Supreme Court rules for concrete company in union damages dispute
The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Glacier Northwest Inc., a concrete company in Washington state, allowing them to pursue a lawsuit against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters over a strike in August 2017 that allegedly damaged its product. The decision, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett and supported by an 8-1 majority, means that the company can take legal action against the union in state court. The ruling is a setback for organized labor advocates who argued it could stifle strike actions by putting unions at risk for a wide range of potential losses.
The case centers on a strike by Teamsters Local 174 in which members went on strike, leaving wet concrete in their trucks. The company claims that it was rendered useless, and that the strike caused it to lose $100,000 and additional damages. The union says that it left the cement in the drums of the trucks and that it was the company’s decision to remove the concrete and break it up once it hardened.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a dissenting opinion, stating that the decision could erode the right to strike. Jackson argued that the National Labor Relations Board should ordinarily take the first crack at resolving contentious, fact-bound labor disputes of this nature.
The ruling comes at a time of renewed interest in the protections offered by union jobs, and as the number of strikes has increased across various sectors.
FAQs:
What was the basis of Glacier Northwest Inc.’s lawsuit against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters?
The lawsuit alleges that a strike by Teamsters Local 174 in August 2017 caused extensive damage to the company’s product, resulting in losses of $100,000 and additional damages.
What does the Supreme Court ruling mean for Glacier Northwest Inc.?
The ruling means that the company can pursue its lawsuit against the union in state court.
What impact could the ruling have on organized labor?
Organized labor advocates have raised concerns that the ruling could stifle strike actions by putting unions on the hook for a broad range of potential losses employers can face as a result of such activities.
Why did Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent?
Justice Jackson issued a dissenting opinion, stating that the decision could erode the right to strike. Jackson argued that the National Labor Relations Board should ordinarily take the first crack at resolving contentious, fact-bound labor disputes of this nature.
What was the response to the ruling?
Business interests that are often in conflict with organized labor have welcomed the ruling. Various labor groups and unions backed the Teamsters.
Union damages dispute favorably settled for concrete company by Supreme Court.
The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a concrete company in Washington state seeking to revive a lawsuit against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters alleging that a strike damaged its product. The 8-1 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett means the company, Glacier Northwest Inc., can pursue a lawsuit against the union in state court over an August 2017 strike in which drivers walked off the job, leaving wet concrete in their trucks.
Barrett, one of the court’s six conservatives, wrote that a state court was wrong to dismiss the claims at such an early stage in proceedings based on its concern that the claims conflicted with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), a federal law that protects union activity.
“Because the union took affirmative steps to endanger Glacier’s property rather than reasonable precautions to mitigate that risk, the NLRA does not arguably protect its conduct,” Barrett wrote.
Organized labor advocates had raised concern that a ruling in favor of the company could stifle strike actions by putting unions on the hook for a broad range of potential losses employers can face a result of such activities.
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, saying the ruling “risks erosion of the right to strike.”
Jackson pointed to the fact that the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint after the state court ruling, charging the company with unfair labor practices and saying that the drivers’ actions were “arguably protected.”
The ruling comes as the number of strikes has increased amid a renewed interest in some sectors in the protections that union jobs can offer. It centers on an incident in which members of Teamsters Local 174 went on strike after negotiations broke down over a new collective bargaining agreement.
When truck drivers walked off the job, the company says some of the concrete already in the process of being delivered was rendered useless. Drivers returned trucks to the company’s facility, some of which had partial or full loads on board. As a result of the strike, concrete was left in the trucks and had to be removed to harden and then be broken up before it could be disposed of, the company says.
The union says when the workers returned the trucks, the cement was wet, and they left the drums on the trucks rotating, meaning it would not immediately congeal. It was the company’s decision to remove the concrete and then break it up once it hardened, the union says.
Glacier says it lost $100,000 as a result of failing to fulfill a contract on the day of the strike and also claims additional damages. The company says it was able to do the previously scheduled work the following week.
The Washington Supreme Court ruled for the union in December 2021, saying that any loss of concrete was “incidental to a strike arguably protected by federal law.”
The company was backed by business and anti-union groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which said in a brief that the state court’s finding that intentional destruction of property could be deemed a protected activity conflicted with U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
Various labor groups and unions backed the Teamsters.