Supreme Court debates union tactics in spoiled concrete case

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday debated the limits of the pressure unions can exert during a strike in a case about cement truck drivers who walked off the job with the trucks full of wet concrete.

Chief Justice John Roberts at one point summed up the difference between causing a company to lose some money, which is legally permitted, and intentionally destroying property, which isn't. It's “the difference between milk spoiling and killing the cow,” he said.

The case comes to the justices following losses for organized labor at the high court in recent years. In 2018, the court’s conservative majority overturned a decades-old pro-union decision involving fees paid by government workers. More recently, the justices rejected a California regulation giving unions access to farm property in order to organize workers.

The current case could hurt unions by making it easier for companies to sue over harms caused by strikes, but several justices seemed inclined to rule only narrowly.

The case before the high court involves Glacier Northwest, which sells and delivers concrete to customers in Washington state. On the other side is a local Teamsters union, which represents the company's cement truck drivers.

During contract negotiations in 2017 the union called for a strike, and drivers walked off the job while their trucks were full of concrete, which has to be used quickly and can damage the trucks if it's not.

Glacier says the union timed the strike to create chaos and inflict damage. Glacier had to not only dump the concrete to prevent damage to the trucks but also eventually pay for the wasted concrete to be broken up and hauled away.

The company sued the union in state court for intentionally damaging its property, but the lawsuit was dismissed.

Noel...