The U.S. Supreme Court case Howard Johnson Co., Inc. v. Detroit Local Joint Executive Board, Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO (1973) revolved around a dispute between the hotel chain and its employees' union over collective bargaining agreements. The company had purchased two new locations and refused to apply existing labor contracts to these sites, arguing that they were not obligated to do so under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). However, the union contended that this refusal constituted an unfair labor practice as it violated Section 8(a)(5) of NLRA which requires employers to bargain in good faith with their employees' representative about "wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment." The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Howard Johnson Co., stating that while companies must negotiate working conditions with unions at established locations where there is already a contract in place; they are not required by law to extend those same contractual obligations automatically when acquiring new properties or businesses.

In the dissenting opinion for Howard Johnson Co., Inc. v. Detroit Local Joint Executive Board, Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established labor law principles and could potentially undermine collective bargaining agreements. He contended that secondary boycotts were an essential tool in labor disputes and should not be prohibited unless they caused significant harm to neutral parties or interfered with commerce in a substantial way. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's interpretation of "labor dispute," arguing it was too narrow and failed to recognize complex realities of modern industrial relations where multiple employers are often involved in one dispute due to interconnected business relationships.