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

1,235 chars

onerous substantive requirements" that all "favor employees and are typically issues

negotiated in a collective bargaining agreement[,] [m]andating [the substantive labor

requirements] runs afoul of federal labor policy." Am. Answering Br. & Opening

Cross-Appeal Br. ofFilo Foods (Filo Foods's Opening Br.) at 33-34.

The United States Supreme Court has rejected this type of argument. See Fort

Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1, 19-23, 107 S. Ct. 2211, 96 L. Ed. 2d 1

(1987); Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 747-58, 105 S. Ct. 2380,

85 L. Ed. 2d 728 (1985). In Fort Halifax Packing Co., for example, a Maine statute

required employers to provide a onetime severance payment to employees in the event

of a plant closing. 482 U.S. at 3-4 & n.1. An employer challenged the statute,

arguing, as Filo Foods argues here, that the statute "intrudes on the bargaining

activities of the parties because the prospect of a statutory obligation undercuts an

23
             
Filo Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac
89723-9

employer's ability to withstand a union's demand for severance pay." !d. at 20. The

Court rejected this argument, holding that