← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

No. 21-1449 SCOTUS · Decided Decided SCOTUS
Argued: Jan 10, 2023 Decided: Jun 1, 2023


The Facts

Glacier Northwest, a concrete company in Washington State, sued Teamsters Local 174 in state court for property damage after drivers initiated a strike while trucks were loaded with ready-mix concrete, which is unusable once mixed. The union had ordered the strike knowing the concrete would likely be wasted. Glacier argued the union's deliberate timing caused foreseeable property destruction. The Washington Supreme Court held the state tort claim was preempted by the NLRA because the underlying conduct was at least arguably protected union activity.

The Application

History

The Court held that the union's deliberate timing of the strike initiating action while concrete trucks were loaded, knowing the product would become unusable and cause foreseeable property loss constituted intentional property destruction rather than protected labor activity. Because the NLRA does not protect conduct designed to destroy an employer's property, Garmon preemption does not displace the state tort claim. The decision turns on the distinction between strike activity (protected) and knowing, reckless property destruction (unprotected), permitting employers to pursue damages when unions deliberately time actions to maximize economic harm to a business.

The Conclusion

**The ruling allows employers to pursue state tort claims against unions for property damage that occurs as a foreseeable consequence of strike timing decisions.** The decision limits the scope of NLRA preemption and gives employers a litigation tool when unions time strikes to maximize property loss.

CourtSupreme Court of the United States
Filed -
CL StatusActive
View on CourtListener →

No circuit court data for this case.

Cert Granted -
StatusActive
Filed (CL) -
View on CourtListener →
SCOTUS TMR-640163bf May 14, 2026

Case Analysis

Overview

The Supreme Court held 8-1 that a state tort lawsuit by a concrete company against a union over strike-related property damage was not preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. Justice Barrett wrote for the majority, holding that the NLRA does not protect intentional or reckless destruction of property during a labor dispute.

Facts

Glacier Northwest, a concrete company in Washington State, sued Teamsters Local 174 in state court for property damage after drivers initiated a strike while trucks were loaded with ready-mix concrete, which is unusable once mixed. The union had ordered the strike knowing the concrete would likely be wasted. Glacier argued the union's deliberate timing caused foreseeable property destruction. The Washington Supreme Court held the state tort claim was preempted by the NLRA because the underlying conduct was at least arguably protected union activity.

Issue

Whether the NLRA preempts a state tort claim against a union for property damage caused by union activity that the union knew or should have known would result in damage to the employer's property.

Rule

Under Garmon preemption, state law is displaced when the conduct at issue is arguably protected or prohibited by the NLRA. However, the NLRA does not protect intentional or reckless destruction of an employer's property, and Garmon preemption does not apply to torts falling outside the statute's protection.

Analysis

The Court held that the union's deliberate timing of the strike. Initiating action while concrete trucks were loaded, knowing the product would become unusable and cause foreseeable property loss. Constituted intentional property destruction rather than protected labor activity. Because the NLRA does not protect conduct designed to destroy an employer's property, Garmon preemption does not displace the state tort claim. The decision turns on the distinction between strike activity (protected) and knowing, reckless property destruction (unprotected), permitting employers to pursue damages when unions deliberately time actions to maximize economic harm to a business.

Conclusion

**The ruling allows employers to pursue state tort claims against unions for property damage that occurs as a foreseeable consequence of strike timing decisions.** The decision limits the scope of NLRA preemption and gives employers a litigation tool when unions time strikes to maximize property loss.

Notes

OT2022. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14

Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support