FIFTH DIVISION May 18, 2007

No. 1-06- 2228 THE ILLINOIS HOTEL AND LODGING ) Appe al fro m the ASSOCIATION, an U

ni ncorporat ed Asso ciat ion, ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of ) Co o k C o un t y. Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, ) ) v. ) No. 05 CH 13796 ) ART L UDWI G, Dire ct or , T he De par t ment ) of Lab or, AND UNITE HERE LOCAL 1, ) Ho no r ab le ) Ja mes F. He nr y, Defendan ts-Appellees. ) Judge Presidin g. PR ESI DI NG JU STI CEO'BR

IEN de l i v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Plai nti f f , th e Il l i noi s H otel an d L odgi ng A ss oci ati on, f i l ed a d ec l ara tory j udg men t ac ti on agai nst def endan t, the Di rector f or the Il l i noi s De partm en t of L ab or, seek

i ng to h av e se cti on 3.1 of the One D ay

Rest in Seven Act (the Act) (820 ILCS 140/3.1 (West Supp. 2005)) declared unconstitut ional

on the gro unds that it violated the Illi nois Constitution's prohibi tion against special le gis la tion, as wel

l a s the equal

prot ection cl

auses of the Il

li nois Constitution an

d Uni ted States C onsti

tution , and the

supr em acy claus e of the U ni ted States C onsti

tution . The

tria l court gra nte d de f en da nt U ni te H ere Loc al 1 lea ve to i nte rv en e. The pa rti esf i l ed cros s- moti ons

f or sum ma ry j udgme nt. The trial

court found that secti on 3.1 of the Act passes constitutional

mus ter
an d g r an t ed de fen da nt s' mo t io n fo rsu mmar y jud gme nt . Pla int iff ap pe als
. We affir m. Pla int iff is a st at ew ide t r ad e a ss o cia t io n o f I llino is ho t els wit h me mbe r s o pe r at ing ho t els in Cook Cou nty . Pl ai nti f f 's pur pos e i s to p rom

ote the w el

f are an d i nte res ts of i ts m em be rs an d of t he ho sp it alit y indus t ry in g en er al.No. 1-06- 2228

-2-

Unit e He re Lo cal 1 r epr ese nt s ap pr oximat ely 1,7 22 r oo m att enda nt s in Co ok Co unt y and t he Ch ica go met r o po lit an ar ea . T he r o o m at t en da nt s' jo b is t o cle an gu es t r o o ms. Ge ne r ally, all
r o o m at t en da nt s c ha ng e b ed linen s, r emo ve dir t y she et s a nd t o we ls, cle an ba t hr o o ms, va cu um, replace am

eni ties i n bathroo ms ( i.e. , soap , t issue, sham poo , et c.), dispose of garbage, and dust and tidy guests' clothes. Hote l room atte nd an ts e ss en ti al l y work on a piec e-ratesy

stem . Both

un i on a nd non un i on ho t els r eq uir e r o o m at t en da nt s t o cle an a q uo t a o f r o o ms e ac h w o r k s hift
. Alt ho ug h t he y ar e p aid by t he h o ur , r o o m at t end ant s a re re qu ire d t o de liver a q ua nt ified a mo unt o f wo rk du ring t heir shift
an d c an be di sc i pl i ne d if the y f ai l to do s o. Th e q uota sy stem f orce s m an y room atte nd an ts to s ki p brea ks . In a p ub l i sh ed su rv ey of
room atte nd an ts, two-thi

rds sta ted tha t the y ha d s ki ppe d or s hor ten ed l un ch or re st b rea ks , or worked l onger hours , to compl

ete as si gne d rooms
. T he wo r klo ad pr es su r e fa cin g r o o m at t en da nt s ha s c o nt r ibu t ed t o inju ry. E r go no mic research conducted by

the Ohi o St ate Uni

versi ty Bi odyna mi cs Lab orat ory f

ound that t he ty

pic al tasks performe d by

hotel housekeepe

rs put t hese workers at a very hi gh ri sk f or lower back di sorder. Ho t el ro om at t enda nt wo rk has be co me mor e st re nuo us in re cent years . H ot el chains have engaged i n so-calle d "beddi

ng wars," addi

ng he avi er mattresses, m

ore pil lows an d addi tional
am eni ties to compete for travele rs' doll ars. A publ

is hed survey

of room attendants found that
wor k i n tensi f i ca ti on ov er th e p re v i ous

f i v e y ea rs , m ea su re d b y th e i n cr ea se d n

um b er an d i n tensi ty of t ask s re quir ed t o c lean a r oo m, had led t o a st at istica lly significant incr eas e in neck pain andNo. 1-06- 2228

-3-

lower back pain

among roo m attendants. Sec ti on 3 .1 of

the A ct w asi

ntr oduc ed an d pass ed to prote ct h

otel room atte nd an ts f rom ov er wor k. S ec ti on

3.1 (c ) (8 20 IL CS 14 0/ 3.1 (c ) (W est Su pp . 20 05 )) req

ui re s e m pl oy er s to provide h ot el roo m a tt endan ts with two 15-mi

nute breaks an

d one 30-mi

nute me al period i n each
wo rk day in which t he r oo m att enda nt wo rk s at least seve n hou rs. Sec t ion 3 .1 (d ) a lso r equ ires t he
em pl oyers of hote l room atte nd an ts to m ake a va i l ab l e a room wi th a de qua te s ea ti ng an d ta bl esf or r o o m at t en da nt s t o en

jo y t he br ea k. 82 0 I LC S 1 40 /3
. 1( d) ( We st Su pp . 20 05 )
. T he r o o m sha ll ha ve clean dri nki ng water prov

i ded wi thout charge. 8 20 IL CS 14 0/3.1(d ) (We st Supp . 2005)
. Hote l room atte nd an ts w ho h ave b een d

en i ed the man da ted br ea k pe riodsha ve a p ri va te c au se of action f or t reble dam

ages and a

re prot ected again

st retali ation f

or inv oking the A

ct. See 820 IL CS 14 0/ 3.1 (f

),( g) (West Su

pp . 20 05 ). S ec ti on

3.1 appl i es on l y to h otel room atte n da n ts em ploye d i n c ounties wi

th a p opul ati on gre ater tha n 3 m i l l i on, i.e. , to em

ploy ees of h ot el s l ocated i n C ook County . See 8 20 IL CS 14 0/3.1(b ) (We st Supp . 2005)
. On A ugust 16, 2005, o ne day

after secti on 3.1's ef

fecti ve date, pla

in tif f f il ed a veri fi ed
co mplaint fo r d eclar at or y judgment and injunct ive relief ag ainst Art Lud wig, t he Dir ect or of t he Ill in ois Departm

ent of Lab or. I n i

ts four-count co mpl

ai nt, plai ntif f al le ged that section 3.1 was spe cial legislat ion in violat ion o f art icle IV, sec t ion 1 3, of t he I lli nois C ons t itu t ion; vio late d t he equal prot ection cl

auses of the Il

li nois Constitution an

d the Uni ted St ates Constitution; a nd was preempted by

the National

Labor Relations A

ct (NLRA) (29 U.S.C. §151 et seq . (2000 )). Plaint iff co ncur re nt ly m

ove d fo r a t empo ra ry re st ra ining or der . O n Augu st 18, 200 5, t he ci rcuit court granted t he restrai ni ng order, enj oini

ng the Di rector from

enf orcemen t o f s ection 3.1.No. 1-06- 2228

-4-

The court gran

ted Un i te Here Local 1 l eav e to in terve ne . The parti es f i l ed cros s-m

otion s f or sum mary j udgm en t. On J ul y 28, 200 6, the

ci rcui t court rejected plai

ntif f' s speci al le gis la tion, equal

prot ection, and preem

ption argum

ents, granted defen dants' m ot ion f or summ ary j udgme

nt, and di ssolv

ed the temporary restraini ng order that pr ev io us ly had be en en t er ed
. Pla int iff filed t his t imely a pp ea l. Fi rst, pl ai ntif f conten ds that section

3.1 con sti

tutes un constituti onal spe ci al l egi slati on. The special

legi slati on pro vi sion of the Ill in ois Constitut ion of 1970 stat es: "Th e G en era l A ss em bl y sh al l pa ss no s pe ci al or local l aw when a g en era l l aw i s or can b e m ade applic abl

e. Whe ther a general

la w is or can be m

ade applic abl

e shal l b e a ma tt er for judi

ci al determi nation." Il

l. Const. 1970, art. I V, §13. "All sta t ut es e njoy a st ro ng pr esu mpt ion o f co nst itu t ionalit y, and t he pa rt y challenging t he stat ute bears t he burden of cl early rebutt in g this presumption." Cou nty of Cook v. Il l i noi s L ab or Rel ations Board Local

