U.S. Supreme Court considers narrowing federal protections for unions
10/01/2023 18:40
By John Kruzel
WASHINGTON, Jan 10 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court
justices on Tuesday wrestled with a labor dispute that could
narrow federal protections for unions by making it easier for
employers to sue over strikes that result in damage to company
property.
The justices heard oral arguments in an appeal by a concrete
business in Washington state called Glacier Northwest Inc of a
lower court's ruling in favor of a local affiliate of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters in the company's lawsuit
against the union arising from a 2017 strike. Glacier Northwest
is a unit of Japan-based Taiheiyo Cement Corp 5233.T .
Some of the conservative justices seemed inclined to bolster
the ability of companies to take unions to state courts while
liberal justices raised concerns about eroding organized labor's
power to strike.
The Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has
leaned toward curbing the power of labor unions in rulings in
recent years. This case could deliver another setback to
organized labor after the justices in 2021 struck down a
California agricultural regulation aimed at helping unions
organize workers.
The legal issue before the justices on Tuesday was whether
companies can sue unions in state court over allegations of
intentional property damage or if such claims are barred by a
federal labor law called the National Labor Relations Act.
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said that a broad ruling in
favor of companies could undercut union decisions on when to
strike, which often are made to pressure employers by causing
economic harm.
"When we start focusing on intent, without more, it pulls in
pretty much every strategic decision that a union makes as to
when to conduct a work stoppage," Kagan said.
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts said that there is a
distinction between causing economic harm and intentional
property destruction.
"The difference between the milk spoiling and killing the
cow," Roberts said.
Glacier Northwest, which sells and delivers ready-mix
concrete, sued Teamsters Local Union No. 174, representing the
company's truck drivers, in state court accusing the union of
intentional property destruction during the strike.
A group of drivers went on strike while their mixing trucks
were filled with concrete. Although the drivers kept their
mixing drums rotating to delay the concrete from hardening and
damaging the vehicles, the company was forced to discard the
unused product at a financial loss.
President Joe Biden's administration urged the justices to
reverse the lower court's decision, allowing Glacier Northwest's
lawsuit to proceed.
The Washington state Supreme Court in 2021 ruled that the
company's claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations
Act, saying the company's loss of concrete was incidental to a
strike that could be considered arguably protected under federal
labor law.
Glacier Northwest urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that
federal preemption does not bar claims made under state law
involving intentional destruction of an employer's property.
The union said the strike not only could be considered
arguably protected under federal labor law but the resulting
loss of concrete did not satisfy the high bar to override
federal preemption. While the U.S. Supreme Court has found that
labor unions can be sued in state court for violent or
threatening conduct, the union argued, this narrow exception
should not be expanded to permit property damage claims brought
under state law.
In another important labor case, the court in 2018 ruled
that non-members cannot be forced, as they are in certain
states, to pay fees to unions representing public employees such
as police and teachers that negotiate collective bargaining
agreements with employers.
(Reporting by John Kruzel and Andrew Chung in Washington;
Editing by Will Dunham)
((andrew.chung@thomsonreuters.com; 646.223.8022; 646.407.9441
mobile;))