Dodging the Supremacy Clause Bullet: Do State Successor Statutes Survive Federal Labor Law Preemption?

Successor statutes, laws which require a purchaser of a company to honor that company's labor contract, are one method state legislatures have utilized to curb the perceived inequities of hostile takeovers. This Comment analyzes the issue of whether these statutes succumb to federal labor law preemption. In this analysis, the Comment describes the two types of successor statutes, discusses the weighty interests states have in this legislation, reviews the logical foundation offederal successor doctrine, and considers successor statutes in relation to the three strands of labor law preemption doctrine. The Comment concludes that both types of successor statutes must succumb to one strand of federal preemption, bargaining process preemption, due to the vision of industrial relations articulated in NLRB v. Burns Int'l Security Services Inc., 406 U.S. 272 (1972) and Howard Johnson Co. v. Detroit Locals Joint Executive Board, 417 U.S. 249 (1974). The Comment also determines that another preemption strand, § 301 preemption, will preempt one of the two types of successor statutes. Finally, the Comment argues that a successor statute could be designed which is compatible with federal successor and preemption doctrine, and suggests how such a law should be drafted.