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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more