U.S. 27, 43, 107 S.Ct. 2225, 96 L.Ed.2d 22 (1987), the critical issue in assessing the suecessorship question “is whether there exists a substantial continuity of identi[t]y of the work force,” Local 348-S v. Meridian Mgmt. Corp., 583 F.3d 65, 74 (2d Cir.2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see Fall River, 482 U.S. at 46 & n. 12, 107 S.Ct. 2225 (noting that the “ ‘triggering’ fact” for determining whether a new company is the successor to the old is an overlap in the firms’ work forces); Howard Johnson, 417 U.S. at 263, 94 S.Ct. 2236 (noting that a “continuity of identity in the business enterprise necessarily includes ... a substantial continuity in the identity of the work force across the change in ownership”) (emphasis added); Wiley, 376 U.S. at 551, 84 S.Ct. 909 (<HOLDING>). Here, it is undisputed that only four out of
holding that a dispute arising out of an insurance policy was not covered by the arbitration provision in the parties separate premium payment agreement because if the party had intended to subject this dispute to the arbitration provision it could easily clearly and unequivocally have done so either by including an arbitration provision in the insurance policy itself or by adding to the above arbitration provision holding successor bound by contract of predecessor when successor accepted benefits of agreement holding that employees who continued at a comparable job with a successor company had not been permanently terminated or laid off by the company due to lack of work holding that an addendum to the cba was integral to it and therefore subject to the arbitration clause holding that a successor was bound by an arbitration provision contained in a preexisting cba where the predecessor merged into the successor resulting in a wholesale transfer of the predecessors employees