Richard Wehrli was the sole or part owner of Naperville Ready Mix, Inc., T&W Trucking, and Wehrli Equipment Co., which respectively provided ready-mix concrete, hauling services, and truck repair services for the ready-mix concrete business. During contract negotiations with Teamster Local 673, Wehrli announced that he was going to sell the delivery trucks to owner-operators.
He supplied the financing for buying the trucks, required buyers to give first priority to Naperville's hauling needs, restricted purchasers from working for competitors, sold subsidized fuel, provided truck repair services, and allowed free truck storage on site. The trucks continued to haul concrete exclusively for the employer, drivers continued to receive their orders from the same dispatcher, and the owner stipulated that the purpose of the change was to lower labor costs.

Wehrli contends that the business decided, for entrepreneurial reasons, to sell substantial assets and close part of its business and that under First National Maintenance, his companies had no duty to bargain over this entrepreneurial decision. The companies recognize the obligation to bargain over the effects of the decision, and he contends the basic decision to close part of the business is unaffected by any decision to later engage in subcontracting, regardless of labor costs being a factor in the decision.
The General Counsel contends that Fibreboard is controlling in this case. What arguments can you make in support of the General Counsel's position? If you were an administrative law judge, what would be your recommended decision? [Naperville Ready Mix, Inc., v. NLRB, 242 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2001)]