It seems there has be some misinformation regarding § 1113 and § 1114
§ 1113 allows a Debtor to secure the bankruptcy courts approval for the interim and/or permanent rejection of collective bargaining agreements
§ 1114 provides the bankruptcy codes mandatory mechanism for seeking to modify or terminate the medical, disability, death and other non-pension benefits of the bankrupts retired employees, their spouses and dependents
This part is interesting:
The absence of a “snap-back†may bear upon the question whether a proposal is fair and equitable: if the Debtor should do better than projected, creditors and shareholders would receive the benefit of the excess cash, but employees would be stuck with their concessions. Wheeling-Pittsburgh, 791 F.2d at 1091-93 (rejection not allowed, largely because no snap-back); but see In re Walway Co., 69 B.R. 967, 974 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1987); In re Appletree Markets, Inc., 155 B.R. 431 (S.D. Tex. 1993) (rejection permitted, even though proposed modifications did not contain reduction in management compensation or a “snap-back,†because Debtor’s proposal brought both management and nonmanagement employees in line with competition); UAW v. Gatke Corporation, 151 B.R. 211 (N.D. Ind. 1991) (absence of snap back did not prevent rejection because of Debtor’s poor economic circumstances); Bowen Enterprises, Inc. v. United Food and Commercial Workers, 196 B.R. 734 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1996) (absence of snap back not fatal; union should have included it in counter proposals, if union deemed it essential).
