Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
 | |
| Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters | |
| Term: 2022 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: January 10, 2023 Decided: June 1, 2023 | |
| Outcome | |
| Washington Supreme Court reversed and remanded | |
| Majority | |
| Chief Justice John Roberts • Amy Coney Barrett • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Brett Kavanaugh | |
| Concurring | |
| Clarence Thomas (in judgment) • Samuel Alito (in judgment) • Neil Gorsuch (in judgment) | |
| Dissenting | |
| Ketanji Brown Jackson | |
Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters was a U.S. Supreme Court case decided on June 1, 2023, concerning the authority of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to adjudicate certain labor-related disputes. The court held 8-1 that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) does not preempt Glacier Northwest’s state tort claims regarding the destruction of property during a labor dispute because the union did not take reasonable precautions to avoid damage.[1]
The case came on a writ of certiorari to the Washington Supreme Court. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.
Why it matters: The court’s ruling in the case limits the scope of the NLRB’s authority to adjudicate certain labor-related disputes. The union’s actions were not protected by the National Labor Relations Act because the union did not take reasonable precautions to prevent harm to the company’s property.
Timeline
The following timeline details key events in this case:
- June 1, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the decision of the Washington Supreme Court.
- January 10, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
- October 3, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
- May 12, 2022: Glacier Northwest, Inc. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- December 16, 2021: The Washington Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded the case back to the trial court to dismiss Glacier's claims consistent with the state supreme court's opinion.
Background
Glacier Northwest Inc. ("Glacier"), also known as CalPortland, sells and transfers ready-mix concrete to businesses in Washington. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 174 serves as the labor union representative for truck drivers employed by Glacier in King County.[3][4]
On August 11, 2017, while Glacier and the truck drivers were negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement, the drivers went on strike and stopped working, resulting in the loss of some of Glacier's concrete. Glacier alleged that Local 174 had the drivers purposely time the strike in order to destroy the concrete. On August 18, 2017, the strike ended and the agreement was ratified. The new CBA was retroactively effective from August 1, 2017, through July 31, 2021. Glacier alleged that Local 174 Secretary Treasurer Rick Hicks misrepresented whether the drivers would work on a construction project—known as The Vulcan Project—with GLY Construction Inc. on August 19, and as a result intentionally damaged Glacier's property. Glacier asked GLY President Ted Herb to confirm with Hicks that the drivers would be available for the project. Herb alleged that Hicks confirmed the truck drivers would respond to the dispatches for the project. Hicks denied he made these statements. On August 19, there were not enough drivers to deliver the concrete. Glacier rescheduled the pour and paid GLY $100,000 for the cancellation.[3][4]
On December 4, 2017, Glacier sued Local 174 in the King County Superior Court for damages arising during the labor dispute. Local 174 filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (Board), alleging that Glacier retaliated against union members for a protected strike, constituting unfair labor practices; for filing a lawsuit against action protected by federal law, and for abuse of the discovery process to glean information about protected labor activity. In court, Local 174 moved to dismiss the tort claims. The trial court dismissed all claims except for those relating to events occurring on August 19, which was not covered by the new CBA and therefore not protected. In response, Local 174 moved for summary judgment on the August 19 claims, which the trial court granted.[3][4]
Glacier appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals. The appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the destruction of property claims and affirmed the dismissal of the misrepresentation claims.[3][4]
Both parties asked the Washington Supreme Court to review of the lower courts' claims. Local 174 sought review of the Court of Appeals' conclusion that Glacier’s claims were not preempted by the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA). Glacier sought review of the grant of summary judgment in favor of Local 174 dismissing Glacier's intentional interference and misrepresentation claims.[3][4]
Washington Supreme Court opinion
The Washington Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded the case back to the trial court to dismiss Glacier's claims consistent with the state supreme court's opinion. Judge Debra Stephens delivered the opinion of the court:[3]
| “ | This case asks us to decide whether an employer’s state tort claims against its truck drivers’ union are preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and whether any claims that are not preempted were properly dismissed below. Glacier Northwest Inc. claims the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174 (Local 174) is liable for concrete product loss during a strike and for an alleged misrepresentation by a union representative that Glacier claims interfered with its ability to service a concrete mat pour. The trial court ruled the strike-related claims were preempted by the NLRA and granted summary judgment for Local 174 on the misrepresentation claims. Glacier appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed on the preemption issue but affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the misrepresentation claims. We granted review and accepted amicus curiae briefing from the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.
|
” |
National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA)
The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act, is a federal law that established the legal right for workers to join labor unions and enter into collective bargaining agreements with their employers. The Wagner Act also strengthened the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to oversee collective bargaining activities, resolve labor disputes, ensure transparent union elections, and prohibit workplace discrimination against union members, among other provisions. The bill was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) as part of the New Deal on July 5, 1935.[6][7]
Questions presented
The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]
Questions presented:
|
Oral argument
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case on January 10, 2023.
