Do you have a reference to support that statement? Can you post it? Common sense tells me that if that were true then ABX could just pick a different grievance and strike again, and again, and again. I don't think that's the case. But if you have a reference to post I would like to see it.

 

There is labor attorney that cruises this site. Lets see if he chimes in before I have to go dig UAW rulings. Most tort law deals with automotive unions, been around longer. Granted they aren't governed under RLA but the right to strike etc is same for both. That goes back to the National Labor Relations Act.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

You're trolling. Do you have a dog in the fight?
Wait were you one of the scabs that crossed our picket line?

 

I think KoolAID has a point CTR.

1) Tort law deals with "civil wrongs". I.E. negligence, strict liability, and intentional torts (assault, fraud, defamation etc.).
Labor Law is a totally different animal.

2) UAW is governed under the NLRA.
Airlines unions are governed under the RLA.

You're mixing apples and oranges on both points


You are correct in stating that each have the right to strike. But while one can elect to strike at any point (the NLRA unions), the RLA unions can only strike once they have been released by the NMB and only over major disputes after the union has exhausted the RLA's negotiation and mediation procedures, while barring almost all strikes over minor disputes. The RLA also authorizes the courts to enjoin strikes if the union has not exhausted those procedures, as is what happened last Nov-Dec 2016.


I am not a lawyer and I don't pretend to be. But I do believe I am correct here. lets hope APC's resident lawyer cruises by and sets us all straight.

 

You are mostly right.

The NLRA was actually done later as a law to protect unions and employees in midst of the Great Depression. This was done as a result of union busting that occurred in the previous decade. It covers or establishes workers right to organize and strike.

A Union can't just strike at will though. I do know going after a union for damages is unlikely to near impossible unless they have continued a job action after a ruling has been made. Even then, your playing with fire.

 

1) Tort law deals with "civil wrongs". I.E. negligence, strict liability, and intentional torts (assault, fraud, defamation etc.).
Labor Law is a totally different animal.


Tort law deals with previous rulings. They can be referenced and used in any type of case. If you're going to argue a case it helps establish a point.

2) UAW is governed under the NLRA.
Airlines unions are governed under the RLA.

I mentioned that but a labor action and dealing with the legitimacy of that action and liability is much the same. We are talking about the act striking and --nothing else--. I don't have time to type a thesis but its impossible to call a strike an illegal strike until it has been ruled as such. In cases of "strikes" no damages have been awarded unless a union has continued a job action post ruling. That liability is the same regardless of what your under railway/RLA

 

didn't quote and wanted you to get the post

 

Understood.

Torts = past precedent? I don't believe so.

Tort, by it's very definition is (in a legal sense) , a wrongful act, not including a breach of contract or trust, that results in injury to another's person, property, reputation, or the like, and for which the injured party is entitled to compensation.

Past precedence, in common law legal systems, is a precedent or authority is a legal case that establishes a principle or rule. This principle or rule is then used by the court when deciding later cases with similar issues or facts.


While I guess one could use past precedence to establish that letting a dog bite someone entitles the injured party to damages, the trial law that the case is based on is Tort law not labor law.


Again, its been 33 years plus since I've had to think on this stuff (and I've since sold the text books) but I think I'm right here.

 

*He should have just referred to it as case law or prev rulings.

You don't need to go dig rulings etc. You would find more post strike rulings for the UAW. Back in the 80's they struck for everything. In the airlines we just don't strike as much and can disrupt the system in other ways

*The subject of the "act" of striking...not really what type of union I get that. Getting to the strike is different between as he said the UAW and an airline. The act of striking and the legal follow up is much the same.

The difference is an RLA strike has national implications where say the Service Unions would be local in nature. You would see an RLA union ordered back even though the strike was ruled in favor of. We've all seen this.

The rest is correct. You treat any strike as a strike until its ruled otherwise. This keeps the subjective "scab" calling out of it. No one can say a strike is legitimate or not until its ruled on. A striking worker can not and I repeat "can not" have any kind of company retaliation upon his/her self unless he/she fails to return to work after an order.

Every strike in history I bet has had the company take the matter to court and claim its an illegal job action. Takes a few days and it will either end or continue. The strike could be favorable and still stopped though on grounds of national interest. Just like the UAW or Service Unions etc. an RLA union could be held liable if they continued to strike after an order but only then.

Sorry CTR if you had guys that crossed a line. You can't defend that I understand your point but the day you hire in to this industry you learn not to cross picket lines.

 

1)Im not defending them.

2) We had a union (ours) calling this an illegal strike before any type of ruling and that no doubt with management coercion made guys fly.

3) Had a guy ask why couldn't anyone strike at any time and what made every strike legitimate.

The only way to answer this is to look at -post- strike cases and that doesn't matter if your railway or not. You made the statement a lot better than I did. I was heading in the direction that liability for job actions only occurs when workers violate a court order. Therefor the strike to that point was recognized. Obviously I failed and haven't had 5-6 monsters today.

4) Astar is right shouldn't have referred to them as torts.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro