all par ties were notified prior to oral argument of this court’s intention to consider the issue, and both sides have filed briefs directed to this issue. 15 To the extent that the case of United Air Lines v. Industrial Welfare Com. (1963) 211 Cal.App.2d 729, 744 [28 Cal.Rptr. 238], supports the contention that state regulation of working conditions is invalid outside the realm of health and safety provisions, that decision is disapproved. Numerous legislative enactments and judicial authorities make it clear that the states possess broad authority, under their police power, to prescribe minimum standards of employer conduct found necessary to protect the welfare of employees, even when health or safety considerations are not directly implicated. (See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-7 (<HOLDING>); 15 U.S.C. § 1677 (recognizing validity of
recognizing validity of state antidiscrimination provisions recognizing the validity of exclusive jurisdiction retention provisions in a plan recognizing continuing validity of the butner decision recognizing the validity of the product rale holding that the mere fact that a cba contains antidiscrimination provisions regulating conduct that also violates state law does not render the state law dependent on the terms of the contract