The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is urging the Sixth Circuit to uphold a key decision against Rieth-Riley Construction Co., which was found to have violated federal labor law by locking out unionized workers to pressure their union into multiemployer bargaining. In its July 2025 brief, the NLRB defended its prior ruling, asserting that the employer’s lockout was not only coercive, but also a violation of workers’ collective bargaining rights under the National Labor Relations Act. The case centers on Rieth-Riley’s efforts to pressure Operating Engineers Local 324 into rejoining a group of contractors negotiating jointly. When the union resisted, the company initiated a lockout that the NLRB says was intended to force the union’s hand—an unlawful tactic under longstanding federal precedent.
Legal Precedent and the Role of Intent
The Board’s legal position relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s 1965 decision in NLRB v. Brown, which addressed when and how employers may use lockouts during labor disputes. While Brown upheld a defensive lockout in response to strike activity, it emphasized that the employer’s intent and the broader bargaining context are key to determining legality.
In this case, the NLRB argued that Rieth-Riley’s lockout was not a defensive measure, but a deliberate attempt to pressure the union into a particular bargaining format. This use of economic pressure, according to the Board, disrupted the union’s legal right to determine its own bargaining structure. As such, the lockout violated both the spirit and letter of the National Labor Relations Act.
Implications for Employers and Unions
If the Sixth Circuit sides with the NLRB, Rieth-Riley could be ordered to reinstate the affected workers with back pay and abandon efforts to force multiemployer negotiations. The outcome may also shape how construction and manufacturing employers approach bargaining arrangements in the future—particularly when unions opt to negotiate individually rather than as part of a larger group.
The case highlights the evolving boundaries of permissible employer conduct during labor disputes. While multiemployer bargaining remains a common industry practice, this dispute underscores that employers cannot compel unions to join such arrangements through unilateral action or coercion.
In a labor climate where worker protections and union organizing are gaining renewed public attention, the ruling could help reinforce the NLRB’s broader enforcement strategy. For employers, it serves as a reminder that strategic labor decisions must be carefully calibrated to stay within legal guardrails—especially when it comes to bargaining structures and economic pressure tactics.
For further details, please contact the lawyers at Tobia & Lovelace Esq., LLC at 201-638-0990.