(3 of 3)
Was this an unfair labor tactic? Yes, said the NLRB, because the lockout forced the unions to abandon their wage demands. Moreover, it was so timed that it nullified the unions' strike power during the company's most vulnerable period. The court sharply disagreed. The company showed no antiunion bias, said Justice Potter Stewart for the unanimous bench. Rather, it legally used the "bargaining lockout" as a corollary of the "bargaining strike." Lockouts may disrupt strike plans, but the right to strike does not include "the right exclusively to determine the timing and duration of all work stoppages. The right to strike, as commonly understood, is the right to cease work—nothing more." An employer does not violate the law if, during an impasse, "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."
*The King James version: "The Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart."