## Facts

- Eight linen supply companies in the Buffalo, New York area bargained with Truck Drivers Local 449 through a multiemployer association, the Linen and Credit Exchange, for about 13 years.
- A collective bargaining agreement was set to expire April 30, 1953; negotiations for a successor agreement continued after expiration.
- On May 26, 1953, the union struck and picketed only one association member, Frontier Linen Supply, Inc., as a whipsaw tactic.
- On May 27, 1953, the other seven employers temporarily locked out their truck-driver employees, stating the lockout was due to the Frontier strike and that drivers would be recalled if the strike and picketing ended.
- Negotiations continued during the lockout.
- About a week later, the parties reached a new agreement; the Frontier strike ended; locked-out drivers were recalled and operations resumed.
- The union filed unfair labor practice charges alleging the lockout violated NLRA § 8(a)(1) and § 8(a)(3).

## Issues

1. Whether non-struck members of a multiemployer bargaining association commit an unfair labor practice under NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) by temporarily locking out employees during negotiations as a defensive response to a union whipsaw strike threatening multiemployer bargaining.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit and reinstated the NLRB’s order.
- The Court held that, on these facts, the NLRB reasonably concluded the temporary lockout was a lawful defensive measure and did not violate §§ 8(a)(1) or 8(a)(3).
- The Court emphasized the lockout was aimed at preserving the multiemployer bargaining structure threatened by the whipsaw strike, not at retaliating against protected activity.
- The decision was unanimous (8–0); Justice Whittaker did not participate.

## Legal Principles

- The NLRA does not make lockouts unlawful per se; neither the statutory text nor the Wagner Act history shows an intent to categorically prohibit lockouts.
- Taft–Hartley’s repeated, unqualified use of “lockout” reflects statutory recognition that lockouts may be lawful in some circumstances as an economic weapon.
- Employers in a multiemployer bargaining unit may use a temporary, defensive lockout to counter a whipsaw strike that threatens to dismantle group bargaining.
- Congress left to the NLRB substantial authority to address recurring questions about multiemployer bargaining, including balancing conflicting legitimate interests in line with national labor policy, subject to limited judicial review.
- The statutory protection of the right to strike is not absolute; employers may engage in limited self-help when legitimate employer and employee interests conflict, as evaluated by the Board.

## Conclusion

A temporary lockout by non-struck members of a multiemployer bargaining group, used defensively to preserve group bargaining in response to a whipsaw strike against one member, can be lawful under the NLRA and need not constitute an unfair labor practice under §§ 8(a)(1) or 8(a)(3).


NLRB v. Truck Drivers Loc. 449 (Buffalo Linen), 353 U.S. 87 (1957)