Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Teamsters

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]

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."[5] 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.[6] 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."[7] 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."[8] 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."[9]

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."[6][7] 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".[8] Walter Olson of CATO Institute stated that the court's decision "showed a good measure of consensus and civility."[10]

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."[6][11][12] 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."[13] 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.[14] Sharon Block, a Harvard University professor, said the decision is like "putting a tax on the right to strike" and will chill labor activism.[15][16]

The Guardian described the decision as a "setback to labor unions".[17] UPI stated that the ruling asserted that companies can sue workers if "they believe their activism leads to damages."[18] 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."[19] Prior to the decision, Stanford Law professor William Gould, predicted that the court would narrow the jurisdiction of the NRLB and "expose unions to damages for engaging in strikes," which he described as "really unprecedented."[20] 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."[15] 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."[21]