U.S. Top Court Rejects Worker Pay For Security-Screening Time

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday handed a victory to employers over worker compensation, ruling that companies do not have to pay employees for the time they spend undergoing security checks at the end of their shifts in a case involving an Amazon.com Inc warehousing contractor. The court decided by a 9-0 vote that employees of Integrity Staffing Solutions facilities in Nevada, where Amazon merchandise is processed and shipped,…

Read More

Cell Phone Searches After The Supreme Court’s Riley Decision

Some employers have had a practice of ordering employees to produce personal cell phones during an internal affairs investigation. Often, this occurs in the course of an investigation into off-duty conduct, and may or may not include misconduct allegations pertaining directly to the employee’s phone. The Supreme Court’s June 2014 decision in Riley v. California will likely greatly change the legal landscape in the area. Riley was a criminal…

Read More

Supreme Court Rejects Request To Hold ‘Fair Share’ Unconstitutional

In what some have termed the most significant labor case in years, the United States Supreme Court has rejected a request to hold “fair share” assessments unconstitutional. “Fair share” assessments occur under the laws of 20 states which not only grant public employees the right to bargain, but also impose upon unions the duty to fairly represent all members of their bargaining units. Under “fair share” provisions, non-union members…

Read More

Supreme Court Upholds Michigan’s Ban On Race And Gender Preferences In Employment, Education

The United States Supreme Court continues to whittle around the edge of the basic constitutional question concerning affirmative action programs – do the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment allow or prohibit affirmative action programs that explicitly rely on race or gender? Though it would seem that five (Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas) of the Court’s nine justices are strongly philosophically inclined against affirmative action programs, the…

Read More

Supreme Court Questions Legality of Agency Shop Provisions

In Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000, the Supreme Court for the first time raised question about the continuing legality of “fair share” or agency fees. “Fair Share” is a bargaining system where employees are free to be non-members of a union, but must pay to the union their “fair share” of the costs of negotiating and administering a collective bargaining agreement. Though the Supreme Court has…

Read More

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality Of Centerpiece Of Health Care Reform

In the case known as National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the centerpiece of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 – the so-called “individual mandate,” which requires individuals to purchase a health insurance policy providing a minimum level of coverage or to pay a penalty tax. The Court’s decision is a complicated one involving two different constitutional provisions…

Read More

Supreme Court Changes Legal Landscape On Scope Of Arbitration

Since the Supreme Court’s 1974 decision in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., it has been believed that a collective bargaining agreement could not force employees to waive the right to proceed in court in lawsuits under federal statutes. Though the following 35 years of Supreme Court decisions on arbitration increasingly gave broader scope to arbitration clauses, the Court had stopped short of allowing the compulsory arbitration of a statutory claim….

Read More

PHP Code Snippets Powered By : XYZScripts.com

Powered by WishList Member - Membership Software