Download
1 / 3
30 likes | 216 Vues
American Ship Building. An “offensive” lockout is initiated by the employer in order to put economic pressure on the union during negotiations An “offensive lockout” not a per se violation of 8(a)(1)-(3) no discrimination - all ees locked out
E N D
American Ship Building • An “offensive” lockout is initiated by the employer in order to put economic pressure on the union during negotiations • An “offensive lockout” not a per se violation of 8(a)(1)-(3) • no discrimination - all ees locked out • counter - ees could work if they were not engaged in CB • no intent to discourage union activity • no interference with right to strike • effects timing, not occurrence of work stoppage • Board may not take away a weapon from a party based on “bargaining power,” per se
Lockouts and Replacements • Permanent replacements always unlawful • Temporary Replacements • defensive lockout - lawful • offensive lockout - lawful where there is no antiunion animus • 8th Cir. (Intercollegiate Press, 1973) • Board • Harter Equipment, 1986 • CII Carbon, LLC, 2000 • Legality of permanent subcontracting during a lockout unclear • Bd- illegal • DC Cir., legal if first addressed in bargaining
Impasse • Irreconcilable differences after good faith negotiations • Parties may use protected economic weapons at impasse • Strikes and Lockouts • Replacements • Employer may implement final pre-impasse proposal • Rationale: to create movement in bargaining
