DOCSLIB.ORG

British Labour Movement Solidarity in the 1913-14 Dublin Lockout Darlington, RR

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
British Labour Movement Solidarity in the 1913-14 Dublin Lockout Darlington, RR British labour movement solidarity in the 1913-14 Dublin Lockout Darlington, RR http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0023656X.2016.1239872 Title British labour movement solidarity in the 1913-14 Dublin Lockout Authors Darlington, RR Type Article URL This version is available at: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/40169/ Published Date 2016 USIR is a digital collection of the research output of the University of Salford. Where copyright permits, full text material held in the repository is made freely available online and can be read, downloaded and copied for non-commercial private study or research purposes. Please check the manuscript for any further copyright restrictions. For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please contact the Repository Team at: [email protected]. British Labour Movement Solidarity in the 1913-14 Dublin Lockout Abstract While most accounts of the Dublin Lockout of 1913-14 consider it primarily as an event in Irish history, it was also one of the most important struggles in twentieth century British history. It was influenced by, and was an integral part of the great ‘labour unrest’ that swept over Britain in the years 1911 to 1914 and had tremendous repercussions in Britain as well as Ireland. This article provides much neglected analysis of the nature, extent and dynamics of the solidarity campaign that was generated on the British mainland for the Lockout (probably the only other comparable event was the national miners’ strike of 1984-5), the reasons why such widespread support was forthcoming, and its broader implications for understanding the strengths and weaknesses of militant trade unionism in Britain during this period. It provides a comprehensive re-examination of the historical record and offers a critical analysis of existing predominant historiographical interpretations of the dispute. In the process, the article provides new insights on the potential and limits of Jim Larkin’s campaign to secure sympathetic industrial action inside the British labour movement, the refusal of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) to support such an initiative, and the inability of rank-and-file and socialist militants to overcome the entrenched resistance of the official union leadership. The Dublin lockout of 1913-14 is the most important industrial struggle in Irish history. 25,000 workers were locked out of their place of employment by over 400 employers for refusing to sign an undertaking not to be a member of Jim Larkin’s Irish Transport and General Workers’ Union (ITGWU). It represented a concerted attempt to crush independent 1 and militant trade union organisation within Dublin. In the past, the ITGWU’s great strength had been working class solidarity whereby individual employers who found themselves in dispute with a group of workers having to confront the strength of the whole union via sympathetic strike action mobilised against them. The lockout effectively countered this, with working class solidarity now matched by employers’ solidarity as the union found itself plunged into a prolonged battle of attrition designed to bleed away its resources, both financial and moral. With inspirational defiance, courage and tenacity the Dublin workers, many of them casual labourers with the lowest wages and worst living standards in Western Europe, held out for nearly six months between 26 August 1913 and 18 January 1914 in a battle of epic proportions, before finally being driven back to work defeated. While most accounts of the Dublin Lockout consider it primarily as an event in Irish history, it was also one of the most important struggles in twentieth century British history. It was influenced by, and was an integral part of the great ‘labour unrest’ that swept over Britain in the years 1911 to 1914 and had tremendous repercussions in Britain as well as Ireland.1 While the embattled ITWU was stanchly nationalist, Ireland was still part of the ‘United Kingdom’ and the union regarded itself as part of the widespread movement of working class insurgency that was challenging employers, government and union officials in both countries. Larkin’s explicit attempt to spread the dispute into the heart of the British labour movement - via the appeal to take sympathetic industrial action in support of their Dublin counterparts by refusing to handle ‘tainted goods’ - served to underline its ramifications. If a victory for the Dublin workers might have shaken the resolve of employers throughout Britain, the defeat of the Dublin workers only gave them encouragement. 