## Facts

- A retail union petitioned for certification of single-facility bargaining units at (1) one Chicago Health & Tennis Clubs, Inc. (CHC) club and (2) one Saxon Paint & Home Care Centers, Inc. (Saxon) store.
- The NLRB found each single facility to be an appropriate unit under NLRA § 9(b), directed elections, and certified the union after successful votes.
- CHC operated 16 Chicago-area clubs with differing formats and services; transfers among clubs were relatively infrequent; club managers exercised considerable day-to-day authority over scheduling, discipline, and personnel recommendations; there was no meaningful history of chain-wide bargaining.
- Saxon operated 21 Chicago-area stores (and additional out-of-state stores) with virtually identical layout and operations; labor relations and key personnel decisions were centralized at the corporate office; employee transfers among stores were frequent; there was a history of broader, multi-store bargaining efforts.
- Both employers refused to recognize and bargain with the union, asserting that only a multi-facility unit was appropriate.
- The NLRB found refusals to bargain violated NLRA § 8(a)(5) and (1) and issued bargaining orders; it petitioned the Seventh Circuit for enforcement.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s determination that a single CHC club was an appropriate bargaining unit under NLRA § 9(b), warranting enforcement of the bargaining order.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s determination that a single Saxon store was an appropriate bargaining unit despite centralized control, frequent employee interchange, and prior broader bargaining history, warranting enforcement.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit enforced the NLRB’s bargaining order against CHC.
- The court held the single-club unit at CHC fell within the Board’s discretion and was supported by substantial evidence.
- The Seventh Circuit denied enforcement of the NLRB’s bargaining order against Saxon.
- The court held the single-store unit at Saxon was not supported by substantial evidence because the record rebutted the usual single-facility presumption.

## Legal Principles

- The NLRB has broad discretion under NLRA § 9(b) to determine an “appropriate” bargaining unit; reviewing courts generally defer but require that the determination be reasonable and supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
- In multi-facility or chain operations, a single-facility unit is often presumptively appropriate, but the presumption may be overcome by evidence such as centralized control of labor relations, extensive employee interchange, functional integration/uniformity across locations, and a history of broader-based bargaining.
- Where the Board’s unit determination is supported by local managerial authority, limited interchange, facility-level operational distinctions, and no contrary bargaining history, enforcement of a § 8(a)(5) bargaining order is warranted.
- Where centralized hiring and labor policy, frequent transfers, near-identical facilities, and prior multi-store bargaining history show strong system-wide integration, a single-facility unit may be rejected as unsupported, and enforcement may be denied.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the NLRB’s single-facility unit determination for CHC because local autonomy and limited interchange supported a distinct community of interest, but it refused to enforce the single-store unit at Saxon because strong evidence of centralized labor control, frequent transfers, and prior multi-store bargaining rebutted the single-facility presumption.


Nat'l Lab. Rels. Bd. v. Chi. Health & Tennis Clubs, Inc., 567 F.2d 331 (7th Cir. 1977)