Panel , 347 I ll . App. 3d 53 8, 549 ( 2004). The special legi slati on clause prohib its the l

egi sl ature from conf

errin g a special

ben efi t o r excl usi ve pri vi le ge upon one group whi l e ex cl udi ng other si

m i l arl y si tuated group s. In re Es t at e o f Jo lliff , 199 Ill . 2d 510, 519 (2002). The legisl ature has broad di scretion i n m aki ng statuto ry cl

assifi cations, an

d the special l egi slati on cl

aus e proh i bi ts onl y those th at are a rbi trary . Un zi cker v . K ra f t F ood In gr ed

i en ts Corp. , 203 Ill . 2d 64, 86 (2002). Wh ere, as here, the statute under consideration does not affe ct a f un da men tal righ t or i m pl i ca te a su sp ec t cl

as s or quasi -s uspe ct c l as s, th

e a ppr opri atesta nd ard of
revi ew i s the

rati onal ba si s test. Cou

nty of Cook , 347 Ill . App. 3d at 550. Under the rational basis te st, th

e c ourt m us t de term

i ne whether th

e s tatutor y cl as si f i ca ti on i s r ati ona l l y rel ate d to aNo. 1-06- 2228

-5-

l egi tim ate pub l i c i

ntere st. Cou

nty of Cook , 34 7 I ll. A pp . 3d at 55 0. "I f t his c o ur t ca n r ea so na bly conceive of an

y set of f acts t hat justif

ies distingui shi

ng the class the statut e benef its from the cl

ass out side i ts sco pe, it wil

l uphold the sta tut e." Crus i us v . Il l i noi s Ga m i ng B oard , 216 Ill . 2d 315, 325 (2 005). Our sup re me co ur t has fur t her defined t he r at ional bas is te st when r eviewing leg islative cl assifi cations b ased on population or t erritorial dif feren ces. Such a cl

assi fi cation wi ll survi ve a sp ec i al l eg i sl ati on c ha l l en geonl y : (1 ) wh ere f oun de d on a ra ti ona l dif f ere nc e of si tua ti on or cond i tion exi sti ng i n the pers ons or ob

j ects u pon w hi ch the c l ass i f

i cation res

ts; a nd ( 2) wh ere t her e is a r at ional and pr op er basis fo r t he class ifi cat ion in view o f the objec t s and pur po ses t o be
acc omp l i shed. I n r e P et it io n o f t he Villa ge o f Ve rno n H ills , 1 68 I ll. 2d 1 17, 123 (1 995 ). We review de novo the c i

rcui t court'sdeterm

i na tion of s ection 3.1' s consti

tution al i ty. Crusi us , 21 6 I ll. 2d at 324. Pl ai n ti f f con ten dsth at s ec ti on

3.1 of th e A ct, wh i ch pr ov i de s h

otel room atte n da n ts w i th two 15 -m i nu te b rea ksan d one 3 0-m

i nu te m eal pe riod i n e ac h workday

i n w hi ch the room at t en da nt wo r ks at lea st se ve n ho ur s, vio lat es t he sp ec ial le gis lat io n c lau se be ca us e it ap plie s o nly t o emp lo yee s o f ho t els lo ca t ed in Co o k C o un t y. P laint iff co nt en ds t ha t t he r e is no r at io na l ba sis to distin guish roo m attendants in Cook Co unty f rom those in ot her counties. Plain tiff also
co nt en ds t ha t se ct io n 3
. 1' s d ist inc t io n be t we en r o o m at t en da nt s in C o o k C o un t y fro m t ho se in oth er cou n ti es doe s n ot b ea r a n y ra ti on al re l ati on sh i p to th e pur pos e of th e A ct, wh i ch wa s to dim in ish the wor k burden placed on hotel roo m attendants. Plaint iff 's ar gument is unava ili

ng, as t he r eco rd indicat es t hat in lobbying against t heNo. 1-06- 2228

-6-

pa ss ag e o f se ct io n 3
. 1, pla int iff it se lf ra ise d d ist inc t io ns b et we en ho t els in Ch ica go ve r su s ho t els loca t ed o ut side o f Coo k Co unt y. As initially pro po sed , se ct ion 3 .1 app lied st at ewide . I n lobbying
ma terial s used b efore secti on 3.1 was am ended to apply

only to Cook Co unty, pl

ai ntif f stressed th e e f f ec t th at th e i m pos i ti on of "Ch i ca go w ork ru l es " w oul

d h av e on sm al l er h otel s i n oth er pa rts of th e state . Sp ec i f

i ca l l y , i n a 2 00 5 l ob b y i n g l ette r to i ts m em b er s, pl ai n ti f f aske d l eg i sl ator s to vote against "Stat ewi de Imposi tion of Room A

tt endan t Work Rules" b ecause "sma ll er busi ness es wi l l be su bj ec ted to the se Ch i cago w ork r

ulestha t wi l l cre ateun due pa pe rwor k a nd l i ti ga ti on l oad s, i nh ere ntl y f i na nc i al l y ove r-b urden i ng sm al l hote l s i n I l l i noi s." A t a H ous e L ab or Co mmit t ee he ar ing , pla int iff's pr es ide nt int r o du ce d t he ge ne r al ma na ge ro f a R ad iss o n ho t el in Mol ene, wh

o testi f i ed, " [A] c oupl e of

the issues on

the b i l l *** w oul d put som

e un due press ure on opera tors , e sp ec i al

l y th e smal l er opera torsouts i de

of Ch i ca go th at m ay n ot b e a b l e to p ut a separat e break area in thei r hot el." Pl ai n ti f f ' s pre si den t poi n ted out th at h otel s i n dow n sta te a re as wereh av i n g di f f i cul ty recoveri ng f rom th e terrori st attacks

of Se ptem ber 11: " [I]n R

ockf ord, our occup ancy

i s 55% . In the Quad Cities, our o ccupancy i s 56%. Way bel

ow t he level s that wer e there pr e-9/11. " Le gis lat o r s fr o m do wn st at e a r ea s a lso st r es se d t he diffe r en t co mpe t it ive pr es su r es fac ed by ho t els and m ot el s i n thei r regions. F or exampl

e, at a House Labor Comm ittee heari ng he ld on M arch 17, 2005, R epres en tativ e Dav e W i nters of R ockf ord stated, " Ch

i cago doe sn't hav e to com pete wi th-- across Stat e l in

es, but ma

ny of the downstate hotels do, and *** i t's another j ob-kil

li ng act that we're doing here i

n Springf iel d, and I will

oppo se it." 94th Ill. Gen. Assem., Ho use Pro ceedings, Marc h 17 , 2005 ( statem

en t of Re pres en tativ e W i nters ).No. 1-06- 2228

-7-

A c o mpr o mise bill wa s fo rwa r de d. I n e xp lainin g t he de cis io n t o ame nd t he bill t o ap ply only t o ho t el ro om at t enda nt s in Co ok Co unt y, Rep re sent at ive Frit chey, t he Ho use spo nso r o f the bi ll , stated: "[I ] t was not my i

nt ent ion t o u nduly bur den s mall l itt le hot els, d ow nst at e ho t els. And t he impet us c ame fro m Chicago and C oo k Co unt y. And in re spo nse t o c onc er ns ra ised by *** le gis la

to rs, we fi

le d an am endm ent whi ch was a dopt ed onto t he b il

l y esterday that li mi ted it solel

y to hotels wi

thin Cook Co unty." 94th Il

l. Gen . Assem., House Pro ceedi ngs (statem en t of Re pres en tativ e Fr i tche y ). Th us , the p l ai

n ti f f i tse l f re cog n ize d di f f er en ce s b etw een

Coo k C oun

ty an d downsta

te h otel s th at j us ti f i ed se cti on 3.1 ' s d i f f er en ti ati on b etw een h otel room atte n da n ts i n Coo k C oun

ty and ho t el ro om at t enda nt s elsew her e in Illinois. As a r at ional bas is exist ed fo r t he legislat ion, section 3.1 does not run af oul of the s

peci al le gis la tion cl ause. Fu rth er, cou rts h ave u phel d other s tatute s th at a ppl y onl y to pa rti cul ar c oun

ti esor par t icular cities . I n Ch

i cago N ati

ona l Le ag ueBal l Cl ub , In c. v . Th om ps on , 108 Ill . 2d 357 (19 85) , our

su pre me c ourt u

phel d a sta tute r eg ul ati ng noi se at c erta i n ty pe s of stadi um s u se d f or night t ime spo rt ing event s in cities wit h a po pulat ion in exce ss o f 1 mil lion. Wr igley Field was t he only st adium meet ing t he st at ut or y definition. Rejec t ing a sp ecial legislat ion cha llenge, t he sup re me co ur t held t hat "t her e is a r at ionally found ed d iff er ence bet wee n a less p op ulo us c ity and a cit y with a g re at er po pulat ion. It might be re aso nably anticipa t ed t hat in a typica l urba n set t ing
m ore peopl e woul d be af f ected i n the larger

ci ty b y the n ois e f rom s pectators i

n a stadi um f or a nightt im e event." Th om

ps on , 108 Ill . 2d at 369-70.No. 1-06- 2228

-8-

In Cutin el lo v. W hi tley, 16 1 Il

l . 2d 409(19 94) , th e l

eg i sl atu re ta rgeted a tra ns porta ti on infrast ru ct ur e st at ut e t o D u P age , Ka ne and McH enr y Cou nt ies alo ne. The co unt ies de fended t he statut e based on the

rapid popul

ation growth in

those three counties, argui ng that the ma

gni tude of the tran sportati on prob l em addre sse d i

n the statute w as g

reatest in those a reas . Cu t ine llo , 161 Ill. 2d at 418 . T he su pr eme co ur t agr eed t hat t his just ifi cat ion sa t isfied rat ional bas is review . T he
su pre me c ourt n

oted tha t "[t] ran sp ortati on prob l em

s m ay ex i st to a l es ser de gre e i

n oth er p arts of t he St at e t han in the Co unt ies. H ow ever , 't he legislat ur e is no t bou nd t o p ass o ne law mee t ing every ex igen cy, but may

consider degrees of evil .'" Cu t ine llo , 161 Ill . 2d at 422, quo ting Pe o ple
ex re l . C oun ty of Du Page v . Sm i th , 21 Il l . 2d 572 , 579 (1 961). Sim il arly , the legisl ature here rational ly could have concl

uded from

the evi dence prese

nted to it that section 3.1's

population c la ssifi

cation i s bas ed on a reasonab le apprais al of di ff erences bet wee n t he ho spit ality indust ry in Co ok Co unt y and t hat of d ow nst at e ar eas . S pec ifi cally, t he
ev i den ce i n di ca tes th at C ook C oun

ty h as moreh otel

room atte n da n ts th an th e r est of

th e S tate combi ned. The eviden

ce also showed that the revenue per avail able roo m f

or all Ch icago hotels, whi ch i ncorporat es m

easures b ot h of the room rate that the hotels can charge an

d the occupancy that the y ach i ev e at tha

t rate, was

hi ghe r than an y other ar ea of the State . The

l egi slature rati ona l l y coul d have c onc l

ude d f rom such ev i de nc e that s ec ti on 3 .1 w oul d pr otec t hote l

room at t enda nt s fro m over wo rk in the ju risdict ion whe re t he major ity o f such e mployees wo uld be im pacted and i

n the j urisdi

ction be st positioned to absorb the costs of secti on 3.1's ne w regul ati ons. Plai ntif f contends

that such reasoni

ng i s specul

ative . However, our suprem e court hasNo. 1-06- 2228

-9-

he ld t ha t if aco ur t "c an r ea so na bly co nceive of a ny set of fac t s t hat just ifi es d istingu ishing the cla ss t he st at ut e b en efit s fr o m t he cla ss o ut sid e it s s co pe , it will u ph o ld t he st at ut e. " ( E mph as is adde d.) Crusi

us , 2 16 I ll. 2d a t 325 . Fu rt her , o ur sup re me co ur t has he ld t hat "[u ]nd er t he
ra t ional bas is te st , t he co ur t may hy po t hesize r eas ons for t he legislat ion, even if t he r eas oning advanced di d not motivate the legi slati ve action." People ex

rel. Lum pkin v. Cassi dy , 184 Ill . 2d 117, 12 4 (199 8). Accordin gly , as there are concei

vab le rationales f

or its classifi

cations, section 3.1 passes constitutional

mus ter. Sect ion 3.1 does not violate the speci al le gis la tion cl ause. Ne xt, pl ai nti f f con ten dstha t se cti on 3 .1 v i ol ate s e qua

l prote cti on. A n e qua l prote cti on ch al l en gege ne ral l y i s j udg ed un de r th e s am

e s tan da rds appl i ca bl e to a sp ec i al l eg i sl ati on ch al l enge. Crusi

us , 21 6 Il l . 2d at 3 25. Th ere f

ore, i n th e p res en t ca se , pl ai nti f f 's eq ua l prote cti on ch al l en gef ai l s f or th e s am

e re as ons di scus se d a

bov e c onc ern i ng pl ai nti f f 's sp ec i al l eg i sl ati on ch al l enge. Next, plai ntif f contends

that section 3.1 vi

olates the suprem

acy cl ause of the Un

ited States Constitut ion because i

t is preempted by the NLRA . There are two prim ary doctr in

es of NLRA pr eempt ion, as se t for t h in San Dieg o Bui l di

ng Trade s C oun

ci l v. Ga rm on , 359 U.S. 236, 3 L. Ed. 2d 775 , 79 S. C t. 773 (195 9) ( Ga rm on pr eempt ion) , a nd in Lod

ge76, In tern ati ona l A ss 'n of Mac hinists & Ae ro spa ce Wo rk er s v. Wisc ons in Employment Relat ions C omm'n , 427 U.S. 132, 49 L. Ed. 2 d 396, 9 6 S. Ct. 254 8 (197 6) ( Ma ch i n i sts preemption). The Ga

rm on pr eempt ion d oc t rine "s af eg ua rds the pri mary j urisd i cti on of the Na ti ona l La bor Re l ati ons Boa rd to p as s j udg

men t on certain c onduct, such as labor picke ting, wh ic h m igh t be hel d prot ected by