2 Yet rremarkably little detailed attention has been given to the nature, extent and dynamics of the solidarity campaign that was generated on the British mainland for the Lockout (probably the only other comparable event was the national miners’ strike of 1984- 5), the reasons why such widespread support was forthcoming, and its broader implications for understanding the strengths and weaknesses of militant trade unionism in Britain during this period. In an attempt to fill the gap, this article provides a comprehensive re- examination of the historical record (including Board of Trade Reports; Trades Union Congress (TUC) Reports; trade union archives; daily newspapers and the radical press), in the process foregrounding hitherto neglected aspects of the subject and deploying new archival findings to explore the potential and limits of Larkin’s campaign to secure sympathetic industrial action inside the British labour movement. Moreover it offers a critical analysis of existing predominant historiographical interpretations of the dispute presented by Padraig Yeates, Emmet O’Connor and others. These have claimed that Larkin’s lacerating personal attacks on individual British labour movement figures for their failure to organise sympathetic industrial action was a ‘fatal mistake’,2 and that the decision taken at a special Trades Unions Congress (TUC) conference to refuse to agree to mobilise official trade union support for such action should not be understood as a ‘betrayal’ of the Dublin strikers.3 The article utilises evidence to suggest that while it was the solidarity of the British labour movement that allowed the Dublin workers to survive for as long as they did, a crucial contributory factor explaining why they went down to defeat (apart from the fierce opposition mounted by the Dublin employers backed up by the police, judiciary and Catholic Church) was the TUC’s refusal to mobilise sympathetic industrial action in Britain. Such 3 sympathy action (in the context of the strike unrest of 1910–13 and momentum for a campaign of industrial unity between different sections) was by no means a completely unrealistic prospect, even though whether it would have ensured a different outcome to the dispute is unknowable. Larkin’s critique of British labour movement leaders must be understood within the context of his own direct experiences of trade union officialdom and his embrace of the syndicalist analysis of the limitations of union officialdom. Rank-and-file militants (and syndicalist and socialist activists generally) were too unorganised and uncoordinated to overcome the entrenched resistance of the official union leadership. This difficulty was compounded by the way Larkin’s solidarity appeal fell between the alternative stools of a pure ‘rank-and-filist’ approach from below on the one hand (that effectively dismissed the trade union ‘bureaucracy’ in favour of unofficial membership action) and a primary orientation on official union action from above on the other (that effectively placed reliance on the ‘bureaucracy’ to mobilise membership action), rather than being orientated on a potentially more dynamic unofficial/official interplay. Solidarity Generated The enormous extent of the British labour movement’s solidarity for the Dublin workers was expressed in a variety of ways. To begin with, there was the sheer level of financial assistance generated by the TUC and its affiliated unions, which apart from being of considerable moral comfort, was undoubtedly crucial in allowing the ITGWU to continue to fight over the long months of the Lockout. According to one estimate4 the British labour movement raised around £150,000, in today’s money that would be worth over £11 million. 4 Most funding was donations from the TUC and its affiliated unions. The Miners’ Federation of Great Britain annual conference agreed to contribute £1,000 a week, in total donating some £14,000, with additional donations from many local miners’ associations in Nottinghamshire, Wales and Scotland. The Amalgamated Society of Engineers donated nearly £4,000 and the National Union of Teachers contributed £1,000, with a great many other unions making single donations of £200-800. The Sheet Metal Workers’ Union imposed a two-shilling levy on members and the Co-operative Baking Society of Glasgow donated 900 loaves a week. The Merseyside Quay and Railway Carters’ Union – an organisation composed primarily of Liverpool Protestant workers in a city marked by sectarian divide – donated £500. In addition, trades councils and local union branches helped organise meetings and collections, with the London Trades Council donating £573 and Manchester and Salford Trades Council contributing £205. There were also generous financial donations made by the various different political strands within the British labour movement, such as the Independent Labour Party (ILP), the co-operative movement, and small societies, with the radical left press, in particular the Daily Herald, also
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The FLSA Final Overtime Rule ® Issue No.1|September 2016 Policies, Programs, Andservices
