翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Union Pacific Big Boy
・ Union Pacific Big Springs robbery
・ Union Pacific Bridge (Two Rivers Bridge)
・ Union Pacific Center
・ Union Pacific Challenger
・ Union Pacific Coal Company
・ Union Pacific FEF Series
・ Union Pacific GTELs
・ Union Pacific Harriman Dispatch Center
・ Union Pacific Intermodal Bridge
・ Union Pacific International Railroad Bridge (Eagle Pass–Piedras Negras)
・ Union Pacific Missouri River Bridge
・ Union Pacific No. 119
・ Union Pacific Police Department
・ Union Pacific Railroad
Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
・ Union Pacific Railroad Complex (Evanston, Wyoming)
・ Union Pacific Railroad Depot
・ Union Pacific Railroad Depot (Concordia, Kansas)
・ Union Pacific Railroad Julesburg Depot
・ Union Pacific Railroad Omaha Shops Facility
・ Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford
・ Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Cheyenne
・ Union Pacific, Denver and Gulf Railway
・ Union Parish Airport
・ Union Parish School District
・ Union Parish, Louisiana
・ Union Park
・ Union Park (Baltimore)
・ Union Park (Chicago)


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers : ウィキペディア英語版
Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

''Union Pacific Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers'', , was a United States Supreme Court decision on labor disputes.
==Background==
The Railway Labor Act was created to enable peaceful resolution of labor disputes between Railroad Companies and their Unions. For disputes deemed minor a panel of five would meet; two from the railroad industry, two from the unions and one neutral party under the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). In order to reach arbitration the two parties had to exhaust their grievance procedures under their own Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA). If this fails then either party may refer the issue to the NLRB with full statements of facts that these negotiations took place.
Union Pacific Railroad Company issued disciplinary violations against five of its employees represented by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), a division of the Teamsters. The union then initiated grievance proceedings under their CBA. Dissatisfied with the outcome, the Union appealed to the NLRB Board. In opening proceedings one of the industry representatives objected that there was no evidence in the filing that the two parties had conferenced under their CBA.
The NLRB dismissed their petition for lack of required evidence. It also denied the BLET the right to add proof of conferencing to the complaint because as an appellate body it is not permitted to receive new evidence.
The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois affirmed the decision of the NLRB where it was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Appellate Court decided that the singular question at issue was whether written documentation of CBA arbitration was a required perquisite to NLRB arbitration. The court determined there was no such requirement in any rules or regulations of the NLRB and had acted outside the will and intent of the Congress. However the Seventh Circuit did not invoke only statutory grounds for rejection of the NLRB but ruled that the NLRB proceedings had violated the Union's due process.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.