Search for: "United States v. Taylor" Results 101 - 120 of 1,086
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Apr 2011, 3:29 am
Further, if the work to be contracted out is not “exclusive unit work,” the impact of such action of the collective bargaining unit may constitute a mandatory subject to negotiations under the Taylor Law. [read post]
3 Jul 2013, 3:30 am
National Labor Relations Board to determine if the National Labor Relations Act preempts the Taylor Law in certain situations involving employees of charter schools Buffalo United Charter Sch. v New York State Pub. [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 4:28 am
An entity not a party to a collective bargaining agreement negotiated pursuant to the Taylor Law may not be bound by its termsMatter of Council of School Supervisors & Adm'rs, Local 1 v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2011 NY Slip Op 06451, Appellate Division, First Department The Council filed a contract grievance in response to a city-wide plan applicable to all city agencies that reduced the number of parking permits issued to municipal workers for parking on city… [read post]
2 Oct 2018, 10:43 am by Rory Little
United States; see my preview), the question presented in the second case (United States v. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 9:12 am
[Long Beach Unit], 8 NY3d 465Article V, Section 6 of New York State’s Constitution mandates that appointments and promotions in the civil service of the State and its political subdivisions "shall be made according to merit and fitness to be ascertained, as far as practicable, by examination which, as far as practicable, shall be competitive. [read post]
24 Apr 2019, 11:00 am by Scott Coyle
The Sixth Circuit agreed, relying upon the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. [read post]
27 Mar 2014, 6:33 am
Taylor Borzu Sabahi & Kabir Duggal, Philip Morris Brands Sàrl v. [read post]
16 Nov 2007, 1:08 am
[www.oranous.com][www.oranous.com] No. 07-5439 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States RALPH BAZE, ET AL., Petitioners, v. [read post]
9 Jul 2007, 5:32 pm
Supp. 51 (D.D.C. 1973) (holding that the $10,000 jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement then in the statute (it's since been eliminated) was not satisfied); United States v. [read post]