Howard Johnson Co. v. Detroit Local Joint Executive Board

Howard Johnson Co. v. Detroit Local Joint Executive Board

Argued March 19–20, 1974
Decided June 3, 1974
Full case name Howard Johnson Co., Inc. v. Detroit Local Joint Executive Board, Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO
Citations

417 U.S. 249 (more)

Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Case opinions
Majority Marshall, joined by Burger, Brennan, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist
Dissent Douglas

Howard Johnson Co v Detroit Local Joint Executive Board, 417 U.S. 249 (1974) is a US labor law case that decided that under the Labor Management Relations Act § 301 there can be no obligation on an employer to collectively bargain with employees of a business that has been transferred to him.

Facts

The Howard Johnson Co bought the assets of a restaurant and motor lodge from the Grissoms family that had been running the lodge on its behalf as a franchise. The Grissoms retained the real property and leased it to Howard, and Howard expressly did not assume any of the Grissoms’ obligations, including those under a collective agreement. Howard hired 45 of its own staff, but only 9 of the Grissoms’ 53 employees and none of the supervisors. The union, the Detroit Local Joint Executive Board, said this was a ‘lockout’ in violation of the Labor Management Relations Act §301, by not hiring all Grissoms’ employees back. It sought an injunction for Howard to arbitrate.

The District Court held that Howard was required to arbitrate, but not that all the employees had to be hired back. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Judgment

Marshall J held Howard was not required to arbitrate because there was no substantial continuity of identity in the workforce, and there was no assumption of the agreement to arbitrate, John Wiley & Sons v. Livingston, 376 U. S. 543, distinguished. Howard had the right not to hire any employees, if it wanted, National Labor Relations Board v. Burns Security Services, 406 U. S. 272, and this right cannot be circumvented by the union asserting its claims in a § 301 suit to compel arbitration, rather than in an unfair labor practice context.

See also

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 5/30/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.