Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Teamsters
598 U.S. 771 (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) does not preempt state tort claims against a union for the intentional destruction of an employer's property when strikers fail to take reasonable precautions to protect that property from foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent danger resulting from the sudden cessation of work.
Facts:
- Glacier Northwest is a company that sells and delivers ready-mix concrete, a highly perishable product.
- Concrete begins to harden immediately, and if left in a truck's rotating drum for too long, it will cause significant damage to the vehicle.
- The collective-bargaining agreement between Glacier and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174, which represented Glacier's truck drivers, expired.
- On August 11, 2017, the Union called for a work stoppage at a time when it knew Glacier was in the process of mixing substantial amounts of concrete and loading it into trucks for delivery.
- The Union directed drivers who had already begun deliveries to ignore Glacier's instructions to complete them.
- At least 16 drivers returned to Glacier's facility with fully loaded trucks of wet concrete.
- At least nine of these drivers abandoned their trucks without notifying anyone at Glacier.
- Glacier was forced to take emergency measures to offload the concrete, which all hardened and became useless, though the company managed to prevent damage to its trucks.
Procedural Posture:
- Glacier Northwest sued the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174 in a Washington state trial court, alleging common-law conversion and trespass to chattels.
- The Union filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the claims were preempted by the NLRA.
- The state trial court granted the Union's motion to dismiss.
- On appeal by Glacier Northwest, the state intermediate appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal.
- The Union appealed to the Washington Supreme Court, which reversed the intermediate appellate court and reinstated the dismissal of Glacier's claims.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Washington Supreme Court.
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 a state-law tort claim against a union for intentionally destroying an employer's property during a labor dispute?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Barrett
No, the NLRA does not preempt Glacier's tort claims. The right to strike 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. The Union's conduct was not arguably protected by the NLRA because it went beyond a mere work stoppage that caused economic harm. By timing the strike to occur after the perishable concrete was batched and loaded, the Union prompted the creation of the vulnerable product and then took affirmative steps that endangered Glacier's property. The Union executed the strike in a manner designed to destroy the concrete and compromise the safety of the trucks, rather than taking even minimal precautions to mitigate the foreseeable risk.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
Yes, the state-court claims are not preempted, but the Court's reliance on the 'Garmon' preemption doctrine is misguided. The 'Garmon' regime, which preempts state-law claims concerning conduct that is 'arguably' protected by the NLRA, is an odd and unusually broad preemption rule that is not grounded in the statutory text. In an appropriate future case, the Court should reconsider and likely abandon this framework in favor of a more traditional preemption analysis that focuses on whether federal and state law are in logical contradiction.
Concurring - Justice Alito
Yes, the state-court claims are not preempted, for a simpler reason than the majority provides. Long-standing Supreme Court precedent, particularly NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., establishes that the NLRA does not protect striking employees who engage in trespass or intentionally destroy their employer's property. Because Glacier's complaint alleges the Union and its members intentionally destroyed the company's concrete, their conduct is not protected by the NLRA, and Garmon preemption does not apply. No further analysis of Board precedent is necessary.
Dissenting - Justice Jackson
The Court should not have decided this issue. The National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) General Counsel has already issued a complaint alleging that the Union's strike conduct is, in fact, protected by the NLRA. The issuance of this complaint means the conduct is, by definition, 'arguably protected,' and under the Garmon doctrine, courts must defer to the Board's primary jurisdiction. By wading into this fact-intensive dispute, the majority usurps the expert agency's role, misapplies the Board's 'reasonable precautions' test, and threatens to erode the right to strike. The proper course was to allow the Board to resolve the dispute in the first instance.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and potentially narrows the scope of Garmon preemption, signaling that state courts have jurisdiction over tort claims arising from labor disputes where strikers' actions are not merely incidental to a work stoppage but involve the intentional destruction of employer property. It reinforces the principle that the right to strike is not absolute and requires unions to consider the foreseeable, imminent, and aggravated harm their actions might cause to company property. The ruling may embolden employers to file state tort suits against unions for strike tactics that cross the line from inflicting economic pressure to causing direct property damage, particularly in industries with perishable goods or sensitive equipment.
