United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, Plaintiff-Appellantcross v. United States Gypsum Company, Defendant-Appellee-Cross

Fifth Circuit

United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, Plaintiff-Appellantcross v. United States Gypsum Company, Defendant-Appellee-Cross

498 F.2d 334, 87 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2075, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 7380

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 31, 1974

Docket72-2694

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 498 F.2d 334 (United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, Plaintiff-Appellantcross v. United States Gypsum Company, Defendant-Appellee-Cross) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, Plaintiff-Appellantcross v. United States Gypsum Company, Defendant-Appellee-Cross, 498 F.2d 334, 87 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2075, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 7380 (5th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion April 11, 1974, 5 Cir., 1974, 492 F.2d 713).

Before BELL, INGRAHAM and RO-NEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We are aware of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Howard Johnson Co., Inc. v. Detroit Loc. Jt. Exec. Bd., - U.S. -, 94 S.Ct. 2236, 41 L.Ed.2d 46 (1974), overruling the Sixth Circuit’s decision, 482 F.2d 489 (1973), that Howard Johnson, as a successor employer, was bound to arbitrate with the union concerning the extent of its obligations to its predecessor’s employees. Concluding that “there was plainly no substantial continuity of identity in the work force hired by Howard Johnson,” - U.S. at-, 94 S.Ct. at 2244, the Court held that Howard Johnson had no duty to arbitrate with the union. But, as we emphasize in our opinion, there was a substantial continuity of identity present in the case at bar. 492 F.2d at 716, 726. In short, we believe that the principles of Wiley remain viable in the circumstances of our case.

The petition for rehearing is in all respects denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion April 11, 1974, 5 Cir., 1974, 492 F.2d 713).

Before BELL, INGRAHAM and RO-NEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We are aware of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Howard Johnson Co., Inc. v. Detroit Loc. Jt. Exec. Bd., - U.S. -, 94 S.Ct. 2236, 41 L.Ed.2d 46 (1974), overruling the Sixth Circuit’s decision, 482 F.2d 489 (1973), that Howard Johnson, as a successor employer, was bound to arbitrate with the union concerning the extent of its obligations to its predecessor’s employees. Concluding that “there was plainly no substantial continuity of identity in the work force hired by Howard Johnson,” - U.S. at-, 94 S.Ct. at 2244, the Court held that Howard Johnson had no duty to arbitrate with the union. But, as we emphasize in our opinion, there was a substantial continuity of identity present in the case at bar. 492 F.2d at 716, 726. In short, we believe that the principles of Wiley remain viable in the circumstances of our case.

The petition for rehearing is in all respects denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

498 F.2d 334, 87 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2075, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 7380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-steelworkers-of-america-afl-cio-plaintiff-appellantcross-v-united-ca5-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack