Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 49.12.187 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) This chapter shall not be construed to interfere with, impede, or in any way diminish the right of employees to bargain collectively with their employers through representatives of their own choosing concerning wages or standards or conditions of employment. However, rules adopted under this chapter regarding appropriate rest and meal periods as applied to employees in the construction trades may be superseded by a collective bargaining agreement negotiated under the national labor relations act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq., if the terms of the collective bargaining agreement covering such employees specifically require rest and meal periods and prescribe requirements concerning those rest and meal periods.
(2) Employees of public employers may enter into collective bargaining contracts, labor/management agreements, or other mutually agreed to employment agreements that specifically vary from or supersede, in part or in total, rules adopted under this chapter regarding appropriate rest and meal periods.
(3) Rules adopted under this chapter regarding appropriate rest and meal periods as applied to employees who have entered into a contract to play baseball at the minor league level may be superseded by a collective bargaining agreement negotiated under the national labor relations act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et seq., if the terms of the collective bargaining agreement covering such employees expressly provides for wages and working conditions.
Notes:
Findings—Purpose—Intent—2003 c 401: "The legislature finds that the enactment of chapter 236, Laws of 1988 amended the definition of employer under the industrial welfare act, chapter 49.12 RCW, to ensure that the family care provisions of that act applied to the state and political subdivisions. The legislature further finds that this amendment of the definition of employer may be interpreted as creating an ambiguity as to whether the other provisions of chapter 49.12 RCW have applied to the state and its political subdivisions. The purpose of this act is to make retroactive, remedial, curative, and technical amendments to clarify the intent of chapter 49.12 RCW and chapter 236, Laws of 1988 and resolve any ambiguity. It is the intent of the legislature to establish that, prior to May 20, 2003, chapter 49.12 RCW and the rules adopted thereunder did not apply to the state or its agencies and political subdivisions except as expressly provided for in RCW 49.12.265 through 49.12.295, 49.12.350 through 49.12.370, 49.12.450, and 49.12.460." [ 2003 c 401 s 1.]
Effective date—2003 c 401: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [May 20, 2003]." [ 2003 c 401 s 6.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: Wingert v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 146 Wash. 2d 841 (Wash. 2002).
Wingert v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 146 Wash. 2d 841 (Wash. 2002). “Based on its interpretation of RCW 49.12.187, Yellow Freight argues that the collective bargaining agreement supersedes the state regulation.”
Wingert v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 50 P.3d 256 (Wash. 2002). “Based on its interpretation of RCW 49.12.187, Yellow Freight argues that the collective bargaining agreement supersedes the state regulation.”
King Cnty. Pub. Hosp. v. Jeoung Lee, 434 P.3d 1071 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “12 Evergreen relies on RCW49.12.187 to argue Lee’s claims are contractual because the statute gives public employers and public employee unions the ability to negotiate CBAs “that specifically vary from or supersede, in part or in total, rules adopted under this chapter…”
Wingert v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 13 P.3d 677 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “Yellow Freight first argues that RCW 49.12.187 allows it unrestricted freedom to negotiate rest periods which do not meet the minimum standards of WAC 296-126-092(4).”
Lawrence Hill, Adam Wise, & Robert Miller, Res. v. Garda Cl Nw., Inc., App., 2017 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 97 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “¶65 Garda argues that the Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the regulation would violate the employees’ right to collectively bargain under RCW 49.12.187 and implicate the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.”
Jeoung Lee v. Evergreen Hosp. Med. Ctr., 464 P.3d 209 (Wash. 2020). “Under RCW 49.12.187, “[e]mployees of public employers may enter into collective bargaining contracts .”
Frese v. Snohomish Cnty., 120 P.3d 89 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 49.12.187 (as amended by Laws of 2003, ch 401, § 3).”
Wingert v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 13 P.3d 677 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Yellow Freight first argues that RCW 49.12.187 allows it unrestricted freedom to negotiate rest periods which do not meet the minimum standards of WAC 296-126-092(4).”
Bruce v. Sellen Constr. Co Inc (W.D. Wash. 2025). “8 14 Defendant removed the matter to this Court, Dkt. # 1, and Plaintiff then moved to 15 remand.”
Bruce v. Sellen Constr. Co Inc (W.D. Wash. 2025). “See RCW 49.12.187. This law specifically provides: 4 [R]ules .”
Douglas Frechin v. King Cnty. Of Transp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “72750-8-1/3 Frechin's employment as a bus driver has been covered at all relevant times by collective bargaining agreements between Metro and Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587. Frechin alleges that over a period of years, Metro has been violating a state labor rule that…”
Cheney v. Puget Sound Energy Inc (W.D. Wash. 2023). “It argues that, under RCW 49.12.187, the CBAs at issue supersede Washington law 16 regarding meal periods because those CBAs specifically require meal periods and 17 prescribe requirements concerning those meal periods.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.