Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union 174 (U.S. Supreme Court)


As with may labor & employment law related cases (and bills) being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on.


On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in regard to Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union 174, a case in which the Court will consider whether the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) preempts a state tort claim against a union for intentionally destroying an employer’s property during a labor dispute.

In Glacier, the employer filed a state tort claim against the union and alleged the union coordinated with the striking truck drivers to strike at a time when the employer’s mixed concrete would go to waste.  The Washington Supreme Court had previously thrown the case out on the grounds that the NLRA did not provide such a preemption.

Readers might recall that while the NLRA permits workers to strike, striking workers cannot use violence, violate federal laws, breach no strike agreements, or pursue unlawful goals.  The question that the Court grappled with on Tuesday is whether the NLRA can be read to imply that a state tort claim is allowed against a union and striking workers.

Labor advocates have claimed that if employers were given the approval to file these state tort claims, that would open the floodgates of litigation and drastically curtail the amount of strikes (as labor unions would be hesitant to strike out of fear of being exposed to these state tort claims.)  While the U.S. Supreme Court has previously barred state common law claims (on the grounds that the NLRA preempts them), employers have argued that claims against a union and/or striking employees that intentionally destroy an employer’s property is not preempted.


For additional information:  https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/supreme-court-hearing-to-focus-on-suits-over-damage-from-strikes

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more