Skip to main content

International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Apogee Coal Co., Arch Coal Inc., and Ark Land Co.

6th CircuitJune 5, 2003No. 01-6584Cited 19 times
Defendant WinApogee Coal Co.
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Clay, Gibbons, Duggan
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that Apogee's sale of mining permits, equipment, and lease rights to RDL did not constitute a transfer of 'operations' under the NBCWA successorship clause because the mines had been closed and sealed before the sale.

What This Ruling Means

**Coal Company Sale Doesn't Trigger Union Contract Transfer** The United Mine Workers union sued Apogee Coal Company after the company sold its mining permits, equipment, and lease rights to another company called RDL. The union argued that this sale should have transferred the existing union contract to the new buyer under the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement (NBCWA), which requires new owners to honor union contracts when they take over mining "operations." The federal appeals court ruled against the union. The court found that Apogee's sale to RDL did not count as transferring "operations" because the mines had already been permanently closed and sealed before the sale happened. Since there were no active mining operations to transfer, the successorship clause in the union contract didn't apply, and RDL wasn't required to honor the existing union agreement. **What This Means for Workers:** This ruling shows that union contract protections may not extend to new buyers when a workplace has been shut down before the sale. Workers should understand that successorship clauses in union contracts typically only protect them when active operations continue under new ownership, not when facilities are permanently closed first.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.