Glacier Northwest v. Teamsters: The Supreme Court Gets Concrete

Walter OlsonInGlacier Northwest, Inc., v. Teamsters, decided today, the Supreme Court showed a  good measure of consensus and civility in settling a potentially contentious issue in labor law: whether a company is entitled to sue a union that has so arranged its strike so as to put the company’s equipment, as well as its perishable inventory, at risk of destruction. Eight Justices led b y Justice Amy Coney Barrett said the company was entitled to sue, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the only dissenter, said the dispute should properly be heard by the National Labor Relations Board. Along the way, the Justices brushed up against two kinds of issues seen in many higher‐​prof ile cases: when federal law should pre‐​empt that of the states, and the degree to which courts should show deference to the expertise of federal agencies.The National Labor Relations Act establishes a  right for workers to strike, which is however subject to some limits. In general workers can walk off the job if they have no contract, and they can time the walkout so as to be disruptive to the employer—during its rush season, for example. A number of decisions suggest that while striking wor kers are free thereby to put a company’s inventory and supplies at risk—think perishables such as milk and chickens that may become valueless unless processed and brought to market quickly—they may not damage the company’s equipment or premises, and if they do, the employer retains its ...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs