U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1974

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

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided July 31, 1974 · Bell, Ingraham, Per Curiam, Ro-Ney

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

Counsel

Jerome A. Cooper, Birmingham, Ala., Bernard Kleiman, Gen. Counsel, Pittsburgh, Pa., Michael H. Gottesman, Jeffrey Gibbs, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellant., J. S. Gruggel, Jr., John J. Coleman, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., Harold D. Burgess, J. T. Otis, Chicago, 111., for defendant-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Bartenders and Culinary Workers Union, Local 340 v. Howard Johnson Company (9th Cir. 1976)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.