Search for: "Local 20, Teamsters" Results 1 - 20 of 97
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Sep 2021, 6:26 am by Troy Rosasco
Here are some facts about their involvement: Teamster members from Local 807 in Long Island were among the first to arrive at the scene after the attack and helped direct people out of the area. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 6:50 am by Joy Waltemath
The union noted that in the past year, hundreds of drivers at tech companies, including Facebook, Yahoo, Apple, eBay, and others in Silicon Valley, have organized with Teamsters Local 853 in San Leandro, California. [read post]
20 Apr 2012, 5:31 am by Brennan W. Bolt
By late afternoon, Teamsters Local 175 and Coca-Cola Bottling Company Consolidated (CCBCC) had settled a strike that had started earlier that morning. [read post]
24 Aug 2010, 6:22 pm by Seth Borden
Sacramento Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 2:10-cv-2176 (Damrell, U.S.D.J.), requires the employer to recognize and bargain with Teamsters Local 150 pending the outcome of refusal to bargain charges filed at Region 20 of the NLRB. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 7:15 am by Seth Borden
The Department of Corrections will seek bids to privatize 20 work release centers. [read post]
19 Jan 2022, 4:00 am by Administrator
Teamsters Local Union 847 v Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, 2022 CanLII 544 (ON LA) 20. [read post]
19 Jul 2017, 2:09 pm by Ken Krupat
Teamsters, Local 31, an employee is NOT obliged to mitigate damages after being dismissed by accepting an offer of continued employment with the same employer in an atmosphere of hostility, embarrassment or humiliation. [read post]
11 Nov 2021, 7:42 am by Yosie Saint-Cyr
In United Parcel Service v Teamsters Local Union No. 213, 2021 CanLII 64789 (CA LA), we see the impact an employee’s trash talk about their employer can have on his or her potential reinstatement. [read post]
8 Oct 2008, 10:00 pm
 Gary became actively involved in Teamsters Local 282 in the early 1980's working as a warehouse forklift operator. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 11:30 am by Holland & Hart
In this case, Noel Canning ("Canning") asked the Court to review a decision by the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB"), finding that Canning violated the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to sign a collective bargaining agreement reached with a Teamsters local union. [read post]
28 Mar 2008, 3:40 pm
Charge filed by General Teamsters (Excluding Mailers), State of Arizona, Local 104; complaint alleged violations of Section 8(a)(5) and (1). [read post]
30 Jan 2009, 4:22 am
"The Appellate Division modified the lower court's ruling, holding that Supreme Court was correct with respect Ambrosino's claims based on "breach of contract," but reinstated his petition with respect to his allegations of unlawful discrimination in employment.The court explained that with respect to "breach of contract," the collective bargaining agreement between the Village and Ambrosino's union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters… [read post]
25 Feb 2013, 2:39 pm by John J. Sullivan
  Now for your entertainment . . . . a third-party-payer case called Employer Teamsters-Local Nos. 175/505 Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 2:14 pm by Michael Fitzgibbon
Teamster Local Union No. 31, the question to be determined is whether a reasonable person would have remained at High Strength for the balance of the notice period, taking into account the critical element that an employee is not “obliged to mitigate by working in an atmosphere of hostility, embarrassment or humiliation”. [read post]
10 May 2016, 12:49 pm by Joy Waltemath
In the past year, San Leandro, California-based Teamsters Local 853 has organized hundreds of tech company drivers in Silicon Valley, adding to the union’s 1.4 million members in the U.S. and Canada. [read post]
29 Sep 2008, 9:34 pm
.) *** Graphic Communications Conference Teamsters Local 17B (3-CB-8648; 353 NLRB No. 4) Depew, NY Sept. 12, 2008. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 7:38 pm by Yosi Yahoudai
The bill, which is supported by the Teamsters union, would give local governments the ability to halt and prevent robotaxi services from operating without approval from individual cities and counties. [read post]