Supreme Court sides with cement mixing company over striking workers in latest blow to unions

[Jose Garcia]

Last edited Thu Jun 1, 2023, 01:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: CNN

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a cement mixing company that seeks to bypass federal labor law and sue a union in state court for the destruction of property caused by striking workers.

The court said the dispute could continue in state court for now, a move that could chill workers’ decisions to strike for fear that unions would now have to face potentially costly litigation in state court for misconduct during federally protected strikes.

The union argued that the case should be handled by an independent federal agency that investigates allegations of wrongdoing, and that the union should not have to face costly state litigation.

The case had been closely watched by supporters of unions who have witnessed the conservative majority in recent years chip away their power.

Read more: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/06/01/politics/labor-strike-supreme-court-cement-company-glacier-teamsters/index.html

[quaint]

1. My mistake for not searching for the story.

Bad link.

[Jose Garcia]

2. With more Kegans and Sotomayors? They voted with the conservatives!

Brown Jackson was the only one who dissented.

[iemanja]

22. There are legal issues in these things that aren't about labor vs. capital

There must be for them to vote that way.

[former9thward]

3. This was a 8-1 decision.

Only Jackson dissented.

[elleng]

6. Thanks. We really should familiarize ourselves with decisions

before 'complaining.'

[Polybius]

4. Broken link

[Jose Garcia]

11. Link fixed

[mahatmakanejeeves]

5. I was just going to ...

SUPREME COURT

In blow to unions, Supreme Court rules company can pursue strike damage claim

The ruling means Glacier Northwest Inc. can sue over its claim that wet concrete loaded onto trucks was rendered useless after workers walked off the job.

June 1, 2023, 10:12 AM EDT / Updated June 1, 2023, 11:36 AM EDT
By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of a concrete company in Washington state seeking to revive a lawsuit against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters alleging that a strike damaged its product.

The 8-1 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett means the company, Glacier Northwest Inc., can pursue a lawsuit against the union in state court over an August 2017 strike in which drivers walked off the job, leaving wet concrete in their trucks.

Barrett, one of the court's six conservatives, wrote that a state court was wrong to dismiss the claims at such an early stage in proceedings based on its concern that the claims conflicted with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), a federal law that protects union activity.

"Because the union took affirmative steps to endanger Glacier's property rather than reasonable precautions to mitigate that risk, the NLRA does not arguably protect its conduct," Barrett wrote.

Organized labor advocates had raised concern that a ruling in favor of the company could stifle strike actions by putting unions on the hook for a broad range of potential losses employers can face as a result of such activities.

{snip}

Noel Francisco, the company’s lawyer, said the ruling “vindicates the longstanding principle that federal law does not shield labor unions from tort liability when they intentionally destroy an employer’s property.”

{snip}

[MOMFUDSKI]

7. I am

Shocked and Stunned. Shit

[ZonkerHarris]

8. link doesn't work

[cstanleytech]

9. The union should have negotiated for any such disputes to be

dealt with said federal agency as that would have helped them.

[Emile]

10. After an alert locking thread.

The posted link does not work.

[Jose Garcia]

12. The link is now fixed

[Emile]

13. Link now working.

[IA8IT]

14. Walking away from freshly filled redi-mix truck is a dick move. Intentional property damage.

[stopdiggin]

15. and that's what the court said

additionally - they didn't find for the for the concrete company - just said that the lower court was wrong to preemptively dismiss. (i.e., - reasonable chance that the union's action was not protected)

[ret5hd]

16. "Strikes comin'"

“Go to work.”
“Strikes gettin’ close.”
“I said shutup and get to work.”
“Strikes a comin’!”
“Shut the hell up and get to work!”
“Whoops, strikes here.”
“Hey guys…come back!”

[Bluethroughu]

18. +1

Workers and unions are Not slaves, they have the freedom to walk away like anyone else in this country from an employer.

If an employer can't bargain in good faith and keeps rejecting talks, safety concerns or otherwise unions or right to work employees can leave. They are not owned by employers.



Don't be surprised if employers start treating employees like endentured servants.


Bad decisions by SCOTUS, not the first and won't be the last.

[MichMan]

19. Why did they decide to strike after the trucks were all loaded with concrete, instead of before ?

Seems intentional at face value; maybe it was just a coincidence?

[Bluethroughu]

23. Maybe they started the day and the boss said get your ass moving

More ugly than the day before, and it was just the straw that broke the camels back.

Fact is, workers don't have to stand on the line of a factory until the factory decides they can quit, a fast food worker can walk off when they feel like it and not wait until the last fry has been cooked, etc....

This is why that ruling is terrible, it creates an indentured servitude. Workers owe nothing to their employers, but should get fair compensation for the time they give their labor.

Those workers didn't sabotage a company that provides the check for which they earn a living. They exercised their right to Freedom OF Speech, and freedom to leave, they are not owned.

[former9thward]

25. Unions don't have the right to destroy property.

That is why it was an 8-1 decision. No one was stopping them from going on strike. But to walk away from trucks knowing the damage that would occur was not responsible and the union must pay the damages.

[Bluethroughu]

28. They obviously didn't consider they had over an hour to unload the trucks.

The company allowed their trucks to sit.