“The justices from the conservative wing remained relatively quiet, allowing the three more liberal justices to dominate the argument,” wrote SCOTUSblog analyst Sharon Block. The justices raised questions about the possibility of the NLRB and the state court making different legal conclusions, whether directing the case to the state court would make the NLRB’s adjudication procedures irrelevant, and whether Congress intended for the NLRB to have primary jurisdiction in such disputes.[1]
Audio
Audio of oral argument:[8]
Transcript
Transcript of oral argument:[9]
Outcome
The court ruled 8-1 that the National Labor Relations Act does not preempt state court lawsuits against a union if the union did not take reasonable precautions to avoid damage to the company's property during a labor dispute. It reversed and remanded the Washington Supreme Court ruling.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a dissenting opinion.[10]
Opinion
Opinion of the court
Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the court, which argued that the union had not taken precautions to mitigate the risk of damage or harm to Glacier Northwest’s property during the labor dispute. As a result, the NLRA does not protect the actions of the union or the strikers:[11]
| “ | All agree that the NLRA protects the right to strike but that this right is not absolute. Brief for Petitioner 18; Brief for Respondent 21, 46, n. 14. The Board has long taken the position—which both the Union and Glacier accept—that the NLRA does not shield strikers who fail to take ‘reasonable precautions’ to protect their employer’s property from foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent danger due to the sudden cessation of work. Bethany Medical Center, 328 N. L. R. B. 1094 (1999) (‘concerted activity’ is ‘indefensible where employees fail to take reasonable precautions to protect the employer’s plant, equipment, or products from foreseeable imminent danger due to sudden cessation of work’); see also Brief for Petitioner 14, 30–31; Brief for Respondent 28–29; Reply Brief 6–7; Tr. of Oral Arg. 68, 86. Given this undisputed limitation on the right to strike, we proceed to consider whether the Union has demonstrated that the statute arguably protects the drivers’ conduct. Davis, 476 U. S., at 395. We conclude that it has not.[11][5] | ” |
Concurring in judgment
Justice Clarence Thomas delivered an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. He agreed with the majority that the NLRA does not preempt state-court claims, however, he argued against the use of the decision in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon as the precedent for reaching that conclusion:[11]
| “ | The majority opinion today underscores the strangeness of the Garmon regime. Here, the Supreme Court of the United States reassures a state court of its power to adjudicate a state-law tort claim. The Court does so, not based on its own judgment that federal law does not pre-empt the claim, but because the NLRB’s existing precedents adequately remove any ‘[c]lou[d]’ over the matter. 359 U. S., at 246. But, if the Board’s precedents left the matter ‘arguable’ (and the NLRA did not plainly dictate an answer), then the state courts would be ‘ousted’ of jurisdiction. Longshoremen v. Davis, 476 U.S. 380, 396 (1986). The upshot of this approach appears to be that the scope of the NLRA’s pre-emption of state-court jurisdiction over state claims is defined—not by the statutory text—but by ‘penumbra[s]’ that wax and wane as the Board develops, or declines to develop, its own carefully insulated common law of labor relations.[11][5] | ” |
Justice Samuel Alito delivered an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. He agreed with the majority that the NLRA does not preempt state-court claims, however, he argued that Garmon preemption does not apply:[11]
| “ | Nothing more is needed to resolve this case. Glacier’s complaint alleges that the Union and its members acted ‘with the improper purpose to harm Glacier by causing [its] batched concrete to be destroyed.’ App. 10; accord, id., at 14, 19–20. As the Court recognizes, they succeeded by ‘prompt[ing] the creation of the perishable product’ and then ceasing work when the concrete was in a vulnerable state. Ante, at 10 (emphasis deleted); see App. 10–13. Because this Court has long rejected the Union’s claim that this kind of conduct is protected, Garmon preemption does not apply.[11][5] | ” |
Dissenting opinion
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a dissenting opinion, which argued that the NLRB should have the authority to adjudicate labor disputes pursuant to the decision in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon:[11]
| “ | In my view, today’s misguided foray underscores the wisdom of Congress’s decision to create an agency that is uniquely positioned to evaluate the facts and apply the law in cases such as this one. 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. Because the majority’s ruling suggests otherwise, I respectfully dissent.[11][5] | ” |
Text of the opinion
Read the full opinion here.
