National Labor Relations Board v. Chicago Health & Tennis Clubs, Inc.

567 F.2d 331 (1977)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

National Labor Relations Board v. Chicago Health & Tennis Clubs, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
567 F.2d 331 (1977)

  • Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD

Facts

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (plaintiff) certified two bargaining units of employees at single retail stores in the Chicago-based chains Chicago Health & Tennis Clubs, Inc. (CHC) and Saxon Paint & Home Care Centers (Saxon) (defendants). CHC operated 16 Chicago clubs, while Saxon had 21 stores in Chicago and seven more elsewhere. The Saxon stores were virtually identical, while CHC operated three formats with differing facilities. Both chains had integrated, centralized management hierarchies with district managers or area supervisors, but CHC’s operations and procedures were not as highly centralized as Saxon’s. Saxon store-level managers had limited involvement in labor-relations and personnel matters, with no authority to make employment decisions. Upper management conducted all interviews, hiring, and training at central offices. Each CHC club manager had a marked degree of authority over personnel and labor-relations matters, including disciplinary authority over employees and control over the terms and conditions of their employment. Unlike Saxon, CHC’s store-level managers supervised most day-to-day employment activities without centralized management significantly interfering. Saxon frequently interchanged employees between locations, while CHC rarely did so. Finally, only Saxon had a prior history of collective bargaining, as the Retail Clerks Union (union) already represented a unit of employees at two Saxon stores in Indiana. The union petitioned for and won elections to represent a unit in each chain, limited to one Chicago store’s employees. Both employers refused to bargain, claiming the unit was inappropriate. The NLRB found both employers had violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and petitioned for enforcement.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Swygert, 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 736,000 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 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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 736,000 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
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 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