Emory Undergraduate Journal of Law & Society

Since May of this year, when the Writers Guild of America went on strike, many of us have been discussing the role of unions in American economics and daily life. Currently, union strikes are at a 15-year high, with unions across the country standing up against harsh working conditions, unfair contracts, and more. In June of this year, the Supreme Court decided the fate of another American workers union, the International Brothers of Teamsters Local Union No. 174. Workers who belong to this union operate cement trucks for Glacier Northwest. After negotiations between the union and the company for a new contract broke down, the union instructed drivers to abandon their trucks and go on strike. When the drivers abandoned their trucks, they left behind several tons of wet cement to harden inside the trucks. This could have caused significant damage to the trucks and rendered the dry cement useless. Although Glacier Northwest was able to unload the cement without destroying their trucks, they sued the union for the damages done to their product due to the strike. The union argues that they have the legal right to strike under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which protects workers’ right to strike. This act, however, does not protect the right to strike if it includes violence or destruction of property. Therefore, Glacier Northwest argues that this strike is not protected, and the union is still responsible for any damages to company property.

This case was first presented in 2017 in Washington state court, where it was dismissed. The Washington state court decided that the National Labor Relations Board should decide this case, but the Supreme Court took Glacier Northwest’s appeal instead. This June, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Glacier Northwest, stating that the NLRA does not protect strikes that cause damage to company property. This decision was ruled 8-1 in favor of Glacier Northwest, with Kentaji Brown Jackson as the sole dissenting party. The other seven judges agree that the union operated outside of the protection of the NLRA because they did not take reasonable precautions to alert Glacier Northwest about their impending strike. The NLRA requires that unions must prove to the court that their strike is “arguably” protected. The Supreme Court’s opinion asserts that the union’s actions were not arguably protected because of the financial damage that Glacier Northwest had to endure.

This decision was met with extreme scrutiny from those who viewed this decision as a blow to workers’ right to strike. Supreme Court decisions hold the power to set precedents that influence the way in which future disputes are handled. The Court’s decision to side with the corporation over the union may inspire executives to retaliate against unions who strike in the future. Additionally, this decision conflicts with a previous decision by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that ruled in favor of a union whose strike risked spoiling milk before it was delivered to customers. A similar decision was made regarding workers striking against a cheese company. The union argued in court that the NLRA does not limit strikes that put perishable products at risk. However, the court argues that in this case, the workers were “pretending” to deliver the concrete, which created the perishable product, and then walked away, putting Glacier Northwest in an impossible situation.

Judge Kentaji Brown Jackson, the sole dissenting judge, states in her dissent that this case should not have been handled by the Supreme Court at all. Instead, Jackson argues that under The San Diego Trade Council v. Garmon, this dispute should be handled by the National Labor Relations Board. Under Garmon, the NLRB is responsible for deciding even the most trivial labor disputes, and their decisions supersede any State decision. Jackson argues that because Congress had established the NLRB to handle any and all labor disputes, they should decide this case. This board consists of five members who are appointed by the President and possess specific expertise in labor relations. Therefore, they are equipped and assigned to make decisions in cases like Glacier Northwest v. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters No. 174. By taking this case and ruling in favor of Glacier Northwest, the court has significantly obscured the power of Garmon. The court does not specify when Garmon does or does not apply. Without this clarification, employers now have the opportunity to retaliate against any union that strikes with the extreme power of the conservative Supreme Court. Additionally, unions and union workers might be discouraged from engaging in collective action out of fear of legal repercussions. This fear was meant to be relieved by the NLRB, but now the Supreme Court has put the Board’s authority into question.

This case is extremely important to the future of labor disputes. Decades of organizing have granted rights to workers that are currently enjoyed today. Labor organizers secured the federal minimum wage along with countless other regulations that protect workers’ rights. In 2023, labor organizers are more active than they have been in years. This sudden rise in strikes and other forms of protest signals a growing resentment among workers against their employers. Unions across industries are organizing in order to further their right to work safely and with dignity. The Supreme Court’s decision in Glacier Northwest v. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters No. 174 represents the government’s resistance to the growing workers’ rights movement. The future of labor rights is unsure, but workers nationwide continue to take action and demand their voices are heard. While media attention has mostly focused on strikes against Starbucks and the film industry, strikes have been surging in virtually every industry, including education, manufacturing, and healthcare. Workers in any of the striking industries are vital to the American economy but are too often treated as if they were disposable. Therefore, it is imperative that workers have the means to speak up for themselves and demonstrate the value of their labor. In this decision, the Supreme Court has restricted workers’ rights to protest and disrupted the path toward progress. The strikes and protests will not end until workers’ issues are properly represented in policies going forward.

Citations

Combs, R. (2023, January 10). Bloomberg Law. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberg-law-analysis/analysis-three-charts-that
-show-unions-picketing-power-in-2022

Glacier Nw. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters Local Union No. 174 (Supreme Court of the United States June 1, 2023).

Ivanova, I. (2023). Supreme Court ruling deals another blow to organized labor. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-glacier-northwest-vs-teamsters-decision-ruling-labor-strike-limits/

Millhiser, I. (2023, June 1). The Supreme Court deals another blow to labor unions. Vox. https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/6/1/23745372/supreme-court-unions-labor-strike-glacier-northwest-teamsters-amy-coney-barrett

Strikes, B. &. (2022, October 17). A new Supreme Court case could make strikes too risky for union workers. Balls and Strikes. https://ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/glacier-northwest-supreme-court-cert-grant/