Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Teamsters

Last updated

Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Teamsters
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 10, 2023
Decided June 1, 2023
Full case nameGlacier Northwest, Inc., dba CalPortland v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174
Docket no. 21-1449
Citations598 U.S. 771 ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorJudgment for defendants, (Washington Supreme Court, Dec. 16, 2021);
Holding
The National Labor Relations Act did not preempt Glacier’s state tort claims related to the destruction of company property during a labor dispute where the union failed to take reasonable precautions to avoid foreseeable and imminent danger to the property. Washington Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityBarrett, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh
ConcurrenceThomas (in judgment), joined by Gorsuch
ConcurrenceAlito (in judgment), joined by Thomas, Gorsuch
DissentJackson
Laws applied
National Labor Relations Act

Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174, No. 21-1449, 598 U.S. 771 (2023) was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States related to federal labor law, concerning the power of employers to sue labor unions regarding intentional destruction of employer property following a strike. In an 8-1 decision, the Court acknowledged that the right to strike is not absolute, and concluded that the National Labor Relations Act did not preempt lawsuits filed against the union, thus allowing litigation to continue. [1]

Contents

Background

Glacier Northwest delivers concrete to customers in the State of Washington using ready-mix trucks with rotating drums that prevent the concrete from hardening during transit. Concrete is highly perishable, and even concrete in a rotating drum will eventually harden, causing significant damage to the vehicle. Glacier's truck drivers are members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174. After a collective-bargaining agreement between Glacier and the Union expired, the Union called for a work stoppage on a morning it knew the company was in the midst of mixing substantial amounts of concrete, loading batches into ready-mix trucks, and making deliveries. The Union directed drivers to ignore Glacier's instructions to finish deliveries in progress. At least 16 drivers who had already set out for deliveries returned with fully loaded trucks. By initiating emergency maneuvers to offload the concrete, Glacier prevented significant damage to its trucks, but all the concrete mixed that day hardened and became useless. [2]

Glacier sued the Union for damages in state court, claiming that the Union intentionally destroyed the company's concrete and that this conduct amounted to common-law conversion and trespass to chattels. The Union moved to dismiss Glacier's tort claims on the ground that the National Labor Relations Act preempted them. While a federal law generally preempts state law when the two conflict, the NLRA preempts state law even when the two only arguably conflict. In the Union's view, the NLRA—which protects employees’ rights “to selforganization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations,...and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection”—at least arguably protected the drivers’ conduct, so the State lacked the power to hold the Union accountable for any of the strike's consequences. The Washington Supreme Court agreed with the Union, reasoning that “the NLRA preempts Glacier’s tort claims related to the loss of its concrete product because that loss was incidental to a strike arguably protected by federal law.” [2]

Supreme Court

Amicus briefs

A number of organizations filed amicus briefs, or "friend of the court" filings, in the case when it came before the Supreme Court. Among the organizations that filed amicus briefs in support of the plaintiff, Glacier, were the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the Landmark Legal Foundation, the United States Chamber of Commerce, and the Buckeye Institute. [3] Amicus briefs in support of the defendant, by contrast, included UNITE HERE International, SMART International, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, and the AFL-CIO. [3]

Opinion of the Court

On June 1, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Washington Supreme Court in an 8–1 vote, finding that the NLRA does not preempt claims for intentional destruction of property. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the controlling majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh. The majority found that the union's "actions not only resulted in the destruction of all the concrete Glacier had prepared that day; they also posed a risk of foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent harm to Glacier’s trucks. Because the Union took affirmative steps to endanger Glacier’s property rather than reasonable precautions to mitigate that risk, the NLRA does not arguably protect its conduct," the decision said. [2]

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, concurred in the judgment. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, also filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. These justices agreed with the majority that the conduct of the union was not protected—but would have resolved the case on broader grounds.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed the sole dissenting opinion. Jackson argued that the Court "fails, in multiple respects, to heed Congress’s intent with respect to the Board's primary role in adjudicating labor disputes." Jackson also added that the decision will likely create confusion for the lower courts and "risk the erosion of the right to strike." [2] [4] [5]

Reactions and analysis

There were mixed reactions to the decision. The attorney for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174, Darin Dalmat, said he was "relieved" that the decision did not explicitly overturn precedents and pleased the court "reaffirmed that strikers don’t have to give notice of the timing of a strike, outside of the healthcare industry." [6] University of Minnesota Law School Professor Charlotte Garden, who specializes in labor law, stated that the ruling isn't "as bad as it could have been" for organized labor but said it left open the possibility that unions will be "on the hook for product loss" attributable to employer actions following a strike. [7] CNN analyst and University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck stated that the decision will create uncertainty for "when striking workers can and can’t be sued for damage to their employers" but stated that since Amy Coney Barrett’s analysis "rests on the narrow facts of this case" it was enough to bring in "two of the three Democratic appointees, and too narrow for some of her fellow conservatives." [8] AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler said the ruling had relied on "unfounded allegations" by Glacier Northwest, and said that when the facts are shown during the remanded case, it will be clear that the union acted correctly, that the strike is "protected by federal law," and said that the decision would "in no way deter workers from going on strike." [9] Jane McAlevey of The Nation said that the ruling was a "blow to workers" but not a "knockout punch" that the United States Chamber of Commerce, as it leaves "the Garmon preemption" intact, but states that Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch are ready to "totally eviscerate the NLRB." [10]

Some groups praised the decision. The lawyer for the Glacier Northwest, Noel Francisco, argued that the ruling vindicated the principle that federal law doesn't shield labor unions "from tort liability when they intentionally destroy an employer’s property" and said the company is entitled to "just compensation for...property that the union intentionally destroyed." [7] [8] The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which supported Glacier Northwest, praised the decision, stating that the court had ruled correctly, stating that union officials should not have "immunity from state lawsuits over deliberate property damage perpetrated during union strike actions". [9] Walter Olson of CATO Institute stated that the court's decision "showed a good measure of consensus and civility." [11]

Others were more critical. General president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Sean O'Brien derided the justices as "political hacks" and argued that the Supreme Court had "again voted in favor of corporations over working people" by disregarding previous precedent in a press release. He added that the ruling would give companies "more power to hobble workers" if there are attempts to fight against "a growing system of corruption." [7] [12] [13] Jules Roscoe wrote in Vice.com that the decision sets a new precedent for "how companies can respond to striking workers, as large-scale strikes become more common in the U.S." [14] Erwin Chemerinsky and Catherine Fisk, both at the UC Berkeley School of Law, argued that the ruling eroded the right to strike and said "workers will pay the price" for the ruling. [15] Sharon Block, a Harvard University professor, said the decision is like "putting a tax on the right to strike" and will chill labor activism. [16] [17]

The Guardian described the decision as a "setback to labor unions". [18] UPI stated that the ruling asserted that companies can sue workers if "they believe their activism leads to damages." [19] Vox called it a "significant blow to workers’ right to strike" and said it will make it easier for "well-moneyed employers to grind down unions with legal fees." [20] Prior to the decision, Stanford Law professor William Gould, predicted that the court would narrow the jurisdiction of the NLRB and "expose unions to damages for engaging in strikes," which he described as "really unprecedented." [21] Association of Flight Attendants-CWA president Sarah Nelson stated that the decision will "create even more instability in the workplace" and stated the court has to respect the right to strike or "workers will take it into their own hands." [16] Jane McAlevey wrote that the case was "messy" and argued that in a "cleaner case" the court would "dismantle the legal right to strike" and that the UPS-Teamsters deal in 2023 is "Glacier-proof." [22]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Labor Relations Act of 1935</span> 1935 U.S. federal labor law

The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act, is a foundational statute of United States labor law that guarantees the right of private sector employees to organize into trade unions, engage in collective bargaining, and take collective action such as strikes. Central to the act was a ban on company unions. The act was written by Senator Robert F. Wagner, passed by the 74th United States Congress, and signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Taft–Hartley Act</span> 1947 U.S. federal law regulating labor unions

The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, better known as the Taft–Hartley Act, is a United States federal law that restricts the activities and power of labor unions. It was enacted by the 80th United States Congress over the veto of President Harry S. Truman, becoming law on June 23, 1947.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Labor Relations Board</span> U.S. federal government agency

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is an independent agency of the federal government of the United States that enforces U.S. labor law in relation to collective bargaining and unfair labor practices. Under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, the NLRB has the authority to supervise elections for labor union representation and to investigate and remedy unfair labor practices. Unfair labor practices may involve union-related situations or instances of protected concerted activity.