§7 of the [NationalNo. 1-06- 2228

-10-

Labor Relations] Act but which m igh t also be pro hi

bi ted by §8 of the Act." Li

vadas v . Bradshaw , 512 U.S. 107, 117 n. 11, 129 L. Ed. 2d 93, 106 n.11, 114 S. Ct. 2068, 2075 n.11 (1994). "When
an ac ti v i ty i s a rgua b l y su b j ec t to §7 or § 8 of

th e [NLRA

], th e S tate s a s w el

l as th e f eder al cou rts
m us t de f er to th e e xc l us i ve com pe ten ceof the Na ti ona l La bor Re l ati ons Boa rd i f the da ng er of stat e in terference with national

policy is to be averted. " Ga

rm on , 359 U.S. at 245, 3 L. Ed. 2d at 783, 79 S. Ct. at 780. Ga rm on preemption is

not applicabl

e here, bec ause secti on 3.1 of the Act does not t ouch
on c ond uc t prote cte d by

se cti on 7of the NLRA or prohi bi ted by se cti on 8 of the NLRA . Se cti

on 7 of the NLRA prov i de s th at e m pl oyee s " ha ve the righ t to se l f -org an iza ti on, to f orm, j oi n, or assi st lab or o rgani

zations, to bargain

coll ectivel y through represen

tatives of their own ch

oosing, and to engage i

n other concerted activi

ties f or t he purpose of colle ctive bargai ni ng or ot her mutual ai d or pro tection, and *** to refrain from any or all of such activ ities." 29 U.S.C. §157 (20 00) . Se cti

on 8 (a) of the NLRA makesi t un l aw f ul f or em pl oyers to i nte rf ere wi th, res trai n, or coe rc e em pl oy ee s i n th e e x ercise

of ri gh ts g ua ra n tee d i n se cti on 7; to dom

i n ate or i n ter f er e wi th the ad m i ni stra ti on of a u ni on;to di scri

m i na te on the basis of un i on m em be rs hi p; to reta l i atef or part ici pation in proceedings un

der t he NLRA; and to refuse to barg ain collecti vel y. 29 U.S.C. §15 8(a )(1 ) th roug h ( a)( 5) ( 200 0). Sec

ti on 8 (b ) of

the NLRA i m pos essi m i l ar prohi bi ti ons on cond uct b y uni ons. 2 9 U.S.C . §158(

b) (2 000). Sec ti on 3 .1 of

the A ct d oesnot a

ttem pt to re gul

atecon duc t gov ern ed by se cti on 7or section 8 of the NLRA. Rather, section 3.1 set s forth a mi ni mum lab or st andard mandatin

g rest bre aksand a m

eal peri od f or in di vi dual hotel room a ttenda nts i n C ook County

, wh ethe r they workNo. 1-06- 2228

-11-

f or a u ni on or non un i on e m pl oyer. Mi ni m um l ab or s tan

da rds l i kethos e s et f

orth i n s ec ti on 3 .1 of the A ct a re n ot pre em pte d s i nc e " Con gre ss i s u nd ers tood to have l

eg i sl ate d agai ns t a b ac kdr op of generall y appl icab le l abor st andards." Li

vadas , 512 U.S. at 123 n.17, 129 L. Ed. 2d at 109 n.17, 114 S. Ct. at 2078 n.17. In Metrop oli

tan Li f e I n su ra n ce Co. v . M as sa

ch us etts , 471 U.S. 724, 85 L. Ed. 2d 728, 105 S. Ct. 2380 ( 1985), and Fo rt Halifax Pac king Co . v. Co yne , 482 U.S. 1, 96 L. Ed. 2d 1, 107 S. Ct. 2211 ( 1987), the Uni ted St ates Supreme Court discus sed the i nterplay between m

in im um labor st anda rd s and t he NL RA. I n Me t ro po lita n Life , Massach usetts required heal

