National Labor Relations Board v. Truck Drivers Local Union No. 449
1957 U.S. LEXIS 1629, 353 U.S. 87, 1 L. Ed. 2d 676 (1957)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a multi-employer bargaining unit, non-struck employers may lawfully use a temporary lockout as a defensive measure against a union's 'whipsaw' strike against one member, as it is a legitimate means of preserving the integrity and solidarity of the bargaining unit.
Facts:
- The Linen and Credit Exchange, an association of eight employers in the linen supply business, had a 13-year history of negotiating collective bargaining agreements with the respondent Union on a multi-employer basis.
- During negotiations for a new contract in 1953, the parties failed to reach an agreement before the existing contract expired.
- On May 26, 1953, the Union engaged in a 'whipsawing' tactic by striking and picketing only one of the eight members of the Exchange, Frontier Linen Supply, Inc.
- The following day, the remaining seven members of the Exchange temporarily laid off their truck drivers.
- The seven employers notified the Union that the lockout was in response to the strike against Frontier and that the employees would be recalled if the Union ended its strike.
- Negotiations between the Union and the Exchange continued, and approximately one week later, a new agreement was reached and signed by all parties.
- Following the new agreement, the strike at Frontier ended, the locked-out drivers were recalled, and normal operations resumed at all eight companies.
Procedural Posture:
- The Union filed an unfair labor practice charge against the seven employers with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- An NLRB trial examiner found the employers guilty of the unfair labor practice charge.
- The full National Labor Relations Board reversed the trial examiner, ruling that the employers' temporary lockout was a defensive and privileged action.
- The Union appealed the NLRB's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRB's decision, holding that the lockout was an unfair labor practice.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a temporary lockout by non-struck members of a multi-employer bargaining association, in response to a union's whipsaw strike against one member, constitute an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
No. A temporary lockout by non-struck members of a multi-employer bargaining association in response to a union's whipsaw strike against one member does not constitute an unfair labor practice. The National Labor Relations Act does not make lockouts unlawful per se and recognizes them as a legitimate economic weapon for employers. The ultimate problem is balancing the conflicting legitimate interests of employers and employees. While employees have a protected right to strike, employers have a legitimate interest in preserving the multi-employer bargaining unit, which is threatened by the divisive pressure of a whipsaw strike. The National Labor Relations Board correctly balanced these interests by concluding that the employers' defensive lockout was privileged because it was necessary to preserve the integrity of the employer association, rather than being motivated by antiunion sentiment. The Court of Appeals erred in limiting permissible lockouts to only those justified by unusual economic hardship.
Analysis:
This decision, commonly known as the Buffalo Linen case, affirmed the legality of defensive lockouts and solidified the multi-employer bargaining unit as a durable structure in labor relations. It established that preserving the integrity of the employer group against a divisive union tactic like a whipsaw strike is a substantial business justification for a lockout. This ruling provides employer associations with a crucial economic weapon to counter union pressure, thereby leveling the bargaining power. The decision reinforces the National Labor Relations Board's primary role in balancing the competing economic interests of labor and management to effectuate national labor policy.
