Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Union Walks In The Sixth: The Integrity Of Mandatory Non-Binding Grievance Procedures In Collective Bargaining Agreements - At & (And) T V. Communications Workers Of America, Afl-Cio, The, Mark Riley Kroeker
Journal of Dispute Resolution
There are many mechanisms short of industrial action which labor unions and employers use to resolve disputes. Anticipating conflict, but aiming to avoid industrial action, the two parties might place an arbitration agreement or other mandatory grievance adjustment procedure into their collective bargaining agreement. This agreement will reflect the parties' understanding as to how disputes are to be resolved. This Note examines the limited circumstances in which the federal courts will enjoin union protest activity carried out in violation of a collective bargaining agreement's provisions regarding dispute resolution. It focuses on the analytic inconsistency of the judicial refusal to enjoin …
Cease And Desist Orders, Innis Christie
Cease And Desist Orders, Innis Christie
Innis Christie Collection
Cease and desist orders: practice and procedure. The issue of an interim cease and desist order in the context of an illegal strike is a very speedy procedure in Nova Scotia. Regulation 24 simply provides that where a complaint is made under section 49 "Form 14 shall be used...". Section 49(1) of the Act provides that "any person who claims to be involved in or affected by" an illegal work stoppage may make a complaint to the Board. Normally, of course the complainant will be an employer, and by Form 14 the complainant will request the Board to issue an …
Michigan's Binding Summary Jury Trial: Reward Or Punishment - Farleigh V. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1251, Thomas G. Glick
Michigan's Binding Summary Jury Trial: Reward Or Punishment - Farleigh V. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1251, Thomas G. Glick
Journal of Dispute Resolution
In 1988, the Michigan Supreme Court added the summary jury trial to its arsenal of settlement devices available to trial judges.' Unfortunately, the summary jury trial employed in Farleigh v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1251 failed to meet its goal, and no settlement was reached by the parties.6 Nevertheless, the Michigan Court of Appeals chose to enforce the summary jury verdict,7 thereby drawing into question not only the ability of the summary jury trial to meet the preliminary goal of promoting settlement, but also the larger goal of the accomplishment of justice