“If a company’s employees deliberately damage its property, it can sue them just the same as if some random vandal did. But if they commit sabotage to get leverage during a strike, does the National Labor Relations Act immunize them?” This is a question the Supreme Court had to decide, as Dan McLaughlin notes on the homepage.
Dan continues:
The case involved striking Teamsters truckers for a concrete-mixing company who deliberately walked off the job after their trucks had been loaded with custom-mixed concrete. If the concrete hardened before delivery, it was useless; if it hardened inside the trucks, the trucks would be damaged, too. Quick unloading by non-striking employees saved the trucks, but the day’s haul of concrete was lost. The company sued the union.
The Teamsters’ argument was that the NLRA protected their right to strike, even if the timing of the strike was deliberately calculated to destroy company property. As Barrett’s opinion [for the majority] noted, the NLRA has been read to preempt state law more broadly than most federal statutes, displacing any state law that even “arguably” conflicts with the detailed federal regulatory scheme for labor-management law. It also allows unions to argue for preemption under a ridiculously favorable standard: They must offer “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. The [union] must then put forth enough evidence to enable the court to find that the Board reasonably could uphold a claim based on such an interpretation.” (Emphasis added; quotations omitted.) . . .
The Court did not adopt a per se rule against striking when perishable products might be lost, or against striking during the workday without advance notice, but focused on the deliberate sabotage involved in the timing of this strike: “Given the lifespan of wet concrete, Glacier could not batch it until a truck was ready to take it. So by reporting for duty and pretending as if they would deliver the concrete, the drivers prompted the creation of the perishable product. Then, they waited to walk off the job until the concrete was mixed and poured in the trucks. In so doing, they not only destroyed the concrete but also put Glacier’s trucks in harm’s way.” (Emphasis in original.)
Finally, the Court scoffed at the Teamsters’ defense that they at least brought the trucks back: “Refraining from stealing an employer’s vehicles does not demonstrate that one took reasonable precautions to protect them.” Justice Alito would have gone further and argued that the union failed the first part of the test, given the strength of precedents against its actions.
The Court got it right. But this case is a perfect illustration of the National Labor Relations Act’s pro-union bias. Unions have so many special privileges under the law that it wasn’t immediately obvious that they lack the legal protection to break stuff because they’re mad, and the nation’s highest court had to waste its time to restore common sense.