Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf
Page Number: 39

18 

GLACIER NORTHWEST, INC. v. TEAMSTERS 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

that  power  to  demand  improvement  of  employees’  wages 
and working conditions—goals that, according to Congress, 
benefit the economy writ large.  See Sears, Roebuck & Co., 
436 U. S., at 190. 

Still, the right to strike is, of course, not unlimited.  But 
when “Congress chose to qualify the use of the strike, it did 
so  by  prescribing  the  limits  and  conditions  of  the  abridg-
ment in exacting detail.”  Erie Resistor, 373 U. S., at 234. 
Section 8 enumerates several limitations.  For example, a 
union must notify an employer that it intends to terminate 
or modify its contract—and thus that a strike is possible—
at least 60 days before striking.  §158(d).  A union cannot 
strike  for  unlawful  purposes,  such  as  putting  economic
pressure  on  parties  other  than  the  primary  employer.
§158(b)(4)(i)(B).  And, in certain healthcare settings, unions 
must provide at least 10 days’ notice of the precise date and 
time of a strike.  §158(g).

Additionally,  §163  of  the  NLRA  (which  Congress  added 
via the 1947 Taft-Hartley Amendments, 61 Stat. 151) states
that “nothing in this subchapter, except as specifically pro-
vided for herein, shall be construed so as either to interfere 
with or impede or diminish in any way the right to strike,
or to affect the limitations or qualifications on that right.” 
Thus, the text of the NLRA allows for only two kinds of
limitations on the right to strike: those enumerated in the 
Act  itself,  and  the  “limitations  or  qualifications”  on  the 
right that existed when the Taft-Hartley Amendments were
enacted.  See  NLRB  v.  Drivers,  362  U. S.  274,  281–282 
(1960).  The only relevant limitation here is the one set out
in  NLRB  v.  Fansteel  Metallurgical  Corp.,  306  U. S.  240 
(1939).6 

—————— 

6 The Senate Report accompanying the Taft-Hartley Amendments ex-
plained the four kinds of pre-existing “limitations or qualifications” on
the right to strike that Congress had in mind in §163, which were drawn
from decisions of the Board and this Court.  See S. Rep. No. 105, 80th
Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  28  (1947);  Drivers,  362  U. S.,  at  281–282.    The  three