The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a heavy blow to organized labor in a recent ruling that could drastically alter what happens as a result of worker strikes. 

According to CBS News, SCOTUS ruled in an 8-1 decision in Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 174 that companies can file suit if striking workers' "activism" causes damages to the company, which was undoubtedly the case in this instance.

The lawsuit came in the wake of a concrete company that sued a union after striking workers left concrete trucks running with concrete still turning.

Court-watchers say that the ruling could make for dire consequences for unions that decide to go on strike.

What happened?

The high court ruled that the concrete mixing company that filed suit can continue its lawsuit in state court for the time being, which is a drastic change for organized labor.

CNN explained:

The court said the dispute could continue in state court for now, a move that could chill workers’ decisions to strike for fear that unions would now have to face potentially costly litigation in state court for misconduct during federally protected strikes.

It was reported that Justice Amy Coney Barrett ruled that the Washington Supreme Court was "too dismissive" of the concrete company's concerns following the costly strike that left it high and dry.

"The Supreme Court overwhelmingly decided unions can’t legally destroy equipment in order to help their union members and activism. This isn’t a shocking decision yet Seattle unions hoped to avoid legal consequences," Jason Rantz tweeted.

The Supreme Court overwhelmingly decided unions can’t legally destroy equipment in order to help their union members and activism. This isn’t a shocking decision yet Seattle unions hoped to avoid legal consequences. https://t.co/MVa2oXztFY

— Jason Rantz on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) June 1, 2023

CNN noted:

She pointed particularly to the fact striking workers “abandoned fully loaded trucks” of cement “without telling anyone,” a move that could have destroyed the trucks had they not been unloaded in time by non-striking workers at the company, Glacier Northwest.

Ruling celebrated

The lawyer defending the concrete company was thrilled with the high court's ruling on the issue.

The company's lawyer said the decision "vindicates the longstanding principle that federal law does not shield labor unions from tort liability when they intentionally destroy an employer's property. Our client is entitled to just compensation for its property that the union intentionally destroyed."

The union in the crosshairs was unsurprisingly distraught at the high court's ruling.

"The ability to strike has been on the books for nearly 100 years, and it's no coincidence that this ruling is coming at a time when workers across the country are fed up and exercising their rights more and more," a union statement read. "Make no mistake — this ruling has everything to do with giving companies more power to hobble workers if any attempt is made to fight back against a growing system of corruption."