## Facts

- The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) certified a union as the exclusive bargaining representative for a unit of A-1 King Size Sandwiches, Inc.’s production and maintenance employees, shuttle truck drivers, and shipping helpers (about 50–60 employees).
- A-1 challenged the certification and initially refused to bargain; the Board issued a bargaining order, and A-1 was ultimately required to bargain.
- Over an eleven-month period, A-1 and the union held eighteen bargaining sessions at agreed times and places, but they did not reach a collective-bargaining agreement.
- The parties reached agreement on limited subjects, including a recognition clause, plant visitation by union representatives, the number and duties of stewards, union bulletin-board use, jury-duty pay, leaves of absence, and a grievance-and-arbitration process tied to interpretation or application of express contract provisions.
- On major employment terms, A-1 insisted on keeping unilateral control over subjects such as wages, hiring and discharge, discipline, and layoff and recall.
- A-1 also sought to limit the union’s role on mandatory bargaining subjects such as safety rules, overtime, transfers, and retirement.
- A-1 proposed terms under which employees would give up bargaining or strike-related rights without receiving a corresponding benefit.
- A-1 sought to exempt important matters from the grievance-and-arbitration process and rejected, without a stated business justification, a clause requiring the company to comply with federal antidiscrimination laws.
- When the union objected to broad management-rights language, A-1 responded by proposing even broader management-control provisions.
- The union filed unfair labor practice charges alleging A-1 engaged in surface bargaining and lacked a real intent to reach agreement.
- An administrative law judge found A-1 violated NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) by failing to bargain in good faith; the NLRB affirmed and sought enforcement of its order in the Eleventh Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s finding that A-1 violated NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) by engaging in surface bargaining and failing to bargain in good faith.
2. Whether, in evaluating good faith, the Board could consider the overall pattern and substance of A-1’s bargaining proposals to infer a lack of intent to reach a collective-bargaining agreement.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit granted the NLRB’s application and enforced the Board’s order.
- The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that A-1 engaged in surface bargaining and failed to bargain in good faith in violation of NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5).
- Although the record showed A-1 met at reasonable times and places and there was no showing of anti-union hostility away from the bargaining table, the court agreed the Board could find bad faith from the bargaining record as a whole.
- The court rejected A-1’s argument that its proposals were not so harsh or unreasonable as to be predictably unacceptable, concluding the Board reasonably inferred a lack of genuine intent to reach agreement from A-1’s insistence on unilateral control over core terms, demands for employee waivers without offsetting benefits, and efforts to restrict meaningful union participation on mandatory subjects.
- The Supreme Court later denied certiorari.  

## Legal Principles

- NLRA § 8(a)(5) requires an employer to bargain collectively in good faith with the employees’ certified representative; a failure to do so also violates § 8(a)(1).
- Good-faith bargaining is evaluated under the totality of the employer’s conduct during negotiations, not by any single proposal or isolated incident.
- The Act does not require either side to agree to any proposal, and the Board may not impose specific contract terms; however, the duty to bargain requires more than formal meetings and empty discussion.
- In deciding whether bargaining was in good faith, the Board may consider the substance and pattern of bargaining proposals as evidence of surface bargaining, including whether proposals are structured to be predictably unacceptable and to preserve unilateral employer control over mandatory subjects.
- On a petition for enforcement, the court applies the substantial-evidence standard to the Board’s findings and enforces the order when supported by the record as a whole.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit enforced the NLRB’s order because substantial evidence showed that, despite multiple meetings and agreement on minor matters, A-1’s overall bargaining posture and proposals—seeking unilateral control over key terms, limiting the union’s role on mandatory subjects, demanding employee waivers without meaningful exchange, and narrowing dispute-resolution coverage—supported the Board’s finding of surface bargaining and bad-faith bargaining in violation of NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5).


National Labor Relations Board v. A-1 King Size Sandwiches, Inc., 732 F.2d 872, 469 U.S. 1035 (1984)