We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search

Refine your search

Content type

Tags

Firm name

Author

430 results found

Article

Pillsbury | USA | 8 Jun 2017

“Tantrums” Aside, the Law Leans Toward the Employee in Issues of Social Media and Free Speech

Whether or not your friends and family get a kick out of your misery at work, that online post of yours might tick off your employer. But what rights

Article

Winston & Strawn LLP | USA | 6 Jun 2017

Administrative, Court & Other Decisions - May 2017

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed an NLRB decision that two Las Vegas airport restaurant workers did not suffer arbitrary

Article

Stark & Stark | USA | 9 May 2017

Say What? The Second Circuit Establishes a New “Outer-Bounds” Limit to Protected Employee Speech

To say that Facebook and social media have complicated the relationship between employer and employee and, specifically, what an employee can say or

Article

Proskauer Rose LLP | USA | 6 Jul 2011

NLRB to healthcare employers facing a strike: you can ask, but employees don't have to tell

In a 2-1 decision issued on June 30, 2011, the NLRB clarified the interplay of the statutory notice requirements of NLRA Section 8(g) with a health care employer’s right to poll individual employees’ intention to report to work during a strike and the employer's right to enforce neutral work rules requiring patient care employees to provide advance notice of absence. In Special Touch Home Care Services, Inc, 357 NLRB No 2 (2011).pdf, the Board.

Article

Vedder Price PC | USA | 10 Nov 2009

Supreme Court to hear five labor and employment cases

The United States Supreme Court began its latest term on October 5, with five cases on its docket that will directly impact employers.

Article

Foley & Lardner LLP | USA | 27 May 2009

Supreme Court upholds CBA arbitration clause for age discrimination claims

On April 1, 2009, in a victory for unionized employers, the Supreme Court upheld an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) requiring employees to arbitrate ADEA claims.

Article

Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP | USA | 30 Apr 2009

Supreme Court’s holding on arbitration may create a wedge issue for employee advocates

A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court has dramatically changed the legal landscape with regard to litigation of workplace discrimination claims by employees who are subject to a collective-bargaining agreement.

Article

Duane Morris LLP | USA | 21 Apr 2009

Employers may require union employees to arbitrate statutory discrimination claims under the arbitration provision of a labor contract

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 14 Penn Plaza LLC et al., v. Pyett et al., 2009 U.S. LEXIS 2497 (U.S. Apr. 1, 2009) that a provision in a collective bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") is enforceable as a matter of federal law.

Article

Seyfarth Shaw LLP | USA | 10 Apr 2009

Arbitration clause in labor contract is enforceable

On April 1, 2009, a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a labor contract between an employer and a union requiring employees to arbitrate statutory claims was binding on the employees covered by the labor contract.

Article

Squire Patton Boggs | USA | 10 Apr 2009

Supreme Court rules collective bargaining agreements requiring arbitration of statutory claims enforceable

In 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, a divided US Supreme Court held 5-4 that a provision in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate claims arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) is enforceable as a matter of law.

Previous page 1 2 3 ...