NLRB v. Burns International Security Services, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1972 · Labor Law

Labor LawSuccessor employersDuty to bargainCollective bargaining agreementsNLRAsuccessor employerduty to bargaincertified union

Facts

Wackenhut had provided plant protection services at Lockheed's Ontario facility and, a few months before the contract changeover, its guards selected UPG as their exclusive bargaining representative in a Board election; Wackenhut then entered into a three-year collective-bargaining agreement with UPG. Lockheed later awarded the security contract to Burns, and Burns hired 42 guards to perform the same work at the same place, including 27 former Wackenhut guards. Burns knew of the certification and contract, but told the guards it could not live with the existing contract, solicited them for a different union, recognized that rival union, and refused UPG's later demand for recognition and for adherence to the Wackenhut contract.

Issue

When a new employer takes over the same operation and hires a majority of the predecessor's employees in an unchanged bargaining unit, must it bargain with the predecessor's recently certified union? If so, is the successor also required by federal labor law to honor the substantive terms of the predecessor's collective-bargaining agreement that it never assumed?

Rule

Where the bargaining unit remains unchanged and a majority of the employees hired by the new employer are represented by a recently certified bargaining agent, the successor employer must bargain with that union under §§ 8(a)(5) and 9(a). But the duty to bargain does not compel the successor to adopt or honor the substantive terms of the predecessor's collective-bargaining contract unless the successor agreed to or assumed those obligations; ordinarily, a successor is free to set initial terms of employment, though in some cases where it is perfectly clear the new employer plans to retain all employees in the unit, prior consultation may be required.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Rivergate Protective Services wins a security contract for a warehouse complex in Columbus, Ohio, previously serviced by Lakefront Guard Systems. Rivergate staffs the same gate posts and patrol routes at the same site with 50 guards, 31 of whom had worked there for Lakefront; three months earlier, those Lakefront guards had selected Sentinel Officers Union in a Board election for that site. Rivergate knows about the certification but refuses to meet with the union.

Under the majority rule, is Rivergate most likely obligated to bargain with Sentinel Officers Union?

Explanation. The majority held that where the bargaining unit remains unchanged and the new employer hires a majority of the predecessor's employees represented by a recently certified union, the successor must bargain with that union under §§ 8(a)(5) and 9(a). The duty arises from the continuity of the unit, the majority carryover, and the recent certification—not from assumption of the old contract.