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

567 F.2d 331 (1977)

From our private database of 47,000+ 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

Chicago Health & Tennis Clubs, Inc. (CHC) (defendant) was a Chicago-based chain with 16 clubs. Saxon Paint & Home Care Centers (Saxon) (defendant) was a Chicago-based chain with 21 stores in Chicago and seven in neighboring states. The Saxon stores were virtually identical, while CHC operated three formats with differing facilities. Both chains had integrated, centralized management hierarchies with area supervisors. However, CHC’s operations and labor 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. Saxon’s upper management conducted all interviews, hiring, and training at central offices. In contrast, each CHC club manager had considerable authority over personnel and labor matters, including disciplinary authority and control over employment terms and conditions. Saxon frequently moved employees between locations, while CHC rarely did. Finally, only Saxon had a prior history of collective bargaining, including a previous attempt by the Retail Clerks Union (the union) to represent all Chicago metropolitan Saxon stores as a single unit. In response to petitions from the union, the National Labor Relations Board (the board) (plaintiff) certified an employee bargaining unit at a single CHC club and another at a single Saxon store. The union won elections to represent these units. However, CHC and Saxon both refused to bargain, claiming these single-store units were inappropriate. The union filed unfair-labor-practice charges with the board. The board found both employers had violated the National Labor Relations Act and ordered them to bargain, but they still refused. The board petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to enforce the board’s bargaining orders.

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 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 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 899,000 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
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 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