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

On August 22, 2023, United Parcel Service (UPS) package

delivery drivers and warehouse logistics workers, who are

represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,

voted to ratify a new five-year collective bargaining

agreement. The new contract averts a strike that could have

threatened the national economy. The ratification solidifies

a tentative agreement that was reached by the parties on

July 25, 2023. Prior to the tentative agreement, negotiations

between the parties were at a standstill, and a strike seemed

more likely. While a UPS strike in this instance has been

avoided, similar labor disputes of congressional interest

may arise in the future.

The Labor Management Relations Act, popularly known as

the Taft-Hartley Act, establishes a framework for

addressing serious labor disputes outside of the rail and air

industries. Although Congress has enacted legislation in the

past to resolve rail labor disputes that are governed by the

Railway Labor Act, it has never intervened in a labor

dispute subject to the Taft-Hartley Act’s national

emergency provisions. (For additional information on

congressional intervention in rail labor disputes, see CRS

Legal Sidebar LSB10861, The Railway Labor Act and

Congressional Action.) This In Focus provides background

on the UPS-Teamsters dispute and explains legally

available options for the executive and legislative branches

to intervene in labor disputes governed by the Taft-Hartley

Act.

Background

UPS and the Teamsters began negotiations on a new fiveyear collective bargaining agreement on April 17, 2023.

The Teamsters sought not only higher wages and more fulltime positions in the new agreement but also an end to

compulsory overtime and greater heat safety in UPS’s

delivery vehicles. As the parties’ negotiations stalled,

UPS’s drivers and warehouse logistics workers voted to

authorize a strike if an agreement was not reached before

the existing contract expired on July 31, 2023.

Under the new agreement, current full- and part-time UPS

employees represented by the union are to receive $2.75

more per hour in 2023 and $7.50 more per hour over the

contract’s duration. In addition, the minimum hourly wage

for part-time employees is to increase to $21, above the

prior minimum starting wage of $16.20. The average top

hourly wage for full-time delivery drivers is to increase to

$49, above the current average wage of $42. Drivers are not

to be subject to compulsory overtime on their days off, and

all employees are to receive Martin Luther King Jr. Day as

a holiday for the first time. Air conditioning is to be

required in all larger delivery vehicles, sprinter vans, and

package cars purchased after January 1, 2024.

As of the date of this In Focus, UPS and the Teamsters have

been enthusiastic about the new agreement. UPS’s chief

executive described the agreement as a “win-win-win

agreement on the issues that are important to Teamsters

leadership, our employees and to UPS and our customers.”

The Teamsters president contended that the agreement “sets

a new standard in the labor movement and raises the bar for

all workers.”

Legal Framework for Federal

Intervention

In the event of a nationally disruptive labor dispute, the

federal government has the ability to intervene. Section 206

of the Taft-Hartley Act, found at 29 U.S.C. § 176,

authorizes the President to step in if the parties to a labor

dispute fail to reach agreement and the following conditions

are met:

1. There is “a threatened or actual strike or

lockout;”

2. The strike or lockout affects all or a

substantial part of an industry

participating in “trade, commerce,

transportation, transmission, or

communication among the several States

or with foreign nations;” and

3. It is the President’s opinion that allowing

the strike or lockout to occur or continue

would “imperil the national health or

safety.”

If these conditions are met, the President may appoint a

board of inquiry (BOI) to write a report on the facts of the

labor dispute. After receiving the BOI’s report, the

President may direct the Attorney General to petition a

federal district court to enjoin the strike or lockout. If

granted, the injunction starts an 80-day “cooling off”

period, during which the parties are required by statute to

“make every effort to adjust and settle their differences.” If

there is no agreement within 60 days following the start of

the injunction, the BOI provides the President with a report

on the parties’ stances. Between 60 and 75 days, the

employer makes a final offer, and the National Labor

Relations Board (NLRB) holds an election for employees to

vote on whether or not to adopt the offer. The NLRB

certifies the results of the ballot to the Attorney General,

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

employer’s final offer, then the dispute has been resolved.

If the final offer is not adopted, the parties are free to

engage in self-help. The President then sends to Congress a

report containing the BOI’s reports, the election results, and

recommendations “for consideration and appropriate

action.”

Not all labor disputes would have, in the opinion of past

Presidents, “imperil[ed] the national health or safety.” For

example, former President Bill Clinton did not intervene in

the 15-day UPS strike of 1997. When asked why he did not

intervene, Clinton emphasized that there must be “severe

damage to the country” before the President is authorized to

intervene under Section 206. In contrast, former President

George W. Bush appointed a BOI when 29 Pacific Coast

ports initiated a lockout against members of the

International Longshore and Warehouse Union in 2002.

Bush cited concerns that the lockout was detrimental to the

economy and national security, as it impeded foreign trade

and had the potential to slow the movement of military

supplies.

Since its enactment, Presidents have intervened in labor

disputes under Section 206 on 37 occasions. The following

table shows when and how these disputes were resolved:

Figure 1. Results of Presidential Intervention Under

Section 206 of the Taft-Hartley Act

Source: CRS analysis in CRS Report 98-70 (archived) and Exec.

Order No. 13,275, 67 Fed. Reg. 62,869 (Oct. 7, 2002).

Notes: This chart does not include two nationwide strikes: a strike

of maritime unions between June 3, 1948, and November 25, 1948,

and a strike of steelworkers between July 15, 1959, and January 28,

1960. During these disputes, multiple separate unions were involved

and reached resolutions at different stages of the President’s

intervention.

Considerations for Congress

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution states

that the Congress shall have power “[t]o regulate

Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several

States, and with the Indian Tribes[.]” In Wilson v. New, the

Supreme Court recognized Congress’s constitutional

authority to intervene in rail labor disputes that threaten to

disrupt interstate commerce. Following a bargaining

impasse and strike threat that would have affected the entire

country, Congress enacted a law that established an eighthour workday and temporarily regulated the wages for rail

carrier employees engaged in interstate and foreign

commerce. The carriers challenged the law, arguing that

Congress lacked the authority to enact it. The Court

determined, however, that Congress’s authority over rail

carriers in interstate commerce was within its legislative

power to regulate commerce and “not subject to dispute.”

The Court maintained that Congress has the ability to

“guard against the cessation of interstate commerce” by

responding legislatively to a failure of employers and

employees to agree on working conditions, such as a wage

standard that was “an essential prerequisite to the

uninterrupted flow of interstate commerce.”

Although Congress has not enacted similar legislation to

resolve a non-rail-labor dispute, New arguably suggests that

this kind of legislation would be permissible if a strike

could disrupt interstate commerce. For example, UPS

reportedly handles one-quarter of all packages shipped

daily across the country. A strike, according to some

observers, would have disrupted the supply chain and

threatened the U.S. economy. Given the threat to interstate

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

make such an appointment. The bill would have also

allowed for the appointment of a BOI if a work slowdown

occurred that affected “an entire industry or a substantial

part thereof engaged in trade, commerce, transportation,

transmission, or communication among the several States or

with foreign nations....” Thus, the legislation would have

allowed a BOI to be appointed even if there were no

threatened or actual strike or lockout.

Madeline W. Donley, Legislative Attorney

Jon O. Shimabukuro, Legislative Attorney

https://crsreports.congress.gov

IF12474

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