380 U.S. 300 (1965) Cited 351 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a lockout "for the sole purpose of bringing economic pressure to bear in support of [the employer's] legitimate bargaining position" is lawful
In United Steelworkers, the Court warned that the NLRA "does not command that labor organizations as a matter of abstract law, under all circumstances, be protected in the use of every possible means of reaching the minds of individual workers, nor that they are entitled to use a medium of communication simply because the employer is using it."
In Pembeck, decided after Better Val-U Stores, Judge Hays again dissented, pointing out that neither Flomatic nor Val-U Stores had reached to ยง 8(a)(5) cases and urging that the "flagrant violation" standard not be extended to such cases.