The UPS-Teamsters Labor Dispute and Taft-Hartley’s National Emergency Provisions

The UPS-Teamsters Labor Dispute and Taft-Hartley’s National Emergency Provisions

Updated August 24, 2023
The UPS-Teamsters Labor Dispute and Taft-Hartley’s National
Emergency Provisions
Introduction
a holiday for the first time. Air conditioning is to be
On August 22, 2023, United Parcel Service (UPS) package
required in all larger delivery vehicles, sprinter vans, and
delivery drivers and warehouse logistics workers, who are
package cars purchased after January 1, 2024.
represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
voted to ratify a new five-year collective bargaining
As of the date of this In Focus, UPS and the Teamsters have
agreement. The new contract averts a strike that could have
been enthusiastic about the new agreement. UPS’s chief
threatened the national economy. The ratification solidifies
executive described the agreement as a “win-win-win
a tentative agreement that was reached by the parties on
agreement on the issues that are important to Teamsters
July 25, 2023. Prior to the tentative agreement, negotiations
leadership, our employees and to UPS and our customers.”
between the parties were at a standstill, and a strike seemed
The Teamsters president contended that the agreement “sets
more likely. While a UPS strike in this instance has been
a new standard in the labor movement and raises the bar for
avoided, similar labor disputes of congressional interest
all workers.”
may arise in the future.
Legal Framework for Federal
The Labor Management Relations Act, popularly known as
Intervention
the Taft-Hartley Act, establishes a framework for
In the event of a nationally disruptive labor dispute, the
addressing serious labor disputes outside of the rail and air
federal government has the ability to intervene. Section 206
industries. Although Congress has enacted legislation in the
of the Taft-Hartley Act, found at 29 U.S.C. § 176,
past to resolve rail labor disputes that are governed by the
authorizes the President to step in if the parties to a labor
Railway Labor Act, it has never intervened in a labor
dispute fail to reach agreement and the following conditions
dispute subject to the Taft-Hartley Act’s national
are met:
emergency provisions. (For additional information on
congressional intervention in rail labor disputes, see CRS
1. There is “a threatened or actual strike or
Legal Sidebar LSB10861, The Railway Labor Act and
lockout;”
Congressional Action.) This In Focus provides background
2. The strike or lockout affects all or a
on the UPS-Teamsters dispute and explains legally
substantial part of an industry
available options for the executive and legislative branches
participating in “trade, commerce,
to intervene in labor disputes governed by the Taft-Hartley
transportation, transmission, or
Act.
communication among the several States
Background
or with foreign nations;” and
3. It is the President’s opinion that allowing
UPS and the Teamsters began negotiations on a new five-
the strike or lockout to occur or continue
year collective bargaining agreement on April 17, 2023.
would “imperil the national health or
The Teamsters sought not only higher wages and more full-
safety.”
time positions in the new agreement but also an end to
compulsory overtime and greater heat safety in UPS’s
If these conditions are met, the President may appoint a
delivery vehicles. As the parties’ negotiations stalled,
board of inquiry (BOI) to write a report on the facts of the
UPS’s drivers and warehouse logistics workers voted to
labor dispute. After receiving the BOI’s report, the
authorize a strike if an agreement was not reached before
President may direct the Attorney General to petition a
the existing contract expired on July 31, 2023.
federal district court to enjoin the strike or lockout. If
granted, the injunction starts an 80-day “cooling off”
Under the new agreement, current full- and part-time UPS
period, during which the parties are required by statute to
employees represented by the union are to receive $2.75
“make every effort to adjust and settle their differences.” If
more per hour in 2023 and $7.50 more per hour over the
there is no agreement within 60 days following the start of
contract’s duration. In addition, the minimum hourly wage
the injunction, the BOI provides the President with a report
for part-time employees is to increase to $21, above the
on the parties’ stances. Between 60 and 75 days, the
prior minimum starting wage of $16.20. The average top
employer makes a final offer, and the National Labor
hourly wage for full-time delivery drivers is to increase to
Relations Board (NLRB) holds an election for employees to
$49, above the current average wage of $42. Drivers are not
vote on whether or not to adopt the offer. The NLRB
to be subject to compulsory overtime on their days off, and
certifies the results of the ballot to the Attorney General,
all employees are to receive Martin Luther King Jr. Day as
and the Attorney General moves the district court to
https://crsreports.congress.gov

