U. S. Court May Limit Union Protection

U. S. Court May Limit Union Protection

By Tiffany Smith

Budrigannews.com – On Tuesday, justices of the U.S. Supreme Court debated a labor dispute that could make it easier for employers to sue for strikes that damage company property, which would reduce federal protections for unions.

The justices heard oral arguments in an appeal by a Washington state concrete company called Glacier Northwest Inc. of a lower court’s ruling in favor of a local affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in the company’s strike-related lawsuit against the union.

Glacier Northwest is part of the Taiheiyo Cement Corp., which is based in Japan. Some of the conservative justices seemed to want to make it easier for businesses to take unions to state courts, while liberal justices worried about making it harder for organized labor to strike.

In recent decisions, the Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority of 6-3, has tended to limit the power of labor unions. After the Supreme Court in 2021 upheld a California agricultural regulation intended to assist unions in organizing workers, this case may result in yet another setback for organized labor.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court debated whether companies can sue unions in state court for alleged intentional property damage or whether a federal labor law known as the National Labor Relations Act prohibits such claims.

A broad ruling in favor of businesses, according to liberal Justice Elena Kagan, could undermine union decisions regarding when to strike, which are frequently made to exert pressure on employers by causing economic harm.

Kagan stated, “When we start focusing on intent, it pulls in pretty much every strategic decision that a union makes as to when to conduct a work stoppage.”

According to conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, there is a difference between causing economic harm and intentionally destroying property.

“The contrast between the milk ruining and killing the cow,” Roberts said.

The ready-mix concrete supplier Glacier Northwest filed a lawsuit against Teamsters Local Union No. 174, on behalf of the company’s truck drivers, filed a lawsuit in state court alleging that the union intentionally destroyed property during the strike.

While the concrete was being mixed in their mixing trucks, a group of drivers went on strike. The company was forced to dispose of the unused product at a loss despite the fact that the drivers kept their mixing drums rotating to prevent the concrete from hardening and causing damage to the vehicles.

The administration of President Joe Biden urged the justices to overturn the lower court’s decision, allowing Glacier Northwest to continue its lawsuit.

In 2021, the Washington state Supreme Court ruled that the National Labor Relations Act preempted the company’s claims, stating that the company’s loss of concrete was a side effect of a strike that might be protected by federal labor law.

Glacier Northwest asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that claims made under state law involving the deliberate destruction of an employer’s property are not barred by federal preemption.

The union claimed that the loss of concrete as a result of the strike did not meet the high standard required to override federal preemption, but that the strike could also be considered arguably protected under federal labor law.

The union argued that, despite the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that labor unions can be sued in state court for violent or threatening behavior, this limited exception should not be extended to include property damage claims brought under state law.

The court ruled in 2018 in another significant labor case that non-members cannot be compelled to pay fees to unions that represent public employees like teachers and police who negotiate collective bargaining agreements with employers.

More Airbus is leading in engine production despite last year’s problems