National Labor Relations Board v. A-1 King Size Sandwiches, Inc.

732 F.2d 872, 469 U.S. 1035 (1984)

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

National Labor Relations Board v. A-1 King Size Sandwiches, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
732 F.2d 872, 469 U.S. 1035 (1984)

  • Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Play video

Facts

The National Labor Relations Board (plaintiff) certified a union to represent employees of A-1 King Size Sandwiches, Inc. (A-1) (defendant). A-1 challenged certification, but the board ordered A-1 to bargain with the union. A-1 met with the union 18 times over 11 months, but no collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) resulted. The parties agreed on a few limited terms like paid leaves of absence and grievance and arbitration procedures, but A-1 insisted on retaining total unilateral control over virtually all significant terms like wages, hiring and firing, discipline, and layoff and recall. A-1 also insisted employees give up rights to bargain or strike, without any incentive. In addition, A-1 refused to give the union any say on mandatory bargaining subjects like safety rules, overtime, transfer, and retirement and wanted key issues exempted from the grievance and arbitration procedures. A-1 gave no legitimate business reason justifying its position and even rejected a clause requiring it simply to comply with federal antidiscrimination laws. When the union objected to proposals giving management such broad power, A-1 responded with even broader proposals. The union filed charges asserting that A-1 engaged in “surface bargaining” without any real intent to enter a CBA. The board agreed, finding A-1 committed unfair labor practices by failing to bargain in good faith. A-1 appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Dyer, 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 811,000 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 811,000 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 811,000 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