The applicant union filed a complaint alleging that the respondent Board of Education engaged in an unlawful lock-out when it laid off all four plumbers in the bargaining unit without explanation and sub-contracted their work.
The respondent moved for a non-suit, arguing there was no evidence of a lock-out or of a motive to compel or induce employees to refrain from exercising their rights.
The Board rejected the non-suit motion, finding that in the context of a disputed bargaining relationship, the unexplained lay-off was intended to send a message to the employees to change their union's bargaining position.
As the respondent elected not to call evidence, the Board drew an adverse inference and declared the lay-off an unlawful lock-out.
