Strike and picketing activity have historically enjoyed broad protection under labor law. This has often left employers suffering property or other damage as a result of strikes or picketing without a meaningful remedy. A new U.S. Supreme Court ruling stands to change that.
Employers may sue unions when members fail to take “reasonable precautions” to protect their employer’s property, even when the union members are engaged in a strike. On June 1, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174 (No. 21–1449), that an employer can bring state law claims for damages if union members engage in actions that expose their employer’s property to “foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent danger due to the sudden cessation of work.”
What Led to This Case?
Glacier is a ready-mix concrete company. Ready-mix concrete must be specifically prepared to a customer’s specifications and batched into trucks shortly after it is prepared. Even though ready-mix can be temporarily kept from hardening in rotating drums on the trucks, it will eventually harden. If ready-mix hardens in a truck, it renders the concrete unusable and will severely damage the truck.
After negotiations between Glacier and the union representing its employees in Washington State failed to reach an agreement, the members went on strike. According to Glacier’s complaint in state court, this strike was specifically timed to be after concrete had been mixed and batched into trucks. Several truck drivers returned to the yard with trucks full of concrete and told Glacier of the strike, while several other drivers simply returned to the yard and left the trucks. Because the concrete could not be delivered, it hardened and was worthless. Glacier contends that the members “put Glacier’s trucks in harm’s way” and created the loss of the concrete. Glacier was able to prevent damage to the trucks, but was forced to take extraordinary measures to dispose of the destroyed concrete.
What Were the Legal Issues?
If an activity – such as striking – is “arguably subject” to the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), the state and even federal courts are “preempted” from regulating conduct that the NLRA “protects, prohibits, or arguably protects or prohibits.” Instead, state and federal courts must defer to the National Labor Relations Board, and parties cannot sue in state or federal court. This legal doctrine is called “Garmon preemption,” often taking away the protection of generally applicable state law from situations involving labor activity.
Here, both parties agreed that employees generally have a right to strike. The union argued that because employees have the right to strike and striking is obviously protected by the Act, Glacier could not sue in state court for their damages. The Court disagreed and ruled that, although employees have a right to strike, that right “is limited by the requirement that workers ‘take reasonable precautions to protect the employer’s plant, equipment, or products from foreseeable imminent danger due to sudden cessation of work.’” By choosing to engage in activity to pressure Glacier at a time known to be vulnerable for the business, after the concrete had been loaded into the trucks, the members failed to protect Glacier’s property and put Glacier’s trucks at risk. The Court ruled that Garmon preemption did not apply given the details of this situation and Glacier could sue in state court.
What Does the Court’s Ruling Mean for Employers?
Unions are very upset with this Supreme Court ruling. They will be reviewing and revising their strategies, including what notice they should provide in the event they engage in strike or other protest activity.
With the Supreme Court’s ruling the message is sent that violence and property destruction will not enjoy the same protected activity status they have previously enjoyed, even in states considered to be worker-friendly or union-friendly in terms of laws and policies. If activities pose the risk or cause property destruction, employers now have an important weapon in their arsenal to respond to these types of activities. The specter of detail-intensive litigation, and monetary liability for unprotected actions, presents a real risk if unions choose to pursue a path of unprotected activity.
As always, contact your trusted AALRR counsel for more information.
This AALRR post is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in reaching a conclusion in a particular area of law. Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. Receipt of this or any other AALRR post does not create an attorney-client relationship. AALRR is not responsible for inadvertent errors that may occur in the publishing process.
© 2023 Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo
- Partner
Thomas Lenz is a recognized authority on labor and employment law and all issues pertaining to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). He advises, trains, and represents employers on a wide range of labor and employment matters. ...
- Partner
Brent Garrett is an experienced labor and employment lawyer with an emphasis on handling complex traditional labor matters. For over 20 years, Mr. Garrett has provided trusted counsel to companies across a variety of industries on ...
Other AALRR Blogs
Recent Posts
- An Early Holiday Present For Employers Facing Out Of Control Plaintiff Attorney Greed
- California’s Minimum Wage to Increase to $16.50 Per Hour January 1, 2025
- New San Diego County Fair Chance Ordinance Restricts Employers’ Use of Criminal History
- New Los Angeles County Fair Chance Ordinance Restricts Employers’ Use of Criminal History
- Legislation Impacting California Employee Handbook Policies for 2025
- Update on the California Health Care Minimum Wage
- Resources for California Employers to Track and Confirm Their State and Local Minimum Wage Requirements
- 11 Local Minimum Wage Ordinances Poised to Increase on July 1, 2024
- Fast Food Restaurants -- Be Prepared for a DIR Audit
- U.S. Supreme Court Lowers Bar for Proving Discrimination Claims
Popular Categories
- (37)
- (156)
- (54)
- (39)
- (25)
- (7)
- (42)
- (23)
- (15)
- (15)
- (6)
- (7)
- (6)
- (6)
- (9)
- (6)
- (4)
- (2)
- (3)
- (2)
- (2)
- (2)
- (2)
- (3)
- (3)
- (1)
- (1)
- (2)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
Contributors
- Cindy Strom Arellano
- Sarkis A. Atoyan
- Eddy R. Beltran
- William M. Betley
- Brigham M. Cheney
- Michele L. Collender
- Kevin R. Dale
- Scott K. Dauscher
- Alexandria M. Davidson
- William A. Diedrich
- Paul S. Fleck
- Lauren S. Gafa
- L. Brent Garrett
- Evan J. Gautier
- Carol A. Gefis
- Jennifer S. Grock
- Jonathan Judge
- David Kang
- Nate J. Kowalski
- Joshua N. Lange
- Catherine M. Lee
- Thomas A. Lenz
- David M. Lester
- Martin S. Li
- Jorge J. Luna
- Brian D. Martin
- Ronald W. Novotny
- Michael J. O'Connor, Jr.
- Aaron V. O'Donnell
- Shawn M. Ogle
- Sharon J. Ormond
- Nora Pasin
- Joseph E. Pelochino
- Chesley D. Quaide
- Todd M. Robbins
- Irma Rodríguez Moisa
- Saba Salamatian
- Casandra P. Secord
- Jon M. Setoguchi
- Ann K. Smith
- Amber M. Solano
- Susana P. Solano
- Susan M. Steward
- April Szabo
- Jay G. Trinnaman
- Jonathan S. Vick
- Robert L. Wenzel
- Brian M. Wheeler
- Glen A. Williams
Archives
2024
2023
2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
2020
- December 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- January 2020
2019
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
2018
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
2017
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
2016
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
2015
- December 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
2011
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011