Janus v. AFSCME, 585 U.S. ___, 2018 WL 3129785 (2018)
In a highly anticipated decision, the United States Supreme Court held that it is a violation of the First Amendment to require public sector employees who are not members of a union to pay any union dues, even when a portion of those dues is attributable to the costs of collective bargaining on behalf
In a highly anticipated decision, the United States Supreme Court today held that it is a violation of the First Amendment to require public sector employees who are not members of a union to pay any union dues, even when a portion of those dues is attributable to the costs of collective bargaining on behalf of all employees. Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, 585
Mora v. Webcor Constr., L.P., 20 Cal. App. 5th 211 (2018)
Steven Mora filed this putative class action/PAGA claim against his former employer, Webcor Construction, for violation of the California wage statement statute (Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a)) based upon payments made to a union vacation trust fund authorized by the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (“LMRA”). The trial court sustained the
Araquistain v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 2014 WL 4227872 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)
Plaintiffs Ignacio Araquistain, David Page and Douglas Girouard are non-exempt, unionized employees of PG&E, which is an “electrical corporation” and a “gas corporation” within the meaning of Labor Code § 512(f)(4). The operative collective bargaining agreement states that “shift employees and other employees whose workday consists of eight consecutive hours
We invite you to review our newly posted July 2011 California Employment Law Notes — a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:
County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Comm’n, 190 Cal. App. 4th 178 (2010)
During the course of collective bargaining, the Service Employees International Union asked the county for the personal contact information (names, home addresses and home telephone numbers) of county employees who are in the bargaining unit but who are not members of the union. When the county refused
Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60, 128 S. Ct. 2408 (2008)
Assembly Bill 1889, enacted in 2000, prohibited private employers that receive state funds – whether by reimbursement, grant, contract, use of state property or pursuant to a state program – from using such funds to “assist, promote, or deter union organizing.” Violators were to be liable to the state for the