Daily eBriefs - February 28, 2024

Contracts Code of Civil Procedure §1281.98 entitled an employee to withdraw from the arbitration of his claims against his employer due to his employer’s failure to pay the arbitrator’s invoices; §1281.98 does not allow for any extension of time for the due date absent an agreement by all parties; §1281.98 is not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (Golden State Foods) - filed Feb. 27, 2024, Second District, Div. Eight Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 753 Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0224//B327524.

Daily eBriefs - February 20, 2024

Employment Law The National Labor Relations Act prohibits employers from unilaterally ceasing dues checkoff after the expiration of a collective bargaining Agreement; the Taft-Hartley Act does not require specific language in the employees’ written assignments concerning revocability upon expiration of the collective bargaining agreements. National Labor Relations Board v. Valley Health System - filed Feb. 20, 2024 Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 23-137 Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0224//23-137.

Daily eBriefs - February 20, 2024

Administrative Where a case was remanded to the National Labor Relations Board to explain better its decision that an employer may unilaterally cease union dues checkoff after the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement and the board rendered a new decision readopting its prior rule prohibiting employers from unilaterally ceasing dues checkoff after expiration of a collective bargaining agreement, the board did not exceed the scope of the mandate since the mandate did not clearly foreclose reconsideration of the board’s underlying rule regarding dues checkoff after expiration of the applicable collective bargaining agreement. Valley Hospital Medical Center v. National Labor Relations Board - filed Feb. 20, 2024 Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 22-1804 Full text click here >about:blank

Daily eBriefs - February 8, 2024

Employment A whistleblower who invokes 18 U.S.C. §1514A must prove that his protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer’s unfavorable personnel action, but need not prove that his employer acted with retaliatory intent. Murray v. UBS Securities - filed Feb. 8, 2024 Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 22-660 Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0224//22-660_7648

Daily eBriefs - February 6, 2024

Employment The whistleblower anti-retaliation provisions in the Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank Acts do not apply outside the United States. Daramola v. Oracle America - filed Feb. 6, 2024 Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 22-15959 Full text click here >