“We are grateful to Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez for his help ensuring that this debate will proceed without the disruption of a labor dispute,” Chris Shelton, president of the Communications Workers of America, said in a statement. “The Democratic presidential candidates demonstrated their commitment to working people by intending to honor the picket line.”

The case hinged partly on whether CNN could be considered a so-called joint employer of the Team Video Services workers, meaning that it had legal obligations to them under labor law even though it didn’t hire them directly. Companies that have relationships with contractors and franchisees can be considered joint employers of their workers if they exercise sufficient control over them.

The current standard for judging whether a company like CNN is a joint employer was set during the Obama administration and allows a company to be deemed a joint employer even if it exercises only indirect control over workers employed by a contractor, such as requiring the use of software that locks in scheduling practices. The current labor board is widely expected to narrow this standard in the coming weeks, which would make it harder to hold parent companies liable for labor law violations.

The Communications Workers of America accused CNN of waging such a long, protracted battle against the workers that several of them died before the dispute could be resolved.

An administrative law judge ruled in 2008 that CNN violated the National Labor Relations Act and that CNN was a joint employer with Team Video Services. But the union said CNN then filed more than 1,600 exceptions with the board.

In 2014, the board ordered CNN to bargain with the unions and provide back pay. But the union said CNN appealed the decision to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which upheld most of the board’s findings in 2017 and enforced its order that CNN cease and desist from refusing to recognize and bargain with the unions.

The court, however, remanded the board’s joint employer finding for further clarification, along with the issue of back pay for further consideration by the board.