The Ninth Circuit enforced the NLRB's finding that Macy's committed an unfair labor practice by locking out union members without clear conditions for reinstatement. The court denied both the union's petition for additional extraordinary remedies and Macy's petition for reversal, but upheld the Board's make-whole relief framework including direct and foreseeable pecuniary damages from the unlawful lockout.
National Labor Relations Board v. Macy's Inc.
What Happened
Macy's locked out union members—preventing them from working—without clearly explaining when or how they could return to their jobs. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a federal agency that protects worker rights, determined this was illegal retaliation against the employees for their union activities.
What the Court Decided
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the NLRB. The court upheld the agency's decision that Macy's violated federal labor law. While the court rejected some requests from both sides for additional penalties or complete reversal, it confirmed that Macy's must provide "make-whole relief"—meaning the company must compensate workers for lost wages and other financial harm directly caused by the unlawful lockout.
Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling reinforces that employers cannot use lockouts as a way to punish union members without following proper procedures. Workers who are locked out have legal protection and can receive compensation for lost income. The decision strengthens worker rights by holding large employers accountable for unlawful labor practices.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in National Labor Relations Board v. MacY's Inc. from the same court.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.