Search for: "CSEA v. Doe"
Results 61 - 74
of 74
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Nov 2011, 4:27 am
Does the CBA extend for a "reasonable period of time;" and 3. [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 4:00 am
The Appellate Division noted that this contention was rejected by the Court of Appeals in Kolbe v Tibbets, 22 NY3d 344. [read post]
8 Jul 2019, 4:00 am
Matter of Burke v Bowen, 40 NY2d 264, 266-267 [1976]; cf. [read post]
11 May 2010, 1:42 am
Matter of CSEA v. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 1:05 am
**Citing Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
19 Oct 2011, 3:59 am
In Ford v CSEA, 94 AD2d 262, the Appellate Division's explanation in vacating an arbitration award on the grounds that it adversely affected a public policy would presumably meet the Court of Appeals' test. [read post]
17 Jun 2023, 5:10 am
That is all it does. [read post]
24 May 2020, 7:38 am
Two Commons Committees –the Home Affairs Committee and the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee – have recently held evidence sessions with government Ministers discussing, among other things, the government’s proposed Online Harms legislation. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 10:52 am
[v]Another element that may cause some misunderstanding of the priorities in a layoff -- the individual may have been appointed to what has been designated a “permanent position” or appointed to position designated a “temporary position. [read post]
28 Jun 2023, 2:09 pm
That is all it does. [read post]
