Search for: "Labor Board v. Truck Drivers Union" Results 21 - 30 of 30
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Nov 2015, 6:18 am by Joy Waltemath
The court denied the employer’s petition for review and granted the Board’s cross-application for enforcement of its decision finding that the company’s refusal to reinstate the striking workers was an unfair labor practice (Spurlino Materials, LLC v. [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 4:56 am
  The brief filed on appeal on behalf of Teamsters Union Local 456 adds the following:Ricci was a truck driver member of . . . [read post]
8 Oct 2011, 10:24 am
General Drivers, et al.Court: U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Docket: 11-10120  October 5, 2011 Judge: Prado Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law This case involved a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. 1981 by a terminated employee against his former union, which represented him in a grievance hearing in connection with his termination. [read post]
12 Jun 2011, 8:00 pm by Northern Exposure
However, recent court and labor board decisions indicate that the traditional definition of “employee” continues to expand. [read post]
21 Dec 2008, 2:35 pm by Michael Stevens
There, the truck driver testified that, “after dropping off a trailer [at the last delivery point], he considered the day’s work over. [read post]
21 Dec 2008, 2:35 pm by Michael Stevens
There, the truck driver testified that, “after dropping off a trailer [at the last delivery point], he considered the day’s work over. [read post]
6 Sep 2007, 2:12 pm
http://www.nlrb.gov/shared_files/Board%20Decisions/350/v35074.htm The Board adopted the administrative law judge's findings that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by taking the following unilateral actions without giving the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain: (i) assigning a new store account to a bargaining unit driver's delivery route; (ii) reassigning a store vacated by a… [read post]
13 Apr 2007, 12:12 pm
Instead, he concluded that the Respondent's unilateral action was unlawful because the Respondent hired a workforce consisting solely of its predecessor's Union-represented employees and that the Respondent was a "perfectly clear" successor within the meaning of NLRB v. [read post]