|
US Supreme Court Finds NLRA Permits Tort Claims Against Union
The US Supreme Court released the long-awaited decision in Glacier NW vs Teamsters finding that an employer can sue a union when the union conducts a strike and fails to take reasonable precautions to protect the employer’s property from foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent danger caused by the strike.
The Court based its decision on the facts as alleged in the Complaint and not after discovery, so the ultimate outcome of the case may differ. Glacier Northwest sells and delivers ready-mix concrete. On the morning of the strike, the Union first permitted Glacier to mix the concrete which then put Glacier on the clock to deliver and pour the concrete before it hardened. The Union ordered its drivers to stop work— numerous drivers then returned to the yard with fully loaded, mixed, and undelivered loads, and walked off the job. Glacier made Herculean efforts to find a place to dispose of the concrete consistent with environmental rules and before the concrete hardened and destroyed the trucks. Although the trucks were saved, the concrete hardened and became useless. Under these facts, the Court found that the Union could have acted intentionally or with unreasonable care for employer’s property when it ordered the strike, and therefore must defend the claim—i.e. the National Labor Relations Act did not block or preempt the state tort law claim and so the suit can move forward.
The facts as alleged are important here, defining an alleged instance of the strike potentially calculated to cause property damage. In other cases where the facts reflect more natural ripples from a strike or the union takes measures calculated to prevent property damage, the outcome could be different. If property damage cases become fact-focused, it will be important, should you encounter a strike, to document your facts that created property damage including any notice or forewarning, efforts to protect the property, decisions that maximized or minimized the loss (or would have), statements suggesting intent or refusing to take reasonable protective steps, etcetera.
Strike in Wisconsin
This year’s labor negotiations have been both positive and difficult. In Minnesota, AGC-MN negotiated approximately fourteen collective bargaining agreements, many of which broached difficult topics, poked sensitive issues, stalled on strong differences, and ultimately found a settlement acceptable to all sides. “Acceptable” does not always imply good, happy with, or satisfied. We have heard of similar good and difficult negotiations from other Minnesota and state associations and similar mixed feelings.
The difficulties we experienced in Minnesota seem mirrored in Wisconsin. AGC-WI and other associations are negotiating numerous agreements and, like us, have experienced good progress and conversations, and difficulties and divides. Wisconsin Bricklayers and Cement Masons (OPCMIA Local 599) did not show for work on June 1 and struck multiple jobsites on June 2. A tentative agreement was just reached and the union will vote to ratify on Saturday, June 3. Employees are expected to return to work on most jobsites June 3. La Crosse area may continue to strike.
AGC-WI has provided us with an informal summary of all of the Wisconsin settlements, available on our website here. AGC WI will publish a more polished and updated summary which we will share.
MN Collective Bargaining Agreements Online
We still are wrapping up the new collective bargaining agreements. Posted on our website are highway heavy Operating Engineers, HH and Building North Cement Masons, and HH Laborers. We still are waiting on signatures or final agreements with Carpenters, Teamsters and Laborers (Building North only) which hopefully will finalize next week and be posted. Please contact Renee if you need website login credentials.
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and PUMP Act
Federal legislation that goes into effect 27 June 2023 provides new protections and rights for pregnant workers, such as: providing ADA-like reasonable accommodations for workers who have pregnancy or birth related work limitations, protecting against discrimination against pregnant workers, and expanded protections for workers needing to express milk. In addition, some collective bargaining agreements (i.e. Carpenters) may reinforce federal and state mandates to provide a lactation station for nursing workers. More information is available from the DOL: Maternal Health Overview including a webinar and fact sheets and PWFA including poster. This topic also will be discussed at a HR Forum meeting.
| 