th in surance plans, including co llectively barg ained p lans, t o ha ve ce rt ain menta l health be nefits p re scr ibed by t he st at e. A u nio niz ed emp lo yer co nt en de d t ha t t he law int er fer ed wit h it s r igh t t o ba r ga in fr ee ly over the content of its m

edi cal pla n. The Un

ited States Supreme Court disagreed, h oldi ng that "[ t ] he NL RA is co nc er ne d p r imar ily wit h e st ab lishin g a n e qu it ab le p r o ce ss fo rde t er mining t er ms and conditions of em

ploym ent, and not with particular substantiv e terms of the bargain." Me t ro po lita n Life , 471 U. S. at 753, 85 L. Ed. 2d at 749 , 105 S. Ct. at 2396. "T he evi l Congress was addressi

ng thus was

entirel y un related to local

or federal

regulation establ

is hi ng m in im um terms of empl

oym ent." Me t ro po lita n Life , 471 U.S. at 754, 85 L. Ed. 2d at 749, 105 S. Ct. at 2397. The Supreme C ourt further ex pla in ed: "Minimum stat e labo r st anda rd s affect unio n and no nunio n employee s eq ually, and nei ther encourage nor dis courage the coll ective-bargai ni ng processes that are the sub je ct o f t he N LR A. No r d o t hey ha ve a ny but t he mo st indir ec t effe ct o n t he r ight o f se lforganiza tion establ

is hed i n the Act. Unli

ke the NLRA , man

dated-benef

it laws are not lawsNo. 1-06- 2228

-12-

de si gn ed to en cou ra ge or di sc ourag e em

pl oy ee s i n th e p rom oti on of th ei r i n terests col l ec ti v el y ; ra th er , they ar e i n pa rt ' de si gn ed to gi v e s pe ci f i c m i n i m um pr otecti on s to in div idua l wor kers an d to e n su reth at each

em ploy ee covered by

the Act would recei

ve' t he man da t ed he alt h ins ur an ce co ve r ag e. [ Cit at io n. ] No rdo t he se law s e ve n ina dv er t en t ly aff ect these in

terests im pli cated in the NLRA . Rather, they are m in im um s tandards 'i ndepen dent of the coll

ective-bargai

ni ng process [that] devolv

e on [empl

oyees] as ind ividua l wo r ke r s, no t as membe r s o f a c o llec t ive o r ga niz at io n. ' [ Cit at io n. ] " ( E mph as is i n the ori gi

na l .) Me t ro po lita n Life , 471 U.S. at 755, 85 L. Ed. 2d at 750, 105 S. Ct. at 2397. In Co yne , the pertinen

t issue was whether a M ai ne statute requirin

g em ploy ers to pr ovide
a o ne- t ime sever ance payment t o e mployees in the e vent of a plant clos ing was pr eempt ed by t he NLR A. Co yne , 482 U.S. at 3-4, 96 L. Ed. 2d at 6-7, 107 S. Ct . at 2213-14. Ci ting Metropo li

tan Life , th e U

ni ted State s S upr

em e C ourt f oun d that the M ai

ne seve ran cepa y sta tute wasnot pr ee mpt ed by t he NL RA, be ca us e it wa s a minimum la bo rst an da r d t ha t did no t impe r miss ibly i ntrude on the col l ecti ve -ba rgai ni ng process . Co yne , 482 U.S. at 22-23, 96 L. Ed. 2d at 18, 107 S. Ct. at 2223. The Supreme C ourt further he ld: "It is tru e that t he Mai

ne statu te gives em

ployees s omethin

g for which

they otherwise mi ght have to bargain. That is true, however, wi th regard to any

state law that
su b sta n ti v el y re gul ate s e

m pl oy men t con di ti on s. Both

em pl oy er s a n d em pl oy ee s c om e to t he ba r ga ining t ab le w it h r igh t s u nd er st at e la w t ha t fo r m a ‘ ba ck dr o p’ fo rt he ir
ne gotia tions. [Ci tations.] A

b se n t a c ol l ec ti

v e- b argai n i n g agr eemen

t, f or i n sta n ce , s tateNo. 1-06- 2228

-13-

co mmon law ge ner ally permits a n employer t o r un t he wo rk place as it wishes. The
em ploy er enj oys thi s authority w ithout havi

ng to bargain

for i t. The part ie s m

ay enter negotiations

designed to alter this

state o f af

fai rs, but, if im passe i s reached, the em

ploy er may rely on pre-existing state law to justif y i ts aut hority to make empl oym ent decisions; that same state law def

