Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf
Page Number: 42

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

21 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

cided to walk out at 8 a.m. “because by that time all employ-
ees would have reported to work and [the employer] would 
be in full operation with its largest number of chickens on 
the line.”  Lumbee Farms Co-op., 285 N. L. R. B. 497, 503 
(1987).  The Board affirmed the ALJ’s reasoning that “[t]he
fact  that  the  strike  occurred  during  the  workday  when 
chickens  were  on  the  line  and  vulnerable  to  loss  does  not 
mean  employees  automatically  lost  protection  under  the
Act,” because “[s]trikers are not required under the Act to
institute the strike at a specific time of day.”  Id., at 506. 
Indeed, it is “[n]orma[l]” for “planned employee strikes [to
be]  timed  to  ensure  the  greatest  impact  on  an  employer.” 
Ibid. 

The Board has applied this same reasoning in cases in-
volving, for example, cheese and milk.  See Leprino Cheese 
Co., 170 N. L. R. B. 601, 605 (1968); Central Okla. Milk Pro-
ducers  Assn.,  125  N. L. R. B.  419,  435  (1959).    In  those 
cases, the Board also explained that the reasonable-precau-
tions principle is “limited to situations involving a danger
of  ‘aggravated’  injury  to  persons  or  premises”—a  danger
“[o]bviously” not posed by the loss of, for example, cheese. 
Leprino  Cheese,  170  N. L. R. B.,  at  607  (emphasis  added).
The Board has consistently reiterated that “[l]oss is not un-
common when a strike occurs.”  Central Okla. Milk Produc-
ers, 125 N. L. R. B., at 435. 

In short, it is indisputable that workers have a statutory 
right  to  strike  despite  the  fact  that  exercising  that  right
risks economic harm to employers.  Congress has, in effect,  
drawn a line between those economic harms that are inher-
ent in the act of peacefully walking off the job (which do not 
render the strike unprotected), and those that result from 
workers  taking  subsequent  affirmative  steps  to  seize  the 
employer’s  premises  or  engage  in  acts  of  violence  (strike
conduct that is not protected by the NLRA).  The Board has 
further  recognized  a  narrow  duty  that  arises  if  a  sudden