Client Alerts & Insights
Supreme Court Rules that Union May Be Liable for Damage Caused by Strike
June 12, 2023
Authored By:
In a strikeout for organized labor, the United States Supreme Court recently held that an employer may pursue a lawsuit based on damage caused to its property by a strike.
Glacier Northwest, Inc., a company which delivers concrete to customers, sued the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174 in Washington state court for intentional damage to its product after a strike where drivers walked off the job, leaving wet concrete in their trucks. The company alleged concrete in the process of being delivered was rendered useless after drivers returned trucks with loads of concrete on board, requiring the company to spend money disposing of the concrete. The state court dismissed the claims, holding that the claims arguably conflicted with the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The NLRA preempts state law even more broadly than traditional federal preemption, under which federal law preempts state law if the two conflict. With respect to the NLRA, state regulation or action is preempted if it covers activity even arguably protected or prohibited by the NLRA.
In an 8-1 decision authored by Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court held the state court erred in dismissing the intentional tort claims at such an early stage in the proceedings based on its concerns of preemption. Justice Barrett explained the NLRA’s protection of the right to strike is not absolute and it does not protect workers who fail to take “reasonable precautions” to protect employer property from foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent danger due to the sudden cessation of work, citing Bethany Medical Center, 328 NLRB 1094 (1999). The Court concluded that because the union took affirmative steps to endanger Glacier’s property rather than reasonable precautions to mitigate that risk, the NLRA arguably does not protect its conduct. By reporting for duty and pretending as if they would deliver the concrete, the drivers prompted the creation of the perishable product. Then, they waited to walk off the job until the concrete was mixed and poured in the trucks.
The union initiated the strike during a workday and did not give Glacier specific notice. Although these actions independently do not make the conduct unprotected, the Supreme Court held these actions are relevant considerations in evaluating whether strikers took reasonable precautions, whether harm to property was imminent, and whether that danger was foreseeable. Taking these considerations together, the Court concluded the union did not take reasonable precautions to mitigate damage, rendering its conduct unprotected by the NLRA.
Practically, this decision gives employers the opportunity to sue in state court for property damage caused by a strike or work stoppage where a union fails to take reasonable precautions to protect employer property. Employers should note to take caution since prosecutors for the National Labor Relations Board have alleged that Glacier’s lawsuit was a retaliatory action against union members. A decision on that matter is pending before an administrative law judge.
For more information, please contact a member of Benesch’s Labor & Employment Practice Group.
Adam Primm at aprimm@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4451.
Latest News
Word on the Street: Key Insights from the 2026 National Association of Attorneys General Presidential Summit
The 2026 NAAG Presidential Initiative Summit highlighted the issues currently top of mind for state attorneys general, including consumer protection, affordability, healthcare, data privacy, artificial intelligence and antitrust enforcement.
SCOTUS Rules That States May Limit Women’s and Girls’ Sports to Biological Females – Another Chapter in the Delicate Legislative Balance Between Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause
Key Takeaways I. Background and Procedural History The Supreme Court consolidated two cases challenging state laws that restrict participation in …
Is Florida the New Hot Jurisdiction for Defamation Cases?
Florida is emerging as a favorable venue for defamation lawsuits because its long-arm statute makes it easier to bring out-of-state publishers into court—but plaintiffs still must clear the same substantive legal hurdles once the case gets there.
Forced Labor Tariffs – Public Comments Due Next Week for USTR Section 301 Investigation
US importers have the opportunity to submit public comment on proposed tariffs that will utilize Section 301 as a means of addressing forced labor in global supply chains. Comments are due to the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) by July 6, 2026.