By PRFSU Writers 2023-2024 Daniel Ogden
On August 11th, 2017, the drivers that worked for Glacier Northwest Inc, a ready-mix cement distribution company, went on strike while negotiating a new deal. Working In King County, Washington, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 174 led the negotiations. As a result of the strike and subsequent walk-out, the company faced two main losses. First, the drivers left the concrete trucks running with concrete in them during the strike which rendered the concrete unusable, resulting in some material loss for the company. The second loss was monetary and occurred on the day after the strike had officially ended and a new agreement had been signed. Glacier had scheduled a delivery to GLY Construction Incorporated, but the delivery was canceled due to a lack of available drivers. The rescheduling of the pour caused Glacier to pay GLY $100,000 as compensation. Allegedly GLY President Ted Herb confirmed with Local 174 Secretary-Treasurer Rick Hicks that the pour would still happen, but Rick Hicks denies any confirmation taking place.
On December 4th, 2017, Glacier filed a lawsuit against Local 174 for damages arising during the dispute above, including both the incident of the concrete ruined in the trucks on August 11th and the subsequent GLY construction incident on August 19th. Local 174 responded by filing a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, alleging that Glacier retaliated against a protected strike and therefore had committed unfair labor practices. On the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, a local trial court dismissed the Glacier tort case, except for the events on August 19th. At the Washington State Court of Appeals, Glacier won with half of the previous decision being reversed based on the assumption that Glacier’s tort claims preempted the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, meaning that the torts case that Glacier made for damages could proceed and wouldn’t violate these workers right to organize, protest, or go on strike and that these actions, if they have economic consequences, could hold the workers and their union accountable for damages.
Glacier and the Teamsters of Local 174 asked the Washington Supreme Court to review previous decisions on the case. The court affirmed the first trial court’s decision that the NLR Act of 1935 pre-empted Glacier’s claims about the concrete lost due to the strike on August 11th; however, it affirmed the dismissal, for the first time, of Glacier’s misrepresentation claims, referring to the claim made by Glacier that Rick Hicks, Treasurer-Secretary for Local 174, said that the pour scheduled with GLY Construction would still be able to happen, almost completely siding with the Teamsters of Local 174. This decision did not please Glacier, causing them to appeal. As a result of moving up the judicial ladder, the case ended up on the Supreme Court docket and was argued on January 10th of 2023.
At the heart of this problem lies the question; what can labor unions do? Does the NLR Act preempt a state tort claim, meaning does the right to strike take precedence over a union’s destruction of an employer’s property during a strike? Many conservative legal minds argue that no, these unions should have to pay for the damages incurred due to their decision to strike. The conservative effort, in this case, is being led by former Trump Solicitor General Noel Francisco, stating that the NLRB is overstepping the sovereignty of the State of Washington. The question, in this case, can be answered, according to the Supreme Court, by the intention of the Teamsters that left their job site at the end of their shift on August 11th, 2017. Noel Francisco argues that the Teamsters acted maliciously, purposely trying to cause damages as revenge or rebellion against Glacier.
However, acting maliciously would imply that the Teamster Drivers of these concrete trucks had control over the delivery schedule and when concrete was to be made. These Teamster members did not order numerous batches of concrete to be made in union driver’s trucks at the end of the day before a strike for a CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) that ended on July 31st. The Teamsters did not order that Glacier keep the scheduled pouring with GLY Construction, especially with the knowledge of an upcoming or ongoing strike. Instead, the Teamsters of Local 174 left their trucks on so that managers could properly take care of the concrete while it was still usable.
Outside of the internal factors, like intent, which does need to be determined, this case also rests on the perishability of quick dry cement to push the narrative of damages that need to be repaid. However, if the ability to strike can be dictated by the perishability of a service or product, where would the line be drawn? Are teachers and nurses prevented from striking for better wages or benefits because of the perishability of time and human life? Is a retail worker that deals with shoes and clothes apt to more workplace rights than a retail worker that deals with food or plants?
It would also be a shame not to draw direct comparisons between this case and cases like 303 Creative LLC vs. Elenis or Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. These cases revolve around the superiority of the Federal Government, the use of the First Amendment, and the Free Exercise Clause over state laws, like a law preventing LGBTQ+ members of society from being denied service based on their sexuality. Specifically, in Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, this preemption of state laws by federal law was the centerpiece of conservative arguments eventually leading to a 7-2 reversal of previous rulings. In essence, it said that the federal government should reign supreme and help protect all entities’ right to economic protest. The differences are apparent between the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 174 case and the cases of the businesses listed above in Colorado, between the laws that protect a worker’s right to protest unfair wages economically and the laws that protect a baker’s right not to bake for an LGBTQ+ Wedding. However, at the core lies the same principle, entities have a federally protected right to economically protest; the only difference lies in the agenda behind these actions. Will that make a difference?
References
Ballotpedia.com. (2023). Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics. Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Borja, Y. (2023, January 12). Conservative SCOTUS Justices Want to Make the Right to Strike Meaningless. Balls and Strikes. https://ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/glacier-northwest-v-teamsters-oral-argument-recap/
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved
February 10, 2023, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved February 10, 2023, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-476