Bildisco, In re
| Citation | 682 F.2d 72 |
| Decision Date | 17 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 81-2140,81-2238,No. 81-2238,No. 81-2140,81-2140,s. 81-2140 |
| Parties | 110 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2954, 94 Lab.Cas. P 13,630, 6 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 937, 9 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 267, Bankr. L. Rep. P 68,738 In re BILDISCO, A General Partnership of the State of New Jersey, Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Appellant,National Labor Relations Board, Intervenor. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,v. BILDISCO AND BILDISCO, Debtor-In-Possession, Respondent, Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Intervenor. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
Kenneth I. Nowak (argued), Zazzali & Kroll, Newark, N. J., for Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, appellant in No. 81-2140 and intervenor in No. 81-2238; Albert G. Kroll, Newark, N. J., of counsel.
James Callear (argued), Margery E. Lieber, Deputy Asst. Gen. Counsel for Special Litigation; William A. Lubbers, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Acting Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for National Labor Relations Board, petitioner in No. 81-2238 and intervenor in No. 81-2140.
Jack M. Zackin (argued), Ravin, Katchen & Greenberg, P. A., Newark, N. J., for Bildisco and Bildisco, debtor-in-possession, appellee in No. 81-2140 and respondent in No. 81-2238.
Before ALDISERT, VAN DUSEN and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated proceedings we are required to accommodate the tension between two important aspects of our national policy, represented by the National Labor Relations Act and the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. Specifically, we must decide whether the bankruptcy court erred in permitting a debtor-in-possession to reject a collective bargaining agreement as an executory contract. We also must consider the National Labor Relations Board's application for enforcement of its order determining that the same debtor-in-possession committed an unfair labor practice by unilaterally changing the terms of the agreement. We vacate the judgment in the appeal at No. 81-2140 and remand for further proceedings. Because the NLRB both erred in its choice and application of legal precepts and abused its discretion, however, we deny the application for enforcement at No. 81-2238.
Bildisco, a New Jersey partnership engaged in selling and distributing building supplies, filed a voluntary petition for reorganization on April 14, 1980, under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy court thereafter designated the partnership as a debtor-in-possession and authorized it to operate the business under 11 U.S.C. § 1107. 1
Bildisco and Local 408 of the Teamsters Union were parties to a collective bargaining agreement that on the date of the petition covered eighteen of Bildisco's employees. On January 5, 1981, the debtor-in-possession sought bankruptcy court permission to reject the collective bargaining agreement under 11 U.S.C. § 365(a), which permits rejection of executory contracts upon bankruptcy court approval. The sole witness at the hearing on the motion was one of Bildisco's partners, Sal Valente, who testified that Bildisco's creditors were concerned about the "union situation" and that by operating without the collective bargaining agreement Bildisco would be able to save approximately $100,000 in 1981. Although eighteen of Bildisco's employees were covered by the collective bargaining agreement as of the date of the petition, by the date of the hearing the number had been reduced to three. 2 The union cross-examined Valente, but it did not offer any other evidence concerning the effect of rejection on Bildisco's employees.
The bankruptcy judge, without expressly articulating the standard that he applied, 3 granted permission to reject on January 15, 1981, retroactive to the date immediately preceding the date of the petition. See 11 U.S.C. § 365(g)(1). The union appealed to the district court, which on May 4, 1981, issued a bench opinion affirming the order of the bankruptcy court. Noting that the bankruptcy judge had not identified the test he had used, the district court held that the permission to reject was proper in any event.
In the meantime, the union had filed unfair labor practices charges with the NLRB complaining that Bildisco had refused to grant certain wage increases, to pay pension and welfare contributions, or to turn over union dues, all in violation of the collective bargaining agreement. After investigating the charges, the General Counsel of the NLRB issued a complaint on July 31, 1980, alleging that Bildisco, and Bildisco as debtor-in-possession, had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act by making unilateral changes in the collective bargaining agreement. The complaint advised Bildisco that a hearing had been scheduled for March 9, 1981, more than seven months later, and that if Bildisco did not answer the complaint within ten days of service, all of the allegations would be deemed admitted. On September 24, 1980, a Board agent advised Valente of the company's obligation to answer the complaint. On October 8, the General Counsel issued an amended complaint reflecting additional union allegations that the company had failed to pay vacation benefits to its employees. On October 27, 1980, a Board attorney informed Valente by telephone and by letter that he would seek summary judgment if no answer to the amended complaint were received by October 31. No answer was filed.
On January 27, 1981, twelve days after the bankruptcy court authorized rejection of the collective bargaining agreement, the Board's General Counsel moved for summary judgment based on Bildisco's failure to answer the amended complaint. Two days later Bildisco responded with a request for a 60-day stay of proceedings so that it could apply for bankruptcy court permission to retain special labor counsel. The General Counsel opposed this request.
On February 9, 1981, the Board issued a notice to show cause why summary judgment should not be granted. Bildisco responded on February 20 that its delay in filing an answer was caused by the disruption of Chapter 11 proceedings and that it had not yet received bankruptcy court permission to retain special labor counsel. 4 It also informed the Board that the bankruptcy court had granted its motion for permission to reject the collective bargaining agreement. Noting the retroactive effect of the rejection, the debtor-in-possession argued that no contract existed between it and the union after April 14, 1980. It argued also that any unpaid contributions due prior to the petition did not constitute unilateral changes in the contract, but were claims subject to allowance in Bildisco's Chapter 11 proceeding.
