Search for: "GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD CO."
Results 1 - 12
of 12
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 May 2014, 4:02 am
OSHA found that Union Pacific Railroad Co. and Grand Trunk Western Railway Co. violated federal law by disciplining and/or suspending the five employees after reports of workplace illnesses or injuries. [read post]
23 Jan 2010, 6:23 pm
Grand Trunk Western Railroad Incorporated, 442 F.3d 495 (6th Cir. 2009)). [read post]
19 Aug 2013, 5:25 am
Grand Trunk Western Railway Co. in Michigan violated the Federal Railroad Safety Act when a carman was suspended following a workplace injury, according to OSHA. [read post]
14 Dec 2007, 7:22 pm
Grand Trunk Western Eastern District of Michigan at DetroitALICE M. [read post]
16 Sep 2015, 5:58 am
Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co., ARB No. 14-019, ALJ No. 2013-FRS-3 (ARB July 17, 2015) Final Decision and Order PDF [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 6:23 pm
Grand Trunk Western Railroad, Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit 09a0018p.06 Poteet v. [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 6:23 pm
Grand Trunk Western Railroad, Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit 09a0018p.06 Poteet v. [read post]
13 May 2010, 1:15 pm
Union Pacific Railroad Co., 2010 WL 298387 (Cal. [read post]
18 Apr 2010, 8:08 pm
Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co., 338 U.S. 263 (1949), which found that the Federal Employer's Liability Act (which regime the Jones Act mirrors) could not be circumscribed in terms of a contractual venue provision that purported to change the statutory venue provision. [read post]
6 Jun 2016, 5:40 am
Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co., ARB No. 16-048, ALJ No. 2014-FRS-3 (ARB Apr. 27, 2016) Final Decision and Order Denying Motion to File Petition for Review, After Time for the Filing Has Expired PDF Graves v. [read post]
23 Apr 2015, 9:20 am
Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co., ARB No. 15-030, ALJ No. 2014-FRS-59 (ARB Feb. 27, 2015) Final Decision and Order Dismissing Complaint PDF Summary: The ARB dismissed the Complainant’s administrative FRSA complaint because it received notice that the Complainant had filed a de novo action in the U.S. [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 4:37 am
” Reaching its decision, the Court reasoned: “The RLA defines the scope of its coverage of carrier affiliates with the following language: The term ‘carrier’ includes … any company which is directly or indirectly owned or controlled by or under common control with any carrier by railroad [or air] and which operates any equipment or facilities or performs any service (other than trucking service) in connection with the transportation, receipt, delivery,… [read post]
