Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

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

7 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

claims  for  conduct  that  is  protected  by  the  NLRA.  See 
Brown v. Hotel Employees, 468 U. S. 491, 503 (1984).  But 
“if the Board decides that the conduct is not protected,” the
state court may proceed to “entertain the litigation.”  Davis, 
476 U. S., at 397.1 

With these general principles in mind, I now turn to the 

particulars of this case. 

II 
This  suit  arises  out  of  a  union-organized  strike.    Peti-
tioner  Glacier  Northwest  is  a  concrete-delivery  company,
and  respondent  International  Brotherhood  of  Teamsters 
Local Union No. 174 (Union) represents Glacier’s concrete-
delivery  truckdrivers.   After  the  drivers  went  on  strike, 
Glacier sent disciplinary letters to some of the drivers.  The 
Union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Board, 
alleging that the disciplinary letters were unlawful retalia-
tion against the drivers for engaging in strike conduct that
is protected by the NLRA.

Glacier then filed a complaint in Washington state court, 
alleging that the Union engaged in tortious conduct when
it instructed the drivers to strike at a time when there was 
wet concrete in some of the company’s delivery trucks.  In 
response, the Union filed another Board charge, maintain-
ing  that  Glacier’s  lawsuit  constituted  additional  unlawful
retaliation. 

—————— 

1 JUSTICE THOMAS seeks to undercut our Garmon precedent by describ-
ing it as “od[d]” and “strang[e]” relative to “ ‘the usual preemption rule.’ ” 
Ante,  at  1,  3  (opinion  concurring  in  judgment).    But,  as  discussed,  the  
Garmon  rule  is  not  a  standard  preemption  doctrine;  it  is  different  be-
cause it is doing different work.  Garmon protects Congress’s judgment
that the Board, not state or federal courts, should be generally responsi-
ble for the development of our Nation’s labor law.  The required pause 
when Garmon’s “arguably protected” test is satisfied allows for efficient 
resolution  of  the  dispute  prior  to  the  expenditure  of  state  judicial  re-
sources, and the temporary nature of the pause makes it narrower, not 
broader, in effect than ordinary preemption.