Commentary about the case
Pre-decision commentary
Sharon Block, executive director of the Labor & Worklife Program at Harvard Law School, argued that the case “marks another possibility that the court will overturn long-standing precedent. If the court decides the case in Glacier’s favor, it will be overturning decades of federal labor law preemption doctrine. Moreover, it will follow a string of cases over the past few years in which the court has reinterpreted precedent to constrain the protection of the NLRA and make it harder for workers to organize unions and collectively bargain. The government has offered a middle ground – if the court rejects that path, it will likely be viewed as once again taking an activist approach on the side of a corporation and against unions.”[12]
Landmark Legal Foundation, a nonprofit organization supporting Glacier Northwest in its legal arguments, released a statement that said, “Landmark opposes workplace violence and supports the right to strike peacefully. These aims are by no means contradictory, but that did not stop the Left from making outlandish, inflammatory claims about this case in the lead up to oral arguments. They promoted the idea that the right to strike itself was vulnerable in this case- an improbable outcome in even a worst-case, nuclear scenario for unions at the Court… Glacier was not arguing for some radical departure from labor protections, as some claim, rather an interpretation of Garmon consistent with property rights and the prevention of violence.”[13]
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation filed an amicus brief in support of Glacier Northwest and argued that “federal courts usually don’t offer relief for crimes like vandalism and property damage, making state courts the only place where lawsuits can be filed for such behavior. Far from being a concern only for employers who face union strike efforts, the Foundation argues, employees are often targeted by hostile or violent strike behavior and state courts often are the only forum in which they can receive justice.”[14]
Post-decision commentary
Sean O’Brien, the president of Teamsters International, released a statement following the Supreme Court decision arguing, “The ability to strike has been on the books for nearly 100 years, and it's no coincidence that this ruling is coming at a time when workers across the country are fed up and exercising their rights more and more. Make no mistake — this ruling has everything to do with giving companies more power to hobble workers if any attempt is made to fight back against a growing system of corruption.”[15]
Sharon Block argued that the SCOTUS decision is “creating a further responsibility for workers to mitigate the impact of the action they're deciding to take. That's inherently a confusing thing they have to do. I think it will make the decision to go out on strike much harder,” according to CBS News.[16]
Stuart M. Gerson from Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. wrote in an article for The National Law Review that, “The Court soundly rejected the Union’s defense. While the NLRA might protect the right to strike, that right is not absolute. By initiating a midday strike and doing nothing to protect the company’s trucks from damage and loss occasioned by hardening concrete, the Union intentionally coordinated with its drivers to destroy company property, and such conduct is not protected by the NLRA. In dissent, Justice Jackson would read the Garmon case broadly to protect the Union’s conduct. Both the majority and concurring opinions made it clear that Garmon is something of an aberration that should be applied narrowly.”[17]
Fisher Phillips, a labor and employment law firm, released a statement following the decision arguing, “The Supreme Court delivered welcome news today to employers seeking to sue and recover economic damages from labor unions, ruling that federal labor law does not prevent them from filing state law claims for intentional damage when workers fail to take reasonable precautions and destroy company property during a strike… The Supreme Court’s decision paves the way for employers to hold unions accountable and recover damages in state court.”[18]
Impact
- See also: National Labor Relations Board
The decision of the Supreme Court limits the scope of the NLRB’s authority to adjudicate certain labor-related disputes. The ruling determined that the union’s actions were not protected by the National Labor Relations Act because the union did not take reasonable precautions to prevent harm to the company’s property. The decision could establish a precedent for future labor disputes to be handled in state court, as opposed to being addressed by the federal agency.[19]
October term 2022-2023
The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 3, 2022. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[20]
See also
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- U.S. Supreme Court docket file - Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
- SCOTUSblog case file for Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
- National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA)
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 SCOTUSblog, "Court grapples with how to handle company’s lawsuit against union that went on strike," January 11, 2023
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "QP REPORT 21-1449 GLACIER NORTHWEST, INC. V. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 174," October 3, 2022
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Washington Supreme Court, Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, decided December 16, 2021
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 U.S. Supreme Court, "Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of Washington," filed May 12, 2022
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Encyclopedia Britannica, "Wagner Act," accessed January 22, 2018
- ↑ George Washington University, "National Labor Relations Act," accessed January 22, 2018
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued January 10, 2022
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued January 10, 2022
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters," accessed June 1, 2023
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 Justia, "Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 598 U.S. _ (2023)," accessed June 1, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Cement-truck drivers went on strike. A lawsuit by their company may pave the way for restricting workers' rights," January 6, 2023
- ↑ Landmark Legal Foundation The Ronald Regan Legal Center, "Media Reporting Misses the Mark on Glacier NW v. Teamsters," January 12, 2023
- ↑ National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, "Foundation to High Court: Time to End Union Boss Vandalism Exemptions," February 2023
- ↑ International Brotherhood of Teamsters, "O'Brien: SCOTUS Attacks All U.S. Workers," June 1, 2023
- ↑ CBS News, "Supreme Court ruling deals another blow to organized labor," June 1, 2023
- ↑ The National Law Review, "Health Care Fraud and Labor Unrest Top Today's Docket - SCOTUS Today," June 1, 2023
- ↑ Fisher Phillips, "Supreme Court Ruling Makes It Easier for Employers to Recover Damages Caused by Union Strike Misconduct," June 1, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Supreme Court rules against union over strike liability," June 2, 2023
- ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
| |||||||||||