ARGUMENT AND CITATIONS TO AUTHORITY Appellant, Mr. Bubbenmayer was working at BOCA BARGOONS OF MELBOURNE as a “manager” until the time his employment with appellee ended. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act he should have been paid at one-and-a-half-times his regular hourly rate for all hours in excess of forty (40) per week but appellee, Boca Bargoons of Melbourne wrongfully misclassified Appelant, Chris Bubbenmayer as overtime exempt employee in order to avoid paying compensation to which they are entitled during his employment. Appellee violates the federal fair labor standard acts by designating an employee as a “manager” who is entitled to overtime pay when that employee’s primary job responsibilities do not require supervising other
2. Was the project labor agreement meant to apply only to work preformed on the job site as BE contends, or could the terms of the project labor agreement also be applied off-site work as the union contends? The project labor agreement was not written out anywhere through out the case study, so it hard to confirm where the work was meant to be done. However I believe that the project labor agreement was meant to apply to only work preformed on onsite because I believe that the only place they wanted work to take place.
On the day in question, after Drake and Keeler complained to the supervisor, he polled the workers and majority voted to keep the door opened. The supervisor had to succumb to the majority decision. In the case of NLRB v. Jasper Seating Co., the employer in this case contended that it was justified in its right to discharge Thompson and Goodpasture. Jasper also believed it did not violate Section 8 of the NLRA. The company argued that the employees “walkout did not constitute protected, concerted activity as contemplated by section 7 of the Act” (“857 F. 2d 419”, 1988, para. 4).
To start, Phelps Dodge Corporation declined the unions reasonable offer in negotiations, even after other mines (owned by other corporations) agreed to such terms. The union members reacted by striking. While the union was still attempting to negotiate a compromise and settlement with Phelps Dodge, operating in good faith, the Corporation suggested they have a cooling down period of ten days. Strikers went home optimistic of the agreement sure to come at the end of the waiting period. Unbeknownst to union members, Phelps Dodge was utilizing this time staffing the mine with replacement workers (Scabs), sneaking them in through another entrance to avoid detection.
I am in favor of the Petitioner in the name of Rebecca Friedrichs who supports the idea of overturning the precedent Abood v. Detroit Board Education where the Supreme Court ruled that public agency shop arrangements are constitutional. Public-sector agency shop arrangements aren’t completely incorrect in regards to the subject of having the right to represent since they do have the “legal duty to represent all workers” (“Supreme Court takes case on ‘fair share’ union fees,” 2015). It explains how they do have the constitutionality behind representation and also behind their practices (Abood v. Detroit Board Education) yet regarding their actions, it doesn’t mean that the ruling in Abood v. Detroit Board Education should’nt be overturned especially considering unions require nonmembers to pay “their fair share of fees” for bargaining costs despite the
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is the first stop in an unfair labor practice dispute between an employer and a union. What happens when the NLRB is wrong in their judgment, or one of the parties needs further clarification? The next stop would be an appeals court, and Baltimore Sun Company v. NLRB is an example of this conflict. Case Summary In 1996, the Baltimore Sun Company (Balt.
Cynthia Estlund (2015) in her article "Are Unions a Constitutional Anomaly?" presents information about labor unions. The article published in the Michigan Law Review journal in 2015. The author analyzes a case of Friedrichs versus the California Teachers Association and supports the point with additional case Harris versus Quinn. Cynthia Estlund brings the argument based on the evidence and argues about the necessity of these unions.
In a civil trial, it is the duty of the judge or jury to examine the evidence, and determine if the defendant should be held legally responsible for allegations presented by the plaintiff. As we analyze the case of Norma Gilo versus The Department of Corrections, we will discuss the allegations, positions of each party, and laws involved to factually support allegations and refutes. Before we can analyze the case of Norma Gilo versus The Department of Corrections, we must first understand the positions of each party and the allegations that uniquely makes the case. Norma Gilo, the plaintiff, requested legal action against her former employer, The Florida Department of Corrections, alleging that she was fired because of: (1) Gender Discrimination,
v. NLRB, Case Nos. 01-3606 and 01-3987 (7th Cir. Aug. 1, 2003), which has similar relating facts to Drake and Keeler’s, it provided some guidance on understanding protected and unprotected strikes. In the case of Trompler, Inc v. NLRB, the employer was held liable for back pay and reinstatement for terminating six employees who walked off the job in response to unanswered complaints regarding the higher level supervisor (“When May Nonunion”, 2003). Even though both Drake and Keeler made a complaint to their supervisor about the work conditions, they did not necessarily have to provide a complaint.
The Norris-LaGuardia Act was implemented in 1932 in order to eradicate certain legal and judicial barriers against the actions of organized labor in the United States. The Rift between the trade unions and the employers are not unknown to the world, as this issue has been raising its head every now and then in the history of industrial and labor development. Many acts and legislations have been enacted throughout the past century to bring some kind of a balance between the relation of the unions and the employers of labor. Norris Laguardia Act of 1932 is one such act that was enacted work in favor of the organized labor. The adoption of this act, allowed Congress to liberate the organized labor from the most extreme controlling Federal court injunctions.
It required that the Unions were to give notice before their strike, diminishing the effectiveness of union strikes, as now the employers can prepare for that circumstance. This resulted in the weakening of worker unions and employees, which gave much more power to employers instead of trying to keep the ideal of equality that the United States tried to uphold, demonstrating that in the United States policies are not only created to uphold morality. Additionally, in the Fair Labor
The National Labor Relations Act allows employees to form a union or join a preexisting union. The same act prevents employers from standing in the way of workers attempting to unionize. Many organizations frown on unionization, but regardless of their opinion, they cannot interfere with employment rights. Employers are violating the law if they threaten employee 's jobs, question union activities, or eliminate benefits for employees by unionization. They also cannot offer benefits or perks to employees for refusing to unionize, as this could be seen as illegal persuasion (Employer/Union Rights, n.d.).
Alexander the Great led an eventful and prosperous life, eliciting tremendous change across the globe. He built an incredible empire that spanned across Macedonia, Egypt, Greece and India, and contributed to the widespread use of Hellenistic culture. As well as bringing about massive political and socioecnomic change, transforming the world as we know it. To begin, one aspect of Alexander's legacy that I believe to be significant is the long-term political and socioeconomic impact he had on the world. Alexander helped create a new era in history known as The Hellenistic Age and brought about many new developments in areas such as math, education, and architecture.
It wasn’t a union, but a federation, whose goals were to bargain with employees’, resolve grievances and organize strikes. Unlike The Knight of Labor, in order to achieve efficiency, it believed in the capitalist system and the importance of employers’ making a profit, but also seeks to win labor’s fair share of the profits through collective bargaining. Equity was achieved by way of making sure that employees received their fair share of the profits though collective bargaining. Therefore, to ensure that workers received their fair share of the profits, the union had no problem using the threat of strikes.
Gaskin vs. Commonwealth of PA is a case involving FAPE or the Free and Appropriate Public Education. Gaskin was a student in the Carlisle School District in Pennsylvania who had the right to FAPE, but was being denied. Lydia Gaskin was denied the right to be in the appropriate setting for her disability. The Gaskins were pushing for Lydia to be in full inclusion. The school district denied claim for full inclusion.
