11 U.S.C. § 1167
Collective bargaining agreements
Notwithstanding section 365 of this title, neither the court nor the trustee may change the wages or working conditions of employees of the debtor established by a collective bargaining agreement that is subject to the Railway Labor Act except in accordance with section 6 of such Act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1981–2012 · leading case: Matter of Valuation Proceedings, Etc., 531 F. Supp. 1191 (Regl. Rail Reorg. Act 1982).
Matter of Valuation Proceedings, Etc., 531 F. Supp. 1191 (Regl. Rail Reorg. Act 1982). “The Ts refer us to a leading bankruptcy treatise's discussion of a provision of the new Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 1167 (Supp. III 1979), which adopts substantially unchanged the provisions of § 77(n): It should be noted that section 1166 [sic] does not preclude rejection of a…”
In Re Michigan-Wisconsin Transp. Co., 161 B.R. 628 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1993). “This case raises questions of first impression regarding the interpretation of 11 U.S.C. § 1167 . At issue is Donald R. Cassling, Trustee’s (“Trustee”) objection to claim no.”
In Re Concrete Pipe Mach. Co., 28 B.R. 837 (Bankr. D. Iowa 1983). “Collective bargaining agreements, other than those covered by 11 U.S.C. § 1167 , are not afforded any special protection from the provisions of 11 U.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Brada Miller Freight Sys., Inc. (In Re Brada Miller Freight Sys., Inc.), 16 B.R. 1002 (N.D. Ala. 1981). “11 U.S.C. § 1167 . *1014 The Court is similarly unimpressed with the union’s argument that they were denied their due process rights to notice and a hearing prior to court approval of the rejection of their collective bargaining agreements with Brada Miller.”
California Dep't of Water Resources v. Calpine Corp., 337 B.R. 27 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). “1188 (citing 11 U.S.C. § 1167 ). 6 Most importantly, the NLRB does not possess exclusive jurisdiction over the terms and conditions of collective bargaining agreements, thus, in Bildisco, there was no jurisdictional conflict.”
Local Unions 20, 26, 34, 89, 92, 124, 135, 142, 159, 279, 299, 377, 406, 428, 486, 543, 571, 580, 614, 637, 836, 908 v. Brada Miller Freight Sys., 702 F.2d 890 (11th Cir. 1983). “Like every federal court which has considered this issue, we are particularly persuaded by the existence of that portion of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 1167 , 21 in which Congress specifically exempts collective bargaining agreements formed under the Railway Labor Act ( 45…”
Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l v. E. Air Lines, Inc. (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.), 114 B.R. 379 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). “By express limitation set forth in Section 1167(a) of the Code, 11 U.S.C. § 1167 (a), Congress provided that "[njotwith-standing section 365 of this title, neither the court nor the trustee may change the wages or working conditions of employees of the debtor” governed by such…”
A & B Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. United States (In Re a & B Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.), 48 B.R. 397 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1985). “” Thus, in the Bildisco case, the Supreme Court, contrary to the apprach taken by the Petrusch court determined that at least in that instance, congressional silence in the relevant provision of the Bankruptcy Code, i.”
In Re the Rath Packing Co., 36 B.R. 979 (Bankr. D. Iowa 1984). “11 U.S.C. § 1167 specifically excludes from the effect of § 365 those collective bargaining agreements which are subject to the Railway Labor Act ( 45 U.”
In the Matter of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pac. R.R. Co., Debtor. Appeals of Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n, 827 F.2d 112 (7th Cir. 1987). “Relying on 11 U.S.C. § 1167 (which prohibits the trustee or the reorganization court from altering wages or working conditions established by a collective bargaining agreement subject to the Railway Labor Act (RLA)) and Order of Railroad Conductors v.”
Comair, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n (In Re Delta Air Lines, Inc.), 359 B.R. 491 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007). “Section 1167, which is contained in subchapter IV, provides: 11 USC § 1167 . Collective bargaining agreements Notwithstanding section 365 of this title, neither the court nor the trustee may change the wages or working conditions of employees of the debtor established by a…”
Haas v. Internal Revenue Serv. (In re Haas), 48 F.3d 1153 (11th Cir. 1995). “§ 365 (a) indicates that the provision applies to all such agreements, in light of the previous use of such an exclusion by Congress in 11 U.S.C. § 1167 ). Therefore, we hold that a debtor’s failure to pay his taxes, alone, does not fall within the scope of section…”
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.