Court Opinion

ID: 9646908
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:16:01.558042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:43.598528
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Barry:
The majority has ruled that the employers failure to accept the unions offer to return to work under the terms and conditions of the old agreement constituted a *324lockout. I would agree with the majority that, if the employer had failed to accept the unions offer, a lockout would have occurred. The majority correctly points out that a strike can be converted into a lockout. Similarly, a lockout can be converted to a strike. Although I agree that the employers failure to respond promptly to the unions offer of August 4, 1983, to return to work can be construed as a failure to accept the unions offer, the employers eventual response, as evidenced by its letter of September 9th, was an unequivocal and properly-worded acceptance as a matter of law. The employers act of referring, in its acceptance letter, to its right to make unilateral changes after a reasonable period of time did not vitiate its acceptance. An employer is free to make unilateral changes in the status quo following a reasonable period of time after employees return to work under an old agreement and bargaining has reached an impasse provided that the employer has negotiated in good faith up to that point. Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America v. National Labor Relations Board, 320 F.2d 615, 619-20 (C.A. 3 1963), cert. denied, sub nom Bethlehem Steel Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 375 U.S. 984, 84 S.Ct. 516 (1964); National Labor Relations Board v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736, 82 S.Ct. 1107 (1962).
I would grant benefits for the period from August 4 to September 9 and deny benefits thereafter.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent.