U.S. Code » Title 11 » Chapter CHAPTER 11— REORGANIZATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— OFFICERS AND ADMINISTRATION

11 U.S.C. § 1113

Rejection of collective bargaining agreements

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 11 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The debtor in possession, or the trustee if one has been appointed under the provisions of this chapter, other than a trustee in a case covered by subchapter IV of this chapter and by title I of the Railway Labor Act, may assume or reject a collective bargaining agreement only in accordance with the provisions of this section.(b)(1) Subsequent to filing a petition and prior to filing an application seeking rejection of a collective bargaining agreement, the debtor in possession or trustee (hereinafter in this section “trustee” shall include a debtor in possession), shall—(A) make a proposal to the authorized representative of the employees covered by such agreement, based on the most complete and reliable information available at the time of such proposal, which provides for those necessary modifications in the employees benefits and protections that are necessary to permit the reorganization of the debtor and assures that all creditors, the debtor and all of the affected parties are treated fairly and equitably; and(B) provide, subject to subsection (d)(3), the representative of the employees with such relevant information as is necessary to evaluate the proposal.(2) During the period beginning on the date of the making of a proposal provided for in paragraph (1) and ending on the date of the hearing provided for in subsection (d)(1), the trustee shall meet, at reasonable times, with the authorized representative to confer in good faith in attempting to reach mutually satisfactory modifications of such agreement.(c) The court shall approve an application for rejection of a collective bargaining agreement only if the court finds that—(1) the trustee has, prior to the hearing, made a proposal that fulfills the requirements of subsection (b)(1);(2) the authorized representative of the employees has refused to accept such proposal without good cause; and(3) the balance of the equities clearly favors rejection of such agreement.(d)(1) Upon the filing of an application for rejection the court shall schedule a hearing to be held not later than fourteen days after the date of the filing of such application. All interested parties may appear and be heard at such hearing. Adequate notice shall be provided to such parties at least ten days before the date of such hearing. The court may extend the time for the commencement of such hearing for a period not exceeding seven days where the circumstances of the case, and the interests of justice require such extension, or for additional periods of time to which the trustee and representative agree.(2) The court shall rule on such application for rejection within thirty days after the date of the commencement of the hearing. In the interests of justice, the court may extend such time for ruling for such additional period as the trustee and the employees’ representative may agree to. If the court does not rule on such application within thirty days after the date of the commencement of the hearing, or within such additional time as the trustee and the employees’ representative may agree to, the trustee may terminate or alter any provisions of the collective bargaining agreement pending the ruling of the court on such application.(3) The court may enter such protective orders, consistent with the need of the authorized representative of the employee to evaluate the trustee’s proposal and the application for rejection, as may be necessary to prevent disclosure of information provided to such representative where such disclosure could compromise the position of the debtor with respect to its competitors in the industry in which it is engaged.(e) If during a period when the collective bargaining agreement continues in effect, and if essential to the continuation of the debtor’s business, or in order to avoid irreparable damage to the estate, the court, after notice and a hearing, may authorize the trustee to implement interim changes in the terms, conditions, wages, benefits, or work rules provided by a collective bargaining agreement. Any hearing under this paragraph shall be scheduled in accordance with the needs of the trustee. The implementation of such interim changes shall not render the application for rejection moot.(f) No provision of this title shall be construed to permit a trustee to unilaterally terminate or alter any provisions of a collective bargaining agreement prior to compliance with the provisions of this section.(Added Pub. L. 98–353, title III, § 541(a), July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 390.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Railway Labor Act, referred to in subsec. (a), is act May 20, 1926, ch. 347, 44 Stat. 577. Title I of the Railway Labor Act is classified principally to subchapter I (§ 151 et seq.) of chapter 8 of Title 45, Railroads. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 151 of Title 45 and Tables.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 98–353, title III, § 541(c), July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 391, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [enacting this section] shall become effective upon the date of enactment of this Act [July 10, 1984]; provided that this section shall not apply to cases filed under title 11 of the United States Code which were commenced prior to the date of enactment of this section.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 299 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: In Re Unimet Corp., Debtor. United Steelworkers of Am. v. Unimet Corp., 842 F.2d 879 (6th Cir. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Unimet Corp., Debtor. United Steelworkers of Am. v. Unimet Corp., 842 F.2d 879 (6th Cir. 1988). · cites it 18× “For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the district court to the extent that it held that 11 U.S.C. § 1113 's protection does not apply to retirees covered by provisions in a collective bargaining agreement.”
In Re Roth Am., Inc., Debtor. Teamsters Local Union No. 401 Health & Welfare Fund Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 401, 975 F.2d 949 (3rd Cir. 1992). · cites it 10× “The district court agreed with the bankruptcy court that the 1988 memorandum agreement was not valid, reasoning that the enactment of 11 U.S.C. § 1113 demonstrated that “post-petition activity with respect to collective bargaining agreements are not transactions in the ordinary…”
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., Debtor-In-Possession v. United Steelworkers of Am., Afl-Cio-Clc, 791 F.2d 1074 (3rd Cir. 1986). · cites it 12× “In regard to the Union’s contention that the bankruptcy court erred in finding Wheeling-Pittsburgh had bargained in “good faith”, the court stated that although there was testimony that would refute the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact that Wheeling-Pittsburgh “did provide…”
United Food & Com. Workers Union, Local 211 v. Fam. Snacks, Inc. (In Re Fam. Snacks, Inc.), 257 B.R. 884 (8th Cir. BAP 2001). · cites it 13× “Therefore, this court will review the bankruptcy court’s decision de novo. DISCUSSION A. Rejection Following an Asset Sale We first address Appellees’ contention that the bankruptcy court erred in its ruling that, as a matter of law, once the asset sale occurred, Debtor could…”
In Re Kaiser Aluminum Corp., Debtor. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 456 F.3d 328 (3rd Cir. 2006). · cites it 9× “In separate motions, Kaiser also requested that the Bankruptcy Court (1) use its authority under 11 U.S.C. § 1113 to reject its CBAs with USWA and IAM, under which several of the pension plans had been established, and (2) authorize the modification of retiree benefits pursuant…”
In re 710 Long Ridge Road Operating Co., 518 B.R. 810 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2014). · cites it 28× “STECKROTH, BANKRUPTCY JUDGE The Court is presented with a motion (“Motion”) filed by the Debtors that seeks an order (i) rejecting the continuing economic terms of the expired collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) with the New England Health Care Employees Union, District…”
In re AMR Corp., 477 B.R. 384 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012). · cites it 13× “” 11 U.S.C. § 1113 (b)(1)(A). The debtor must also provide the union with the relevant information necessary for the union to evaluate the proposal.”
In re Patriot Coal Corp., 493 B.R. 65 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 2013). · cites it 19× “MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO REJECT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS AND TO MODIFY RETIREE BENEFITS PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §§ 1113 , 1114 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE KATHY A.”
In Re Mesaba Aviation, Inc., 341 B.R. 693 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2006). · cites it 13× “This proceeding came on before the Court for an evidentiary hearing on the motion of the Debtor under 11 U.S.C. §§ 1113 and 365(a), for authority to reject its collective bargaining agreements with the Air Line Pilots Association, International (“ALPA”), the Association of…”
In Re Golden Distributors, Ltd., 134 B.R. 760 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991). · cites it 17× “The Unions also assert that vacation, personal, and sick leave days earned pre-petition should be treated as administrative expenses under 11 U.S.C. § 1113 (f), which creates an administrative priority for all benefits due under a collective bargaining agreement.”
Truck Drivers Local 807, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am. v. Carey Transp. Inc., 816 F.2d 82 (2d Cir. 1987). · cites it 6× “ALTIMARI, Circuit Judge: This appeal involves the showing a debt- or-employer must make in order to obtain Bankruptcy Court approval of the employer’s application to reject a collective bargaining agreement in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 1113 . We agree with the conclusions and,…”
United Food & Com. Workers Union, Local 328, Afl-Cio v. Almac's Inc., 90 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996). · cites it 10× “We hold that Congress did not intend for emergency interim modifications ordered under 11 U.S.C. § 1113 (e) to be treated as “rejections” of the collective bargaining agreement.”
Show all 299 citing cases →
— 11 U.S.C. § 1113(a) — 1 case
Adventure Resources, Inc. v. Holland, 137 F.3d 786 (4th Cir. 1998).
— 11 U.S.C. § 1113(b) — 2 cases
In re 710 Long Ridge Road Operating Co., 518 B.R. 810 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2014). “STECKROTH, BANKRUPTCY JUDGE The Court is presented with a motion (“Motion”) filed by the Debtors that seeks an order (i) rejecting the continuing economic terms of the expired collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) with the New England Health Care Employees Union, District…”
In re 710 Long Ridge Road Operating Co., 505 B.R. 163 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2014).
— 11 U.S.C. § 1113(f) — 2 cases
Tenet HealthSystem Philadelphia, Inc. v. Nat'l Union of Hosp. & Health Care Employees (In Re Allegheny Health, Educ. & Rsch. Found.), 265 B.R. 88 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2001).
In Re Pearl Companies, Inc., 435 B.R. 742 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 2010).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.