Page:Glacier Northwest v. Teamsters.pdf/12

Rh that the NLRA’s protection of the right to strike should “ ‘be given a generous interpretation.’ ” Brief for Respondent 21 (quoting NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp., 373 U. S. 221, 234–235 (1963)). A strike, it points out, consists of a “concerted stoppage of work.” §142(2). So, the argument goes, by engaging in a concerted stoppage of work to support their economic demands, the drivers engaged in conduct arguably protected by §7 of the NLRA.

This argument oversimplifies the NLRA. As we explained, the right to strike is limited by the requirement that workers “take reasonable precautions to protect the employer’s plant, equipment, or products from foreseeable imminent danger due to sudden cessation of work.” Bethany Medical Center, 328 N. L. R. B., at 1094. So the mere fact that the drivers engaged in a concerted stoppage of work to support their economic demands does not end the analysis. We must also ask whether the strike exceeded the limits of the statute.

Second, the Union argues that “workers do not forfeit the Act’s protections simply by commencing a work stoppage at a time when the loss of perishable products is foreseeable.” Brief for Respondent 22. It points out that the Board has found strikers’ conduct protected even when their decision not to work created a risk that perishable goods would spoil. See, e.g., Lumbee Farms Coop., 285 N. L. R. B. 497 (1987) (raw poultry processing workers), enf’d, 850 F. 2d 689 (CA4 1988); Central Oklahoma Milk Producers Assoc., 125 N. L. R. B. 419 (1959) (milk-truck drivers), enf’d, 285 F. 2d 495 (CA10 1960); Leprino Cheese Co., 170 N. L. R. B. 601 (1968) (cheese factory employees), enf’d, 424 F. 2d 184 (CA10 1970). If the mere risk of spoilage is enough to render a strike illegal, the Union insists, then workers who deal with perishable goods will have no meaningful right to strike.

The Union is swinging at a straw man. It casts this case as one involving nothing more than a foreseeable risk that