In blow to unions, Supreme Court rules company can pursue strike damage claim
Washington DC June 2, 2023 The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of a concrete company in Washington state seeking to revive a lawsuit against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters alleging that a strike damaged its product.
The 8-1 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett means the company, Glacier Northwest Inc., can pursue a lawsuit against the union in state court over an August 2017 strike in which drivers walked off the job, leaving wet concrete in their trucks.
Barrett, one of the court’s six conservatives, wrote that a state court was wrong to dismiss the claims at such an early stage in proceedings based on its concern that the claims conflicted with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), a federal law that protects union activity.
“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,” Barrett wrote.
Organized labor advocates had raised concern that a ruling in favor of the company could stifle strike actions by putting unions on the hook for a broad range of potential losses employers can face as a result of such activities.
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, saying the ruling “risks erosion of the right to strike.”
Jackson pointed to the fact that the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint after the state court ruling, charging the company with unfair labor practices and saying that the drivers’ actions were “arguably protected.”
By ruling in favor of the company, the court “inserts itself into this conflict, proceeding to opine on the propriety of the union’s strike activity” despite not being the best place to weigh the facts, she wrote.
“This case is Exhibit A as to why the board — and not the courts — should ordinarily take the first crack at resolving contentious, fact-bound labor disputes of this nature,” she added.
Jackson noted, however, that the state court could still put the case on hold while the labor board concludes its proceedings.
Noel Francisco, the company’s lawyer, said the ruling “vindicates the longstanding principle that federal law does not shield labor unions from tort liability when they intentionally destroy an employer’s property.”
Business interests that are often in conflict with organized labor have been heavily critical of the labor board in the past. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has ruled against unions on several occasions in recent years, including a 2018 case in which the court said public sector workers who choose not to join a union cannot be compelled to pay a share of union dues for covering the cost of negotiating contracts.
