Troubled Teamsters: Supreme Court may deal a blow to striking unions
Kaelan Deese
Video Embed
The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared poised to rule in favor of a Washington-based concrete company seeking to revive a lawsuit filed against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, claiming that a strike damaged its cement product.
The justices were tasked to answer whether the company, Glacier Northwest, can sue the members of Teamsters Local 174 for damages in state court over an August 2017 strike when drivers walked away from their jobs and left wet cement to harden in their trucks. Glacier maintains it lost $100,000 on the day of the strike as a result of failing to finish a contract and claims further damages.
Between questions from attorneys defending the company and the union’s counsel, the justices were entangled in the distinction between financial loss caused by a strike, which is typically considered not the laborers’ responsibility, and intentional destruction of property, which wouldn’t be protected.
SUPREME COURT MAY DRASTICALLY CHANGE WAY LABOR UNIONS MAY STRIKE
Chief Justice John Roberts referenced milk production as a hypothetical example of the harm caused by a strike, saying there’s a “difference between the milk spoiling and killing the cow.”
Democratic-appointed Justice Elena Kagan said that a broad ruling in favor of companies could undermine a union’s strategic decisions on when to strike, which often are made to pressure employers by threatening the risk of economic harm.
“When we start focusing on intent … it pulls in pretty much every strategic decision that a union makes as to when to conduct a work stoppage,” she said.
Based on the line of questioning from the justices, it appears likely the majority of the court will say the Washington Supreme Court erred when it dismissed the lawsuit. Justices could also choose a narrower ruling that would favor the Biden administration’s input in the case, which is supporting “neither party” and urging the high court to overturn a lower court ruling to allow Glacier’s lawsuit to proceed.
A middle-ground outcome may mean that even if the lawsuit is revived, it could be placed on hold until the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees labor disputes, finishes its own investigation into whether the strike and alleged damage were actions protected by federal labor law.
In 2021, the Washington state Supreme Court ruled Glacier’s claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, thus prompting the company to ask the highest court to rule that federal preemption does not prevent claims made under state law involving intentional destruction of an employer’s property.
Attorneys for the union said the strike could be considered arguably protected under federal labor law and that the resulting loss of concrete did not meet the stringent constraints to override federal preemption.
The Supreme Court’s two other liberals, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, asked questions to test whether the ruined concrete would be a result of deliberate destruction or simply a consequence of striking.
At one point, Sotomayor told Justice Department Assistant to the Solicitor General Vivek Suri: “Tell me how to write this decision.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“I suggest copying our brief, your honor,” the lawyer answered in a joking way, prompting an uproar of laughs from the attendees on Tuesday. Suri then suggested an opening paragraph for the court’s final ruling on the matter.
“The NLRA protects the right to strike, but workers have a corresponding responsibility to take reasonable precautions to protect employers’ property. In this case, taking the allegations true, such precautions were not taken. Therefore the conduct was not even arguably protected, and the Washington Supreme Court’s decision is reversed,” Suri said.
Video Embed