On April 23, 1981, stating that Bildisco had not shown good cause for failing to file a timely answer, the Board granted the General Counsel's motion for summary judgment, notwithstanding its notification two months earlier that the bankruptcy court had permitted Bildisco to reject the agreement. The order, addressed to "Bildisco and Bildisco, debtor-in-possession," required Bildisco to make all the delinquent contributions and payments plus interest, to honor the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, and to post appropriate notices. The NLRB made a "finding of fact" that the debtor-in-possession "is, and has been at all times material herein since April 17, 1980, an alter ego in bankruptcy to Bildisco." App. at 131. 5 The Board subsequently applied to this court for enforcement of its order.
We granted the Board's motion to consolidate the two cases. The Board has intervened in the union's appeal from the district court order, and the union has intervened in the Board's application for enforcement. We will consider the appeal and the application for enforcement in turn.
The rejection of a collective bargaining agreement under the new Bankruptcy Code, which implicates a significant confrontation of labor and bankruptcy policies, is a matter of first impression in the courts of appeals. Nevertheless, we have the benefit of both statutory direction and the decisions of other courts interpreting the equivalent section of the former Bankruptcy Act and the relevant provisions of the NLRA.
Underlying Chapter 11 of the Code is a legislative policy to provide opportunities for a debtor to reduce or extend debts so that it can return to financial viability.
The purpose of a business reorganization case, unlike a liquidation case, is to restructure a business's finances so that it may continue to operate, provide its employees with jobs, pay its creditors, and produce a return for its stockholders. The premise of a business reorganization is that assets that are used for production in the industry for which they were designed are more valuable than those same assets sold for scrap. Often, the return on assets that a business can produce is inadequate to compensate those who have invested in the business. Cash flow problems may develop, and require creditors of the business, both trade creditors and long-term lenders, to wait for payment of their claims. If the business can extend or reduce its debts, it often can be returned to a viable state. It is more economically efficient to reorganize than to liquidate, because it preserves jobs and assets.
H.R.Rep.No. 595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 220 (1977), reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 5787, 5963, 6179. If a business can be turned around by reorganization, its creditors will recover more on their claims than in a Chapter 7 liquidation, 6 its employees will keep their jobs, and the public will continue to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Bildisco and Bildisco Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board, s. 82-818
...impasse under § 8(a)(5) and § 8(d) before seeking rejection must also be subordinated to the exigencies of bankruptcy. Pp. 529-534. 682 F.2d 72 (CA3 1982), Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, D.C., for N.L.R.B. James R. Zazzali, Newark, N.J., for Local 408, Intern. Broth. of Teamsters. Jack M.......
-
Coastal Steel Corp. v. Tilghman Wheelabrator Ltd.
...contractual rights of the parties. A bankruptcy trustee may assume or reject an executory contract. 11 U.S.C. Sec. 365(a); In re Bildisco, 682 F.2d 72 (3d Cir.1982), cert. granted sub nom. NLRB v. Bildisco and Bildisco, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 784, 74 L.Ed.2d 992 (1983) (Nos. 82-818, 82-85......
-
In re Idearc Inc.
...of bad faith or an abuse of business discretion, the debtor's business judgment will not be altered. NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco (In re Bildisco), 682 F.2d 72, 79 (3d Cir.1982), aff'd, 465 U.S. 513, 104 S.Ct. 1188, 79 L.Ed.2d 482 (1984); Lubrizol Enters., 756 F.2d at 1047. "Transposed to th......
-
In re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.
...and until those contractual obligations were expressly assumed by the debtor-in-possession in bankruptcy court. See In re Bildisco, 682 F.2d 72, 78-79 (3d Cir.1982) (relying in part upon Kevin Steel Products, 519 F.2d 698, 704 (2d Cir.1975)), aff'd on other grounds, 465 U.S. 513, 104 S.Ct. ......
-
Contracts and Leases in Bankruptcy
...61. 104 S.Ct. 1188, 79 L.Ed.2d 482; 9 C.B.C.2d 1219, 11 B.C.D. 564 (Feb. 22, 1984); See also, National Labor Relations Board v. Bildisco, 682 F.2d 72 (3rd Cir. 1982). 62. This standard was at direct odds with the R.E.A. Express, supra, note 58, and Bohack, supra, note 59, standard used by t......
-
The Effects of Bankruptcy on Pending Civil Litigation
...ways not available absent a bankruptcy filing. In re Bildisco, --- U.S. ___, CCH Bankr.L.Rptr. Para. 69, 580, p.84, 120 (1984), affirming, 682 F.2d 72, 78, 82 (3d Cir. 1982). See also, Shopmen's Local Union No. 455 v. Kevin Steel Prods., Inc., 519 F.2d 698, 704 (2d Cir. 1975); In re Harms, ......
-
Impact of a Bankruptcy Petition on Employers, Employees and Unions
...1979). 10. Bildisco, supra, note 6, slip op. at 12. 11. In re Brada Miller Freight System, 702 F.2d 890 (11th Cir. 1983); In re Bildisco, 682 F.2d 72, 80 (3d Cir. 1982). 12. In re Brada Miller, supra, note 11; Matter of Gray Truck Line Co., 34 B.R. 174, 99 Lab. Cas. (CCH) Para. 10,534 (Bank......