Glacier Northwest v. Teamsters: The Supreme Court Examines State Tort Claims in the Context of a Private Sector Labor Dispute

By: Joseph D. Richardson and Joe Peters

In what is broadly being understood as a blow to unions and a victory for employers, on June 1, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employer could sue a union in state court over alleged destruction of employer property incurred as a result of a strike. This carves out an exception to the general rule that the National Labor Relations Act pre-empts such legal actions.

The case, Glacier Northwest v. Teamsters Local 174, arose from a strike that occurred in 2017 in the state of Washington. Glacier Northwest, the employer, sells ready-mix concrete, which it delivers to worksites. Its delivery drivers were represented by Teamsters Local Union No. 174. When the collective bargaining agreement between the parties expired and negotiations failed to produce a new agreement, the union called a strike.

The strike started in the middle of a shift, after concrete had been loaded into trucks and sent out for delivery. Many of the drivers who had already left returned the trucks, with the concrete undelivered. Although the company was able to prevent damage to the trucks, the concrete itself hardened and became unusable. Glacier Northwest then sued the union in state court, alleging that the union intentionally destroyed the concrete by calling the strike after it had been mixed and sent out. The employer sought damages for the spoiled concrete.

Ultimately, the case made its way to the Washington Supreme Court, which dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the union’s conduct was “arguably protected” by the National Labor Relations Act, and that federal law trumped the state law claim for damages. Glacier Northwest appealed that decision to the United States Supreme Court.

Under the National Labor Relations Act, employees have a right to engage in concerted activity to advance their interests, which includes striking or other work stoppages. A strike can be unprotected if the union intentionally damages the employer’s property or fails to take reasonable precautions to mitigate the risk of harm to company property. In such a case, the company can sue the union for compensation for property damage.

Under longstanding precedent, however, such a suit cannot go forward if the alleged misconduct is even arguably protected under federal labor law until the National Labor Relations Board had determined whether the conduct was protected. This standard had historically protected unions from lawsuits seeking damages for protected strike activity.

Under Glacier Northwest, the Court applied a narrow interpretation of the preemption standard, finding that the Union’s calling of a strike resulting in drivers leaving trucks loaded with wet concrete was not even “arguably protected.” While the Court agreed that the union was not required to necessarily provide notice of the strike, it stated that the decision not to do so was still relevant in considering whether the union took reasonable precautions, and whether the danger was foreseeable.

The Court also distinguished this case from other, protected strikes that resulted in spoilage of perishable goods because in this case, by allowing the concrete to be mixed and loaded into the trucks, the strikers themselves created the danger, rather than it being intrinsic to the product itself. In other words, had the strikers chosen to simply not show up to work, the concrete would not have been mixed, and there would have been no risk that it would harden in the first place.

The Court viewed the union’s conduct leading up to the stoppage as affirmative steps meant to endanger the employer’s property, not reasonable precautions designed to lessen the risk. Justice Jackson, the lone dissenter, noted that the NLRB’s general counsel had filed a complaint against the company alleging that its lawsuit was an unfair labor practice, and would have found that the strike conduct was “arguably protected” on that basis.

On its face, the Glacier Northwest decision is a narrow one, limited to the particular facts of this case. But it is widely expected that this decision will embolden employers around the country to take legal action against unions in response to legitimate strike activity. And while many of these lawsuits will be dismissed, unions will still have to expend time and resources defending against them.

Following this decision, unions may need to consider measures to avoid or limit their exposure, including providing adequate notice before striking, and identifying in advance any measures they will need to take to safeguard company property before engaging in a work action.

The attorneys at Willig, Williams & Davidson are available to advise and assist union clients in responding strategically to this new development.

People