Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-union’s motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiff-employer under section 301 of LMRA seeking declaration that it had properly repudiated collective bargaining agreement (CBA). While plaintiff, which had only one employee performing work covered by CBA, could potentially repudiate CBA under “one-man unit rule,” Dist. Ct. could properly find that defendant had actually merged with second company having other employees doing work covered by CBA to form single combined entity, so as to preclude plaintiff from unilaterally repudiating CBA, where: (1) both companies operated out of same building, shared same time clock, used same phone numbers and shared employees for jobs performed by each company; (2) employees of both companies were part of same organizational chart; (3) defendant company did not have separate board of directors, executive or human resources dept.; and (4) both companies had common ownership.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Labor Law