Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Barton Brands, Ltd. v. National Labor Relations Board

529 F.2d 793 (1976)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...

Barton Brands, Ltd. v. National Labor Relations Board

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

529 F.2d 793 (1976)

Facts

Glencoe and Barton Brands, Ltd. (Barton) (defendant) were separate companies, and their employees each comprised a bargaining unit represented by the same union (the union) (defendant). Glencoe, which had six active employees and had laid off 20 others, sold all its assets to Barton, which had hundreds of employees. After the sale, Barton and the union negotiated an integration of the bargaining units into one, including the return of Glencoe’s laid-off employees. Barton planned to build a new facility at the Glencoe plant. Barton’s and Glencoe’s employees believed it would be in their best interest to combine the employees’ seniority on a single list (dovetailing). Glencoe’s employees retained their full seniority, placing certain Barton employees lower on the list than they otherwise would be. Barton employees agreed to dovetailing under the assumption that they would be allowed to transfer to the new plant. Barton did not end up building the new plant, and Barton sold a part of its business, which led to layoffs. Due to job apprehension, bargaining-unit employees began favoring a proposal to move former Glencoe employees down on the seniority list below all Barton employees who were hired before the Glencoe purchase (endtailing). The union initially demurred but ultimately presented the proposal during negotiations over a new collective-bargaining agreement. Barton agreed to endtail former Glencoe employees for purposes of layoffs. Subsequently, 12 former Glencoe employees who would have retained their jobs under dovetailing were laid off under endtailing. A laid-off employee (plaintiff) filed unfair-labor-practice charges against the union and Barton before the National Labor Relations Board (the board). The board found the union breached its duty of fair representation as to the former Glencoe employees in order to advance the political cause of a union official, Ken Cecil. (Cecil was the union’s vice-president, had championed endtailing, and successfully won reelection afterward.) The matter came before the Seventh Circuit.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Bauer, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 28,700 briefs - keyed to 983 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership