Garden Ridge Management, Inc.

347 N.L.R.B. 131 (2006)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Garden Ridge Management, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board
347 N.L.R.B. 131 (2006)

Facts

After General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union 745 (the union) (plaintiff) was certified as the bargaining representative for Garden Ridge Management, Inc. (Garden Ridge) (defendant), the parties began negotiations. Negotiations lasted over 11 months before a tentative agreement was reached. The record of negotiations showed that even after months of meetings, significant issues remained outstanding. After the final negotiation meeting, a majority of employees signed a petition stating that they did not want the union to represent them. Based on this, Garden Ridge withdrew its recognition of the union. The union filed a charge against Garden Ridge. The judge found that Garden Ridge had violated § 8(a)(5) by surface bargaining, withdrawing recognition of the union, and refusing to meet at reasonable times. Garden Ridge sought review of the judge’s findings by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). In support of its argument that Garden Ridge had engaged in surface bargaining, the union introduced evidence that Garden Ridge’s offers included a management-right proposal and that, at one point, Gardens Ridge introduced a broader offer and then withdrew it for a more limited offer. In the more limited offer, Garden Ridge had removed sections that the union had objected to. The union also introduced evidence that during the negotiation it had asked Garden Ridge repeatedly for more frequent meetings because the process was not progressing at a reasonable rate. Garden Ridge refused each time without providing a reason. Finally, the union introduced evidence of statements about deliberately drawing out the negotiation made by management prior to the union being certified.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Information not provided in casebook excerpt.)

Dissent (Liebman, 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 805,000 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 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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 805,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 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