Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The NLRB's 'IBM' Decision
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently held by a 3-2 vote that employees who work in a nonunionized work force do not have the right to have a co-worker present at an investigatory interview with their employer, even if the affected employee reasonably believes that the interview might result in discipline. IBM Corp., 341 NLRB No. 148 (June 9, 2004). This decision overruled Epilepsy Foundation of Northeast Ohio, 331 NLRB 676 (2000), which had extended to unrepresented employees a right to have a co-worker present during such interviews, and returned to pre-Epilepsy board precedent applying Weingarten rights only to unionized employees.
NLRB v. J. Weingarten Inc.
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act provides that employees have the right to engage in “concerted activities for the purposes of … mutual aid or protection.” 29 U.S.C. 157. In Weingarten, 202 NLRB 446 (1973), the NLRB held for the first time that an employer violates the act when it denies an employee 's request for the presence of a union representative at a pre-disciplinary investigatory interview. The Supreme Court, with three justices dissenting, upheld the NLRB's interpretation as “a permissible construction of 'concerted activities for … mutual aid or protection.' ” NLRB v. J. Weingarten Inc., 420 U.S. 251, 260 (1978). The court reasoned that the employee seeking union representation at a “confrontation with his employer” was engaging in “concerted activities for the purpose of … mutual aid or protection” because “(t)he union representative … is safeguarding not only the particular employee's interest, but also the interests of the entire bargaining unit.” Id. at 260-261.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?