National Labor Relations Board v. Burns Int'l Security Services
United States Supreme Court
406 U.S. 272 (1972)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Lockheed Aircraft Service Co. (Lockheed) used Wackenhut Corp. for plant-protection services. In an election overseen by the National Labor Relations Board (the board), a majority of Wackenhut’s 42 security guards voted for the United Plant Guard Workers of America (the union) (plaintiff) as their exclusive bargaining representative. Wackenhut and the union entered a three-year collective-bargaining agreement. Within a few months of the election, Lockheed decided to switch from Wackenhut to Burns International Security Services, Inc. (Burns) (defendant) for security services. Burns was informed in advance about the recent election, union, and labor contract. Burns chose to retain 27 of the Wackenhut guards and use 15 guards from other Burns locations. Burns provided the Wackenhut guards with membership cards of a rival union, American Federation of Guards (AFG), which represented Burns’s guards in other locations, and told Wackenhut guards that they must become AFG members to work for Burns. Thereafter, Burns recognized AFG as the bargaining representative of Burns’s employees at Lockheed and refused to bargain with the union or recognize the union’s contract with Wackenhut. The union filed unfair-labor-practice charges with the board. The board found that Burns had unlawfully recognized AFG and was required to bargain with the union and honor the union’s contract. Burns appealed, and the matter came before the Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.