NLRB v. Buffalo Linen Supply Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1957 · Labor Law

Labor LawMulti-employer bargainingLockoutsUnfair labor practicesNLRBtemporary lockoutwhipsaw strikemulti-employer bargaining

Facts

Eight linen supply employers in the Buffalo area had bargained with the union on a multi-employer basis for about 13 years. While negotiations for a new contract were continuing after the old agreement expired, the union began a whipsaw strike by striking and picketing one employer, Frontier Linen Supply, Inc. The next day, the other seven employers laid off their truck drivers, told the union the action was because of the Frontier strike, and said the drivers would be recalled if the strike and picketing ended. Negotiations continued, a new contract was reached within a week, the strike ended, the laid-off drivers were recalled, and the union then charged the seven employers with violating Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3).

Issue

Whether non-struck members of a multi-employer bargaining association commit an unfair labor practice by temporarily locking out their employees during negotiations as a defense to a union strike against one member that threatens the employers' common interest in bargaining on a group basis.

Rule

The Act does not make lockouts unlawful per se. In circumstances where a union's whipsaw strike threatens the destruction or disintegration of a multi-employer bargaining unit, the Board may lawfully conclude that a temporary, defensive lockout by the non-struck employers to preserve the group bargaining structure is not an unfair labor practice, even absent a showing of unusual economic hardship.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Six family-owned bakery distributors in Columbus, Ohio, have bargained for years through the Central Ohio Bread Employers Council with Drivers Local 214. During negotiations for a new contract after the old one expires, the union strikes only one council member and pickets that warehouse while continuing to bargain with the council; the other five employers immediately shut down delivery operations, tell the union the shutdown will end when the strike and picketing stop, and resume work three days later after a contract is reached.

Which is the strongest assessment of the five employers' shutdown under the National Labor Relations Act as construed by the Supreme Court?

Explanation. The Court held that lockouts are not unlawful per se and that the Board may treat a temporary lockout by non-struck members of a multi-employer unit as lawful when used defensively to preserve group bargaining from disintegration threatened by a whipsaw strike. The Court specifically rejected the idea that unusual economic hardship is a necessary condition. An implicit threat of successive strikes can suffice; no express union announcement is required.