General Category > SCOTUS News

Supreme Court news: Jackson lone dissenter in ruling against Teamsters who damaged cement in strike

(1/2) > >>

corbe:
Supreme Court news: Jackson lone dissenter in ruling against Teamsters who damaged cement in strike

by Kaelan Deese, Supreme Court Reporter
June 01, 2023 10:58 AM

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of a concrete company in Washington seeking to resurrect a lawsuit against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, accusing the union of ruining its cement during a strike.

An 8-1 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett means the company, Glacier Northwest, can move forward with a lawsuit against the union in state court over an August 2017 strike in which drivers walked away from their job and left wet cement to spoil inside their trucks. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the newest member of the court, was the lone dissenter in the ruling.

"Because the union took affirmative steps to endanger Glacier's property rather than reasonable precautions to mitigate that risk, the [National Labor Relations Act] does not arguably protect its conduct," Barrett wrote. The NLRA is a federal law that shields union activity.

Union labor advocates had warned a ruling in favor of the company could thwart future strike actions by making unions more liable for certain losses employers can face as a result of strikes.

To enforce the NLRA, Congress created the National Labor Relations Board to oversee claims and "prevent any person from engaging in any unfair labor practice."

<..snip..>

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/jackson-lone-supreme-court-dissenter-ruling-against-teamsters

Cyber Liberty:
Broken concrete is a bit of a hot button with me.... 9999hair out0000

Kamaji:
That is a good ruling.  If concrete is allowed to set up in the truck, it becomes a very expensive endeavour to remove it.



The drivers knew, or must have known with substantial certainty, that abandoning fully loaded trucks would result in damage to the trucks that was unnecessary, so the union should be held responsible for it.

DefiantMassRINO:
That's property damage; not legal strike activity.

Weird Tolkienish Figure:
So according to Jackson, destroying concrete is protected by the NLRB? Am I missing something?


--- Quote ---Jackson penned a dissent strongly disagreeing with Barrett and the majority, writing, "The union’s conduct is at least arguably protected by the NLRA.
--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page