So does a fast food worker have to work the drive thru until every last customer has been served because if they quit in the middle of a shift, the employer will lose money? What if they leave a full coffee pot on, are they responsible if it burns because the employer didn't shut it off after they quit, or will the employee have to pay for a new restaurant?

The ruling effects employees freedom of speech, freedom to leave work when they choose and holds employees liable for cleaning up and working until the employer says their done, and if an employee doesn't get approval from the employer they can be sued.

[former9thward]

29. These employees did not "quit"

They went on strike which means they have the intention to return. They did not take precautions as the Biden administration said to the court.

Justice Department lawyer Vivek Suri, arguing on behalf of the Biden administration, said that the concrete company's lawsuit should be allowed to go ahead in state court based on the fact that the strikers failed to take reasonable precautions. Both liberal and conservative justices seemed receptive to his argument.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-weighs-concrete-companys-damage-claim-union-rcna64875

[Bluethroughu]

30. Strike or quit...it's walking away from a job for an unresolved grievance.

The company could have unloaded the trucks, they had plenty of time.

A ruling like this puts employees at risk of lawsuit until they have permission to leave work from their boss, or they could be accused of liability costs to compensate an employer.

I agree with Kentanji Brown-Jackson. Thumbs down.

[MichMan]

31. Should firefighters be allowed to strike in the middle of putting out a fire ?

[Magoo48]

32. That's a boarding-house reach there MM.

Union Strong. Solidarity. Good on ya judge Jackson

[Bluethroughu]

33. Unions wouldn't allow people to suffer or die.

They put their lives at risk every day providing the roadways that you use. They are more at risk than police of death on the job.

The company could have dumped the trucks at that plant right there. They have an area for hot loads if their going to lose it. Besides they reuse the material lost in loads for Sub-base. Hot loads happen all day long, the company just let it sit on purpose.

[MichMan]

34. So the rights of workers aren't absolute

What if the building was vacant?

I support people striking if they are in a labor dispute, but to intentionally time it to cause your employer to incur damages isn't right. One can still support unions while admitting this was a dick move. Apparently 8 SC justices agreed

[Bluethroughu]

38. It's a dick move to not bargain in good faith.

If workers show up during a pandemic, work hard and turn a profit for a company, they deserve to be paid appropriately and treated respectfully when negotiating a contract.

When a worker shows up to a job and walks off because that employer will not give a contract for work preformed, the worker owes that employer nothing.

These people that formed a union together decided they had enough run around about their wages and benefit package. The company is warned of a strike, but they still wouldn't sit down and hash out payment for labor.

I see it differently than you.

[manicdem]

36. It was a bad move by the workers

Imagine if a surgeon walked out in the middle of a major surgery. Or Airline pilot walked off in the middle of a flight.

[Bluethroughu]

39. Concrete in a truck that could have been unloaded by the other workers at the plant it is Not

Even close to life and death.

Not the same.

If a drive thru customer couldn't get their fries because the workers walked, would be more like it.

[Mopar151]

21. And there was no supervisor around competent enough to empty the trucks?

Cement plants always have a spot where they can empty a redi-mix truck before it "sets". IIRC, cousin's hubby said there's a 90 minute window - if things go wrong on a job, gotta hustle to get rid of the `crete before it sets up!

[Bluethroughu]

24. Exactly, they have all kinds of people at the plant that could unload the trucks.

They have a wash out area for dumping, and on-site workers that could have dumped the trucks.

[MichMan]

35. I dont know how many trucks, how long it takes for each, & how many people were left

Not able to speculate on how easy or hard it would be to empty them all correctly

[Mopar151]

37. Many of the factors you mention come down to one thing.

Desire! Did anyone even try to dump a load? Or did the owners elect to let the trucks set up? I know, from my contact, that with Teamsters on one side and a "slightly" corrupt" Italian family on the other, it ends up like dinner with the Borgias, served by the Machiavellis!

There's A Myth Busters about cleaning concrete mixer barrels, its good background.

[rurallib]

17. Is this another chip in the SCOTUS move to take away administrative rulings

from regulatory agencies? Feels like this may be a small move in that direction but still in the overall move in that direction.

By that I mean not allowing the EPA to make rulings on environmental rules fro example, but requiring specific laws. Hope that isn't too confusing.

[Zeitghost]

20. Good decision (as most 8-1's are)

You have the right to strike. You don't have the right to destroy property as part of that strike. They are lucky they are facing a civil suit and not criminal cases.

[Bluethroughu]

26. The workers didn't destroy property that could have been unloaded.

The company decided to allow the trucks to set up. That takes over an hour. They had plenty of time to remedy the situation.

So if your boss says that you can't leave because one thing or another, and it will cost him money if you leave. He can sue you or make you work, until he allows you to leave.
We've been here before, it's called indentured servitude.

It's just crushed anyone that is an employee.

[former9thward]

27. The Biden administration sided with the employer.

Justice Department lawyer Vivek Suri, arguing on behalf of the Biden administration, said that the concrete company's lawsuit should be allowed to go ahead in state court based on the fact that the strikers failed to take reasonable precautions. Both liberal and conservative justices seemed receptive to his argument.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-weighs-concrete-companys-damage-claim-union-rcna64875

The Biden administration wanted the court to wait until the National Labor Relations Board finished their investigation but agreed the union did not take reasonable precautions.