Glacier Northwest Supreme Court ruling: An update

This website recently published an overview of the state of the labor movement. Obviously, the Supreme Court’s Glacier Northwest case was discussed in that article. Since the article was written, the Court has ruled on the case. The purpose of this short update is to look at the decision and its implications.

The basic issue in Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters was a straightforward one: could an employer sue a union for damages due to a strike? In this situation, the “concrete” (pun intended!) question was whether the union was responsible for losses caused by concrete hardening when left in mixers due to a drivers strike.

On June 1, the Supreme Court ruled that Glacier’s case could proceed in the Washington State Court System. This was a rejection of the union’s claim that its actions were protected by current labor laws.

The Court ruling requires a little explanation. Two issues were at stake. The first issue is: who has jurisdiction over the case? The Court’s 1959 Garmon decision ruled that the National Labor Relations Board, not the state courts, should have jurisdiction over cases involving labor actions that are “arguably protected” by the NLRA. The company wanted the state courts, not the NLRB, to take the case.

The second issue is whether the union’s actions during the Glacier strike were “arguably protected” under labor law. Amy Coney Barrett, in the Majority opinion, argued that the union’s actions were not protected by the NLRA. If the union’s actions were not protected by the NLRA, then the NLRB did not have jurisdiction and the case could go forward in the state courts. The Supreme Court’s decision was 8-1 with only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

As the original ISP article spelt out, it would be a very major setback for the union movement if employers could sue unions for losses due to strikes. Employers were jubilant with the Court’s ruling and why wouldn’t they be? Reaction in the labor movement was more nuanced. Some argued that we had dodged the bullet as SCOTUS didn’t directly say that unions could be sued for damages, and potentially loss of profits, due to strike action. Others saw the decision as heralding disaster.

While the latter opinion is probably closer to the truth, I would make the following analogy. You’re driving along the road and you see a large sign, “Half a mile ahead. Bridge Out!”. You are not immediately, that second, drowning in the river. But you certainly need to urgently pay attention and drastically change your plans. That’s the situation the labor movement is in today.