their August 22 offer. IV The petitioners also challenge the Board’s determination that they violated section 8(a)(3), (5), and (1) of the NLRA by unlawfully locking out their employees without a “legitimate and substantial business justification,” in an attempt to coerce the union into accepting the employers’ so-called “last best offer” of August 22. Wayneview, 356 NLRB No. 30, at 1-2 (Board Op. II). “When an employer locks out its employees for the purpose of evading its duty to negotiate with the employees’ bargaining representative,” or to “coerce the [u]nion to accept the [employer’s] unilaterally implemented final offer,” the employer violates the Act. Teamsters Local Union No. 639 v. NLRB, 924 F.2d 1078, 1085 (D.C.Cir.1991); see also Anderson Enters., 329 NLRB 760, 766 (1999) (<HOLDING>), enf'd 2 Fed.Appx. 1 (D.C.Cir.2001).
holding that exhaustion benefits courts because the prison systems expertise is first utilized in interpreting its own regulations and applying them to the facts holding that employer violates neither  8a1 nor  8a3 when after a bargaining impasse has been reached he temporarily shuts down his plant and lays off his employees for the sole purpose of bringing economic pressure to bear in support of his legitimate bargaining position holding that where the bargaining unit remains unchanged and a majority of the employees hired by the new employer are represented by a recently certified bargaining agent the successor employer must bargain with the incumbent union holding that the acts duty of good faith includes the disclosure of information relevant to the employers bargaining position holding a lockout unlawful when utilized to enable the employer to implement its own bargaining position without  genuine impasse