    Issue No. 1 | September 2016 ® The FLSA Final Overtime Rule A Resource Guide for Student Affairs Professionals Andrew Q. Morse and Holly M. Asimou OVERVIEW The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Final Overtime Rule has substantially increased the salary threshold for exemption from overtime pay. The effect of the Final Rule will be felt by colleges and universities nationwide; many employees will now be eligible for overtime pay unless their salaries are brought in line with the new $47,476 minimum salary threshold or their hours are confined to 40 hours in a given workweek. These changes, set to take effect December 1, 2016, occur at a time when many institutions face persistent budgetary pressure. Moreover, the Final Rule’s impact on new types of employees not traditionally eligible for overtime pay will create the compliance challenge of tracking irregular hours or discerning between work and nonwork activities for many employees. Leaders in student affairs are not only faced with the responsibility to comply with the (Volume 1, Issue 1) 1, Issue (Volume (Volume 1, Issue 1) 1, Issue (Volume Final Rule, but to also ensure the operational sustainability of their departments or divisions. This resource guide offers a tour through the Final Rule and existing overtime laws and regulations. Further, this guide provides considerations and cautions to support the compliance and management responsibilities of leaders in student affairs. NASPA Policy and Practice Series and Practice Policy NASPA NASPA Policy and Practice Series Series and Practice Policy NASPA 1 1 THE AUTHORS Andrew Q. Morse, PhD, is director for policy research and advocacy with NASPA–Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education’s Research and Policy Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • “Get Off Your Knees”: Mother Jones, James Connolly and Jim Larkin in the Fight for a Global Labour Movement—Rosemary Feurer
    “Get off Your Knees”: Mother Jones, James Connolly and Jim Larkin in the fight for a Global Labour Movement—Rosemary Feurer The following 1910 speech excerpt by Mother Jones fits her classic style. It’s a folk harangue of the money powers and their attempt to squeeze the life out of democracy and workers, paired with a deep faith in the ability of ordinary people to counter this power: “The education of this country is a farce. Children must memorize a lot of stuff about war and murder, but are taught absolutely nothing of the economic conditions under which they must work and live. This nation is but an oligarchy….controlled by the few. You can count on your fingers the men who have this country in their absolute grasp. They can precipitate a panic; they can scare or starve us all into submission. But they will not for long, according to my notion. For, although they give us sops whenever they think we are asserting a little independence, we will not always be fooled. Some day we will have the courage to rise up and strike back at these great 'giants' of industry, and then we will see that they weren't 'giant' after all—they only seemed so because we were on our knees and they towered above us. The Labor World October 29, 1910 Cleveland Ohio If we listen carefully, we will hear more than Mother Jones’ Cork inflection as we imagine her delivering this speech. The comment about rising from the knees to strike back is well-associated with the iconic anthem of the 1913 Dublin uprising and Jim Larkin.
    [Show full text]
  • GLOSSARY of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING TERMS and SELECTED LABOR TOPICS
    GLOSSARY of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING TERMS and SELECTED LABOR TOPICS ABEYANCE – The placement of a pending grievance (or motion) by mutual agreement of the parties, outside the specified time limits until a later date when it may be taken up and processed. ACTION - Direct action occurs when any group of union members engage in an action, such as a protest, that directly exposes a problem, or a possible solution to a contractual and/or societal issue. Union members engage in such actions to spotlight an injustice with the goal of correcting it. It further mobilizes the membership to work in concerted fashion for their own good and improvement. ACCRETION – The addition or consolidation of new employees or a new bargaining unit to or with an existing bargaining unit. ACROSS THE BOARD INCREASE - A general wage increase that covers all the members of a bargaining unit, regardless of classification, grade or step level. Such an increase may be in terms of a percentage or dollar amount. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE – An agent of the National Labor Relations Board or the public sector commission appointed to docket, hear, settle and decide unfair labor practice cases nationwide or statewide in the public sector. They also conduct and preside over formal hearings/trials on an unfair labor practice complaint or a representation case. AFL-CIO - The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations is the national federation of unions in the United States. It is made up of fifty-six national and international unions, together representing more than 12 million active and retired workers.
