来源：《美联社新闻》
原文刊登日期：2023年6月1日
In a dispute about the pressure that organized labor can exert during a strike, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday against unionized drivers who walked off the job with their trucks full of wet concrete.
在一场关于有组织的劳工在罢工期间可能施加的压力的争议中，最高法院周四裁定，那些在卡车装满湿混凝土的情况下离开工作岗位的工会司机败诉。
The decision united liberal and conservative justices in labor’s latest loss at the high court. The lone dissenter in the case, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the ruling would hinder the development of labor law and “erode the right to strike.”
这一裁决联合了自由派和保守派大法官，这是工会在最高法院的最新败诉。该案中唯一的持异议者，大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊说，该裁决将阻碍劳动法的发展，并“侵蚀罢工权”。
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, said the union failed to take reasonable precautions to protect the company’s concrete when the drivers went on strike. Barrett wrote that the drivers for Washington state-based Glacier Northwest quit work suddenly, putting the company’s property in “foreseeable and imminent danger.”
大法官艾米·科尼·巴雷特代表多数派撰文称，当司机罢工时，工会未能采取合理的预防措施来保护公司的混凝土。巴雷特写道，总部位于华盛顿州的西北冰川公司的司机突然结束工作，使公司的财产处于“可预见的迫在眉睫的危险之中”。
“The Union’s actions not only resulted in the destruction of all the concrete Glacier had prepared that day; they also posed a risk of foreseeable, aggravated, and imminent harm to Glacier’s trucks,” Barrett wrote in a decision joined by four other justices. Three more justices agreed with the outcome in the case but did not join Barrett’s opinion.
巴雷特在一份与其他四名大法官共同作出的裁决中写道：“工会的行动不仅导致冰川公司当天准备的所有混凝土被毁，还对冰川公司的卡车造成了可预见、严重和迫在眉睫的伤害。”另有三名大法官同意本案的判决结果，但没有加入巴雷特的意见。
Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a separate opinion in the Washington state case that the federal National Labor Relations Act protects the right to strike, but with limits. He said it “does not protect striking employees who engage in the type of conduct alleged here.”
塞缪尔·阿利托大法官在本案的另一份意见书中写道，联邦《国家劳动关系法》保护罢工权，但有限制。他说，该法案“不保护那些参与本案所指控的行为的罢工员工。”
This case stemmed from contract negotiations in 2017 between Glacier Northwest and the local Teamsters union, representing the drivers. When negotiations broke down, the union called for a strike. Drivers walked off the job while their trucks were full of concrete, which must be used quickly and can damage the trucks if it’s not.
这起案件源于2017年冰川西北公司与代表司机的当地卡车司机工会之间的合同谈判。谈判破裂后，工会号召罢工。司机们在卡车装满混凝土的时候离开了工作岗位，这些混凝土必须迅速使用，否则会损坏卡车。
Glacier says the union timed the strike to create chaos and inflict damage. Glacier not only had to dump the concrete but also pay for the wasted concrete to be broken up and hauled away.
冰川公司，工会选择罢工的时机是为了制造混乱，造成破坏。冰川公司不仅要倾倒混凝土，还要花钱将废弃的混凝土打碎并运走。
The company sued the union in state court for intentionally damaging its property; the lawsuit was initially dismissed.
冰川公司在华盛顿州法院起诉工会故意损坏其财产；该诉讼最初被驳回。
The question for the Supreme Court was about how the case should proceed. Glacier said its lawsuit in state court should not have been dismissed at the outset. The union said Glacier’s lawsuit should only be allowed to go forward in state court if the federal National Labor Relations Board first found that the union’s actions were not protected by federal law.
最高法院面临的问题是这个案件应该如何进行。冰河公司表示，它在州法院提起的诉讼一开始就不应该被驳回。工会表示，只有在联邦国家劳工关系委员会首先发现工会的行为不受联邦法律保护的情况下，冰河公司的诉讼才应在州法院继续进行。
Barrett wrote that because the union did not take reasonable precautions to protect Glacier’s property, the trial court was wrong to think federal law required dismissing the lawsuit. By “reporting for duty and pretending as if they would deliver the concrete, the drivers prompted the creation of the perishable product. Then, they waited to walk off the job until the concrete was mixed and poured in the trucks,” Barrett wrote.
巴雷特写道，由于工会没有采取合理的预防措施来保护冰川公司的财产，初审法院认为联邦法律规定驳回诉讼是错误的。通过“报到并假装他们会运送混凝土”，司机们促成了这种易变质产品的生产。然后，等到混凝土搅拌好，倒进卡车里，司机就弃车而去，”巴雷特写道。