Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf
Page Number: 9

6 

GLACIER NORTHWEST, INC. v. TEAMSTERS 

Opinion of the Court 

The Union moved to dismiss Glacier’s tort claims on the 
ground  that  the  NLRA  preempted  them.    In  the  Union’s 
view, the NLRA at least arguably protected the drivers’ con-
duct, so the State was powerless to hold the Union account-
able for any of the strike’s consequences.

The trial court agreed with the Union.  After the appel-
late  court  reversed,  the  Washington  Supreme  Court  rein-
stated  the  trial  court’s  decision.    In  its  view,  “the  NLRA 
preempts Glacier’s tort claims related to the loss of its con-
crete  product  because  that  loss  was  incidental  to  a  strike 
arguably protected by federal law.”  198 Wash. 2d 768, 774, 
500 P. 3d 119, 123 (2021).

We  granted  certiorari  to  resolve  whether  the  NLRA
preempts Glacier’s tort claims alleging that the Union in-
tentionally  destroyed  its  property  during  a  labor  dispute.
598 U. S. ___ (2022). 

II 

As the party asserting preemption, the Union bears the 
burden  of  (1)  advancing  “an  interpretation  of  the  [NLRA]
that is not plainly contrary to its language and that has not
been ‘authoritatively rejected’ by the courts or the Board,”
and then (2) putting forth “enough evidence to enable the 
court to find that” the NLRA arguably protects the drivers’ 
conduct.  Davis,  476  U. S.,  at  395.    The  Union  passes  the 
first test but fails the second. 

All agree that the NLRA protects the right to strike but
that this right is not absolute.  Brief for Petitioner 18; Brief 
for Respondent 21, 46, n. 14.  The Board has long taken the
position—which  both  the  Union  and  Glacier  accept—that 
the NLRA does not shield strikers who fail to take “reason-
able precautions” to protect their employer’s property from 
foreseeable,  aggravated,  and  imminent  danger  due  to  the 
sudden  cessation  of  work.  Bethany  Medical  Center,  328 
N. L. R. B. 1094 (1999) (“concerted activity” is “indefensible