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

1,509 chars

Johnson Co. v. Detroit Local Joint Exec. Bd., Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Int'l

Union, 417 U.S. 249, 94 S. Ct. 2236, 41 L. Ed. 2d 46 (1974); Fall River Dyeing &

Finishing Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 482 U.S. 27, 107 S. Ct. 2225, 96 L. Ed.

2d 22 (1987). None addressed Machinists preemption or held that temporary worker-

28
             
Fila Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac
89723-9

retention was a subject matter Congress intended to leave unregulated. The cases are

not particularly instructive to the issue at hand. 8

Rather than being preempted under Machinists, we believe Proposition 1's

worker-retention provision fits comfortably within the category of minimum labor

standards held to be valid under Fort Halifax Packing Co. and Metropolitan Life

Insurance Co. Just as the state of Maine could require certain employers to provide

severance pay to employees upon their businesses closing, in Fort Halifax Packing

Co., the city of SeaTac may require successor employers to retain for three months ( 1)

"qualified" retention employees, (2) to the extent that there are "enough positions

available for all qualified retention employees," (3) unless there is "just cause" for

termination. SEATAC MUNICIPAL CODE 7.45.060(B), (C). Indeed, as section

7.45.060' s qualifications illustrate, a successor employer in the city of SeaTac has

substantial flexibility in avoiding the three-month retention period. We hold that