Skip to main content

Local 702, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. National Labor Relations Board

D.C. CircuitMay 9, 2000No. Nos. 99-1137, 99-1139Cited 19 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Garland, Henderson, Randolph
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The court affirmed the NLRB's decision that Central Illinois Public Service Company's lockout of employees during contract negotiations did not violate Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, finding the lockout was motivated by legitimate business justifications rather than anti-union animus.

What This Ruling Means

**Court Rules Company Can Lock Out Workers During Contract Talks** This case involved a dispute between Local 702 electrical workers union and their employer, Central Illinois Public Service Company. During contract negotiations, the company locked out its unionized employees, preventing them from working. The union filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), claiming the lockout violated federal labor law by illegally discriminating against workers for their union activities. The court sided with the company and upheld the NLRB's decision. The judges found that the employer's lockout was legally justified because it was based on legitimate business reasons during the contract negotiation process, not because the company was trying to punish workers for being in a union or discourage union membership. **What this means for workers:** Employers can legally lock out unionized employees during contract negotiations if they have valid business reasons for doing so. This gives companies significant leverage during labor disputes. However, employers cannot use lockouts simply to retaliate against workers for union activities. Workers should understand that lockouts are a legal tactic employers can use, but any lockout must be motivated by business considerations rather than anti-union hostility.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 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.