477 B.R. 378
Bankr. S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Union moves to dismiss 1113/1114 motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Dispute centers on whether post-expiration CBAs fall under 1113’s scope.
- Court examines whether 1113(a)-(d) and 1113(f) force a pre-expiration bargain to continue post-expiration.
- Courts recognize 1113(e) as an exception allowing interim changes when continuation is essential to business, but its scope compared to post-expiration terms is contested.
- Judge concludes 1113 is sui generis and should not be extended to require post-expiration CBA enforcement; recommends granting union’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 1113 applies to post-expiration CBAs | Debtor argues 1113 covers post-expiration terms | Bakers’ Union contends 1113 extends to post-expiration regime | Yes; judge grants union’s motion, limiting 1113 to pre-expiration context |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Karykeion, Inc., 435 B.R. 663 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2010) (supports view that 1113 should not subject a debtor to NLRA bargaining post-expiration)
- In re Ormet Corp., 316 B.R. 662 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2004) (debtors not penalized for efforts when CBAs expire before process ends)
- In re Northwest Airlines Corp., 483 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007) (1113 is sui generis, self-contained; abrogates CBA if court grants motion)
- In re Chas. P. Young Co., 111 B.R. 410 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1990) (illustrates post-expiration 1113(e) applicability in certain contexts)
- In re D.O. & W. Coal Co., 93 B.R. 454 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1988) (1113(e) may permit interim changes when continuation is essential)