Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters (21-1449)

argument 21-1449

Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 26m 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 9 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal issue in Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters?

John G. Roberts 0:00

This morning in case twenty-one fourteen forty-nine Glacier Northwest versus International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Mr. Francisco.

David D. Francis 0:08

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. The Court and the Board have long recognized that the intentional destruction of an employer's property in the course of a labour dispute is not protected concerted activity. That's why steel workers can't walk out in the middle of a molten iron pour. It's why Federal Security Guards can't leave their posts in the middle of a terrorist threat. It's why a ferry boat crew can't drive their boat out into the middle of the river and abandon ship. And it is why in this very case the government agrees that the conduct alleged in this complaint isn't even arguably protected. The more substantial question then is who gets to decide whether the facts alleged in the complaint are true?

David D. Francis 0:51

the state court or the board. This Court answered that question in Bill Johnson's. If the facts alleged aren't even arguably protected, then the court decides the facts. If the allegations are true, It can award relief. And if they're not, the claim fails, either because it's preempted or because it fails under state law. This division of authority makes sense. Garmin held that the board's interest in ensuring a uniform legal interpretation of the statute is sufficient to override the state's interest in adjudicating state tort claims. but it doesn't have a similar interest in resolving the facts. So if the complaint alleges clearly unprotected conduct, and the only issue is whether those allegations are true,

David D. Francis 1:37

the state court gets first crack at resolving the facts. That's probably why in this very case the Regional Director didn't even file his complaint until after the Washington Supreme Court's decision. instead of at the outset, which under the Union's view would have prevented four years of wasteful litigation. The Court should therefore reverse the decision below and allow the State Courts to adjudicate Glacier's non preempted State Court complaint. And I would be happy to address any questions your Honors may have.

Clarence Thomas 2:10

The SG suggests that after a hiatus, a jurisdictional hiatus, you could pursue your claims. Why isn't that adequate?

David D. Francis 2:20

Because for a couple of reasons, Your Honor, I think principally because it's contrary to how preemption works in virtually every other context. State courts are not typically ousted of jurisdiction to adjudicate tort claims, even in highly regulated areas. Instead, they adjudicate the tort claim, but they're still bound by federal law. So if it appears that the claim conflicts with federal law, they grant a preemption defense under If it appears that it arguably conflicts with Federal law, they grant the preemption defense. But they're not ousted of jurisdiction to make that threshold determination of whether on the facts it either actually or arguably implicates Federal law. Otherwise, Bill Johnson's really should have come out the other way, because in Bill Johnson's, the Board actually found that the employer's allegations in his complaint were false and that the employee was engaged in the employee.

David D. Francis 3:10

engaging in actually protected conduct, yet this court nonetheless held that it was the state court that d got to decide the facts in the first instance, not the board.

John G. Roberts 3:20

Your um The board of course says that you should I guess bring your claim under the rubric of the failure to take reasonable precautions to preserve property. Uh why why why is that not sufficient to address your concern?

David D. Francis 3:36

Well, Your Honor, it it is not that I have a problem with the Board's test. I just think that our test is a much more specific, concrete, and clear application of that test. I mean, if it's hard to imagine a situation where you intend to destroy somebody's property, you actually take actions to effectuate that intent, you succeed in destroying the property, yet nonetheless you have taken reasonable pro precautions to avoid destroying the property. Think it is a particularly clear application, and then I would point you to the Board's decision in the International Protective Services case, which helps illustrate this.