598 U.S. 771
SCOTUS2023Background
- Glacier Northwest mixes ready‑mix concrete (highly perishable) and loads batched concrete into rotating‑drum trucks for immediate delivery; concrete hardens quickly and can damage trucks if left in drums.
- After collective‑bargaining agreement expired, Teamsters Local 174 called a work stoppage while Glacier was batching and loading substantial amounts of wet concrete.
- At least 16 drivers returned with fully loaded trucks; some followed company instructions or sought guidance, but at least nine drivers abandoned loaded trucks without notice.
- Glacier undertook emergency offloading to avoid truck damage; trucks were saved, but all batched concrete hardened and became worthless.
- Glacier sued in Washington state court for conversion and trespass to chattels; the Union moved to dismiss on the ground that the NLRA preempted the state tort claims under Garmon; the Washington Supreme Court agreed and dismissed.
- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding the NLRA did not arguably protect the Union’s alleged conduct because the Union failed to take reasonable precautions and effectuated a strike designed to endanger property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the NLRA (Garmon) preempts Glacier’s state‑law tort claims alleging intentional destruction of company property during a strike | Glacier: The Union intentionally destroyed batched concrete and is liable under state tort law | Union: Strike conduct is protected by §7 of the NLRA, so state courts must defer to the NLRB (Garmon) | NLRA does not preempt—Union failed to show the strike was even "arguably" protected because it did not take reasonable precautions and executed the strike in a manner that foreseeably endangered property |
| Whether loss of perishable goods (here, wet concrete) automatically strips NLRA protection | Glacier: Timing and conduct went beyond mere incidental spoilage and constituted intentional sabotage | Union: Loss of perishable goods alone does not forfeit protection; workers may time strikes to maximize impact | Loss of perishable goods alone insufficient; but here drivers prompted creation of perishable product and abandoned loaded trucks, so combined facts support finding no arguable protection |
| Whether timing/no‑notice and failure to mitigate are dispositive of protection under NLRB reasonable‑precautions doctrine | Glacier: Calling the strike after trucks were loaded and failing to notify Glacier shows failure to take reasonable precautions | Union: Timing/no‑notice alone do not render a strike unprotected; workers need not time strikes to minimize employer harm | Timing/no‑notice are relevant to the reasonable‑precautions inquiry and here weigh against arguable protection because they increased foreseeable, imminent, and aggravated risk |
| Effect of the NLRB General Counsel’s administrative complaint on the Garmon inquiry | Glacier: (implicit) state court can proceed because conduct not arguably protected | Union/Some justices: A General Counsel complaint establishes arguable protection and should trigger a Garmon hiatus | Majority: Declined to decide the effect of the pending Board complaint; remanded. Separate opinions (Jackson concurrence/dissent) argued the General Counsel complaint should have compelled a stay of state proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (states must defer to NLRB when conduct is arguably protected or prohibited by the NLRA)
- Longshoremen v. Davis, 476 U.S. 380 (party asserting Garmon preemption must show an interpretation of the NLRA not plainly contrary to law and provide evidence that the Board could uphold protection)
- NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 306 U.S. 240 (NLRA does not protect violent seizure or destructive acts against employer property)
- NLRB v. Marshall Car Wheel & Foundry Co., 218 F.2d 409 (5th Cir.) (strike unprotected when cessation of work creates imminent risk of substantial property damage)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180 (discussion of Garmon pause and exceptions to waiting for Board resolution)
- Marine Engineers v. Interlake S. S. Co., 370 U.S. 173 (the Board should be the first to decide complex labor‑law questions)
- NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp., 373 U.S. 221 (right to strike should be given generous interpretation but is subject to statutory limits)
- Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731 (employers may seek local judicial relief for tortious conduct during labor disputes)