Legal Definitions - Machinists preemption

Machinists preemption is a principle in U.S. labor law that prevents state and local governments from regulating certain activities in labor relations that Congress intended to be left to the "free play of economic forces" between employers and unions. This doctrine, named after a landmark Supreme Court case, applies to situations where federal law (specifically the National Labor Relations Act, or NLRA) neither explicitly protects nor prohibits a particular labor activity. Instead, Congress intended these matters to be resolved through the collective bargaining process, including the use of economic tools like strikes or lockouts, without state or local interference. The purpose is to ensure a uniform national labor policy and prevent a patchwork of state laws from undermining the federal framework for labor-management relations.

Here are some examples to illustrate Machinists preemption:

• State Law Prohibiting Permanent Strike Replacements: Imagine a state passes a law making it illegal for employers to hire permanent replacement workers during an economic strike.

  This state law would likely be preempted by Machinists preemption. Federal labor law allows employers to hire permanent replacements during an economic strike as a legitimate economic tool available to them. By prohibiting this, the state interferes with the balance of power and the "free play of economic forces" that Congress intended to govern the collective bargaining process, where both employers and unions have specific economic levers at their disposal.

• City Ordinance Mandating Specific Bargaining Terms: Consider a city council that enacts an ordinance requiring all employers within its jurisdiction to include a specific type of paid family leave benefit in any collective bargaining agreement they negotiate with a union.

  This ordinance would likely be preempted. The National Labor Relations Act establishes a framework for employers and unions to bargain over wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. By mandating a specific outcome or term of a collective bargaining agreement, the city is interfering with the voluntary and unregulated nature of the bargaining process itself, which Congress intended to be free from state or local dictate.

• State Regulation of Union Organizing Tactics: Suppose a state passes a law that restricts unions from engaging in certain forms of peaceful, non-violent picketing or leaflet distribution near a workplace, even if these tactics are not explicitly prohibited by federal labor law.

  If these picketing or leafletting tactics are considered part of the legitimate "free play of economic forces" in union organizing and are not explicitly regulated by federal law, the state law could be preempted. Congress intended for unions to have certain avenues for organizing and communicating with workers, and a state law that unduly restricts these methods, without being a general public safety measure, could be seen as interfering with the balance of power in labor relations that the NLRA established.