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

1,721 chars

that were repeat violators of the NLRA from doing business in Wisconsin was a

supplemental sanction for violation of the NLRA and was therefore preempted. I d. at

283. Proposition 1 creates no such supplemental sanction for violations of the NLRA.

Rather than providing an employee a remedy for illegal retaliation for exercising

rights protected under the NLRA, Proposition 1 provides an employee a remedy for

illegal retaliation for exercising rights protected under Proposition 1. The two are not

the same. Proposition 1 is self-contained. If an employer takes an adverse action

against an employee because the employee reported a minimum wage violation under

Proposition 1, the employer violates Proposition 1's antiretaliation provision. But in

this scenario, the employer does not necessarily violate the NLRA's antiretaliation

provision nor become subject to a new sanction for a NLRA violation. Proposition

1's antiretaliation provision is thus not a supplemental sanction appended to the

31
             
Fila Foods, LLC v. City ofSeaTac
89723-9

NLRA but instead protects against retaliation for the exercise of rights under its

provisions. We hold SeaTac Municipal Code 7.45.090 is not NLRA preempted.

B. The RLA Does Not Preempt Proposition 1

The trial court did not analyze whether the RLA preempts Proposition 1

because it concluded that an RLA preemption analysis would be the same as an

NLRA analysis, and it had already found that the NLRA did not preempt Proposition

1. Filo Foods, along with amicus Airlines for America, argue that the RLA and

NLRA preemption analyses differ because the RLA requires industry-wide unions