context: . The Burns Court also suggested that Wiley and Bums could be distinguished on the basis that Wiley involved a merger, which triggered the general state law rule "that in merger situations the surviving corporation is liable for the obligations of the disappearing corporation." In Wiley, the Court had noted that the union's argument -- which may well have influenced its specific holding -- was based on principles of corporate consolidation.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.parenthetical: noting that "the way in which a successor obtains the predecessor's assets is generally not determinative" of the successor's labor law obligations
citation_a.sentence: Wiley, 376 U.S. at 547-48, 84 S.Ct. 909 ("The Union relies on § 90 of the N.Y. Stock Corporation Law, ... which provides, among other things, that no 'claim or demand for any cause’ against a constituent corporation shall be extinguished by a consolidation.”). In Howard Johnson, the Court again noted this distinction with approval, Howard Johnson, 417 U.S. at 257, 94 S.Ct. 2236, yet the Court has since downplayed this distinction as determinative of a successor's labor law obligations, e.g., Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27, 44 n. 10, 107 S.Ct. 2225, 96 L.Ed.2d 22 (1987) (noting that "the way in which a successor obtains the predecessor's assets is generally not determinative” of the successor’s labor law obligations); see also Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168, 182 n. 5, 94 S.Ct. 414, 38 L.Ed.2d 388 (1973) (observing that "[t]he perimeters of the labor-law doctrine of suc-cessorship” are not confined by the bound aries of state corporation law, and that "[t]he refusal to adopt a mode of analysis requiring the Board to distinguish among mergers, consolidations, and purchases of assets” is due to the fact that as long as there is "continuity in the employing industry, the public policies underlying the doctrine- will be served by its broad application”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: observing that "[t]he perimeters of the labor-law doctrine of suc-cessorship" are not confined by the bound aries of state corporation law, and that "[t]he refusal to adopt a mode of analysis requiring the Board to distinguish among mergers, consolidations, and purchases of assets" is due to the fact that as long as there is "continuity in the employing industry, the public policies underlying the doctrine- will be served by its broad application"
citation_b.sentence: Wiley, 376 U.S. at 547-48, 84 S.Ct. 909 ("The Union relies on § 90 of the N.Y. Stock Corporation Law, ... which provides, among other things, that no 'claim or demand for any cause’ against a constituent corporation shall be extinguished by a consolidation.”). In Howard Johnson, the Court again noted this distinction with approval, Howard Johnson, 417 U.S. at 257, 94 S.Ct. 2236, yet the Court has since downplayed this distinction as determinative of a successor's labor law obligations, e.g., Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27, 44 n. 10, 107 S.Ct. 2225, 96 L.Ed.2d 22 (1987) (noting that "the way in which a successor obtains the predecessor's assets is generally not determinative” of the successor’s labor law obligations); see also Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168, 182 n. 5, 94 S.Ct. 414, 38 L.Ed.2d 388 (1973) (observing that "[t]he perimeters of the labor-law doctrine of suc-cessorship” are not confined by the bound aries of state corporation law, and that "[t]he refusal to adopt a mode of analysis requiring the Board to distinguish among mergers, consolidations, and purchases of assets” is due to the fact that as long as there is "continuity in the employing industry, the public policies underlying the doctrine- will be served by its broad application”).