    [Show full text]
  • Second Part of 'The Class Struggle in Local Affairs'
    Second part of 'The Class Struggle in Local Affairs' - 13 - of the big obstacles to working-class activity in local affairs was the holding of Council meetings during the daytime. In Liverpool, when the local Council had in call a statutory Town's Heating of citizens to sanction the borrowing of money, the meeting would be arranged for 9.30 a.m. in a private house. But on e day in the l880's this cosy Council had a shock. A meeting had been called to sanction the building of a fever hospital. James Sexton, leader of the Liverpool dockers, tells the story in his autobiography: "A few of us went down to the docks, taking ray two lorries, to which we added two hired carts. These we loaded up with dockers who had failed to get work that morning, and drove in state to the meeting, to which we demanded admittance as ratepayers and burgesses. "The room in which it was being held might perhaps have accommn- -dated a gathering of twelve people, providing none of them was more than eight stone in weight. It was impossible for us to get in. The best we could do was to secure an adjournment to a more convenient place --the Town Hall - at a more convenient hour." The dockers attended the adjourned meeting, and said what they thought of the terrible housing conditions that had made a fever hospital so nece- -ssary. From that time the Liverpool Labour movement began to put up candidates for the municipal elections, though it was many years before they won a victory, The Socialists arrive In the 1870's the Trade Union movement was becoming interested in the idea of "Labour Representation" in Parliament, but this was not yet seen as "independent" representation (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Revolutionary Syndicalist Opposition to the First World War: A
    Re-evaluating syndicalist opposition to the First World War Darlington, RR http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0023656X.2012.731834 Title Re-evaluating syndicalist opposition to the First World War Authors Darlington, RR Type Article URL This version is available at: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/19226/ Published Date 2012 USIR is a digital collection of the research output of the University of Salford. Where copyright permits, full text material held in the repository is made freely available online and can be read, downloaded and copied for non-commercial private study or research purposes. Please check the manuscript for any further copyright restrictions. For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please contact the Repository Team at: [email protected]. Re-evaluating Syndicalist Opposition to the First World War Abstract It has been argued that support for the First World War by the important French syndicalist organisation, the Confédération Générale du Travail (CGT) has tended to obscure the fact that other national syndicalist organisations remained faithful to their professed workers’ internationalism: on this basis syndicalists beyond France, more than any other ideological persuasion within the organised trade union movement in immediate pre-war and wartime Europe, can be seen to have constituted an authentic movement of opposition to the war in their refusal to subordinate class interests to those of the state, to endorse policies of ‘defencism’ of the ‘national interest’ and to abandon the rhetoric of class conflict. This article, which attempts to contribute to a much neglected comparative historiography of the international syndicalist movement, re-evaluates the syndicalist response across a broad geographical field of canvas (embracing France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Britain and America) to reveal a rather more nuanced, ambiguous and uneven picture.
    [Show full text]
  • People, Place and Party:: the Social Democratic Federation 1884-1911
    Durham E-Theses People, place and party:: the social democratic federation 1884-1911 Young, David Murray How to cite: Young, David Murray (2003) People, place and party:: the social democratic federation 1884-1911, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3081/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk People, Place and Party: the Social Democratic Federation 1884-1911 David Murray Young A copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Durham Department of Politics August 2003 CONTENTS page Abstract ii Acknowledgements v Abbreviations vi Introduction 1 Chapter 1- SDF Membership in London 16 Chapter 2 -London
    [Show full text]
  • Right to Freedom of Association in the Workplace: Australia's Compliance with International Human Rights Law
