They clearly aren't allies of organized labor... but that said what should the outcome be when strikers actually cause property damage?
In a vacuum I get the employees/union being able to be sued in this specific case. I'm all for striking to get more pay or better working conditions but ruining company equipment is fucked up imo. I'm afraid of how this ruling will be used in the future though.
The company could have prevented the strike. The company could have not sent out the work when they knew a stoppage was looming.
I think it was about creating a majority that restricted so that the other conservative block of 3 couldn’t argue that there portion had precedential value.
yeah I don't think lockouts every time there is the possibility of a labor dispute is a pro-labor solution
It seems like a reasonable way to proceed would have been for the Teamsters to give literally any amount of notice regarding their intent to strike. I’m having a tough time seeing how that would have prejudiced their negotiating position.
It seems to me that a reasonable person engaged in negotiations with a union whose contract has expired would expect a strike to be a possibility at any point.
not when existing NLRB case law says strikers must “reasonable precautions” to protect their employer’s property from foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent danger due to the sudden cessation of work and again, that just leads us back to lockouts
most of the time concrete drivers keep materials in their trucks in case they get stuck that will stop concrete from setting so they could have at least done that and saved the drums I believe all the company will have to do is replace the drums though, rest of the truck should be fine just seems like it was unnecessary to damage equipment on their way out, but maybe it better made their point
Honestly I hadn't read much about it. I thought the trucks were ruined based on what I'd read here. Doesn't seem like they were, it was just the concrete in them. The decision sucks. A chicken processing plant can't stroke bc the company's chicken will spoil during the strike? Fuck that. A group of drivers went on strike while their mixing trucks were filled with concrete. Although the drivers kept their mixing drums rotating to delay the concrete from hardening and damaging the vehicles, the company was forced to discard the unused product at a financial loss.
The dispute centers on an incident in which members of Teamsters Local 174 went on strike after negotiations broke down over a new collective bargaining agreement. When truck drivers walked off the job, the company says, some of the concrete already being delivered was rendered useless. Drivers returned trucks to the company’s facility, some of which had partial or full loads on board. As a result of the strike, concrete was left in the trucks and had to be removed to harden and then be broken up before it could be disposed of, the company says. The union says that when the workers returned the trucks, the cement was wet, and that they left the drums on the trucks rotating, meaning it would not immediately congeal. It was the company’s decision to remove the concrete and then break it up once it hardened, the union says. Glacier says it lost $100,000 as a result of failing to fulfill a contract on the day of the strike, and it also claims additional damages. The company says it was able to do the previously scheduled work the following week.
Yea sorry I should have read more before my previous comment. I thought the trucks were ruined, not just the load that day. Decision sucks.
they aren’t prohibited from striking and the amount the union will have to pay will be minimized this the amount attributable to foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent damage. The company is claiming a bunch more but those claims don’t survive this decision’s preemption analysis.
They aren't prohibited from striking, they just have to do it at a time convenient for the company so the company doesn't have any product wasted. Let's say a chicken plan wants to strike. If they strike, a million dollars of chicken spoils bc they don't process it. Employees responsible for that too?
Harming the bottom line is kind of the point of a strike. It's what gives it power, which I get is the point of this decision.
