Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): in the most nefarious negotiating tactics possible, force a lockout to put pressure on the employees, and then attempt to clean up-fhe mess with good-faith, post-lockout bargaining. Horsehead cannot retroactively “cure” its prior negotiating tactics with post-lockout bargaining, and evidence regarding these activities has no relevance to pre-lockout activities. B. Lockout Because the majority determined that Horsehead did not bargain in bad faith, it found that the lockout was lawful. I contend that there was substantial evidence to support a finding that Horsehead engaged in bad-faith bargaining, and I believe the lockout was an outgrowth of this activity. Lockouts are. not per se unlawful. See American Ship Bldg. Co. v. NLRB, 380 U.S. 300, 318, 85 S.Ct. 955, 13 L.Ed.2d 855 (1965) (<HOLDING>). A lockout can, however, be unlawful if it is 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where the bargaining unit remains unchanged and a majority of the employees hired by the new employer are represented by a recently certified bargaining agent the successor employer must bargain with the incumbent union (B) holding a lockout unlawful when utilized to enable the employer to implement its own bargaining position without  genuine impasse (C) holding that employer violates neither  8a1 nor  8a3 when after a bargaining impasse has been reached he temporarily shuts down his plant and lays off his employees for the sole purpose of bringing economic pressure to bear in support of his legitimate bargaining position (D) holding that an employee is guilty of misconduct connected with his work when he deliberately violates a company rule reasonably designed to protect the legitimate business interests of his employer or when his acts or omissions are of such a nature or so recurrent as to manifest a willful disregard of those interests and the duties and obligations he owes his employer (E) holding that petitioners remedy under title vii of the civil rights act was in addition to remedies available under the collective bargaining agreement in force between his employer and his union
Output (English): holding that petitioners remedy under title vii of the civil rights act was in addition to remedies available under the collective bargaining agreement in force between his employer and his union