Search for: "State v. R. G."
Results 2621 - 2640
of 4,530
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jun 2012, 3:00 am
Although a demand for retroactivity of wages and benefits is generally a mandatory subject of negotiations under the Act and arbitrable under §204.9(g) of the Act, the Association asserted that the joint employer’s proposal was prohibited based upon the rationale in the Appellate Division, Third Department’s decision in Baker v Board of Education, Hoosick Falls Central School District, 3 AD3d 678, 37 PERB ¶7502 (3d Dept 2004). [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
Having considered the Notice dated December 13, 2011 concerning amended R 71 and new R 71a (OJ EPO 2012, 52) and the draft Guidelines, C-V 4, I tend to believe that the way in which the ED acted here is blameless, even under the new regime. [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 7:32 am
State v. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
Combining these two and stating that G 2/10 has added criteria to G 1/03 does not sound right to me. [read post]
11 Jun 2012, 1:30 pm
The court then distinguished Harrelson v. [read post]
10 Jun 2012, 2:45 pm
Joseph Sanders (University of Houston): Milward v. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 2:12 pm
(See, e.g., Gary R. [read post]
6 Jun 2012, 1:17 pm
R. [read post]
6 Jun 2012, 7:37 am
Raghuram G. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
The EBA answered the referred questions in its decision G 1/08. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 3:00 am
New York State Public Employment Relations Board, 97 NY2d 73, [33 PERB 7007]. [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 7:00 am
Rev. 4 (1983). 17. 1299 Anthony G. [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 3:00 am
The court's unpublished decision in Ng v. [read post]
1 Jun 2012, 7:02 am
Lone Wolf v. [read post]
1 Jun 2012, 7:02 am
Lone Wolf v. [read post]
31 May 2012, 10:00 am
Outside the post-FNC context, in Society of Lloyd’s v. [read post]
30 May 2012, 4:29 am
, State v. [read post]
25 May 2012, 12:36 pm
Daniels, Greeleyville, SCSM1 Ronnie G. [read post]
25 May 2012, 12:36 pm
Daniels, Greeleyville, SCSM1 Ronnie G. [read post]
24 May 2012, 5:41 am
May 24, 2010 – The United States Supreme Court decides Hardt v. [read post]
