## Facts

- Friendly Ice Cream Corp. operated a large multi-state restaurant chain with standardized regional policies covering operations and personnel matters.
- The eastern region was organized into divisions and districts; district managers supervised multiple restaurants and reported up the chain.
- The Weymouth, Massachusetts restaurant employed about twenty-four part-time and three full-time employees and had an on-site store manager.
- District and division managers visited the Weymouth restaurant periodically, but daily supervision occurred primarily at the store level.
- Weymouth employees sought union representation in a single-restaurant bargaining unit; the NLRB Regional Director found the unit appropriate, directed an election, and the union won and was certified.
- Friendly refused to bargain, asserting that centralized control and integration required a multi-store unit.
- The NLRB found Friendly’s refusal to bargain violated NLRA §§ 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1) and ordered it to bargain; Friendly petitioned for review and the NLRB sought enforcement.

## Issues

1. Whether the NLRB acted within its discretion in determining that a single-restaurant unit at the Weymouth facility was an appropriate bargaining unit.
2. Whether the representation election and certification were valid despite Friendly’s election objections, such that refusal to bargain constituted an unfair labor practice under NLRA §§ 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1).

## Decision

- The court denied Friendly’s petition for review and enforced the NLRB’s order.
- The court held that substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s determination that the Weymouth restaurant employees constituted an appropriate single-facility bargaining unit.
- The court upheld the NLRB’s resolution of election objections, finding no basis to set aside the election or certification.
- Because the certification was valid, Friendly’s refusal to bargain violated NLRA §§ 8(a)(5) and 8(a)(1).

## Legal Principles

- The NLRB has wide discretion to determine an “appropriate” bargaining unit; a court will uphold the Board’s choice among reasonable unit configurations if supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary.
- Under the Board’s community-of-interest analysis, relevant considerations include functional integration, centralized control of labor relations, similarity of work, employee interchange, geographic proximity, and the degree of local supervision.
- Centralized corporate policies and standardization across locations do not, by themselves, preclude a single-facility unit when the facility operates as a distinct workplace with localized supervision and limited employee interchange.
- Post-election challenges to voter eligibility are generally disfavored once ballot secrecy prevents identifying how challenged individuals voted, absent a showing of improper concealment or comparable misconduct affecting the process.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit enforced the NLRB’s bargaining order, holding that the Board reasonably found a single-restaurant unit appropriate for Friendly’s Weymouth facility and that Friendly’s election challenges did not warrant overturning the union’s certification; therefore, Friendly’s refusal to bargain violated the NLRA.


Friendly Ice Cream Corp. v. NLRB, 705 F.2d 570 (1st Cir. 1983)