Imo, most of you are missing the real impact of this decision. The law does require mitigation of damages in some cases in order to have NLRA protection, but the decision whether action is protected is determined on a case by case basis and is supposed to be up to the NLRB and not the courts. Courts are supposed to put cases which appear in front of them on hiatus for a NLRB decision as to whether the actions were protected. In determining whether actions are “arguably protected”, which is the standard and not a necessarily a high one, courts are supposed to ask whether that party asking for NLRA protection has (1) “advance[d] an interpretation of the [NLRA] that is not plainly contrary to its language and that has not been ‘authoritatively rejected’ by the courts or the Board,” and (2) “put forth enough evidence to enable the court to find that the Board reasonably could uphold a claim based on such an interpretation.” The majority opinion said the Union action passed the first factor of the test but not the second. It did so by using the “reasonable precautions” test that NLRB has used to actually make a fact finding determination. The problem is that courts aren’t supposed to do this. As KBJ said, “Again, this is not an invitation to supplant the Board’s factfinding role or to usurp the authority that Congress has given the Board to make the initial underlying protected- or-unprotected determination. Rather, the point of this part of the Garmon assessment is simply to determine whether it is arguable that the Board—in the exercise of its discretion to develop labor law and aided by its investigation into the facts—could conclude that the strike conduct at issue is protected by the NLRA. See 359 U. S., at 245. Thus, consistent with a statutory scheme that gives primacy to the agency’s expertise, a court’s task under Garmon is unmistakably modest. It must merely assess whether, in light of existing law and the evidence that has been amassed related to this strike, it is possible that the union could prevail before the Board. Put another way, instead of stepping into the Board’s shoes as primary factfinder, or even prognosticating about what the Board is likely to de- cide concerning the extent of NLRA coverage, a court that stands down upon a proper Garmon analysis has simply de- termined (1) that existing law does not plainly and author- itatively prohibit the strike conduct at issue, and (2) that evidence exists concerning how the strike was conducted that might ultimately favor the union, such that the lawsuit should pause to allow the Board to gather the facts and apply its expertise to determine whether the strike was lawful.” This decision is about the court usurping authority away from the NLRB, against Congressional intent. The impact is going to create chaos.
The trucks weren’t damaged. They brought them back. All that was lost was the concrete. And again, lockouts aren’t ideal but they are a step that employers can take to ensure their property isn’t compromised. Also, they could have prevented the strike by agreeing to a new contract. Loss of business is the only bargaining chip that unions have. That’s it. If unions are punished for using it, then they have no power.
great, that mean the union won’t be on the hook for damage to the trucks, even if there is potential liability for the concrete. They’re not liable for lost business due to striking. It doesn’t hurt the Union’s leverage to tell the employer that they are going on strike tomorrow. Should a nurse be able to walk out of an OR 5 minutes into surgery? Should a pilot be able to strike at cruise altitude?
These examples are the exact type of fact specific instances that the NLRB is to decide if the action taken is protected, not the courts.
Yes and yes. Is it ideal, no. But both the hospital and airline should have contingencies in place, and do, if one of their critical staff is unable to complete the job. If they don’t, let the damaged parties go after the companies. It is not the lowest level employee’s job to come up with a sound business model that is equitable for all. It they can’t keep their employees on the job site, that is on them. And the jump to putting life in jeopardy in your scenarios is comical.
right - this ended up essentially as a case about forum selection. It’s not some sort of cataclysmic change in the substantive law. And I absolutely agree that forum shopping is bad and far too prevalent. But what the case absolutely doesn’t do is say unions can’t strike or change the substantive rules about how they can strike.
the whole point of a Union is that there wouldn’t be available contingencies in place, at least not immediately.
Maybe in your example next time do not say “a nurse” and “a pilot.” That implies one person in the entire respective situation. Maybe say “entire operating staff let someone bleed out while they went to the movies” and “entire flight staff jumped out of plane with a parachute.”
Agreed, and in fact the majority opinion confirmed the right to strike without notice and the right to strike during the workday when the economic impact to the employer is greatest. It just greatly erred in making the factual determination itself as part of the Gorman test instead of deferring to the NLRB to be the fact finder as to whether actions are protected. The impact will absolutely be forum shopping as companies will seek to file claims in jurisdictions where they feel judges will be less deferential to the NLRB, but there will definitely still be plenty that are more deferential to the NLRB. This is going to create the chaos in the judicial system that Congress was trying to avoid when it made the NLRB unique in its authority to enforce the NLRA.
It does though, because it makes it clear that the pro business courts get to decide and not the (ostensibly) pro labor NLRB
But then it says the unions might be liable for the damages to the company if it strikes, which seems to fly in the face of what it doesn't say.
Does that mean all the states have to actually correct this shit? I know Fl did it pretty bad last year.
No. Just that Alabama was so blatant. Florida probably hid the ball better, despite everyone knows what's happening.