The Los Angeles County Superior Court has issued a ruling that finds the City of Los Angeles’ Grocery Worker Retention Ordinance to be unconstitutional, a decision that was immediately applauded by the California Grocers Association.
The ordinance, which was passed in December 2005, required supermarkets to retain workers for a period of time when a store changes ownership. But the judge in the case found that the law conflicted with existing statutes as well as discriminated against supermarkets based on size and whether they have collective bargaining agreements.
“We are satisfied with Judge Dau’s final ruling,” said Jill Rulon, Acting President, California Grocers Association. “Since the Grocery Worker Retention Ordinance has been in effect, sales of grocery stores from one operator to another in the City of Los Angeles have ceased. Stopping the growth of new retail in the city was just one of the many harmful impacts this law had on city residents.”
“We strongly believed that the ordinance is unlawful and unenforceable because it is preempted by federal labor relations laws, violates the equal protection rights of employers, conflicts with state food-related health and safety laws, and improperly dictates rules of employment.”
The ordinance, which was passed in December 2005, required supermarkets to retain workers for a period of time when a store changes ownership. But the judge in the case found that the law conflicted with existing statutes as well as discriminated against supermarkets based on size and whether they have collective bargaining agreements.
“We are satisfied with Judge Dau’s final ruling,” said Jill Rulon, Acting President, California Grocers Association. “Since the Grocery Worker Retention Ordinance has been in effect, sales of grocery stores from one operator to another in the City of Los Angeles have ceased. Stopping the growth of new retail in the city was just one of the many harmful impacts this law had on city residents.”
“We strongly believed that the ordinance is unlawful and unenforceable because it is preempted by federal labor relations laws, violates the equal protection rights of employers, conflicts with state food-related health and safety laws, and improperly dictates rules of employment.”
- KC's View:
