Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Teamsters
598 U. S. ____ , 143 S. Ct. 1404 (2023)
Rule of Law:
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) does not preempt state-law tort claims against a union for intentionally destroying an employer's property during a labor dispute, as such conduct is not arguably protected by the Act when strikers fail to take reasonable precautions to protect the employer's property from foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent danger.
Facts:
- Glacier Northwest, Inc. sells and delivers ready-mix concrete, a highly perishable product that begins to harden immediately and can cause significant damage to delivery trucks if left in the rotating drum for too long.
- The International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174 (the Union) represented Glacier's truck drivers.
- After a collective-bargaining agreement between Glacier and the Union expired in the summer of 2017, negotiations for a new agreement were unsuccessful.
- On the morning of August 11, 2017, the Union called for a work stoppage, timing it for a moment when it knew Glacier was in the process of mixing substantial amounts of concrete and loading it into trucks.
- The Union instructed drivers to disregard Glacier's orders to complete deliveries that were already in progress.
- At least sixteen drivers who had already loaded their trucks with wet concrete returned to Glacier's facility.
- At least nine of these drivers abandoned their trucks without notifying anyone, leaving the concrete inside to harden and become useless, which also posed a risk of damage to the vehicles.
Procedural Posture:
- Glacier Northwest, Inc. sued the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174 in a Washington state trial court for the torts of conversion and trespass to chattels.
- The trial court granted the Union's motion to dismiss, holding that the state-law claims were preempted by the NLRA under the Garmon doctrine.
- Glacier appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, which reversed the trial court's dismissal.
- The Union, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Washington, the state's highest court.
- The Supreme Court of Washington reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstating the trial court's dismissal and holding that Glacier's claims were preempted.
- The United States Supreme Court granted Glacier's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempt state-law tort claims against a union that allege the union intentionally destroyed an employer's property during a labor dispute?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Barrett
No. The NLRA does not preempt Glacier's tort claims because the Union's conduct was not arguably protected by the Act. While the NLRA broadly protects the right to strike, this right is not absolute and does not shield strikers who fail to take 'reasonable precautions' to protect their employer’s property from foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent danger resulting from a sudden work stoppage. Here, the Union knew concrete was perishable and that leaving it in the trucks would destroy the product and risk significant damage to the vehicles. Rather than taking precautions, the Union allegedly executed the strike in a manner designed to achieve these destructive results by having drivers report for duty, prompt the creation of the perishable concrete, and then walk off the job. This conduct goes beyond the mere economic harm incidental to a strike and falls outside the NLRA's protection.
Concurring - Justice Alito
No. The NLRA does not preempt the claims. The Court's precedents have long established that the NLRA does not protect striking employees who engage in trespass or violence against an employer's property. The Act does not provide immunity for intentionally destroying an employer's property. Because Glacier's complaint alleges that the Union intentionally destroyed its concrete, this conduct is not protected by the NLRA, and therefore Garmon preemption does not apply. The case can be resolved on this straightforward basis without a detailed application of the Board's 'reasonable precautions' test.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
No. The claims are not preempted. I agree with the judgment but write separately to criticize the entire framework of Garmon preemption. The Garmon standard, which preempts state law for conduct that is 'arguably' protected by the NLRA, is an 'oddity' that 'goes beyond the usual preemption rule.' In an appropriate future case, the Court should reconsider Garmon and return to a traditional preemption analysis that asks whether federal and state laws are in direct logical contradiction.
Dissenting - Justice Jackson
Yes. The court should have deferred to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Under Garmon v. San Diego Building Trades Council, courts must pause proceedings when conduct is 'arguably protected' by the NLRA, allowing the expert agency to decide first. Here, the NLRB's General Counsel had already issued a complaint alleging the Union's strike conduct was protected, which definitively establishes that the conduct is 'arguably protected.' By proceeding to rule on the merits based on mere allegations in a complaint, the majority usurps the Board's congressionally assigned role, misapplies the Board's fact-intensive precedents, and erodes the fundamental right to strike.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and potentially narrows the scope of the Garmon preemption doctrine by emphasizing that the 'arguably protected' standard is not a shield for intentional property destruction. It empowers state courts to hear tort claims against unions where strikers' actions go beyond incidental economic harm and involve affirmative steps that create a foreseeable, imminent, and aggravated risk to employer property. The ruling may encourage more employers to seek state-law remedies for damages incurred during strikes, potentially altering the strategic balance in labor disputes and leading to more litigation over the line between protected economic pressure and unprotected sabotage.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Teamsters (2023)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"