Employment Law Information Network
Google
 
Web www.elinfonet.com
Main Navigation
Federal Law Articles
State Law Articles
HR Newsletter
HR Guidebook
HR Policy
HR Seminars
Employment Contracts
Employment Law Forums
Employment Law Blog
Employment Laws
Employee Rights
Workplace Headlines
Federal Article Feeds Federal Article Feeds
State Article Feeds State Article Feeds
Get Our FREE Daily or Weekly Newsletter!
Email:
Over 8,300 Subscribers! More Information
Article Index » labor law » labor arbitrations
Report Link A Railroad Union Representative Is Not Protected from Discipline When Offering a Bribe to an Arbitration Witness.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. - December 22, 2009
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that there is no per se immunity from discipline for the conduct of employees working in their union representational capacity who violate clear company policy, and that a contrary holding would upset the delicate balance of discipline that is subject to arbitration under the Railway Labor Act (RLA). In United Transportation Union and Carmen J. Famulare v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK), No. 08-0854-cv, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 26795 (2d Cir. Dec. 9, 2009), the court reversed a district court's decision that vacated an arbitration award on the theory that employees who are union representatives have a "cloak of immunity" and could not be disciplined for conduct that occurred while they were working in their union representational capacity, even if the conduct was a clear violation of company policies.
Report Link Supreme Court Bypasses Constitutional Question In Arbitration Ruling.
Fisher & Phillips, LLP - December 15, 2009
On December 8, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that a panel of the National Railroad Adjustment Board (NRAB) violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA) when it refused to hear five grievance cases on the ground that the railroad and the union had not presented sufficient evidence to show that they had completed the required "conferencing" before arbitration.
Report Link HIGH COURT GREEN LIGHTS ARBITRATION OF JOB BIAS CLAIMS UNDER UNION CONTRACTS.
Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - April 08, 2009
On April 1, 2009, the United States Supreme Court handed a rare victory to unionized employers seeking to compel arbitration of job bias claims under existing labor agreements. In the case of 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, the High Court enforced a clause in a collective bargaining agreement which explicitly required union members covered by the agreement to arbitrate any claims they may have under the federal age bias laws. This ruling is a major departure from the way the court has looked at this issue for the past thirty-five years.
Report Link Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration Of Discrimination Claims.
Fisher & Phillips, LLP - April 02, 2009
On April 1, 2009, the Supreme Court upheld the enforceability of arbitration provisions in collective bargaining agreements, which require employees to arbitrate claims under federal anti-discrimination law. While it marks a sharp departure from the established law in much of the country, for employers, it is welcome news.
Report Link Supreme Court Holds Arbitration Provision in CBA May Bar Employee Federal Age Claims in Court.
Jackson Lewis LLP - April 02, 2009
In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court has held enforceable a provision in a collective-bargaining agreement that “clearly and unmistakably” compels union members to arbitrate Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claims.”
Report Link Supreme Court Issues Employer-Friendly Ruling In ADEA Arbitration Case.
Ogletree Deakins - April 01, 2009
This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a provision in a collective bargaining agreement requiring employees to arbitrate claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is enforceable. Because the arbitration clause was freely negotiated and “clearly and unmistakably” requires arbitration of age discrimination issues, the Court stated, it had “no legal basis” to strike down the provision.
Report Link Supreme Court to Decide Enforceability of Union Agreement to Waive Employees' Court Access.
Jackson Lewis LLP - February 26, 2008
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a collective bargaining agreement's arbitration provision waiving employees' rights to file a lawsuit for a statutory employment discrimination claim is enforceable. 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, No. 07-581 (cert. granted, Feb. 19, 2008). The decision under review comes from the federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Connecticut, New York, and Vermont. This case likely will be decided during the Court's next term, which begins in the fall.
Report Link When Are Disputes Over Side Agreements Arbitrable?
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC - February 14, 2007
Formal collective bargaining agreements ("CBA") almost universally include mandatory grievance and arbitration procedures. In contrast, many other agreements between employers and unions, such as side letters and memoranda of understanding, are silent with respect to dispute resolution procedures. This typical omission can lead to differing results depending on where the dispute arises.
Report Link Employer's Decision to Fire Employee after Reinstatement Upheld (pdf).
Ogletree Deakins - January 26, 2007
Court finds second termination for "independent grounds" was permitted.
Report Link NLRB Strikes Down Mandatory Arbitration Policy.
Vedder Price - December 08, 2006
In our April 2006 edition (Vol. 26, No. 2), we cautioned employers that agreements to arbitrate employment disputes may be invalid if they make arbitration prohibitively expensive for an employee. Now, employers have another reason to be concerned about the enforceability of such agreements. A divided National Labor Relations Board has ruled that mandatory employment arbitration policies applicable to nonunion employees must expressly exclude unfair labor practice charges which may be fi led with the Board under the National Labor Relations Act. U-Haul Co. of California, 347 NLRB No. 34 (2006). The Board’s decision has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which has scheduled oral arguments this month.

Articles

Found: 10 Articles

NO SUBTOPICS

Sort Articles   
  
Employment Law Seminars

Terms of Use  |  Privacy  |  Advertising  |  About  |  Contact  |  For Law Firms  |  Partners

Copyright © 2010 elinfonet.com, llc.
All Rights Reserved.

The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.

This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations.  As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law.  None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice.  The information should not be relied upon for legal advice.  We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created.  Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege.  If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area.  If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association.

All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners.