Search for: "Local 3 v. Nlrb"
Results 141 - 160
of 277
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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
Sure-Tan, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Sep 2014, 5:09 pm
In California Saw & Knife Works, enforced by the Seventh Circuit, the NLRB established a three-stage framework of notice-objection-challenge in considering cases dealing with employee rights under Communications Workers of America v. [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 11:10 am
Supreme Court’s decisions in NLRB v. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 7:30 am
Supreme Court’s decisions in NLRB v. [read post]
29 Aug 2014, 6:58 am
The appeals court agreed with the NLRB that because the employer’s short-lived threat didn’t materially affect negotiations during the lockout, an order requiring the employer to desist from future threats and to post a notice promising its employees that much was a sufficient remedy (Teamsters Local Union No. 455 v NLRB, August 27, 2014, Gorsuch, N). [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 2:40 pm
NLRB v. [read post]
18 Aug 2014, 3:09 pm
The NLRB reversed the ALJ in a 3-2 decision. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 2:48 pm
Circuit’s decision in Noel Canning v. [read post]
15 May 2014, 10:00 am
This announcement has presented some confusion for some sponsors of safe harbor 401(k) plans as Treasury Regulation § 1.401(k)-3(e)(1) generally requires that a Section 401(k) safe harbor plan be adopted before the beginning of the plan year and maintained throughout a full 12-month plan year, however, except as otherwise provided in § 1.401(k)-3(g) (relating to the reduction or suspension of safe harbor contributions) or in guidance of general applicability… [read post]
15 May 2014, 7:06 am
Going forward, plaintiffs may only pursue in state court their WPA claims alleging retaliation for reporting criminal misconduct such as fraud and embezzlement, state courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over those claims (Henry v Laborers’ Local 1191 dba Road Construction Laborers of Michigan Local 1191, May 5, 2014, Kelly, M). [read post]
22 Apr 2014, 6:50 am
First, two of the cases cited by the unions — NLRB v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp and Amalgamated Utility Workers v Consolidated Edison Co. of New York — involved private employers, so the “right” the court was referring to could not have been constitutional. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 12:53 pm
NLRB v. [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 9:13 am
NLRB, 717 F.3d 947, 957 (D.C. [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 10:03 am
Co., Inc. v. [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 1:20 pm
3. [read post]
14 Dec 2013, 11:57 am
Dec. 3, 2013). [read post]
11 Dec 2013, 7:34 am
At issue in UNITE HERE Local 355 v Mulhall (Dkt No 12-99) was whether a “neutrality agreement” between a labor union and an employer during an organizing drive is a “thing of value” and therefore illegal under Section 302 of the Labor-Management Relations Act. [read post]
26 Nov 2013, 9:25 am
This case, Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. [read post]
22 Oct 2013, 6:20 am
11:00a-12:00p IGRA at 25 and a Discussion of the Michigan v. [read post]
