My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - Item #22
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2021
>
02/02/2021 Regular and Special
>
CORRESPONDENCE - Item #22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/2/2021 3:52:44 PM
Creation date
2/1/2021 2:27:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Date
2/2/2021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
McCRACKEN, STEMERMAN & HOLSBERRY, LLP <br />Grocery Worker Hazard Pay Ordinances <br />February 2, 2021 <br />Page 5 of 5 <br />nonunion employees equally, and neither encourage nor discourage the collective-bargaining <br />processes that are the subject of the NLRA. . . . Rather, they are minimum standards <br />‘independent of the collective-bargaining process \[that\] devolve on \[employees\] as individual <br />workers, not as members of a collective organization.’”); Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, <br />482 U.S. 1, 21 (1987) (fact “that a state statute pertains to matters over which the parties are free <br />to bargain cannot support a claim of pre-emption”). State and local substantive employment <br />standards do not interfere with collective bargaining and are not preempted. <br /> Based on this Supreme Court precedent, federal courts have repeatedly rejected claims <br />that the NLRA preempts minimum-wage laws and other employment standards. American Hotel <br />& Lodging Association v. City of Los Angeles, 834 F.3d 958, 965 (9th Cir. 2016) (“It is no <br />surprise, then, that ‘state minimum benefit protections have repeatedly survived Machinists <br />preemption challenges,’ because they do not alter the process of collective bargaining”); <br />Associated Builders & Contractors of So. Calif. v. Nunn, 356 F.3d 979, 990 (9th Cir. 2004) <br />(minimum wages and benefits for state-registered apprentices on public and private construction <br />projects not preempted; “‘state minimum benefit protections have repeatedly survived <br />Machinists preemption challenges’”); National Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Bradshaw, 70 F.3d 69, <br />71 (9th Cir. 1995) (state overtime protection that applied in broadcast industry not preempted <br />underMachinists);Viceroy Gold Corp. v. Aubry, 75 F.3d 482, 489 (9th Cir. 1996) (overtime <br />regulation that applied only to miners was not preempted); Fortuna Enters., 673 F.Supp.2d at <br />1006-12 (living-wage law not preempted under Machinists). <br /> CGA’s constitutional claims against the Long Beach ordinance are baseless and will soon <br />be dismissed. The fact that this employer association filed a meritless lawsuit should not be a <br />reason to delay providing grocery workers fair compensation for the risks they are taking on our <br />behalf. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Paul L. More <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.