Union violence is violence committed by unions or union members during labor disputes. When union violence has occurred, it has frequently been in the context of industrial unrest. Violence has ranged from isolated acts by individuals to wider campaigns of organized violence aimed at furthering union goals within an industrial dispute.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States labor law</span> US laws on fair pay and conditions, unions, democracy, equality and security at work

United States labor law sets the rights and duties for employees, labor unions, and employers in the US. Labor law's basic aim is to remedy the "inequality of bargaining power" between employees and employers, especially employers "organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association". Over the 20th century, federal law created minimum social and economic rights, and encouraged state laws to go beyond the minimum to favor employees. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 requires a federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 but higher in 29 states and D.C., and discourages working weeks over 40 hours through time-and-a-half overtime pay. There are no federal laws, and few state laws, requiring paid holidays or paid family leave. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 creates a limited right to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in larger employers. There is no automatic right to an occupational pension beyond federally guaranteed Social Security, but the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 requires standards of prudent management and good governance if employers agree to provide pensions, health plans or other benefits. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 requires employees have a safe system of work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Minneapolis general strike of 1934</span> 1934 labor strike and protest in Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States

The Minneapolis general strike of 1934 grew out of a strike by Teamsters against most of the trucking companies operating in Minneapolis, the major distribution center for the Upper Midwest. The strike began on May 16, 1934 in the Market District. The worst single day was Friday, July 20, called "Bloody Friday", when police shot at strikers in a downtown truck battle, killing two and injuring 67. Ensuing violence lasted periodically throughout the summer. The strike was formally ended on August 22.

Lechmere, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 502 U.S. 527 (1992), is a US labor law case of the Supreme Court of the United States on union rights and private property rights. It forbids nonemployee union organizers from soliciting support on private property unless no reasonable alternatives exist.

Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees, 468 U.S. 491 (1984), is a 4-to-3 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that a New Jersey state gaming law requiring union leaders to be of good moral character was not preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

NLRB v. Truck Drivers Local 449 , 353 U.S. 87 (1957), is an 8-0 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a temporary lockout by a multi-employer bargaining group threatened by a whipsaw strike was lawful under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act.

NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333 (1938), is a United States labor law case of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that workers who strike remain employees for the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Court granted the relief sought by the National Labor Relations Board, which sought to have the workers reinstated by the employer. However, the decision is much better known today for its obiter dicta in which the Court said that an employer may hire strikebreakers and is not bound to discharge any of them if or when the strike ends.

Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 535 U.S. 137 (2002), is a United States labor law decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States denied an award of back pay to an undocumented worker, José Castro, who had been laid off for participating in a union organizing campaign at Hoffman Plastics Compounds plant, along with several other employees. The case was originally filed against Hoffman by Dionisio Gonzalez, an organizer with the United Steelworkers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ketanji Brown Jackson</span> US Supreme Court justice since 2022 (born 1970)

Ketanji Onyika Brown Jackson is an American lawyer and jurist who is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Jackson was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Joe Biden on February 25, 2022, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate and sworn into office that same year. She is the first black woman and the first former federal public defender to serve on the Supreme Court. From 2021 to 2022, Jackson was a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that, in a union security agreement, unions are authorized by statute to collect from non-members only those fees and dues necessary to perform its duties as a collective bargaining representative. The rights identified by the Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck have since come to be known as "Beck rights," and defining what Beck rights are and how a union must fulfill its duties regarding them is an active area of modern United States labor law.

De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144 (1960), is a 5-to-3 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that an interstate compact restricting convicted felons from holding union office is not preempted by the National Labor Relations Act or the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, does not violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and is not an ex post facto law or bill of attainder in violation of Article One, Section 10 of the Constitution.

National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation, 306 U.S. 240 (1939), is a United States Supreme Court case on labor laws in which the Court held that the National Labor Relations Board had no authority to order an employer to reinstate workers fired after a sit-down strike, even if the employer's illegal actions triggered that strike.

NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. 292 (1939), is a US labor law case where the US Supreme Court held 5-to-2 that the National Labor Relations Act required decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (Board) to be based on substantial evidence. The Supreme Court overturned a ruling of the Board for not being based on substantial evidence. The Court also held that only the representative of the workers could issue collective bargaining proposals under the law, and that proposals transmitted by a third party did not trigger the Act's protections or duties.

National Labor Relations Board v. Sands Manufacturing Co., 306 U.S. 332 (1939), is United States labor law case, decided by a majority of 5 to 2 by the Supreme Court of the United States, which overturned a decision by the National Labor Relations Board because it was not supported by substantial evidence. The Court defined collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act to mean that proposals and responses to proposals were pending, and that future meetings were being planned. Absent such conditions, bargaining was not occurring. The Court also held that an employer did not violate the Act if it chose to deal with the employees on an individual basis.

Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on how two federal laws, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), relate to whether employment contracts can legally bar employees from collective arbitration. The Supreme Court had consolidated three cases, Epic Systems Corp. v Lewis, Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris (16-300), and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. (16-307). In a 5–4 decision issued in May 2018, the Court ruled that arbitration agreements requiring individual arbitration and prohibiting class action lawsuits are enforceable under the FAA, regardless of allowances set out within the NLRA.

Emporium Capwell v. Western Addition, 420 U.S. 50 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case. The court reversed and remanded the Court of Appeals ruling. The Supreme Court ruled on the basis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA).

References

  1. ↑ "Justices Allow Company to Sue Union for Strike Destruction (2)". news.bloomberglaw.com. Retrieved June 26, 2023.
  2. 1 2 3 4 "Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 598 U.S. ___ (2023)". Justia Law. Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved June 27, 2023.PD-icon.svg This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain .
  3. 1 2 "Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters". SCOTUSblog . Archived from the original on March 18, 2024. Retrieved April 20, 2024.
  4. ↑ Gresko, Jessica (June 1, 2023). "Supreme Court rules against union in labor dispute involving truck drivers and wet concrete". Associated Press . Archived from the original on June 2, 2023.
  5. ↑ Schonfeld, Zach (June 1, 2023). "Ketanji Brown Jackson issues solo dissent in ruling against Teamsters strike". The Hill . Archived from the original on June 8, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2023.
  6. ↑ Kanu, Hassan (June 7, 2023). "US Supreme Court's ruling in strike case puts unions on defense". Reuters . Archived from the original on June 8, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2023.
  7. 1 2 3 Hurley, Lawrence (June 1, 2023). "In blow to unions, Supreme Court rules company can pursue strike damage claim". NBC News . Archived from the original on August 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2023.
  8. 1 2 de Vogue, Ariane; Cole, Devan (June 1, 2023). "Supreme Court sides with cement mixing company over striking workers in latest blow to unions". CNN . Archived from the original on June 20, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2023.
  9. 1 2 Savage, David G. (June 1, 2023). "Supreme Court warns unions against strikes that damage an employer's property". Los Angeles Times . Archived from the original on July 26, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2023.
  10. ↑ McAlevey, Jane (June 1, 2023). "How Should Workers Respond to the Supreme Court's Ruling in "Glacier Northwest"?". The Nation . Archived from the original on June 3, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2023.
  11. ↑ Olson, Walter (June 1, 2023). "Glacier Northwest v. Teamsters: The Supreme Court Gets Concrete". CATO Institute . Archived from the original on June 3, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2023.
  12. ↑ Kruzel, John (June 2, 2023). "US Supreme Court hands defeat to organized labor in truckers strike case". Reuters . Archived from the original on July 5, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2023.
  13. ↑ "O'Brien: SCOTUS Attacks All U.S. Workers" (Press release). Washington, D.C.: International Brotherhood of Teamsters. June 1, 2023. Archived from the original on August 3, 2023. Retrieved August 21, 2023.
  14. ↑ Roscoe, Jules (June 1, 2023). "Supreme Court Rules Companies Can Sue Striking Workers for 'Sabotage' and 'Destruction,' Misses Entire Point of Striking". Vice.com . Archived from the original on July 9, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2023.
  15. ↑ Chemerinsky, Erwin; Fisk, Catherine (June 1, 2023). "Supreme Court ruling erodes the right to strike by empowering employers to sue unions". Los Angeles Times . Archived from the original on June 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2023.
  16. 1 2 "In a historic step backwards, the US limits the right to strike". Morning Star . Archived from the original on June 6, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2023.
  17. ↑ Ivanova, Irina (June 2, 2023). "Supreme Court ruling deals another blow to organized labor". CBS News . Archived from the original on June 8, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2023.
  18. ↑ Luscombe, Richard (June 1, 2023). "US supreme court ruling makes it easier for companies to sue striking workers". The Guardian . Archived from the original on June 20, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2023.
  19. ↑ Bernardini, Matt (June 1, 2023). "Striking workers can be sued by employers for damages, Supreme Court says". UPI . Archived from the original on August 21, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2023.
  20. ↑ Millhiser, Ian (June 1, 2023). "The Supreme Court deals another blow to labor unions". Vox . Archived from the original on June 22, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2023.
  21. ↑ Kanu, Hassan (October 20, 2022). "U.S. Supreme Court poised to give companies new power to sue over strikes". Reuters . Archived from the original on March 22, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2023.
  22. ↑ McAlevey, Jane (July 28, 2023). "The Teamsters' Proposed Agreement With UPS Is a Great Victory by and for the Workers". The Nation . Archived from the original on August 13, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.