Supreme Court Asks Whether Tort Claims To Recover Property Damaged During Strike Are Preempted By NLRA

• Jurisdiction: United States,Federal
• Law Firm: Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart
• Subject Matter: Employment and HR, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Employee Rights/ Labour Relations, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Author: Mr Eric C. Stuart, Daniel A. Adlong and Zachary V. Zagger
• Published date: 16 January 2023

On January 10, 2023, justices for the Supreme Court of the United States questioned attorneys for a ready-mix concrete company and the union representing its truck drivers over whether claims to recover the value of the company's property destroyed as a result of a strike are preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The case, Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174, could provide clarity for employers on how employers can recover the value of property that is destroyed during increasingly contentious labor disputes.

Background

The case involves a ready-mix concrete company that alleged the Teamsters, the union representing the company's truck drivers, "deliberately" staged a strike after mixing trucks were fully loaded and ready to deliver concrete in order to "destroy" the employer's property by allowing the concrete to harden in the mixing drums. The company filed a tort suit in state court in Washington to recover the value of the destroyed property. The Washington Supreme Court held that the claims were "impliedly" preempted by the NLRA under the Supreme Court of the United States' 1959 decision in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon (359 U.S. 236). In that case, the high court held that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has jurisdiction over activity that is "arguably within the compass" of the NLRA, but recognized claims that implicate "interests so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility" may not be preempted in the "absence of compelling congressional direction."

The Teamsters later filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB, alleging that the company filed the lawsuit in retaliation against the truck drivers' strike. The charge is still pending. Under the Board's standard, unions are not protected if employees fail to "take reasonable precautions to protect the employer's plant, equipment, or products from foreseeable imminent danger due to sudden cessation of work."

Oral Arguments

During oral arguments, counsel for the employer argued that the Supreme Court and the NLRB have "long recognized that the intentional destruction of an employer's property" is not protected concerted activity under the NLRA. "The more substantial question then is, who gets to decide whether the facts alleged in the complaint are true? The state court or the Board?"

Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed poised to side with the union, suggesting...