National Labor Relations Board v. Bildisco and Bildisco
United States Supreme Court
465 U.S. 513 (1984)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Bildisco and Bildisco (Bildisco) (defendant) was a general partnership. In April 1980, Bildisco filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court permitted Bildisco to operate the business as a debtor-in-possession. Approximately 40–50 of Bildisco’s employees were represented by a union (plaintiff) and worked under a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) set to expire in 1982. In December 1980, Bildisco, which had already failed to meet some of its CBA obligations, asked the bankruptcy court to allow it to reject the CBA pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365. In support of its request, one of Bildisco’s general partners testified that rejecting the CBA would save Bildisco $100,000 in 1981. The bankruptcy court granted Bildisco’s request. The union appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Meanwhile, the union filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (plaintiff), which concluded that Bildisco committed an unfair labor practice by unilaterally rejecting or modifying the CBA before formally rejecting it in bankruptcy court. The NLRB issued an order requiring Bildisco to comply with certain provisions of the CBA and filed a petition with the Third Circuit to enforce its order. The Third Circuit consolidated the NLRB’s petition and the union’s appeal. The Third Circuit ruled for Bildisco in both cases. The union and the NLRB appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 783,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.