The applicant union filed a complaint alleging that the respondent employer effected an unlawful lock-out by closing its restaurant shortly after a certification application was filed and representation vote arrangements were made.
The Board found that while the closure involved a withholding of work opportunities, the union failed to prove the specific subjective intent required to constitute a lock-out—namely, the intention to preserve the employment relationship on different terms or to compel employees to refrain from exercising statutory rights.
As the necessary intent was not established, the complaint was dismissed.
