Port Commission Regular
Meeting of November 25, 2014
Minutes Exhibit C

FILO rooming;

MEMO IN OPPOSITION TO NOVEMBER 25,2014
REGARDING QUALITY JOBS,SERVICECONTINUITY & EMPLOYMENTCQNTINUITY

For the following reasons, please vote against the Motion because:
The 2005 U.S District Court Flying Eagle Espresso Order found that "None of the defendants [Port of
Seattle and Unite HERE Local 8] disputes that requiring FEE to unionize as a condition ofthe renewal
of their lease at SeaTac1s legally impermissible" Page 15
Similarly, this 2014 Commission motion requires food and beverage concessionaires to recognize and be
legally obligated to negotiate with Unite HERE Local 8 as a conditiOn to submitting a bid for a lease at
SeaTac Airport, which is legally impermissible.
HERE has been lobbying the Port for these requirements, as well as demanding that the Port reduce the
number of leases for small business andmerease the number of leases for large corporations such as the
multinational Host.

The Port's Labor Policiesgin Response to UnionThreats & Disruptions
In 1997, in response to local labor union threats & disruptions, the Port adopted a labor harmony policy.
In 2000, the US District Court permanently enjoined the Port's conduct in adopting a policy that forced
involuntary unionization, preempted under the Machinist's doctrine ofNLRA and violated 42 U.S.C. 
1983 by depriving City Ice of federally protected rights under the color of state law. Cigzlce v. Port of
Seattle (C99-1647BJR). The Port was ordered to pay Citylce a total of $275,000.00 as CityIce's
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs associated with the action.
In 2003, a concessionaire tenant, FEE, received communications from Port ofcials that she would be
required to join the union and must submit a labor harmony plan (apprOved by the union) before her
sublease would be renewed. She was encouraged to meet with HERE Local 8 to assist with her plan.
Every other DBE that submitted a labor harmony agreement had their lease renewed.
In 2005, the US. District Court determined that this agreement between the unions and the Port of
Seattle, requiring third party businesses to join the union and submit a, Labor Harmony Plan (approved
by the union) impermissibly forced concessionaire to unionize as a condition of receiving a lease
renewal at the airport. Flying Eagle Espresso, Inc. v. Host Int '1, Inc., (W.D. Wn. Sept. 21, 2005).
2014, despite its history, POS expectatibns to "document good faith discussions with labor
organizations" with Unite HERE impermissibly forces concessionaires to unionize as a condition to
submitting a bid.

Port Sued Twice & Fined tin;Enforcing Involuntary Unionization
Specically, the CityIce and Flying EagleEspresso courts prohibited the Port from engaging in "any
conduct that interferes, either by the Port's actions or inactions, with the exercise of the federally
protected rights of  third parties using Port facilities to assign work to their own employees ..." Ii

Forced participation in unfair labor practices: employers lose their right to express views in opposition
to unionization, employees lose their right to vote in a secret ballot election conducted by the National
Labor Relations Board (NLRB), employees lose their right to self-organization.
Preemption under Sections 7 & 8 of the NLRA.

1

Cecilia Cordova, Pacic Alliance Law, PLLC
Legal representative of Filo Foods, LLC, an ACDBE at SeaTac International Airport


- Federal labor law forbids the Port from regulating conduct that Congress intended "to be controlled by
the free play of economic forces." Machinists v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm 'n, 427 US.
132, 140, 96 S.Ct. 2548 (1976).
Encourages the collective-bargaining processes, thus it is preempted under federal law. Metropolitg
Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts (1985) 471 Us_.,_]_,2_4,,],5,_,,logger. 2380 85 L.Ed.2d 728.

Federal law prohibits restrictions on ACDBE's ability to make business decisions. 49 CFR Part 26.
.   ACDBEs can't be subject to formal or informal restrictions limiting their discretionary authority. Id.

0   Preventing ACDBEs from arranging their initial workforce and limiting their employment decisions puts
their eligibility as an ACDBE at risk.

