Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Supreme Court of the United States · 2023 · Labor Law

598 U.S. 771 (2023)

Updated August 1, 2026

Labor Lawstrike misconductpreemptionNLRAGarmonright to strikereasonable precautionsforeseeable harm

Facts

Glacier sold ready-mix concrete, which is highly perishable and can harden in a truck's rotating drum, damaging the truck if left too long. After contract negotiations deteriorated, the Union called a work stoppage when Glacier was in the midst of batching large quantities of concrete, loading trucks, and making deliveries, and directed drivers to ignore Glacier's instruction to finish deliveries in progress. At least 16 drivers returned with fully loaded trucks; seven notified Glacier or took some protective steps, but at least nine abandoned their trucks without telling anyone. Glacier undertook emergency measures to unload the concrete and saved the trucks, but all of the concrete mixed that day hardened and became useless.

Issue

Whether the NLRA preempted Glacier's state tort claims alleging that the Union intentionally destroyed Glacier's property during a labor dispute. More specifically, the question was whether the Union showed that the drivers' strike conduct was at least arguably protected by the NLRA under Garmon.

Rule

Under Garmon, state law is preempted when conduct is protected, prohibited, or arguably protected or prohibited by the NLRA. The party asserting preemption must advance an interpretation of the NLRA that is not plainly contrary to the statute and has not been authoritatively rejected, and must put forth enough evidence to enable the court to find that the Board reasonably could uphold a claim based on that interpretation. Although the NLRA protects the right to strike, it does not shield strikers who fail to take reasonable precautions to protect the employer's property from foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent danger due to the sudden cessation of work.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Blue Mesa Foundry in Pittsburgh employs unionized furnace operators. During contract talks, the union argues that a sudden walkout while molten metal is being transferred was protected strike activity and moves to dismiss Blue Mesa's Pennsylvania tort suit as NLRA-preempted. The union cites the general right to strike but offers no facts about any precautions workers took or any Board authority suggesting this conduct was protected.

Should the court dismiss the tort suit as preempted?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, Garmon preemption is not triggered by a conclusory assertion. The party asserting preemption must advance an interpretation of the NLRA that is not plainly contrary to the statute and has not been authoritatively rejected, and must also put forth enough evidence for a court to find the Board reasonably could uphold that claim. A bare appeal to the right to strike, without facts about precautions or supporting authority, is insufficient.