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
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
Full Text
1,047 chars24
Fila Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac
89723-9
labor standard does not impermissibly intrude upon the collective-bargaining
process." Id. at 23. 6
Filo Foods further argues that Proposition 1 is not a permissible minimum labor
standard because of its waive-out provision. The waive-out provision permits
employers and employees to agree to waive Proposition 1 's substantive requirements,
but only "in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement." SEATAC MUNICIPAL CODE
7.45.080. This, Filo Foods contends, "upsets the balance of power between labor and
management by placing non-union employers in positions where they will be required
to recognize unions in order to avoid the Ordinance." Filo Foods's Opening Br. at 37.
Yet again, in Fort Halifax Packing Co., the United States Supreme Court considered
and rejected this argument:
Appellant maintains that this case is distinguishable from
Metropolitan Life. It points out that, unlike Metropolitan Life, the