Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

2 

GLACIER NORTHWEST, INC. v. TEAMSTERS 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

the  union’s  conduct  is  at  least  arguably  protected  by  the 
NLRA.  Consequently, where (as here) there is a General
Counsel  complaint  pending  before  the  Board,  courts—in-
cluding  this  Court—should  suspend  their  examination. 
Garmon makes clear that we have no business delving into
this particular labor dispute at this time. 

But instead of modestly standing down, the majority ea-
gerly inserts itself into this conflict, proceeding to opine on 
the propriety of the union’s strike activity based on the facts
alleged in the employer’s state-court complaint.  As part of 
this mistaken expedition, the majority tries its own hand at
applying the Board’s decisions to a relatively novel scenario 
that  poses  difficult  line-drawing  questions—fact-sensitive
issues that Congress plainly intended for the Board to ad-
dress after an investigation.  And in the course of inappro-
priately weighing in on the merits of those questions at this
stage, the  majority also misapplies the Board’s cases in a 
manner that threatens to both impede the Board’s uniform
development of labor law and erode the right to strike. 

In my view, today’s misguided foray underscores the wis-
dom  of  Congress’s  decision  to  create  an  agency  that  is
uniquely positioned to evaluate the facts and apply the law 
in cases such as this one.  This case is Exhibit A as to why
the Board—and not the courts—should ordinarily take the 
first  crack  at  resolving  contentious,  fact-bound  labor  dis-
putes of this nature.  Because the majority’s ruling suggests
otherwise, I respectfully dissent. 

I 

The  majority’s  brief  opinion  quotes Garmon’s  “arguably 
protected” test and endeavors to apply it.  Ante, at 3–4, 6– 
11.  But the opinion devotes relatively little space to the or-
igins  and  purpose  of  that  longstanding  precedent.    That 
omission  is  telling.    A  proper  understanding  of  Garmon’s 
foundation  sheds  considerable  light  on  the  majority’s  se-
quential missteps in this case.