Background
During negotiations for a successor collective bargaining agreement, Union members rejected Macy’s Final Offer and struck. After three months, the Union ended the strike and unconditionally offered to return to work. Macy’s locked out the employees who reported for work without presenting a timely, clear, and complete offer setting forth conditions necessary to avoid the lockout. The National Labor Relations Board found this violated the National Labor Relations Act.
The court’s reasoning
The panel held that the Union was a person aggrieved and had jurisdiction. It rejected Macy’s argument that the lockout was lawful, finding no legitimate and substantial business justification. Applying the standard from Dayton Newspapers, the panel found substantial evidence that employees were not clearly informed of conditions needed for reinstatement. The Board’s remedial order, including make-whole relief for foreseeable damages, was enforced as not an abuse of discretion.
The panel concluded that the lockout was not justified.
Opinion by Judge Wallach
The dissent
The Board had no authority to order the type of monetary relief it did, requiring Macy’s to pay foreseeable or consequential damages.
Patrick J. Bumatay
What it means going forward
Employers must ensure any conditions for ending a lockout are communicated clearly and completely to employees before the lockout is enforced, or they risk violating the National Labor Relations Act and facing make-whole remedies.