In the Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc. Case, Dolores Oubre the plaintiff was a scheduler at power plant in Killona, Louisiana, which is run by Entergy Operations, Inc. (the defendant). In 1994, Oubre’s employer gave her two options: she can either improve her job performance or accept a severance pay. While accepting the severance package, Oubre signed a document that released her employer Entergy of all claims. Although the employer Entergy Operations was released of all claims, it failed to meet specific standards or requirements for a release under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as decided or set forth in the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA). In procuring the release, Entergy failed to comply in at least three respects with the requirements for a release under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as set forth in the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act: It did not (1) give Oubre enough time to consider her options, (2) give her seven days to change her mind, or (3) make specific reference to ADEA claims (Twomey, 2013, p. 548).
Melanio A. Fortin 5856695 Assignment #2 Diane Pardu v. Dual Power Solar Diane Pardu has been an employee for Dual Power Solar for 17 years and is was fired at the age of 49. During the 17 years of employment, Diane possessed an annual wage of $51,000, an additional $10,000 for commissions, and health care benefits. Diane performed very well as an employee for Dual Power Solar, as she is very rarely late for her shifts. Although Diane was late on March 18th, she provided a notice, but displaced dishonesty to her sales manager.
Even with all the hard work, the service would still decline. In the letter "Server Wages Cannot Be Increased," it says that customers would also have longer waits and more errors would be made. For example, it says that most employees would be laid off so they wouldn't have enough working and those other servers still working will have to work way
Summary of the Facts In TurnAround Couriers Inc. v. C.U.P.W. (2012), TurnAround Couriers Inc. is the Applicant, and The Canadian Union of Postal Workers is the Respondent. This case comment refers to a Federal Tribunal’s jurisdictional ability to hear a labour dispute concerning a courier company. TurnAround Couriers Inc. (“TurnAround”) is a Toronto-based “same-day” courier service that was established in 2002 and operated as a for-profit corporation. TurnAround’s primary business transactions included courier delivery by foot, bicycle and subway. Car delivery was also available but was outsourced through a separate company.
The City of Houston then filed a timely appeal stating that they did not receive timely notice of the alleged violation and that the liability of Bozeman should rest with Bozeman and not be imputed to the City as having been notified of the complaint allegations. 5. Main issue: Does notifying an immediate supervisor who is not considered “upper management” satisfy the requirement of notification to the agency that in turn creates a situation of vicarious liability to the agency if they do not act on the alleged complaint? 6. Court Deciding:
Boumehdi, 489 F.3d at 793. Eliza requested to be placed on light duty work on May 22, 2014. On May 24, 2014 her superiors informed her that there was no light duty work available. (C. 17) For two months, her superiors claimed that there was no light duty work available. However, Eliza filed a complaint with the EEO’s Office on July 11, 2014, and she was transferred on July 22, 2014.
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
1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the NLRB decide? This case is based on 26 former employees of MasTec Advanced Technologies, Inc. (MasTec), who sued the company alleging that their employment were terminated after an appearance on a TV news show, complaining about unfair new pay formula and the instructions to lie to the customers in order to meet with the telephone lines installations rates. As is mentioned in the textbook in the MasTec Advanced Technologies' case, the new pay formula indicate that the technicians would be paid $2 less for basic and additional outlet installations, but would earn $3.35 for each receiver they connected to phone line.
The company wanted over 5,000 workers to come and work on the railroad, but they only had 600 on the list of payroll by 1864. (“Workers of the Central”). The ratio between 600 and 5,000 workers is a dramatic difference so the workers had to work about eight times harder and
8. Describe who was in the same or similar situation as you and how they were treated Better A. Union Member Robert Godzik Maintenance # 3 was approved for 5 Bereavement days in the death of a step father in law which isn 't in contract .However Two years ago Ladonna Hrabak maintenance #1 with 20 years service wasn 't approved for 5 Bereavement days when her step grandfather and the only grandfather she knew died . My uncle died 3 years ago and lived in Florida I wasn 't awarded 1 Bereavement day for the funeral. B. Union member Joyce Mihalic Maintenance#1 is aloud to start early on weekends.
After the first contract, pay for the newest worker had surpassed what a 21 year veteran had made 3 years earlier. Even though the agreement directed the large increase towards high-cost areas like New York (where the strike actually began), it was very effective across the nation, even in low-cost areas where compensation had been low. At this present day in age, the practice of uniform wages continues at the Postal Service; even though the federal pay system was introduced to locality pay in
The cuts were met with strikes and violence, but the railroads fought back with even more pay cuts, like the Pennsylvania Railroad lowering all wages by ten percent. A few months later, the same rail line decided it would double the length of all eastbound trains but kept the same amount of workers. The employees
The employer entered into a voluntary settlement agreement with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), assenting to reinstating and recompensing, back pay, each illegally discharged person. Later, the employer refused to comply with the negotiated terms of the agreement because the firm proclaimed to have evidence that many of the discharged individuals were undocumented workers. Therefore, if reinstated, the employer would be in violation of both federal (Immigration and Reform Control Act of 1986) and state (the Legal Arizona Workers Act) immigration laws. Both of which prohibits the hiring of undocumented workers. As a matter of public policy, the employer should not be required to reinstate the unlawfully terminated employee, due to said persons being undocumented workers.
The recruiting chief told him that it was a mistake and would settle, and accept the offer now. When the increase was not given, Schoenberger resigned and filed a claim to recover damages for the contract The court of first instance ruled in favor of CTA and Schoenberger appealed. Issue The problem is that a new employee was offered a raise a promised time but the person who offered it was only a manager an employee of CTA, which, he did not have the authority or the power to do so.