Justices press on collective‑bargaining waivers and federal preemption in meal‑break dispute

At argument the court focused on whether Washington law and federal labor law treat collective-bargaining waivers differently from individual waivers and whether Providence preserved its preemption theories in lower courts. Providence argued there is no textual distinction between individual and collective waivers and urged the court to read the regulation’s text; plaintiffs countered that Providence did not press certain preemption defenses below and would be asking the court to adopt a novel rule.

The bench repeatedly asked counsel to identify the preemption theory they pressed at each stage. Plaintiffs’ counsel said Providence affirmatively waived an LMRA preemption defense and never asserted some NLRA-based preemption theories in lower courts. “Providence is asking this court to jettison its historic protection for workers,” plaintiffs’ counsel said, arguing the company’s appellate theory had evolved and, in plaintiffs’ view, was not fully briefed below.