Forced Involuntary Rggggnition of Labor Union is an Antitrust Violation
- Basis of a federal antitrust suit against the Port, because it has a potential for restraining competition in
the business market in ways that would not follow naturally from elimination of competition over wages
and working conditions. FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1003 (2013).
0   Port lacks authority to use its powers anticompetitively: such as engaging in top-down organizing
campaigns and excluding parties as tenants who refuse to participate, then the Port's anticompetitive
conduct may be an antitrust violation. Id.
The Port's minimal participation and limited supervision of the forced labor negotiations renders the
Po1t ineligible for state-action immunity from an anti-trust claim. Id. at 1010-1011.

fortmof Seattle's Breaking its Promise to ACDBEs 
- Since 2011, the Port CommissiOn publicly commited to make ACDBEs whole, because of their higher
buildout costs and their fringe locations, which prevented them from earning comparable high prots as
big business1n locations with lower buiidout costs and high foot trafc.
- Street pricing requirement further restrains the DBEs ability to competitively bid on concessions
opportunities, since the increased costs cannot be countered by increased pricing.

Misuse of Commission Apthority to interfere with Federal Rights .
0   Section 1983 provides a federal remedy for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, including violations of federal statutory as well as constitutional
rights. SQeWEelglgrv. Casgg487 U. S. 131 139,108 S.Ct. 2302 2307, 101 LEd2d 123 (1988).
- Concess1ona11es have a right to operate free from" .activities 01 conspiracies aimed at conditioning
eligibility to operate at the Airport on involuntary unionization and a Section 1983 action provides
protection from that interference. Elxingqule Espresso v. Host International, et 611.2905 WL 
2318827 U.S. Distlict Ct WD Washington (Sept. 2005)
o   The Port increases its risk of a Section 1983 action against it, if the proposed directive is enacted.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, we respectfully submit that if the Commission passes this motion, then it will be in
violation of federal law and will subject itself and the Port to litigation similar to CityIce and Flying
Eagle Espresso


2

Cecilia Cordova, Pacific Alliance Law, PLLC
Legal representative of Filo Foods, LLC, an ACDBE at SeaTac international Airport
601 Union Street, Suite 4200, Seattle, WA 98101 / 206.652.3592 / geciliagagcordovalawrm.com


Prepared by: Cecilia Cordova, legal Counsel for Filo Foods, LLC
Table Comparing Proposed Quality Jobs Proposal

POS Commission Meeting November 25, 2014 / Agenda Item 6a
V
City of SeaTac Ordinance Setting  Proposed ADR Quality Jobs     Host Jobs represented by Unite
Minimum Employment Standards  Motion 11/25/2014 HERE Local 8
for Hospitality & Transportation
IndustryEmployers
Awaiting WA Supreme Court ruling  Per Agenda Item 6a           Per Agenda Item 6f ,
whether it a lies at SeaTac Airlorz.' 
POS Strategy & Objectives: The  POS Strategy & Objectives:
Sponsored by and drafted by     Commission has expressed intent   Phasing plan,' new lease &
Unite Here Local 8 & SEIU      that Airport Dining and Retail     concession agreement with Host,
employment represent "Quality  supports the Port's Century
Jobs."   Agenda goal: "advance the region
as a leading tourism destination &
Heavily lobbied for by Unite     business gateway" by providing an
HERE Local 8    extraordinary customer experience
at the Airport. The project also
(Not applicable to Host, because  supports the Aviation Division's
POS offering Host a new lease    strategic goals to operate a world;
through 2023) class airport & grow non-
aeronautical revenues.

Opt-Out provision: not applicable Union Recognition & Negotiation  Supports the continuity of
if enter into a union contract, at    Requirement of Unite HERE      approximately 250 employees with
SeaTac Airport, with Unite HERE  Local 8: documented good faith   Host, represented by Unite
Local 8.                    discussions with labor          HERE Local 8.
organizations representing
incumbent employees regarding
the mitigation of impacts on
airport operations or reVenue due
to labor dis u utes. 
Living Wage For Hospitality                    Requires The KingCounty Self-  Actual Starting Wages in 2015
Workers and Transportation
Sufciency Standard    range from:
Workers '
King (City of Seattle):      $9.44 for tipped servers to
$15.00/hour or more         2000 hour year                           $13.91 for a cook.

' If enter into union contract '            =
one adult / $22,199
with Unite HERE, NOT       $11.10/hour 
guaranteed             0  One adult & one
preschooler / $48,455 =
$24.23 
' One adult One
preschooler&one school age
/ $60,680 = $30.34
Required Paid Time Off &
expected to provide additional
benets: i.e. health care,
pension/retirement contributions,
educational cost reimbursement,