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

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided July 31, 1974·No. 72-2694·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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.

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

498 F.2d 334 (United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, Plaintiff-Appellantcross v. United States Gypsum Company, Defendant-Appellee-Cross) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related