Search for: "Labor Board v. Truck Drivers Union" Results 1 - 20 of 52
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
 The first charge alleged that a company supervisor violated the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) when he texted a truck driver letting him know he could not cover up the cameras installed in the truck. [read post]
30 Oct 2023, 9:11 am by Susan Haines
., 372 NLRB No. 127 (2023), the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) reversed the Administrative Law Judge and ordered a trucking company to re-open its terminal and restore the status quo ante when it held that the company’s decision to terminate all of its recently unionized truck drivers and close the terminal violated sections 8(a)(3) and 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act (the… [read post]
In a very active end of summer for labor law, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) ruled in a 2-1 decision, in Quickway Transportation, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 127, that a company’s closure of a terminal where its drivers were unionized violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). [read post]
That court held it couldn’t hear a state tort (wrongful act) claim until the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) weighed in on whether the drivers’ actions were protected under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). [read post]
According to the Board, this misconduct warranted setting aside the election where ready-mix cement truck drivers and driver trainers voted against representation. [read post]
27 Jun 2023, 1:01 pm by Sarah Squillante
That court held it could not hear a state tort claim until the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) weighed in on whether the drivers’ actions were protected under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). [read post]
27 Jun 2023, 1:01 pm by Sarah Squillante
That court held it could not hear a state tort claim until the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) weighed in on whether the drivers’ actions were protected under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). [read post]
The Court highlighted that the Union knew that concrete is a highly perishable product and that the Union had knowledge that Glacier would not have batched and prepared to pour in trucks unless the drivers reported for duty and gave the impression they were going to deliver the concrete. [read post]
8 Jun 2023, 11:31 am by James W. Ward
As such, the union argued that the NLRA preempted Glacier’s state law claims, and the dispute should have ultimately been brought before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), not a court. [read post]
Cement company Glacier Northwest originally sued the union in Washington State Court for property damage, claiming striking truck drivers had deliberately damaged the company’s cement supply and trucks by loading trucks with wet cement just prior to walking off the job. [read post]
There, the company’s truck drivers are members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174. [read post]
There, the company’s truck drivers are members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174. [read post]
2 Jun 2023, 9:59 am by Sharon Block
Drivers allowed Glacier to load their trucks with concrete. [read post]
The US Supreme Court held Thursday that a local union must litigate a property damage dispute in state court, as opposed to appearing before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). [read post]
The Union then filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) alleging unfair labor practices for retaliating against truck drivers for engaging in a protected strike. [read post]
The Glacier Northwest case centers on a labor dispute between striking truck drivers and their employer, a company that provides pre-mixed concrete for construction projects. [read post]