By Richard Hankins, Kilpatrick Stockton Labor Attorney

In a guest column published today by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, I suggested that the mandatory arbitration provisions of the Employee Free Choice Act could lead to employers engaging in “offensive lockouts” to try to force a contract settlement before an arbitrator has the opportunity to do so. I’m not sure what the rules are on quoting oneself in a blog, so I’ll just give you the link to the article, which the AJC titled: "Labor move could backfire — on workers."

Lockouts are ugly things, as can be seen from the excellent coverage by The Oxford (Ohio) Press’ outstanding coverage of a year-long lockout by Middletown, Ohio, AK Steel, which was tentatively settled earlier this week. The newspaper reports that there were victories on both sides, which it described as follows:

The biggest wins for the union include:

• Securing the multi-employer pension plan.
• Having the ability to formally object to disciplinary actions — or grieve — during the six month return-to-work period.
• Obtaining lower costs for health care.
• Guaranteed 40-hour work weeks.

For the company, doing more with less has been an integral part of its negotiations. As a result, AK:

• Secured the ability to contract out certain work
• Will form a committee that will be charged with studying the most effective and efficient contracting out methods.
• Has reduced hundreds of job classes to seven each under one of five pay grades.

Additional reading from the Oxford Press:

Timeline of lockout at AK Steel Corp.

Don't celebrate end of lockout yet; consider the cost of the past year

Southern California residents will also remember that a number of major grocery stores locked out employees three years ago.  The contract settling that dispute is nearing expiration, and things apparently are not looling good.  See Southern California grocery workers aim to reverse contract setbacks.

See Also:

Interest Arbitration: Risky for Unions and Employers -- Heritage.org