AI based case research assistant

Case Notes

There are four telephone company employees (employees) represented by the Communications Workers of America(CWA or Union) in collective...

There are four telephone company employees (employees) represented by the Communications Workers of America(CWA or Union) in collective bargaining with their respective employers. They are not members of the Union and have objected to paying CWA a mandatory agency fee above the amount necessary to compensate it for the costs of representing them. The employees allege that the Union has breached its duty of fair representation by providing inadequate notice to workers of their right to object and by using improper procedures to calculate the portion of its expenses attributable to collective bargaining and to processing objections.
The Union is the petitioner's exclusive representative under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRA authorizes the Union to require as part of its collective bargaining agreement with employers that all nonmember employees represented by it "shall as a condition of employment pay or tender to the Union amounts equal to the periodic dues applicable to members. To opt out of subsidizing union expenses unrelated to worker representation, a nonmember employee must affirmatively object each year to paying an amount equivalent to the dues paid by member employees.
CWA informs nonmembers of their right to object by a notice distributed yearly to all employees. The notice appears in the Union newsletter. The notice provides a general description of the Union's procedure for receiving and handling objections and the classes of expenses it considers both "chargeable" (related to collective bargaining and other employee representation activities) and "non chargeable" (related to other union activities). Id. The Union distributes the notice in March and objectors may file at any time through mid-June. CWA's fee year begins in July. The Union accepts late objections only from new employees or those with a "reasonable excuse. At the beginning of the fee year an objector receives from the Union an "advance reduction" payment equal to the amount attributable to non chargeable expenditures that will be deducted from his paychecks during the coming year. Along with the payment the Union provides a detailed accounting of its expenses and a description of the expenses it considers chargeable and nonchargeable. The description is more detailed than the one included in the Union's general notice.
The amount of advance reduction payment is calculated by an outside accounting firm. The firm bases its calculation on the portion of time Union employees spent on activities not related to collective bargaining during the preceding year. It obtains the data underlying its calculation from time sheets distributed to the Union staff once every thirteen weeks. Any employee who challenges the amount of the advance reduction must do so within 30 days of receiving the payment. Under CWA policy the objection is then referred to arbitration. In October 1987 the employees brought suit against CWA in district court. Their complaint alleged that the Union's objection procedures violated its duty of fair representation arising under the NLRA.

Copy & Use

Your Pleading

No. 15-1204
In the Supreme Court of the United States
DAVID JENNINGS, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v.
ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL...

/images/files/your-brief.pdf#page=1

Copy & Use

Opposition Pleading

No. 15-1539
In the Supreme Court of the United States
BRIAN P. KALEY, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ...

/images/files/opposition-brief.pdf#page=1

Copy & Use

Lower Court Judgment

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge:
South Bay Beer Distributors, Inc. (South Bay) fired Henry Mack. Mack was subsequently denied state...

/images/files/lower-court-judgment.pdf#page=1

Copy & Use

Harness the power of Artificial Intelligence for your Case Research.

Quick Demo

The respondent herein was working in the appellant organization as Manager. Since he wanted to go on voluntary retirement, he tendered a three months' notice dated 31.12.1999 for voluntary retirement to retire him with effect from 31.3.2000. The said notice of the respondent for relieving him on voluntary retirement was accepted by the appellant corporation on 10.2.2000. However, on 22.3.2000, i.e., 10 days prior to the date of relieving him, the respondent sought to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement whereby the respondent had sought voluntary retirement with effect from 31.3.2000. The request for withdrawal of the notice for voluntary retirement was rejected by the appellant corporation on 17.4.2000. Aggrieved against the said order of rejection dated 17.4.2000, the respondent herein approached the CAT, Jabalpur, Circuit Bench, Indore. The CAT vide its order dated 13.01.2004 quashed and set aside the order dated 17.4.2000 of the appellant herein and directed the appellant to treat the applicant-respondent to have continuously worked till the date of actual superannuation and granted him all arrears of salary and other emoluments including increments and to get his pensionary benefits refixed accordingly. Aggrieved against the said order of the CAT, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court. Saying that he should have been permitted to withdraw the same and the acceptance of retiral benefits including pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. ought to have been ignored, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition.

Issue: Should such withdrawl of Voluntary Retirement be allowed?

Do you know?

ANALYTICS

ACTS

YEAR

SUGGESTIONS

CaseIQ^TM FAQs

Do you know?

CaseIQTM

Harness the power of Artificial Intelligence for your Case Research

COURTS

CITATIONS FOUND

CiteTEXT

ANALYTICS

ACTS

YEAR

SUGGESTIONS

CaseIQTM FAQs

Paste your URL or Text

Add Citation Code

Add judgement url from CaseMine

Add Citation Code

Add Keyword

Update Courts

Court List

CaseIQTM Demo

What can CaseIQTM do for you today?

Summary

Alert

CaseIQ^TM

CaseIQ^TM FAQs

CaseIQ^TM Demo

What can CaseIQ^TM do for you today?