Judges: Dillon
Filed Date: 2/20/1964
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
The petitioner has instituted this proceeding under section 707 of the Labor Law to obtain an order enf arcing its own order of August 13,1963, against the respondent. The question is whether the purchaser of a restaurant business may be compelled to bargain collectively with a labor union which had been certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees of the previous owner.
In 1961 a corporation known as La Cremailler, Inc. (the old corporation) operated a luxury-type French restaurant in Banksville, New York, known as “La Cremaillere.” On September 21, 1961, an election was held by its employees to determine whether the Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union, Local 178, should represent them in collective bargaining. A majority voted in favor of the union. On October 6, 1961, the New York State Labor Relations Board certified the union as the bargaining agent. The old corporation
It is agreed on all sides that the sale to the new owners was a bona fide sale and not a subterfuge by the original owner to escape his obligation to the union by continuing the business under a different corporate form. This was expressly conceded before the trial examiner by the representatives of both the board and the union. There is no basis in the evidence for a finding that the new corporation is the alter ego of the old one. Nevertheless there is compelling authority for the proposition that a purchaser in good faith who continues the .same kind of business, with the same kind of employees doing the same kind of work, is bound to recognize the union certified to the old employer as the appropriate bargaining agent (National Labor Relations Bd. v. McFarland, 306 F. 2d 219; National Labor Relations Bd. v. Colton, 105 F. 2d 179). It was pointed out in the McFarland ease (p. 220) that “In deciding this question we necessarily deal in terms of succession of employment, and not succession of employers, i.e., in terms of the continued nature of the employment rather than the source of such employment.” The fact that the business was temporarily
The court cannot agree with the respondent’s interpretation of Southport Co. v. Labor Bd. (315 U. S. 100). The court was dealing in that .case .only with the duty imposed upon the former employer to reinstate discharged employees. It was clearly implied that a bona fide purchaser would not be bound by such an order; but that is quite a different thing from relieving the purchaser of a duty created by the vote of the whole body of employees. The board has not held in this case, and the court is not saying, that a bona fide purchaser has a general duty to remedy all the unfair labor practices of a previous employer. The court is saying only that a successor who has purchased in good faith is required to bargain with a certified union if the “ employing industry” has not been so materially changed as to destroy the appropriateness of the bargaining agent. The latter statement indicates the distinction between this case and National Labor Relations Bd. v. Birdsall-Stoclcdale Motor Co. (208 F. 2d 234). In that case the transfer of ownership had been followed by substantial changes in the manner of doing business. The remaining case on which the respondent relies (National Labor Relations Bd. v. Lunder Shoe Corp., 211 F. 2d 284) seems in the main to support the board’s decision. The application is granted.