Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/897239.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,730 chars

(NLRA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169; the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA), Pub. L.

No. 95-504, 92 Stat. 1705 (1978) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 49

U.S.C.); and the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 151-188. We hold that

none of those statutes preempt Proposition 1. We will address each statute in turn.

A. The NLRA Does Not Preempt Proposition 1

Filo Foods contends that the NLRA preempts Proposition 1 in its entirety, or at

least specifically preempts Proposition 1's worker-retention provision and its

antiretaliation provision, SEATAC MUNICIPAL CODE 7.45.060, .090. The trial court

held that the NLRA does not preempt Proposition 1 entirely but does preempt the

antiretaliation provision. We hold that the NLRA does not preempt any aspect of

Proposition 1.

Two provisions in the NLRA establish substantive rights and prohibitions.

Section 7 protects an employee's right to organize and bargain collectively and to

refrain from doing so. 29 U.S.C. § 157. Section 8 prohibits certain "[u]nfair labor

practice[s]" of employers and labor organizations. 29 U.S.C. § 158. The NLRA does

not have a preemption clause, but the United States Supreme Court has developed

21
             
Fila Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac
89723-9

case law concerning when the NLRA preempts state and local laws. The Court

recognizes two forms ofNLRA preemption: Garmon preemption and Machinists

preemption. See San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 79 S. Ct.

773,3 L. Ed. 2d 775 (1959); Lodge 76, Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace

Workers v. Wis. Emp't Relations Comm 'n, 427 U.S. 132, 96 S. Ct. 2548, 49 L. Ed. 2d

396 (1976).