right is not logically independent, it’s not "independent," whether the analysis is intellectually challenging or not. Otherwise, the point of the distinction, preserving a uniform meaning to the collective bargaining agreement, would be defeated. Any analysis can be made to sound simple or complex.
Second, the argument overlooks the first part of the three part test, a barrier which, if not overcome, precludes any need to ask whether the collective bargaining agreement would be analyzed in the state proceeding. Preemption applies because the right to take paid leave arises solely from the collective bargaining agreement. This statute only applies if the employee has a right conferred by the collective bargaining agreement, so the state right is intertwined with, and not independent of the collective bargaining agreement.
Our dissenting colleague relies heavily on our recent decision in Kobold,[1]but, as Kobold says, that case was "similar to Livadas in all pertinent respects” because the outcome was controlled by the calendar, not the collective bargaining agreement.[2] Kobold did not expand Railway Labor Act preemption. The Oregon statute required the employer to pay the deducted amount within seven days of when the wages were due.[3] "Seven days" could be counted out on a calendar and needed no analysis of the collective bargaining agreement. Likewise, Kobold held that the breach of fiduciary duty claim, relying on two Oregon statutes, was
