The majority distinguished a long line of cases in which the NLRB had held that the NLRA protected strikes that resulted in the loss of perishable goods like slaughtered poultry and fresh milk. The court’s decision on Thursday relied on Glacier’s allegations that the Teamsters purposely timed the strike to ensure that the concrete would harden by choosing to strike only after Glacier had “batched” the wet concrete into the trucks. ![]() The court’s decision rests on a fact-specific assessment of whether the Teamsters took “reasonable precautions” to protect Glacier’s property from “foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent danger due to the sudden cessation of work.” The National Labor Relations Board – the federal agency responsible for enforcing labor law - has long held that unions that fail to take “reasonable precautions” may not be protected by the NLRA when strikes lead to damage to perishable goods or property. The court ordered the case remanded to the state court for further proceedings. In a decision by Justice Amy Coney Barrett that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Brett Kavanaugh, the court held that Glacier could sue the union in state court for damages because the Teamsters’ strike was not even arguably protected by the NLRA. The Washington Supreme Court dismissed the case, finding that it wasn’t appropriate to apply state tort law to a labor dispute even arguably covered by NLRA under Garmon. Glacier sued the union in state court for “tortious destruction” of its property – the spoiled concrete. The company was unable to deliver the concrete and some of it hardened, requiring the company to scramble to find a way to safely dump the concrete, destroy it, and cart it away. At the appointed hour for the strike, several drivers drove their trucks back to Glacier’s headquarters and walked off the job. ![]() Drivers allowed Glacier to load their trucks with concrete. Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.įederal labor law normally precludes any application of state law to labor activity under a doctrine called “ Garmon preemption.” The workers in this case, who drive concrete mixers, went out on strike. ![]() The case produced a surprisingly broad majority agreeing that the strike at issue was not even arguably protected by the National Labor Relations Act. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union 174was whether an employer could sue its employees’ union under state law for damage the employer incurred as a result of the union’s strike. In an 8-1 opinion on Thursday, the justices provided a new definition to the limits on the right to strike under federal labor law.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |