Blogs

When it comes to employees on strike, most believe the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) has complete control over the matter. However, the Supreme Court has recently shown us that this power is not absolute. In an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that just because employees are on strike, this does not mean that all their actions are protected by the NLRA.  

The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union 174 on June 1, 2023. Glacier Northwest, located in Washington state, delivers concrete using ready-mix concrete trucks with rotating drums that prevent the concrete from solidifying before it is ready to be poured for the customer. As labor negotiations continued between Glacier Northwest and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union 174, a strike was ordered by the union.  

On the day of the strike, the workers arrived at Glacier Northwest like normal, then, as the Court stated, “a Union agent signaled for a work stoppage when the Union knew that Glacier was in the midst of mixing substantial amount of concrete, loading batches into ready-mix trucks, and making deliveries.” The drivers loaded the trucks with concrete, then abandoned the vehicles. This resulted in Glacier Northwest having to scramble and empty the trucks of the concrete before it hardened and destroyed the trucks. In the end, Glacier Northwest was able to save their trucks, but all the mixed concrete had to be disposed of, wasting the product.  

As a result, Glacier Northwest sued the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union 174, in state court for damage to its property. Local Union 174 responded that the employees’ actions were protected by the NLRA and that suing them in court was the improper venue. They argued that instead, Glacier Northwest must allow the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to decide if the conduct was protected by the NLRA, and then depending on what the NLRB found, only then could Glacier Northwest bring a lawsuit against the union for the damages to their property.  

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court held that “the NLRA does not shield strikers who fail to take ‘reasonable precautions’ to protect their employer’s property from the foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent danger due to the sudden cessation of work.” Here, the employees created the wet concrete and loaded the trucks, with the full intention of never delivering the concrete, knowing that this would require the dumping of the concrete and possibly damage the trucks. The Court held that the union’s failure to take reasonable precautions is not “arguably protected” by the NLRA and sent the case back to state court for Glacier’s Northwest’s tort suit to be considered.  

So, what does this mean for employers? The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies that employees going on strike do not have absolute immunity to do what they would like just because they are engaging in a strike. Instead, the Court has just reminded unions and employees engaging in a strike that they are to take reasonable precautions to protect the employer’s property and that the failure to do so could result in the employer being able to move forward with tort claims in state court, rather than having to defer to the NLRB. If you have any questions, please contact Employers Council.