Search for: "Local 20, Teamsters"
Results 21 - 40
of 98
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Oct 2019, 11:14 am
Teamsters Union, 346 U.S. 485, 490 (1953).) [read post]
2 Aug 2019, 3:00 am
As in national politics, local candidates on the left, including many mainstream Democrats, are moving further left. [read post]
23 Jun 2019, 8:35 am
Graphic Communications Conference/International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 24M Grievant was terminated after an absence caused by his car breaking down. [read post]
9 Aug 2018, 2:37 pm
Local Union 26, UNITE HERE, July 11, 2018, Souter, D.). 3d Cir.: Failure to report harassment may have been reasonable where employer turned blind eye to past complaints Because fact questions existed as to whether an employee reasonably failed to avail herself of her employer’s procedure for reporting sexual harassment, her Title VII complaint should not have been dismissed on summary judgment, held the Third Circuit. [read post]
28 Mar 2018, 7:00 am
Following the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in Evans v Teamsters, Local 31, 2008 SCC 20, the Court determined that an obligation to mitigate does not include an obligation to work in an atmosphere of hostility or embarrassment. [read post]
12 Nov 2017, 11:00 pm
A recurring issue in securities cases involves the question of when plaintiffs may rely on the presumption of reliance under the fraud on the market doctrine. [read post]
30 Aug 2017, 3:02 pm
See Local 814, Int’lBhd. of Teamsters v. [read post]
19 Jul 2017, 2:09 pm
Teamsters, Local 31, an employee is NOT obliged to mitigate damages after being dismissed by accepting an offer of continued employment with the same employer in an atmosphere of hostility, embarrassment or humiliation. [read post]
29 Sep 2016, 10:25 am
This advice memorandum comes on the heels of a handful of Board decisions, which have reached similar conclusions following the Board’s new and expansive definition of who constitutes a statutory employee under the Act, in FedEx Home Delivery & Teamsters, Local 671. 361 NLRB No. 55 (2014). [read post]
26 Sep 2016, 3:00 am
Teamsters, Local 31, 2008 SCC 20 (“Evans”). [read post]
30 Aug 2016, 6:23 pm
Teamsters Local Union No. 31 (2008), but was really an offer of a new, full time, demoted position. [read post]
10 May 2016, 12:49 pm
In the past year, San Leandro, California-based Teamsters Local 853 has organized hundreds of tech company drivers in Silicon Valley, adding to the union’s 1.4 million members in the U.S. and Canada. [read post]
Teamsters, drivers object to $12M settlement that would preserve Lyft’s independent contractor model
21 Mar 2016, 6:50 am
The union noted that in the past year, hundreds of drivers at tech companies, including Facebook, Yahoo, Apple, eBay, and others in Silicon Valley, have organized with Teamsters Local 853 in San Leandro, California. [read post]
18 Oct 2015, 8:00 pm
Teamsters Local Union No. 31, 2008 SCC 20, where an offer of re-employment was found to lessen an employer’s obligations to a wrongfully dismissed employee. [read post]
27 Sep 2015, 4:00 am
Teamsters Local Union No. 21, 2008 SCC 20, did not change the rule that that it is an infrequent case that requires the employee to accept re-employment in order to mitigate her damages ( as was held by Chief Justice McEachern in Cox v. [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 8:14 am
Teamsters Union Local 456, decided on March 18. [read post]
25 Sep 2014, 7:54 am
The district court’s conclusion that Sec. 303 “completely preempts” claims related to secondary boycotts ran counter to Local 20, Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Union v. [read post]
23 Sep 2014, 8:04 am
On September 21, 2011, Teamsters Local 734 was certified as the bargaining representative for a unit of full-time and part-time sales drivers at Labriola Baking, a bakery and delivery company operating in the Chicago, Illinois area. [read post]
28 May 2014, 7:41 am
Cross-posted on the Law Theories blog. [read post]
25 Feb 2013, 2:39 pm
Now for your entertainment . . . . a third-party-payer case called Employer Teamsters-Local Nos. 175/505 Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. [read post]
