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

1,763 chars

8
Filo Foods also argues that the provisions impose on an employer "a duty to bargain
that would not necessarily arise in the free market." Filo Foods's Opening Br. at 42. We
disagree. By its terms, Proposition 1 does not impose on a successor employer the duty
to bargain with employees after the three-month period elapses. Nor is there reason to
think that requiring an employer to retain employees for 90 days would in and of itself
trigger successor status under the NLRB's successorship doctrine (which would thereby
trigger the duty to bargain with the purchased company's union). Instead, the
successorship doctrine focuses in part on the acquiring company's conscious decision to
retain the purchased company's employees in order to find successor status. See Fall
River Dyeing & Finishing Corp., 482 U.S. at 41 ("If the new employer makes a
conscious decision to maintain generally the same business and to hire a majority of its
employees from the predecessor, then the bargaining obligation of§ 8(a)(5) is activated.
This makes sense when one considers that the employer intends to take advantage of the
trained work force of its predecessor." (first emphasis added)).

29
             
Filo Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac
89723-9

SeaTac Municipal Code 7.45.060 is a minimum labor standard that simply sets the

"backdrop" against which labor negotiations proceed. See R.I. Hospitality Ass 'n v.

City ofProvidence, 667 F.3d 17,32 (1st Cir. 2011) (upholding a worker-retention

ordinance similar to SeaTac Municipal Code 7.45.060 against a Machinists

preemption challenge) (quoting Fort Halifax Packing Co., 482 U.S. at 21).

Accordingly, it is not preempted under the Machinists doctrine.