# Bartenders and Culinary Workers Union, Local 340 v. Howard Johnson Company

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 20, 1976 · 535 F.2d 1160

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462748

## Case

- **Full name:** BARTENDERS AND CULINARY WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 340, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOWARD JOHNSON COMPANY Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 20, 1976
- **Citations:** 535 F.2d 1160
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Sneed
- **Judges:** Browning, Wallace, Sneed
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462748

## Opinion text

SNEED, Circuit Judge
(concurring in result):
I agree that the only issue before us is whether we should impose upon Howard Johnson Company the terms of the collective bargaining agreement of which the Union seeks specific performance. I also agree that we should not so impose these terms. The Company is not a successor employer for this purpose under the reasoning of NLRB v. Burns Security Services, 406 U.S. 272 , 92 S.Ct. 1571 , 32 L.Ed.2d 61 (1972).
This is enough to decide the case. It is unnecessary to suggest that the obligation to arbitrate survives by reason of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543 , 84 S.Ct. 909 , 11 L.Ed.2d 898 (1964). If required to express such an opinion, I would find Howard Johnson Co. v. Hotel Employees, 417 U.S. 249 , 94 S.Ct. 2236 , 41 L.Ed.2d 46 (1974), highly persuasive. In any event, there appears to me no reason to discuss the conceptual difficulties of imposing a duty to arbitrate while not imposing on the alleged successor all the obligations of the collective bargaining agreement.
*1165 Whether an employer is a “successor” varies with the context in which the issue arises. For example, a failure of the duty to arbitrate to survive, however, need not mean that the Company is not under a duty to recognize and bargain with the Union. That is a different issue. As has been said: “There is, and can be, no single definition of ‘successor’ which is applicable in every legal context.” Howard Johnson Co. v. Hotel Employees, supra at n. 9. That being so, I think we should decide no more than is necessary to the disposition of this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462748. Public record. Not legal advice.