Collective bargaining agreements in corporate reorganisations

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Congress enacted §1113 to the Bankruptcy Code in 1984 in order to establish a standard for the rejection of Collective Bargaining Agreements. But the statute's ambiguous language has caused a split between the Second and Third Circuits, and has precipitated a lengthy academic debate largely centered on the interpretation of one word: "necessary." This debate has focused on proper statutory interpretation as well as deeper concerns regarding the policy goals behind the Bankruptcy Code. The present study reports data that indicate that the different interpretations are irrelevant in practice. No matter how "necessary" is defined, the result is always the same: debtors are able to reject their collective bargaining agreements. This article concludes that §1113's ambiguities need to be clarified such that courts have a clearer standard as to what "necessary" means and how that necessity is to be measured.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)103-121
Number of pages19
JournalAmerican Bankruptcy Law Journal
Volume84
Issue number1
StatePublished - Dec 1 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

bargaining
reorganization
bankruptcy
interpretation
statute
language
Reorganization
Collective bargaining
Bankruptcy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law
  • Business, Management and Accounting(all)

Cite this

Collective bargaining agreements in corporate reorganisations. / Dawson, Andrew.

In: American Bankruptcy Law Journal, Vol. 84, No. 1, 01.12.2010, p. 103-121.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{8d1b4373c56c4cb9b90159c2a464b87f,
title = "Collective bargaining agreements in corporate reorganisations",
abstract = "Congress enacted §1113 to the Bankruptcy Code in 1984 in order to establish a standard for the rejection of Collective Bargaining Agreements. But the statute's ambiguous language has caused a split between the Second and Third Circuits, and has precipitated a lengthy academic debate largely centered on the interpretation of one word: {"}necessary.{"} This debate has focused on proper statutory interpretation as well as deeper concerns regarding the policy goals behind the Bankruptcy Code. The present study reports data that indicate that the different interpretations are irrelevant in practice. No matter how {"}necessary{"} is defined, the result is always the same: debtors are able to reject their collective bargaining agreements. This article concludes that §1113's ambiguities need to be clarified such that courts have a clearer standard as to what {"}necessary{"} means and how that necessity is to be measured.",
author = "Andrew Dawson",
year = "2010",
month = "12",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "84",
pages = "103--121",
journal = "American Bankruptcy Law Journal",
issn = "0027-9048",
publisher = "National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Collective bargaining agreements in corporate reorganisations

AU - Dawson, Andrew

PY - 2010/12/1

Y1 - 2010/12/1

N2 - Congress enacted §1113 to the Bankruptcy Code in 1984 in order to establish a standard for the rejection of Collective Bargaining Agreements. But the statute's ambiguous language has caused a split between the Second and Third Circuits, and has precipitated a lengthy academic debate largely centered on the interpretation of one word: "necessary." This debate has focused on proper statutory interpretation as well as deeper concerns regarding the policy goals behind the Bankruptcy Code. The present study reports data that indicate that the different interpretations are irrelevant in practice. No matter how "necessary" is defined, the result is always the same: debtors are able to reject their collective bargaining agreements. This article concludes that §1113's ambiguities need to be clarified such that courts have a clearer standard as to what "necessary" means and how that necessity is to be measured.

AB - Congress enacted §1113 to the Bankruptcy Code in 1984 in order to establish a standard for the rejection of Collective Bargaining Agreements. But the statute's ambiguous language has caused a split between the Second and Third Circuits, and has precipitated a lengthy academic debate largely centered on the interpretation of one word: "necessary." This debate has focused on proper statutory interpretation as well as deeper concerns regarding the policy goals behind the Bankruptcy Code. The present study reports data that indicate that the different interpretations are irrelevant in practice. No matter how "necessary" is defined, the result is always the same: debtors are able to reject their collective bargaining agreements. This article concludes that §1113's ambiguities need to be clarified such that courts have a clearer standard as to what "necessary" means and how that necessity is to be measured.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77952254059&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77952254059&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:77952254059

VL - 84

SP - 103

EP - 121

JO - American Bankruptcy Law Journal

JF - American Bankruptcy Law Journal

SN - 0027-9048

IS - 1

ER -