500 P.3d 119
Wash.2021Background
- Glacier Northwest (ready‑mix concrete seller) alleges that on Aug 11, 2017 drivers represented by Teamsters Local 174 stopped work during batching/delivery, leaving perishable concrete in trucks that hardened and required disposal, causing economic loss.
- After a new CBA was ratified Aug 18 ending the strike, Glacier rescheduled a large mat pour for Aug 19; GLY’s president allegedly called union official Rick Hicks, who reportedly said the drivers were "instructed to respond to dispatch."
- Fewer drivers showed; the mat pour was canceled after substantial labor and contractor losses (~$100,000 claimed).
- Glacier sued Local 174 for (a) conversion, trespass to chattels, tortious interference, and conspiracy relating to the Aug 11 stoppage; and (b) negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation and intentional interference relating to Hicks’s alleged statement.
- Trial court dismissed the Aug 11 claims as NLRA‑preempted and granted summary judgment on the misrepresentation/interference claims; Court of Appeals reversed preemption but affirmed dismissal of misrepresentation; Washington Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NLRA (§7/§8) preempts Glacier’s state tort claims based on Aug 11 work stoppage and concrete loss | Glacier: drivers intentionally wrecked product; state tort claims should proceed (property destruction not protected). | Local 174: the conduct was part of a strike and is "arguably protected" by §7, so federal preemption (Garmon) bars state adjudication. | Held: Preempted — the work stoppage is at least arguably protected; state tort claims dismissed. |
| Whether the “local feeling” exception (violence/property‑damage carve‑out) removes preemption | Glacier: destruction of product invokes local‑feeling exception; states may adjudicate violent/outrageous property damage. | Local 174: product loss was incidental to bargaining/strike and not the sort of violent/outrageous conduct that invokes the exception. | Held: Exception does not apply — incidental product loss tied to strike is not clearly unprotected; Board should decide. |
| Whether Hicks’s statement that drivers were "instructed to respond to dispatch" is actionable fraud/negligent misrepresentation | Glacier: Hicks represented present fact (drivers had been instructed) and Glacier reasonably relied to schedule the pour. | Local 174: the statement was a promise about future conduct, not an existing fact; misrepresentation elements fail. | Held: Not actionable — statement is a promise of future performance, not a representation of existing fact; misrepresentation claims fail. |
| Whether Hicks’s statement proximately caused Glacier’s mat‑pour losses / supports intentional interference claim | Glacier: relied on Hicks’s assurance; but for the statement Glacier scheduled the pour and suffered losses. | Local 174: CBA procedures governed dispatch/seniority/notice; drivers had no contractual duty to report and the statement could not bind them; causation too attenuated. | Held: No proximate causation — losses were not a foreseeable result of Hicks’s statement given the CBA and absence of employer compliance with CBA requirements; interference claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) (state courts must defer when activity is "arguably" subject to NLRA §§7–8).
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego County Dist. Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180 (1978) (limits to Garmon preemption; distinction when Board cannot meaningfully decide protection issue).
- Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n v. Davis, 476 U.S. 380 (1986) (defines "arguably protected" standard and reliance on Board authority).
- Marine Eng’rs Beneficial Ass’n v. Interlake S.S. Co., 370 U.S. 173 (1962) (Board/agency deference in labor disputes).
- Lodge 76, Int’l Ass’n of Machinists v. Wis. Emp’t Relations Comm’n, 427 U.S. 132 (1976) (states may police violence/property destruction in some labor contexts).
- Bill Johnson’s Rests., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Bd., 461 U.S. 731 (1983) (Board may enjoin state suits that are preempted; highlights interplay of remedies).
- Farmer v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners, Local 25, 430 U.S. 290 (1977) (outrageous/threatening conduct may fall outside NLRA protection).
- Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 306 U.S. 240 (1939) (striking employees have no license to commit acts of violence or seize employer property).