Again … you should read the entire story (and probably follow the links) before drawing conclusions — In this instance, for example, the very issue you asked about was covered in this original post, where I quoted this from one of those previous stories:

“For decades, union members mined and processed coal at Cannelton operations southeast of Charleston. In August 2004, Massey bought the operations out of the Horizon Natural Resources bankruptcy, after a federal bankruptcy judge agreed to throw out a clause of Horizon’s contract with the UMW that required any buyers to maintain the union work agreement.

“But in a November ruling, NLRB judge Paul Bogas concluded the bankruptcy court ruling alone did not insulate Massey from an obligation to bargain collectively with workers. The legal test, the judge explained, is whether Massey conducts essentially the same business as the previous owner and whether a majority of the work force are former employees of the previous owner.”

As for Massey’s obligations, the UMW argued against the original bankruptcy ruling, and I’m sure the company’s quite competent counsel (Coal Tattoo reader and commenter Forrest Roles) anticipated that the union would file unfair labor practice allegations against the company — giving rise to the NLRB case that was discussed here.

Regardless, one of the issues in the NLRB case and before Judge Goodwin and the 4th circuit is whether or not that bankruptcy ruling essentially negated federal labor law protections for employees. So far, the NLRB’s ALJ, Judge Goodwin and the 4th Circuit have said that it didn’t.

Massey continues to appeal, so stay tuned for more on that as it happens.

Finally, the issues about the hiring of UMW members by Massey (or non-hiring, as the case may be) are discussed in quite a lot of detail in the ALJ’s ruling, which I linked to in a previous comment.

Part of the beauty of blogs is that we can link to these documents and readers can see for themselves what they say … I’d encourage anyone who has questions like Casey’s to take a look at that ruling for themselves.

As for what actions Massey took that gave rise to a successorship obligation, they are outlined in the same paragraph I quoted from … here’s what it says:

Similarly, in the instant case, the Respondents’ status as legal successor and its responsibility to maintain the existing terms of employment during bargaining are not based on the 2002 National Coal Agreement or the successorship provision that the bankruptcy court voided pre-sale, but on actions that the Respondents took post-sale. More specifically, post-sale, the Respondents continued the predecessor’s essential business, discriminatorily refused to hire the predecessor’s employees,69 and announced to employees that there was no union at Mammoth actions that under Love’s Barbeque, supra, Advanced Stretchforming, supra, and related precedent, establish Mammoth as the legal successor and create an obligation to maintain the predecessor’s terms and conditions of employment pending good faith negotiations.

The ruling speaks for itself … give it a read.

Ken.

I did not mean to demand an investigation. I only meant to suggest reporting on things that would possibly give a more complete and balanced report on the story. I agree that the bankruptcy decision was probably covered in previous articles but it is relevant to the story and could have been covered again. I think Massey bought the property out of bankruptcy only after knowing that that they were not obligated to be a successor to a labor agreement. Otherwise it may not have been purchased and subsequently operated (by anyone).

Also I think that there is more to the situation regarding why ex-employees did not accept or later quit employment at Massey. And I am referring to the period of time after Massey purchased the property and not during the time of the appeal of Goodwin (as stated by the Massey spokesman).

RE:”Go to page 64:
Such a bankruptcy sale order in no way insulates against the possibility that a buyer will take actions subsequent to the sale that give rise to a successorship bargaining obligation”. What actions did Massey take to give rise to an obligation?

Thanks

Before you start demanding that we investigate things, read the whole article … OK?

Your point No. 2 is addressed in my blog post, with the quote from Jeff Gillenwater at Massey:

Although we disagree with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, it is important to note while appealing U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin’s decision requiring Mammoth Coal Company to hire these individuals, Mammoth Coal made job offers to these 85 miners. From these 85 extended offers of employment, only nine miners accepted the employment opportunity. Today, seven of these miners remain with the company.

As for point 1, that’s been covered in previous stories about this dispute. Yes, a bankruptcy judge waived Massey’s obligation to comply with the UMWA contract. But the NLRB ALJ said that bankruptcy ruling alone did not insulate Massey.

The ALJ’s ruling is online here:
http://www.nlrb.gov/shared_files/ALJ%20Decisions/2007/JD-73-07.pdf

Go to page 64:
Such a bankruptcy sale order in no way insulates against the possibility that a buyer will take actions subsequent to the sale that give rise to a successorship bargaining obligation or require the buyer to maintain the existing terms and conditions of employment.

Ken.

1) Did the bankruptcy judge rule that the purchaser would not have to be a successor to the UMWA contract for this operation?

2) Did Massey offer several UMWA members jobs at this operation and if so why did they either not take the job or why did the ones that did take employment later quit?