CBA successorship clause

Unite Here Local 25 sought an injunction against Madison Hotel in Washington DC, compelling Defendants to arbitrate under the CBA in Unite Here Local 25 v. Madison Ownership, LLC.  The Union alleged Defendants breached the CBA by selling Madison Hotel without requiring the purchaser to be bound by the CBA terms.

The federal court has ruled that the parties must engage in discovery regarding the successorship clause of the CBA, in order for the court to determine if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 301 of the LMRA.  Basically, Defendants argue the CBA was not in effect during the relevant time period.  You can access the decision here.

via Courthouse News Service.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under courts, labor, legal decision, union

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s