Legal Definitions - White model

The White model is a specific legal framework used in U.S. labor law to determine whether a state-law claim brought by a unionized employee against their employer is "preempted" by federal labor law. Preemption, in this context, means that federal law takes precedence, and the state-law claim cannot proceed in state court, often requiring the dispute to be handled through the collective bargaining agreement's (CBA) grievance procedures instead.

This model focuses on whether the state law permits the particular claim to be waived or modified through a private contract, such as a collective bargaining agreement between the union and the employer. It distinguishes between two types of claims:

• Negotiable Claims: These are claims where state law allows the employee's rights to be waived or altered by a private contract. Under the White model, such claims are generally considered preempted by federal law because resolving them would almost certainly require interpreting the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, which falls under federal jurisdiction.
• Non-negotiable Claims: These are claims where state law explicitly prohibits the employee's rights from being waived or altered by a private contract. For these claims, the White model states that preemption will only occur if resolving the claim still requires a court to interpret the specific terms of the collective bargaining agreement. If the claim can be resolved based purely on state law without referring to the CBA, it is not preempted.

Here are some examples illustrating the White model:

• Example 1: Negotiable Claim (Preempted)

  Imagine a unionized employee files a state-law claim alleging that their employer failed to follow the proper procedure for assigning shifts, leading to an unfavorable work schedule. The state law allows employers and employees to establish and agree upon shift assignment procedures through contracts. Under the White model, this claim is considered negotiable because the state law permits the specific shift assignment procedures to be established and potentially modified through a private contract, like the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Since resolving this claim would require examining and interpreting the CBA's terms regarding shift assignments, it would likely be preempted by federal labor law. The employee would then be directed to use the grievance procedures outlined in their CBA.

• Example 2: Non-negotiable Claim (Not Preempted)

  Consider a unionized employee who files a state-law claim asserting that their employer failed to provide them with legally mandated rest breaks, as required by a state statute. The state law explicitly states that the right to these rest breaks cannot be waived or reduced by any private agreement, including a collective bargaining agreement. This claim is non-negotiable because state law prohibits the waiver of rest break requirements through a private contract. To resolve this claim, a court would primarily need to compare the employer's practices to the state's rest break statute, not necessarily interpret the collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, under the White model, this claim would likely not be preempted, allowing the employee to pursue their state-law claim.

• Example 3: Non-negotiable Claim (Potentially Preempted if CBA Interpretation is Required)

  Suppose a unionized employee files a state-law claim for wrongful termination, arguing they were fired without "just cause" as defined by a state statute that prohibits employers from terminating employees without a legitimate reason, and this right cannot be waived. However, the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) also contains a detailed "just cause" provision and a multi-step grievance process for termination disputes. The state-law claim for "just cause" termination is non-negotiable because state law generally protects employees from arbitrary termination and does not allow this right to be fully waived. However, to determine if the employer violated the state's "just cause" standard, a court might need to examine the specific definitions and procedures for termination outlined in the CBA. If resolving the state-law claim requires interpreting the CBA's "just cause" provisions or grievance procedures, then, according to the White model, the state-law claim would be preempted. The employee would then be directed to use the CBA's grievance and arbitration process. If the state law claim could be resolved without any reference to the CBA, it would not be preempted.