Search for: "AFSCME Local 52, AFL-CIO" Results 1 - 9 of 9
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Mar 2024, 12:22 pm
Council 4, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Local 442 (Arbitration; subject matter jurisdiction; (§§ 52-407cc and 52-423); municipal employee contract grievances.) [read post]
3 May 2015, 6:37 am by John H Curley
AFSCME, Council 4, Local 387, AFL-CIO, 252 Conn. 467, 468–69, 747 A.2d 480 (2000) (correction officer placed obscene, racist telephone call to state senator). [read post]
9 Jun 2015, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Greene County Unit 7000, Greene County Local 820), 2015 NY Slip Op 04709, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentIn March 2010 the Green County Civil Service Commission (Commission) adopted a resolution amending its rule governing the probationary term required of new employees to provided that the probationary term shall be a minimum of  8 weeks to a maximum of  52 weeks rather than from a minimum of 8… [read post]
9 Jun 2015, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Greene County Unit 7000, Greene County Local 820), 2015 NY Slip Op 04709, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentIn March 2010 the Green County Civil Service Commission (Commission) adopted a resolution amending its rule governing the probationary term required of new employees to provided that the probationary term shall be a minimum of  8 weeks to a maximum of  52 weeks rather than from a minimum of 8… [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am by Public Employment Law Press
Employee B, however, was permanently appointed on March 1 of the same year, while Employee A was permanently appointed a month later, on April 1.Under the terms of the Local 788 collective bargaining agreement A would have greater seniority for layoff purposes than B. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am by Public Employment Law Press
Employee B, however, was permanently appointed on March 1 of the same year, while Employee A was permanently appointed a month later, on April 1.Under the terms of the Local 788 collective bargaining agreement A would have greater seniority for layoff purposes than B. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am by Public Employment Law Press
Employee B, however, was permanently appointed on March 1 of the same year, while Employee A was permanently appointed a month later, on April 1.Under the terms of the Local 788 collective bargaining agreement A would have greater seniority for layoff purposes than B. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am by Public Employment Law Press
Employee B, however, was permanently appointed on March 1 of the same year, while Employee A was permanently appointed a month later, on April 1.Under the terms of the Local 788 collective bargaining agreement A would have greater seniority for layoff purposes than B. [read post]