Labor: 7 ways a company can protect its rights when working with a union contract
Buyers remorse often sets in when a purchaser realizes that a newly acquired business or facility comes equipped with a union contract that makes it both difficult and expensive to operate in the manner the purchaser anticipated.
June 10, 2013 at 08:09 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Buyer's remorse often sets in when a purchaser realizes that a newly acquired business or facility comes equipped with a union contract that makes it both difficult and expensive to operate in the manner the purchaser anticipated. Frustration deepens when the purchaser realizes that it may take years and an uphill battle before meaningful changes can be made to the collective bargaining relationship. However, these types of situations can be substantially less cumbersome if the purchaser takes some simple steps prior to closing a deal. Below are the top seven ways a prospective purchaser can protect its right to begin operations on the most favorable labor and employment terms possible:
1. Consider the labor and employment aspects of the deal
In most acquisitions, the preclosing emphasis is on the financial aspects of the transaction; labor and employment matters are typically dealt with post-closing. However, by giving careful preclosing thought to these issues, important strategic advantages can be preserved. Serious consideration should be given to adding labor and employment counsel to the transaction team, not merely to review the collective bargaining agreement, but to assist in the strategic planning and help maintain leverage before closing.
2. Do labor and employment due diligence
Familiarize yourself with the terms of the union contract, as well as the history and relationship between the incumbent union and the employees by reviewing the demographics of the workforce, and specific information about the union (including past contract negotiations, strikes, organizing drives, employment agreements, benefit plans and grievances). Significant facts about the union not easily obtained from the seller can be compiled from other sources, such as the National Labor Relations Board, court records, union websites, newspapers and the contracts the union has with other employers.
3. Know the advantages of an asset purchase
Most acquisitions are either a purchase of the stock in the seller company (a stock purchase) or the purchase of designated assets (an asset purchase). A purchaser of stock generally must adopt the seller's existing union contract and employ the seller's workforce. A purchaser of assets has significant rights (and leverage) not available to the stock purchaser, including the right to establish its own initial terms and conditions of employment prior to closing, to hire or not hire the seller's employees, and to accept, reject or renegotiate the seller's union contract.
4. Review the seller's union contract successorship clause
A “successors and assigns” clause purporting to require a purchaser to adopt the seller's union contract is normally not binding on an asset purchaser unless the purchaser agrees to be bound. Therefore, the purchaser should not agree to adopt the union contract or hire the seller's employees unless doing so would be advantageous. In response, the seller may refuse to sell or may make the purchase price prohibitive; however, such tactics are merely “deal points” subject to negotiation, rather than legal obligations. (Note: The one exception is where the seller's union contract contains a clause making it a “condition of any sale” that the seller gets the buyer to agree to adopt the union contract, in which case the sale may be enjoined and/or the union may sue the seller for breach of contract).
5. Evaluate the seller's union contract before closing, and tailor it to your needs as employer
Does the seller's union contract contain significant restrictions on the right to conduct business in the most efficient and economical way possible? Restrictions on the ability to change, relocate, subcontract or discontinue operations may end up being more costly than direct labor costs. Analysis of the existing contract must be performed not from the vantage point of how the seller operated under that agreement but through the lens of how the purchaser intends to operate. Major changes essential to the success of the purchaser's business are best achieved before closing.
6. Know your options and use them to accomplish the necessary changes
Generally, an asset purchaser has the following options: 1) assume the seller's existing workforce and union contract, 2) do not assume the contract, operate with the same workforce under the pre-existing terms and conditions, then negotiate a new contract after closing, 3) set different initial terms and conditions, hire the seller's workforce on the new terms, then negotiate a new union contract after closing, 4) set different initial terms and conditions, hire its own workforce, then perhaps recognize and negotiate with the union, or 5) meet with the union prior to closing and prior to hiring a workforce, and negotiate a new, less onerous agreement.
Knowing your options and being prepared to execute them is what provides a purchaser with the pre-closing leverage needed to persuade a resistant union to make necessary contract changes. Once the purchaser has done its hiring, it is only legally obligated to recognize and deal with the union if a majority of the employees the purchaser hired were formerly employees of the seller; if, on the other hand, a majority of the employees in the purchaser's workforce came from other sources, the purchaser has no obligation to the union, rendering the purchaser's workforce “union-free.” As most unions seek to avoid this, the union is more likely to agree to contract terms favorable to the purchaser.
7. Explore other—more favorable—options
Consider options such as relocating the business elsewhere, subcontracting all or part of the work or consolidating the purchased business with some of the purchaser's existing businesses as part of your pre-closing strategy.
Keeping the above strategies in mind when purchasing a new business or facility can minimize the likelihood of suffering a severe case of “buyer's remorse” when a purchaser inherits an unfavorable labor situation—particularly one that could easily have been changed or negotiated around prior to closing—and ensure that the purchaser begins its relationship with the seller's union on a strong note.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readLegal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Trending Stories
- 1Which Legal Tech Jobs Are on the Rise, and Which Aren't, with Jared Coseglia
- 2Absent Explicit Agreement, Court Rejects Unilateral Responsiveness Redaction of Text Messages
- 3SEC Whistleblower Program: What to Expect Under the Trump Administration
- 4Sidley Hires Paul Hastings Energy Finance Partner in Houston
- 5Potential Pitfalls in Arbitrating Religious Disputes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250