The UPS-Teamsters Labor Dispute and Taft-Hartley’s National Emergency Provisions
discharge the injunction. If the employees adopted the
States, and with the Indian Tribes[.]” In Wilson v. New, the
employer’s final offer, then the dispute has been resolved.
Supreme Court recognized Congress’s constitutional
If the final offer is not adopted, the parties are free to
authority to intervene in rail labor disputes that threaten to
engage in self-help. The President then sends to Congress a
disrupt interstate commerce. Following a bargaining
report containing the BOI’s reports, the election results, and
impasse and strike threat that would have affected the entire
recommendations “for consideration and appropriate
country, Congress enacted a law that established an eight-
action.”
hour workday and temporarily regulated the wages for rail
carrier employees engaged in interstate and foreign
Not all labor disputes would have, in the opinion of past
commerce. The carriers challenged the law, arguing that
Presidents, “imperil[ed] the national health or safety.” For
Congress lacked the authority to enact it. The Court
example, former President Bill Clinton did not intervene in
determined, however, that Congress’s authority over rail
the 15-day UPS strike of 1997. When asked why he did not
carriers in interstate commerce was within its legislative
intervene, Clinton emphasized that there must be “severe
power to regulate commerce and “not subject to dispute.”
damage to the country” before the President is authorized to
The Court maintained that Congress has the ability to
intervene under Section 206. In contrast, former President
“guard against the cessation of interstate commerce” by
George W. Bush appointed a BOI when 29 Pacific Coast
responding legislatively to a failure of employers and
ports initiated a lockout against members of the
employees to agree on working conditions, such as a wage
International Longshore and Warehouse Union in 2002.
standard that was “an essential prerequisite to the
Bush cited concerns that the lockout was detrimental to the
uninterrupted flow of interstate commerce.”
economy and national security, as it impeded foreign trade
and had the potential to slow the movement of military
Although Congress has not enacted similar legislation to
supplies.
resolve a non-rail-labor dispute, New arguably suggests that
this kind of legislation would be permissible if a strike
Since its enactment, Presidents have intervened in labor
could disrupt interstate commerce. For example, UPS
disputes under Section 206 on 37 occasions. The following
reportedly handles one-quarter of all packages shipped
table shows when and how these disputes were resolved:
daily across the country. A strike, according to some
observers, would have disrupted the supply chain and
Figure 1. Results of Presidential Intervention Under
threatened the U.S. economy. Given the threat to interstate
Section 206 of the Taft-Hartley Act
commerce, it seems that Congress could have enacted
legislation establishing employment conditions for the
relevant UPS employees.
Furthermore, while Congress has not intervened historically
in labor disputes involving the appointment of BOIs,
legislation that would have amended the Taft-Hartley Act’s
national emergency provisions has been introduced in the
past. During the 114th Congress, Members of Congress
introduced the Protecting Orderly and Responsible Transit
of Shipments Act of 2015 (PORTS Act) (H.R. 3433/S.
1519) in response to work slowdowns and lockouts at U.S.
ports. The PORTS Act would have allowed a state or
territorial governor to appoint a BOI if the President did not
Source: CRS analysis in CRS Report 98-70 (archived) and Exec.
make such an appointment. The bill would have also
Order No. 13,275, 67 Fed. Reg. 62,869 (Oct. 7, 2002).
allowed for the appointment of a BOI if a work slowdown
Notes: This chart does not include two nationwide strikes: a strike
occurred that affected “an entire industry or a substantial
of maritime unions between June 3, 1948, and November 25, 1948,
part thereof engaged in trade, commerce, transportation,
transmission, or communication among the several States or
and a strike of steelworkers between July 15, 1959, and January 28,
1960. During these disputes, multiple separate unions were involved
with foreign nations....” Thus, the legislation would have
and reached resolutions at different stages of the President’s
allowed a BOI to be appointed even if there were no
intervention.
threatened or actual strike or lockout.
Considerations for Congress
Madeline W. Donley, Legislative Attorney
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution states
Jon O. Shimabukuro, Legislative Attorney
that the Congress shall have power “[t]o regulate
IF12474
Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several

https://crsreports.congress.gov

The UPS-Teamsters Labor Dispute and Taft-Hartley’s National Emergency Provisions

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF12474 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED