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

1,800 chars

statutory obligation at issue here is optional, since it applies only in the
absence of an agreement between employer and employees. Therefore,
the Company argues, the Maine law cannot be regarded as establishing a
genuine minimum labor standard. The fact that the parties are free to
devise their own severance pay arrangements, however, strengthens the
case that the statute works no intrusion on collective bargaining. . . . If a
statute that permits no collective bargaining on a subject escapes NLRA
pre-emption, see Metropolitan Life, surely one that permits such
bargaining cannot be pre-empted.

482 U.S. at 22; see also Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 131-32 & n.26, 114 S.

Ct. 2068, 129 L. Ed. 2d 93 (1994) (holding that the NLRA "cast[s] no shadow on the

validity" of an opt-out provision for minimum labor standards). Consistent with

United States Supreme Court authority, we hold Proposition 1 is not preempted

because of its waiver provision.

Next, Filo Foods argues that the NLRA preempts Proposition 1 in its entirety

because labor organizations used the political process to achieve rights that they may

have otherwise achieved through collective bargaining. It contends, "Where unions

have tried to obtain certain conditions through collective bargaining and have failed to

do so effectively, a political body ... should not reach a solution for them." Filo

Foods's Opening Br. at 35-36. We reject this argument. Even putting aside the labor

organizations' rights of petition and of political expression under the First

Amendment to the United States Constitution, the United States Supreme Court has

held that section 7 of the NLRA itself protects labor organizations' right to seek

substantive protection through the political process. Eastex, Inc. v. Nat'! Labor