    UCLA UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal Title The Right to Freedom of Association in the Workplace: Australia's Compliance with International Human Rights Law Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/98v0c0jj Journal UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal, 27(2) Author Hutchinson, Zoé Publication Date 2010 DOI 10.5070/P8272022218 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California ARTICLES THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION IN THE WORKPLACE: AUSTRALIA'S COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW Zoe Hutchinson BA LLB (Hons, 1st Class)* ABSTRACT The right to freedom of association in the workplace is a well- established norm of internationalhuman rights law. However, it has traditionally received insubstantial attention within human rights scholarship. This article situates the right to freedom of as- sociation at work within human rights discourses. It looks at the status, scope and importance of the right as it has evolved in inter- nationalhuman rights law. In so doing, a case is put that there are strong reasons for states to comply with the right to freedom of association not only in terms of internationalhuman rights obliga- tions but also from the perspective of human dignity in the context of an interconnected world. A detailed case study is offered that examines the right to free- dom of association in the Australian context. There has been a series of significant changes to Australian labor law in recent years. The Rudd-Gillard Labor government claimed that recent changes were to bring Australia into greater compliance with its obligations under internationallaw. This policy was presented to electors as in sharp contrast to the Work Choices legislation of the Howard Liberal-Nationalparty coalitiongovernment.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Conference on Labour
    REPORT OF THE second Jlnnual Conference OF THE LABOUR REPRESENTATION Co:tHITTEE HELD L TH'.E CENTRAL HALL CORPORATION STREET. BIRMINGHAM. On Thursday, February 20th, 1902, ~ o The Labour Representation Committee, 3, LI TCOL 'S I N FIELDS, LONDON, w.c. AC D J. RAMSAY MACDONALD, Secretary. 49 OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF THE LABOUR REPRESENTATION COMMITTEE, ELECTED 21ST FEBRUARY, 1902. Trade Unions, Chairman: R. BELL, M.P. Amalgamated Railway Servants. Vice-Chairman: J. HODGE Steelsmelters. Treasurer: F. ROGERS Vellum Binders. W. B. CHEESMAN, Fawcett Association I ALLE GEE, Textile Worker PETE CURRAN, Gasworkers J. SEXTON, Dock Labourers C. FREAK, Boot & Shoe Operatives I A. WILKIE, Shipwrights Trades Councils. WM. PICKLES - - Huddersfield Trades Council. Independent Labour Party J. KEIR HARDIE, M.P. I COUNCILLOR JAMES PARKER. Fabian Society. EDWARD R. PEASE: SECRETARY: J. RAMSAY MACDONALD, L.C.C., 3, LINCOLN'S INN FIELDS, LONDON, w.c 50 NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF DELEGATES ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE, TRADE UNIONS. SOCIETY. DELEGATE . Blastfurnacemen, National Federation ... P. Walls, Moss Bay, Workington. Bookbinders' ,,net Machine Rulers' Consolidatecl. Mat, hew Ri<liey, 5, Mulberry Street, Hulme, Man- U nion. chest er. James Kelly, 59, Grosvenor Street, C-on-:vf., Man­ chester. Baot and Shoe Operatives, National Union of ... C. Freak, 31, Al,ney Street, Leicester. Councillor J. F. Richards, 181, Belgrave Gate, Leicester W. B. Hornidge, r 2, Paton Street, Leicester. Brassworkers, National Amalgamated .. T- Ramsden, 70, Lionel S1reet, Birmingh:im. W. J. Davis, 70, Lionel Street, Birmingham. Brushmakers, Amalg!:l.mated Society of ... G. Freeman, 43, Wright Street, mall Heath, Birmingham. Builders' Labourers Union, United F.
    [Show full text]
  • The Employee Free Choice Act: the Biggest Change in Labor Law in 60 Years by Robert Quinn and John Leschak
    LABOR LAW REGIONAL LABOR REVIEW, Fall 2009 The Employee Free Choice Act: The Biggest Change in Labor Law in 60 Years by Robert Quinn and John Leschak One of the most contentious proposals of the 2008 Presidential campaign and of the current Congressional season in Washington is the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Supported by President Obama and opposed by Senator John McCain and most other Republicans, EFCA would be the most significant change to federal labor law in over sixty years. First, EFCA would allow the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) to certify a union without an election if a majority of workers voluntarily sign cards authorizing a union to represent them (this provision is also known as “card check”). Second, EFCA would impose new penalties on employers who violate workers’ rights during initial organizing campaigns. And third, EFCA would permit bargaining disputes between an employer and union to be decided by arbitration during first-time contract negotiations. However, several powerful groups are opposed to any change. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has launched a vociferous campaign against EFCA’s “Card Check” provision, which they claim will lead to intimidation and coercion in the workplace.1 Congressional Republicans have also been outspoken opponents of card check. Last February, Republican Senators Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Mike Enzi (Wyo.) introduced the Secret Ballot Protection Act, S. 478. This bill would make it illegal for an employer to voluntarily recognize a union through card check and would require NLRB elections. While many are opposed to EFCA, it cannot be denied that reform is needed.
