Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

that the NLRA’s protection of the right to strike should “ ‘be 
given a generous interpretation.’ ”  Brief for Respondent 21
(quoting NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp., 373 U. S. 221, 234– 
235 (1963)).  A strike, it points out, consists of a “concerted 
stoppage of work.”  §142(2).  So, the argument goes, by en-
gaging in a concerted stoppage of work to support their eco-
nomic  demands,  the  drivers  engaged  in  conduct  arguably 
protected by §7 of the NLRA.

This  argument  oversimplifies  the  NLRA.  As  we  ex-
plained,  the  right  to  strike  is  limited  by  the  requirement 
that  workers  “take  reasonable  precautions  to  protect  the 
employer’s plant, equipment, or products from foreseeable 
imminent danger due to sudden cessation of work.”  Beth-
any Medical Center, 328 N. L. R. B., at 1094.  So the mere 
fact  that  the  drivers  engaged  in  a  concerted  stoppage  of
work to support their economic demands does not end the
analysis.  We must also ask whether the strike exceeded the 
limits of the statute. 

Second, the Union argues that “workers do not forfeit the
Act’s protections simply by commencing a work stoppage at 
a time when the loss of perishable products is foreseeable.” 
Brief for Respondent 22.  It points out that the Board has
found strikers’ conduct protected even when their decision
not to work created a risk that perishable goods would spoil. 
See, e.g., Lumbee Farms Coop., 285 N. L. R. B. 497 (1987) 
(raw poultry processing workers), enf ’d, 850 F. 2d 689 (CA4
1988);  Central  Oklahoma  Milk  Producers  Assoc.,  125 
N. L. R. B. 419 (1959) (milk-truck drivers), enf ’d, 285 F. 2d 
495  (CA10  1960);  Leprino  Cheese  Co.,  170  N. L. R. B.  601 
(1968)  (cheese  factory  employees),  enf ’d,  424  F. 2d  184
(CA10 1970).  If the mere risk of spoilage is enough to ren-
der  a  strike  illegal,  the  Union  insists,  then  workers  who 
deal with perishable goods will have no meaningful right to 
strike. 

The Union is swinging at a straw man.  It casts this case 
as one involving nothing more than a foreseeable risk that