I believe that I said the ONE thing I know is right is that our "successorship" article mandates that whomever purchases this company must accept the contract and the union. This article makes "Burns" irrelevant. "Burns" becomes an issue only when there is no article in the contract to define what happens when a company is bought out.
For the rest of what Fly and others have been posting, I am not an attorney and therefore do not pretend to be able to interpret NLRB rulings and laws that change constantly. You may know that the recent appointments to the labor board have changed the latest rulings to be more favorable to business. So, when I don't know an answer to a particular scenario, I try to find out.
As an example, if Old Dominion purchased XPO, in terminals where there is no union contract, Old D could do whatever they wanted to do. In Miami, they would be forced to accept the Teamsters and the contract in place. I am trying to find out how exactly that would work, but common sense says that they would NEED nearly all the Miami drivers to accommodate the expanding levels of freight now available to them. ( THE FOLLOWING IS MY OPINION )
A rational person could not expect 60 drivers to do the work of 120 drivers. There will certainly be some overlap, but my guess is that most of the current XPO drivers would be brought on board under their current union contract. Should Old D choose to fire all the XPO drivers and proceed to hire replacement drivers, they would be violating the law. Every fired driver would eventually be "made whole" and get their jobs back.