Search for: "Indus International, Inc. " Results 121 - 140 of 329
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Dec 2016, 6:11 pm by Schachtman
Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 928 F.2d 1366 (3d Cir. 1991). [read post]
16 Nov 2016, 6:00 am by Beth Graham
Countrywide Credit Indus., Inc., 362 F.3d 294, 297 (5th Cir. 2004) (“[T]here is a strong presumption in favor of arbitration . . . . [read post]
18 Sep 2016, 4:55 am by Federal Employment Law Insider
Relying on the new joint-employer standard in the National Labor Relation Board’s (NLRB) decision in Browning-Ferris Indus. of Cal., Inc., D/B/A BFI Newby Island Recyclery, and citing Microsoft’s paid leave eligibility criteria for suppliers, a union representing employees at one of the company’s suppliers asserted that Microsoft was a joint employer and demanded that it engage in collective bargaining. [read post]
18 Sep 2016, 4:52 am by New Jersey Employment Law Letter
The guidance cites the recent case of Browning-Ferris Indus. of Cal., Inc., in which the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) held that two or more companies are joint employers of a group of workers under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) if they “share or codetermine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment,” even if the control is indirect or isn’t exercised. [read post]
1 Apr 2016, 11:31 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
SeeMidwest Indus., Inc. v. [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 4:15 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1316–19(Fed. [read post]
2 Feb 2016, 12:46 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Ingram Indus., Inc., 442 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed.Cir. 2006) (“[W]hen the scope of the invention is clearlystated in the specification, and is described as the advantageand distinction of the invention, it is not necessaryto disavow explicitly a different scope. [read post]
4 Dec 2015, 12:14 pm by Ed. Microjuris.com Puerto Rico
Browning-Ferris Industries of Pennsylvania, Inc., 691 F. 2d 1117 (3rd. [read post]
5 Nov 2015, 11:24 am by Ken White
New York, 394 U.S. 576, 592 (1969) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). [read post]