National Labor Relations Board v. A-1 King Size Sandwiches, Inc. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The NLRB sought enforcement of its order finding A-1 King Size Sandwiches engaged in surface bargaining. The court enforced the order, holding the company’s extreme proposals demonstrated no genuine intent to reach an agreement.
Legal Significance: This case illustrates that an employer’s insistence on predictably unacceptable contract proposals, which strip the union of its representative function and employees of statutory rights, can constitute surface bargaining in violation of the NLRA.
National Labor Relations Board v. A-1 King Size Sandwiches, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Following union certification, A-1 King Size Sandwiches, Inc. (Company) and the Union engaged in eighteen bargaining sessions over eleven months without reaching a collective bargaining agreement. While agreement was reached on minor issues, the Company insisted on proposals granting it unilateral control over virtually all significant terms and conditions of employment. Key Company proposals included: retaining sole discretion over wages based on non-arbitrable merit reviews; an expansive management rights clause reserving nearly all powers (including subcontracting, assigning unit work to supervisors, and abolishing jobs) without requiring bargaining over decisions or effects, and largely exempting these actions from grievance/arbitration; a broad zipper clause waiving the Union’s right to bargain on any subject during the contract; an all-encompassing no-strike clause prohibiting strikes for any reason, including unfair labor practices, without company concessions; rejection of a “just cause” standard for discipline and discharge; sole discretion over layoff and recall without regard to seniority and exempt from arbitration; and rejection of dues check-off and a non-discrimination clause. The Company refused the Union’s offer to trade concessions on management rights, no-strike, and zipper clauses for just cause and seniority provisions. The NLRB found this conduct constituted surface bargaining.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the substantive content of the Company’s bargaining proposals, in their totality, provide substantial evidence that the Company engaged in surface bargaining with no real intention of concluding a collective bargaining agreement, thereby violating Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the NLRA?
Yes. The court enforced the NLRB’s order, finding substantial evidence supported the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non pr
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the substantive content of the Company’s bargaining proposals, in their totality, provide substantial evidence that the Company engaged in surface bargaining with no real intention of concluding a collective bargaining agreement, thereby violating Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the NLRA?
Conclusion
This case reinforces the principle that while the NLRB cannot compel substantive Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fu
Legal Rule
Under Section 8(a)(5) of the NLRA, an employer must bargain collectively in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur
Legal Analysis
The court determined that the Company's bargaining posture, as evidenced by its Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An employer engages in unlawful surface bargaining where its proposals, in