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

1,746 chars

26
             
Fila Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac
89723-9

Relations Bd., 437 U.S. 556, 565-66, 98 S. Ct. 2505, 57 L. Ed. 2d 428 (1978) (holding

that "employees' appeals to legislators to protect their interests as employees are

within the scope" of the employees' right under section 7 of the NLRA to engage in

"'mutual aid or protection"'). We hold that the NLRA does not preempt Proposition 1

in its entirety.

We turn now to Filo Foods's preemption challenges to specific provisions of

Proposition 1. Filo Foods first argues that under the Machinists doctrine, the NLRA

preempts Proposition 1's worker-retention provision. SEATAC MUNICIPAL CODE

7.45.060. This provision applies to "successor employer[s]," id., which appears to

mean the surviving company after a business acquisition or merger. 7 Under SeaTac

Municipal Code 7 .45.060, successor employers have duties to retain certain workers

of the predecessor employer for a limited period of time:

B. Retention Offer. Except as otherwise provided herein, the successor
employer shall offer employment to all qualified retention employees. A
successor employer who is a hospitality employer shall, before hiring off
the street or transferring workers from elsewhere, offer employment to
all qualified retention employees of any predecessor employer that has
provided similar services at the same facility. If the successor employer
does not have enough positions available for all qualified retention
employees, the successor employer shall hire the retention employees by
seniority within each job classification. For any additional positions
which become available during the initial ninety (90) day period of the