McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Employees at Brown-Forman Corporation’s (“Brown- Forman”) Woodford Reserve facility were unhappy with their compensation. To meet an unanticipated increase in demand for the facility’s whiskey products, Brown-Forman attempted to ramp up production, but employee wages remained stagnant and uncompetitive. Naturally, Brown-Forman started to experience difficulties retaining its workforce. Some employees contacted the International Brotherhood of Teamsters to discuss forming a union. Initially, the organizing efforts did not gain much traction. However, after Brown-Forman announced a mere $1 across-the-board salary increase, and informed employees that no further increases would be forthcoming, support for the union grew. Meetings with the union became well-attended, union representatives were prevalent outside the facility to hand out fliers, and the union displayed an inflatable “fat cat” outside the entrance. But as the organizing campaign gained momentum, Brown-Forman did not sit idly by. In an alleged effort to curtail the organizing campaign, Brown-Forman announced it would make three significant changes to employee compensation. Brown-Forman told employees it was going to (1) give a new $4-per-hour across-the-board pay raise to all employees, (2) expand its pay progression and merit-based salary increase policy, and (3) allow employees to save their vacation hours during the December holidays. By giving employees what they wanted—better compensation—union support began to dwindle. Nonetheless, the union declared its purported majority support via authorization cards and petitioned for an election. As the election approached, Brown-Forman did not back down. Management would meet with employees (to, at least in part, articulate anti-union talking points), and a week before the election, Brown-Forman gifted employees bottles of bourbon. When it came time to vote, the union failed to secure a majority. Only 14 employees voted in support of the union while 45 employees voted in opposition. An Administrative Law Judge determined that Brown-Forman committed unfair labor practices and interfered with its employees’ efforts to unionize. The Administrative Law Judge recommended issuing a bargaining order under the standards articulated in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, 372 NLRB No. 130, 2023 WL 5506930 (2023) and NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969). The National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s factual findings and recommended remedy, but it modified the reasoning. Rather than consider whether a new election could be held by applying the Gissel standard, the Board relied solely on the standard articulated in Cemex (a previous Board decision that upended over 50 years of precedent and called for the Board to issue a bargaining order as the default remedy once it set aside an election). Because the Board relied solely on the Cemex standard to issue the bargaining order against Brown-Forman, we must—for the first time— determine whether this new standard can serve as the basis for a bargaining order. Because the Cemex standard was created through an improper exercise of the Board’s adjudicatory authority, it cannot serve as the basis for a bargaining order. Thus, we GRANT Brown-Forman’s petition for review, DENY the Board’s cross-petition for enforcement, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.