Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf
Page Number: 8

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

Tensions  came  to  a  head  on  the  morning  of  August  11.
According to the allegations in Glacier’s complaint, a Union 
agent signaled for a work stoppage when the Union knew
that  Glacier  was  in  the  midst  of  mixing  substantial
amounts of concrete, loading batches into ready-mix trucks,
and making deliveries.  Although Glacier quickly instructed
drivers to finish deliveries in progress, the Union directed 
them to ignore Glacier’s orders.  At least 16 drivers who had 
already  set  out  for  deliveries  returned  with  fully  loaded
trucks.  Seven parked their trucks, notified a Glacier repre-
sentative, and either asked for instructions or took actions 
to protect their trucks.  But at least nine drivers abandoned 
their trucks without a word to anyone.

Glacier  faced  an  emergency.  The  company  could  not
leave  the  mixed  concrete  in  the  trucks  because  the  con-
crete’s  inevitable  hardening  would  cause  significant  dam-
age to the vehicles.  At the same time, the company could
not dump the concrete out of the trucks at random because 
concrete contains environmentally sensitive chemicals.  To 
top it all off, Glacier had limited time to solve this conun-
drum. 

A  mad  scramble  ensued.  Glacier  needed  to  determine 
which trucks had concrete in them, how close the concrete 
in  each  truck  was  to  hardening,  and  where  to  dump  that 
concrete  in  an  environmentally  safe  manner.  Over  the 
course  of  five  hours,  nonstriking  employees  built  special 
bunkers and managed to offload the concrete.  When all was 
said  and  done,  Glacier’s  emergency  maneuvers  prevented 
damage to its trucks.  But the concrete that it had already
mixed that day hardened in the bunkers and became use-
less. 

Glacier sued the Union for damages in Washington state 
court.  Relying  on  the  allegations  detailed  above,  Glacier 
claimed  that  the  Union  intentionally  destroyed  the  com-
pany’s concrete and that this conduct amounted to common-
law conversion and trespass to chattels.