>

Loss of revenue is not really the same as material damage, though.  There's a difference between your line cooks leaving in the middle of their shift and costing the company all the revenue from unserved customers, versus leaving all the raw hamburgers out to rot in the middle of the kitchen, for example.
Regardless, in any sane world, if you had a group of employees who did this same thing absent it being a strike, the company would have to pursue remediation against each one individually.  Suing the union is just the company trying to reach into deeper pockets.
Of course they would. This is the perfect opportunity for them to effectively outlaw strikes without a single piece of legislation. >


Of course they would.

The Masons like everything built with concrete: 
roads, buildings, statutes, and the brains of the conservative majority of the SCOTUS. >


When truck drivers walked off the job, the company says some of the concrete already in the process of being delivered was rendered useless. Drivers returned trucks to the company’s facility, some of which had partial or full loads on board. As a result of the strike, concrete hardened in the trucks and had to be broken up before it could be removed, the company says.

Let's use a different example.
Let's say you work at McDonald's as a line cook. In the middle of a shift, you're going to strike for better wages. So, you walk out. You don't take anything with you - you leave all the company property where it is. But... you were in the middle of cooking some burgers. And now, those burgers are burned and unusable.
This case is McDonald's suing the line-workers union for burger damages.
On the surface - I don't see how the union is responsible at all for anything here. Generally speaking - employees are not held responsible for carelessness in the execution of their duties. You can fire them for the carelessness - but you can't sue them for damages and win.
Allowing that would open the door for employers to sue individual employees over basic spillage during the course of business. Which would be disastrous to the economy. Imagine a bartender getting sued by a bar for dropping a bottle of Absolut during a shift.
If SCOTUS overturns Washington's decision - it's going to be a bad road for workers. >

The only difference is employees can be held liable for damages if the carelessness was intentional, which is what the company is arguing in this case.  If the workers planned on striking at a time where it would cause damages to the company, then the company can argue that they are liable.
I don't see how in any world the UNION can be held responsible, though.  They should be forced to pursue the damages individually against the employees. >

Name a job where you can schedule a strike that doesn't cause damage to the company. The entire point of a strike is to inflict lost revenue through the cessation of regular business, and to show the owners how much they actually need their laborers to get anything done.