Opinion ID: 757588
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lockout

Text: 88 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. 89 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 that employer violates neither § 8(a)(1) nor § 8(a)(3) 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). A lockout can, however, be unlawful if it is implemented out of hostility to the process of collective bargaining. See id. at 309, 85 S.Ct. 955. 90 Horsehead claims it resorted to a lockout to avoid further sabotage to its plant. The only incident of alleged sabotage before the lockout, however, was the burning of the trailer. In that situation, arson was not definitively proven, nor was it determined that union members had set the fire. According to negotiation notes from the time of the fire, Horsehead management discussed the possibility that people from Clymersville were involved. Horsehead management also declined to question any of the union members who were on duty at the time of the fire. The other alleged incidents of sabotage--the cutting of the conveyor belt, the jamming of the recycling pipelines, and the like--were discovered after the lockout began. Horsehead may have had a legitimate fear of sabotage, but, in light of the Board's finding of bad-faith bargaining, I agree with the Board that the lockout was a product of this bargaining and therefore unlawful.