NLRB v. Burns International Security Services, Inc. (1972)
Citation: 406 U.S. 272 · Court: Supreme Court of the United States · Decided: May 15, 1972 · Opinion: White, J. (for a unanimous Court in No. 71-123 on the duty to bargain, and for a 5-4 Court in No. 71-198 on the contract); Rehnquist, J. (joined by Burger, C.J., and Brennan and Powell, JJ.), concurring in No. 71-123 and dissenting in No. 71-198.
Source note (2026-10-18):
- source replaced 2026-10-18: static.case.law robots-disallowed; permitted full-text copy at Legal Information Institute (Cornell) U.S. Reports text (replaces
https://static.case.law/us/406/cases/0272-01.json; retrieval dates stated elsewhere on this page refer to the earlier copy). - source replaced 2026-10-18: static.case.law robots-disallowed; permitted full-text copy at Legal Information Institute (Cornell) U.S. Reports text (replaces
https://static.case.law/us/482/cases/0027-01.json; retrieval dates stated elsewhere on this page refer to the earlier copy).
Case page. Legal information, not legal advice. Last verified: 2026-10-16.
Facts
Burns replaced Wackenhut as the security contractor at a Lockheed plant and hired a majority of its guards from Wackenhut’s workforce, whose union had a collective-bargaining agreement with Wackenhut. The NLRB ordered Burns to bargain with the union and to honor Wackenhut’s contract. (Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/406/272 , retrieved 2026-10-16.)
Holding
A successor employer that hires a majority of its unit employees from the predecessor must recognize and bargain with the union, but the Board could not require it to observe the predecessor’s contract. The Board’s prior decisions “consistently held that, although successor employers may be bound to recognize and bargain with the union, they are not bound by the substantive provisions of a collective-bargaining contract negotiated by their predecessors but not agreed to or assumed by them.”
“Although a successor employer is ordinarily free to set initial terms on which it will hire the employees of a predecessor, there will be instances in which it is perfectly clear that the new employer plans to retain all of the employees in the unit and in which it will be appropriate to have him initially consult with the employees’ bargaining representative before he fixes terms.”
Practical impact
A buyer of a unionized business at a forced sale is not bound by the seller’s CBA unless it assumes it (in bankruptcy, CBA assumption or rejection is governed by 11 U.S.C. § 1113), but it may have a duty to bargain if a majority of its workforce in the unit comes from the seller, and it can lose the right to set initial terms by signalling it will keep everyone. Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27 (1987), addresses when that duty attaches (the “substantial and representative complement” rule) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/27 , retrieved 2026-10-16).
Good-law status
No citator check run this session (needs_verification).
Applies in →
businesses-and-going-concerns, buying-a-business-at-a-forced-sale
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the current primary source before relying on this summary.