB-390961, UFCW Local 360 (Curaleaf) (National Labor Relations Board)
- Excessive or discriminatory fees, Section 8(b)(5) (National Labor Relations Board)
- UFCW Local 360 versus The Cannabis Place fight continues (Heady NJ)
- UFCW Local 360 to The Cannabis Place: Honor Your Commitments (Business Wire via Cannabis Business Times)
Right of reply
I haven't asked TCP, Osbert Orduña or UFCW Local 360 about case 22-CB-393110 yet, and I haven't requested the charge document from the NLRB.
How this was put together
Written October 26, 2026, from the NLRB's public case pages, read directly that day, and Orduña's statement as reported by Heady NJ.
Questions people actually ask
Did The Cannabis Place file NLRB charges against UFCW Local 360?
A charge exists, but the public record doesn't show the company as the filer. NLRB case 22-CB-393110 was filed August 18, 2026 against UFCW Local 360 in the Newark region. It lists the charging party as an individual and The Cannabis Place 420 Corp as the employer involved. The allegations fall under Sections 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(5). The case is open, and the docket shows only the signed charge so far.
What is NLRB case 22-CB-393110?
An open unfair labor practice charge against UFCW Local 360, filed August 18, 2026 with the NLRB's Newark office. It names The Cannabis Place 420 Corp as the employer involved.
Who filed the charge?
The public record lists the charging party as "Individual" and leaves the name blank. It doesn't say whether that person is connected to TCP.
What does Section 8(b)(5) mean?
It covers a union charging excessive or discriminatory membership fees.
Are there other open charges against UFCW Local 360?
Yes. Case 04-CB-390961, filed July 20, 2026 by an individual, involves Curaleaf's Hammonton site and alleges bad faith bargaining and a duty of fair representation issue.