Supreme Court hears arguments in case on property damage during union strikes

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments in a labor dispute that has unions on edge about a potential ruling that could make it easier for employers to sue when union strikes damage company property.

The case, known as Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, concerns a lawsuit filed by Glacier Northwest against a union representing the company's truck drivers from a dispute in 2017 in Washington state. 

The construction materials firm, which sells and delivers ready-mix concrete, sued the union over an incident in which the drivers went on strike while their mixing trucks were filled with concrete. 

NEW YORK CITY SEES 7,000 NURSES ON STRIKE AT MOUNT SINAI, MONTEFIORE HOSPITALS AFTER BARGAINING FAILS

Although the drivers left the mixer rotating to prevent the concrete from hardening and damaging the vehicles, the company suffered a financial loss when it was forced to dispose of the unusable concrete and accused the drivers of intentionally destroying property. 

The Washington Supreme Court dismissed Glacier Northwest's lawsuit on the grounds that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) had jurisdiction to handle the dispute. The NLRB later sided with the union after its own review of the case.

VIDEO GAME WORKERS ESTABLISH MICROSOFT'S FIRST UNION

Businesses and conservative legal groups have filed briefs in support of Glacier Northwest, arguing that labor dispute lawsuits in state court aren't preempted by federal labor law and should be allowed to proceed.

Unions have argued that a ruling in favor of the business in the case would undermine the right to strike by letting companies sue unions when they face labor disputes.

The Supreme Court will decide whether the company was allowed to file the lawsuit or whether it was prohibited from doing so.

During oral arguments, some of the Court's six conservative-leaning justices seemed inclined to allow the lawsuit, while its three liberal-leaning justices appeared to favor the union's argument.

UNIONIZATION STALLS AT AMAZON AS TURNOVER, COMPANY EFFORTS STYMIE ACTIVISM

Chief Justice John Roberts, who tends to be more conservative but has sometimes been a swing vote, drew a distinction between causing economic harm and intentional property damage – calling it the "difference between the milk spoiling and killing the cow."

 Roberts noted later in the session, "It just seems to me that intentional destruction of property is a much more serious concern than failure to take reasonable precautions."

Justice Elena Kagan, one of the Court's more liberal justices, observed that workers and unions "do things all the time to intentionally maximize economic harm" to leverage negotiations with a business.

"When we start focusing on intent, without more, it pulls in pretty much every strategic decision that a union makes as to when to conduct a work stoppage," Kagan said.

The Supreme Court will likely rule on this case before the current term ends in late June.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

In recent years, the Supreme Court has ruled against labor unions in a pair of high-profile cases. 

A 2018 ruling held that non-members can't be compelled to pay fees to unions representing public employees that negotiate collective bargaining agreements that cover non-members. In 2021, the Court struck down a California agricultural regulation that was intended to help union organization efforts.

Reuters contributed to this report.