Skip to main content

Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf

Citation
Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,795 chars
exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements
concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions, and to settle all
disputes, whether arising out of the application of such agreements or
otherwise, in order to avoid any interruption to commerce or to the
operation of any carrier growing out of any dispute between the carrier
and the employees therof.

45 U.S.C. § 152. The act generally promotes collective bargaining and "sets up a

mandatory arbitral mechanism to handle disputes 'growing out of grievances or out of

the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or

working conditions.'" Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246, 248, 114 S.

Ct. 2239, 129 L. Ed. 2d 203 (1994) (quoting 45 U.S.C. § 153(i)). The United States

Supreme Court articulated the government's role regarding the RLA as follows: "The

Railway Labor Act, like the National Labor Relations Act, does not undertake

governmental regulation of wages, hours, or working conditions. Instead it seeks to

provide a means by which agreement may be reached with respect to them."

Terminal R.R. Ass'n ofSt. Louis v. Bhd. ofR.R. Trainmen, 318 U.S. 1, 6, 63 S. Ct.

33
             
Fila Foods, LLC v. City ofSeaTac
89723-9

420, 87 L. Ed. 571 (1943) (footnote omitted). Although the RLA and NLRA are

similar, one of the differences between the two acts, as Filo Foods notes, is that the

RLA requires employees to collectively bargain on an industry-wide basis. Summit

Airlines, Inc. v. Teamsters Union Local No. 295, 628 F.2d 787, 795 (2d Cir. 1980).

That minor difference notwithstanding, the RLA is like the NLRA for

preemption purposes, in that "substantive protections provided by state law,