Experts debate how much US Supreme Court ruling chills labor strikes

<html xmlns=""><head><title>RPT-Experts debate how much US Supreme Court ruling chills labor strikes</title></head><body>

Repeats story to additional clients, text unchanged

By John Kruzel

WASHINGTON, June 2 (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered the latest in a series of rulings undercutting organized labor, with some legal experts predicting that the decision will make unions that engage in strikes more vulnerable to lawsuits while others see a more modest impact.

An 8-1 ruling on Thursday authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett made it easier for companies to sue over strikes that cause certain instances of property damage. The case involved a strike by the union representing truck drivers at a concrete business owned by Japan-based Taiheiyo Cement Corp 5233.T in Washington state.

Some experts viewed the ruling as consistent with the conservative-majority court's history in recent years of restricting union and employee rights.

Angela Cornell, a Cornell Law School labor law professor, called it "another decision that undermines the capacity of unions to function."

"Weakening the right to strike by making it riskier to exercise means it will reduce the only leverage unions have when negotiating with companies. This, of course, is a big tilt toward business interests and against the collective interests of workers," said Cornell, who joined a brief supporting the union in the case.

"The decision is part of a systematic project by the Supreme Court to limit employee collective rights in the name of industrial peace while expanding employer weapons of lockouts and permanent replacements in the name of private property rights and free enterprise," added Indiana University Maurer School of Law labor and employment law professor Kenneth Dau-Schmidt, who also joined a brief backing the union.

But according to Harvard Law School professor of labor and industry Benjamin Sachs, if lower courts faithfully apply the reasoning detailed in Barrett's decision then it "won't do much damage to the right to strike."

"The court issued a very narrow holding that appears to be limited to the specific facts of a case involving the specific nature of concrete mixing," Sachs said.

The court ruled in favor of Glacier Northwest Inc, which sued a local affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters after a work stoppage forced the company to discard undelivered concrete. The justices ruled that the company's claims were not preempted by a statute called the National Labor Relations Act on the grounds that the union had failed to take "reasonable precautions" to prevent a foreseeable and imminent harm to the employer's property resulting from the strike.


The ruling comes at a time of increasing strikes called by U.S. labor unions. According to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the number of American workers who participated in strikes and similar activities in 2022 increased by nearly 50% compared to the previous year.

Cornell said the decision "could chill the recent uptick in collective action by workers" by placing unions at greater risk of facing lawsuits if they go on strike.

Dan Altchek, an attorney at the Philadelphia-based firm Saul Ewing who represents employers in labor matters, said the ruling gives employers "a bit of a roadmap" for how to reduce the odds of lawsuits over strike-related property damage from being dismissed.

"If and when such lawsuits survive a union's motion to dismiss, the litigation risk for the union resulting from the strike is significantly enhanced," Altchek added.

Some experts pointed out that the ruling largely preserved the existing legal scaffolding for deciding labor law preemption cases of this kind.

"The court's analysis may have modestly lowered the union-protection threshold in considering applicability or scope of the 'take reasonable precautions' test," said James Brudney, a Fordham University Law School professor of labor and employment law.

Brudney called this aspect of the ruling a "relatively minor development" compared to the court's broader decision to leave intact its major framework for analyzing labor disputes of this nature.

The Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has dealt setbacks to organized labor in key cases in recent years.

In 2021, it struck down a California agricultural regulation aimed at helping unions organize workers. In 2018, it ruled that non-members cannot be forced, as they are in certain states, to pay fees to unions representing public employees such as police and teachers that negotiate collective bargaining agreements with employers.

Brudney said Thursday's ruling "was not comparable to that broader trendline" of decisions weakening labor unions.

West Virginia University College of Law professor Anne Marie Lofaso said, "The case fits into the judicial trend to weaken labor unions by weakening what counts as protected concerted activity."

"This was the narrowest analysis that the court could have done to allow the employer to win," Lofaso added.

Reporting by John Kruzel in Washington; Editing by Will Dunham


Avertissement : Les entités de XM Group proposent à notre plateforme de trading en ligne un service d'exécution uniquement, autorisant une personne à consulter et/ou à utiliser le contenu disponible sur ou via le site internet, qui n'a pas pour but de modifier ou d'élargir cette situation. De tels accès et utilisation sont toujours soumis aux : (i) Conditions générales ; (ii) Avertissements sur les risques et (iii) Avertissement complet. Un tel contenu n'est par conséquent fourni que pour information générale. En particulier, sachez que les contenus de notre plateforme de trading en ligne ne sont ni une sollicitation ni une offre de participation à toute transaction sur les marchés financiers. Le trading sur les marchés financiers implique un niveau significatif de risques pour votre capital.

Tout le matériel publié dans notre Centre de trading en ligne est destiné à des fins de formation / d'information uniquement et ne contient pas – et ne doit pas être considéré comme contenant – des conseils et recommandations en matière de finance, de fiscalité des investissements ou de trading, ou un enregistrement de nos prix de trading ou une offre, une sollicitation, une transaction à propos de tout instrument financier ou bien des promotions financières non sollicitées à votre égard.

Tout contenu tiers, de même que le contenu préparé par XM, tels que les opinions, actualités, études, analyses, prix, autres informations ou liens vers des sites tiers contenus sur ce site internet sont fournis "tels quels", comme commentaires généraux sur le marché et ne constituent pas des conseils en investissement. Dans la mesure où tout contenu est considéré comme de la recherche en investissement, vous devez noter et accepter que le contenu n'a pas été conçu ni préparé conformément aux exigences légales visant à promouvoir l'indépendance de la recherche en investissement et, en tant que tel, il serait considéré comme une communication marketing selon les lois et réglementations applicables. Veuillez vous assurer que vous avez lu et compris notre Avis sur la recherche en investissement non indépendante et notre avertissement sur les risques concernant les informations susdites, qui peuvent consultés ici.

Nous utilisons des cookies pour vous donner la meilleure expérience possible de notre site internet. En savoir plus ou modifier vos paramètres de cookies.

Avertissement sur les risques : votre capital est à risque. Les produits à effet de levier ne sont pas recommandés pour tous. Veuillez consulter notre Divulgation des risques