Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf
Page Number: 14

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

Finally,  the  Union  points  out  that  the  drivers  returned
the trucks to Glacier’s facility.  And it maintains that all of 
the  drivers  left  the  drums  of  their  trucks  rotating,  which
delayed  the  concrete’s  hardening  process.  In  the  Union’s 
view, this establishes that the drivers took reasonable pre-
cautions to protect the trucks.  Brief for Respondent 28–30. 
We  see  it  differently.  That  the  drivers  returned  the 
trucks to Glacier’s facility does not do much for the Union—
refraining  from  stealing  an  employer’s  vehicles  does  not 
demonstrate  that  one  took  reasonable  precautions  to  pro-
tect them.  And Glacier’s allegations do not support the Un-
ion’s assertion that all of the drivers left the drums rotating.
The Union relies on a vague remark by an unspecified Un-
ion  agent  to  another  unspecified  person  to  leave  a  truck 
running.  See id., at 9, 30; Brief for Petitioner 8; App. 34.
This snippet does not show that all of the drivers left their
trucks  running,  and  even  if  it  did,  that  would  not  neces-
sarily mean that the delivery trucks’ drums continued ro-
tating.  In  any  event,  Glacier  alleged  that  if  concrete  re-
mains in a ready-mix truck for too long, it will harden and 
cause significant damage to the truck.  The rotating drum
forestalls  that  hardening  for  a  time,  but  not  indefinitely.
And the Union concedes that the NLRA does not arguably 
protect its actions if they posed a material risk of harm to 
the trucks.  Tr. of Oral Arg. 78.3 

—————— 

3 After the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Glac-
ier’s tort claims, the Board’s general counsel issued a complaint alleging 
that Glacier engaged in unfair labor practices in relation to its labor dis-
pute with the drivers, including by disciplining some of those involved in
the strike.  The lower courts have not addressed the significance, if any, 
of the Board’s complaint with respect to Garmon preemption.  We will 
not do so in the first instance.  Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, 
n. 7 (2005) (“[W]e are a court of review, not of first view”).  The Board’s 
general counsel agrees that this issue is not properly before us.  See Brief 
for United States as Amicus Curiae 28.