in es the ri ghts and duti es of em ploy ees. Sim il arly , Main e provides that empl oyer and e

mpl oyees m ay negotiate wi

th the in tention of establi

shi ng sev erance pa y term s. I f i m pa ss e i s r ea ch

ed , h owe ve

r, p re- ex i sti ng sta te l aw de term i ne s th e ri gh t of
em pl oy ee s to a c er

tai n l ev el of se v er an ce pa y an d th e d uty of th e em pl oy er to prov i de

i t. Thus, the m

ere fact t hat a state stat ute pert ai ns to matters over whi ch the partie s are f ree to barga i n c an not sup port a clai m of pre-em

pti on, f or 'the re i s n othi ng i n the NLRA

... whi ch ex pressl y f orecloses al

l s tate r egul ator y power wi

th respect to those iss

ues ... that may be the subj ect o f coll

ective bargai

ni ng.' [Citation.]" Co yne , 482 U.S . at 21-2 2, 96 L. Ed. 2d at 17- 18, 107 S. Ct. at 2222-23. Si m i l arl y , i n th e p res en t ca se , se cti

on 3 .1 of the A ct p rovi de s r es t brea

ksan d a meal pe riod f or un i on a nd non un i on h otel room atte nd an ts i n C ook C oun

ty an d nei the r en cou rag esnor di scoura gesthe c oll

ecti ve ba rgai ni ng p rocess es that are the su

bj ect of the N LRA . Secti

on 3.1 thu s p rovi de s m

i ni m um sta nd ard s i nd ep en de nt of the col l ec ti ve ba rga i ni ng proc es s th

at d ev ol ve on t he Co ok Co unt y hot el ro om at t enda nt s as individu al wo rk er s, no t as member s o f a co llective organ ization. Accordi

ngl y , Ga rm on preemption is

not applicabl

e here. Pl ai ntif f conten ds that section

3.1 does not con sti

tute a "true " m

i ni m um l ab or standard beca use it d oe s no t app ly stat ewide , bu t only t o ho t el ro om at t enda nt s in Co ok Co unt y. Plaint iff 'sNo. 1-06- 2228

-14-

argumen t is un avai li ng. Mi ni mum la bor standards need n

ot necess aril

y a pply statewide but, as di scus se d, m

us t "a f f ec t un i on a nd non un i on e m pl oyee s e qua

l l y , an d nei the r en cou rag e n or discourage t he coll

ective-bargain

in g pro cesses that ar e the subject of the NLRA." Metropo li tan Life , 4 71 U .S . a t 755 , 8 5 L. Ed . 2 d at 750 , 1 05 S . C t . a t 239 7. Sec t ion 3 .1 meet s t he requi rem en ts of a m i ni m um l ab or standard a

nd th us a re not preem

pted un der Ga rm on . Pl ai n ti f f also c on ten dsth at th e p en al ti es i m pos ed b y se cti on 3.1 f or f ai l i n g to c om

pl y wi th the rest break requirements vi olates Ga rm on and provides grounds f

or preemption as s

uch pena lties a re not pr ovid ed fo r in t he NL RA. P laintiff's arg ument is unava ili ng, as se ct ion 3 .1 's pr iva t e c au se o f ac t io n su pp o r t s t he minimum la bo rst an da r ds pr o vid ed fo rin se ct io n 3
. 1 a nd is not i nc onsi sten t wi th the statutory sch em e of the N LRA
. Nor is Ma

ch i n i sts preem pti on ap pli cab l e. Ma

ch i n i sts proh i bi ts th e i m pos i ti on of "ad di tion al restri cti ons on economi c wea pons of s el f -he l p, suc h a s stri kesand lockouts [ci

tation ], unl ess such restrictions presumabl y were contemplated by

Congress." Golden

Stat e Transi

t Cor p. v. Ci ty of L os Angel

es , 475 U.S. 608, 614-15, 89 L. Ed. 2d 616, 624, 106 S. Ct. 1395, 1399 (1 986 ). Sec t ion 3 .1 of t he Act do es no t pr os cr ibe or sup po rt st rike s, lo cko ut s, u se o f rep lacement workers , or any

other ec onom

i c wea pon of sel f -he l p tha t Congre ss i

nten ded to l eav

e un regul ated. Ac cordi ngl y , Ma ch i n i sts i s i n appl i ca b l e to s ec ti on

3.1 of th e A ct. Fo r the f ore goi n g r ea son s, we af f i rm th e c i rc ui t cou rt. Af fi rmed. GA LL AG HER a nd O 'M AR A F ROSSA

RD, J J.' s con cur.