90 Day Lockout?

[Buzzard]

Got a question for you that have legal inclinations, especially McGruff, knowing that he is one of the better on labor law from one of the labor law forums on the internet. Not asking for advise, because we don`t want to step deadon some lawyers toes.<?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
And because this certain microchip manufacture is well known for filing law suits on former employees, I`ll leave names out of this. But she be a very large, international manufacture of microprocessor memory chips…..and which has denied access for up to 90 days to any contractor employee that has quit, or has been terminated for cause from any contractor working on their sites in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 /><st1:State w:st="on">Arizona</st1:State> and <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:State w:st="on">New Mexico</st1:State></st1:place>. If one was to question a contractor about this, their rehearsed response would be, “I`d hire you, but you have been denied access to the property for 90 days”. Thereby transferring any possibility of legal recourse from them to the owner of the private property that the job site is located on.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I can find no clear cut law to prevent this….

</B></B>

[McGruff]

That's not a lock out if it was illegal could only be ansewered on case by case basis.
Think of a lockout like as a reverse strike,typically a lockout occurs during contract negotiations. It force the bargaining units hand,as a strike would force managements hand. A lockout is illegal when there is a current contract in force with a no strike,no lockout provision. Management ignores the clause and locks out the workers. Just as the Union in most (not all) case would be in violation if they strike,with a current no strike no lockout provision.

[Buzzard]

That's not a lock out if it was illegal could only be ansewered on case by case basis.
Think of a lockout like as a reverse strike,typically a lockout occurs during contract negotiations. It force the bargaining units hand,as a strike would force managements hand. A lockout is illegal when there is a current contract in force with a no strike,no lockout provision. Management ignores the clause and locks out the workers. Just as the Union in most (not all) case would be in violation if they strike,with a current no strike no lockout provision.
(Michaeld, improved by using Works)

Tell truth, I had not considered the “lockout” part. Did not even think of it as a possible defense. But I would bet that the locals involved, 412 in Albuquerque and 469 in Phoenix have thought of that. And their attorneys, of course.
Having followed a reference that you, McGruff, had given me concerning the right of an employee to wear union insignias, I had found in the Bill Of Rights, CRS Annotated Constitution, Amendment 1, Quasi-Public Places 1171, “….functionally akin to public property….”. Although this seems to only address “free expression”….could it not “jump the definition” as some court decisions seem to do?
If this large microchip industries PROPERTY was considered a “quasi-public” place then, my take on this, is that the property would not be protected as “private” under the Constitution.
As small as this loophole is, it seems to be the ONLY possible method of recourse to a denial of access under a federal definition. But the loophole is so small that I can not see any light coming through.
I have told my brothers and sisters in the past, that “they got us”. Unless there is something, somewhere that I have missed………….?