    [Show full text]
  • Marx and the Politics of the First'international
    This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries] On: 07 September 2014, At: 15:14 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Socialism and Democracy Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csad20 Marx and the Politics of the First International George C. Comninel Published online: 08 Aug 2014. To cite this article: George C. Comninel (2014) Marx and the Politics of the First International, Socialism and Democracy, 28:2, 59-82, DOI: 10.1080/08854300.2014.918451 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2014.918451 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
    [Show full text]
  • Trade-Union Policy Between the Wars the Case of Holidays with Pay in Britain*
    STEPHEN G. JONES TRADE-UNION POLICY BETWEEN THE WARS THE CASE OF HOLIDAYS WITH PAY IN BRITAIN* Most standard histories of Britain between the wars refer to the develop- ment of holidays with pay, albeit briefly. It is widely acknowledged that by the end of the 1930's the majority of the British working population benefited from a paid holiday. The crucial initiative, so it is claimed, was the Holidays with Pay Act of 1938, which gave Parliamentary approval to the principle of payment of wages during holidays.1 Clearly the growth of paid holidays is seen as yet another instance of a more affluent Britain, an integral element of the growth of leisure.2 However, there has been very little detailed discussion of the paid-holiday-policy option and the precise reasons for the formulation and implementation of that policy. This neglect is rather surprising given the popular support for this "fringe benefit", which was perceived as providing a certain degree of financial security during the annual break from the rigours of work. It is true that there has been more specialised treatment, but even this is of a general nature, with little reference to the industrial and political struggle for holidays with pay.3 * I would like to thank Dr M. E. Rose, Professor A. E. Musson and members of the Editorial Board for their helpful comments. 1 See C. L. Mowat, Britain Between the Wars 1918-1940 (London, 1955), p. 501; D. H. Aldcroft, The Inter-War Economy: Britain, 1919-1939 (London, 1970), p. 366; N. Branson and M.
    [Show full text]
  • Single-Employer and Multi-Employer Lockouts Under the Taft-Hartley
    SINGLE EMPLOYER AND MULTI-EMPLOYER LOCK- OUTS UNDER THE TAFT-HARTLEY ACT BERNARD D. MELTZER* P HE growth of multi-employer bargaining' has been accompanied by increased litigation regarding the legality of the so-called multi-employ- . er "defensive" lockout, i.e., a lockout by the unstruck members of a multi-employer bargaining unit, who are subject to an express or implied strike threat, in response to a strike called against one or more members of their group after an impasse in negotiations for a master contract. Although such a lockout may raise anti-trust questions, 2 as well as questions under the Taft- Hartley Act, recent litigation has arisen exclusively under the Taft-Hartley Act. This litigation has made only one thing clear: The NLRB, according to the reviewing courts, is always wrong. Thus the initial position taken by a majority of the Board (pre-Eisenhower), that defensive lockouts are illegal under the Taft-Hartley Act, was rejected by the courts of appeals in three circuits. 3 A new * Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School. xFor estimates of the number of employees involved consult Collective Bargaining with Associations and Groups of Employers, 64 Monthly Lab. Rev. 397,398 (1947); Collective Bar- gaining Structures: The Employer Bargaining Unit, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1953). The former is discussed in Pierson, Prospects for Industry-Wide Bargaining, 3 Indust. & Lab. Rel. Rev. 341, 360 (1950). 2The author plans to discuss these questions in a forthcoming issue of this Review. 3Morand Bros. Beverage Co. v. NLRB, 190 F. 2d 576 (C.A.
    [Show full text]