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

1,775 chars

Under the Garmon preemption doctrine, the NLRA's text may affirmatively

conflict with and thus preempt a state or local law. "Garmon pre-emption forbids

States to 'regulate activity that the NLRA protects, prohibits, or arguably protects or

prohibits."' Chamber of Commerce of US. v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60, 65, 128 S. Ct.

2408, 171 L. Ed. 2d 264 (2008) (quoting Wis. Dep 't ofIndus., Labor & Human

Relations v. Gould Inc., 475 U.S. 282, 286, 106 S. Ct. 1057, 89 L. Ed. 2d 223 (1986)).

By contrast, under the Machinists preemption doctrine, the NLRA' s text need not

affirmatively conflict with a state or local law, but rather the United States Supreme

Court has held that the NLRA' s structure implies that Congress intended certain

aspects of labor relations to remain unregulated. That is, preemption under

Machinists "forbids ... States to regulate conduct that Congress intended 'be

unregulated [and] left "to be controlled by the free play of economic forces.""' !d.

(quoting Machinists, 427 U.S. at 140 (quoting Nat'! Labor Relations Bd. v. Nash-

Finch Co., 404 U.S. 138, 144, 92 S. Ct. 373, 30 L. Ed. 2d 328 (1971))). "Machinists

22
             
Fila Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac
89723-9

pre-emption is based on the premise that '"Congress struck a balance of protection,

prohibition, and laissez-faire in respect to union organization, collective bargaining,

and labor disputes."'" Id. (quoting Machinists, 427 U.S. at 140 n.4 (quoting

Archibald Cox, Labor Law Preemption Revisited, 85 HARV. L. REv. 1337, 1352

(1972))).

Filo Foods first argues that under the Machinists doctrine, the NLRA preempts

Proposition 1 in its entirety. Filo Foods contends that because Proposition 1 "imposes