Yes. It’s important to note that employers currently DO have the ability to sue unions for this sort of thing, IF the NLRB rules that the union action was outside the normal bargaining context (like intentional destruction of property instead of a work stoppage).
So this makes TImex’s entire argument irrelevant. If the facts were as bad as Timex says, then the NLRB would rule in favor of the employer and allow the suit, which could then proceed. However, in this case the employer jumped the gun and sued without NLRB approval and is trying to reduce the power of the NLRB to rule on such issues.
Obviously for a narrow, context sensitive issue like the impact of union actions on the workplace, it makes perfect sense for this to first be evaluated by a specialist administrative agency like the NLRB. We do the same with workers’ comp, Social Security Disability, and a whole host of other state and local issues: we use regulatory bodies and administrative courts to handle specialist stuff before it gets to the general civil courts.
None of that may matter to this SCOTUS. I haven’t followed the argument closely enough to know how they will rule but I make no guarantees they will follow the long precedent of vigorously enforcing the NLRA.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision on Thursday allowing alleged domestic abusers to keep their guns is perhaps the most radical Second Amendment decision in the history of the federal judiciary. It is not, however, a surprise. Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion in last year’s Bruen case invited lower courts to strike down any gun restrictions that “our ancestors would never have accepted.” This standard is infinitely malleable given the hopeless ambiguities in the historical record. But even where the record is clear, Thomas’ test leads to heinous results given that the “ancestors” in question were often violently racist and misogynistic white men. As the 5th Circuit tacitly acknowledged, “our ancestors” would “never have accepted” disarming domestic abusers because they did not believe domestic violence was a crime.
And yet, despite the reach of Bruen , I am fairly confident that five justices will reverse the 5th Circuit and uphold a variety of laws that our ancestors would have rejected, including the federal ban on owning a gun while subject to a restraining order for domestic violence. Why? Because I do not think five justices agree with Bruen . Yes, it was a 6–3 decision. Yes, every justice in the majority joined Thomas’ opinion in full. But one justice, Brett Kavanaugh, wrote a separate opinion laying out a different standard that cannot be squared with Thomas’. And another, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined him. Under the Kavanaugh-Roberts test, disarming alleged abusers—and other individual adjudged to be dangerous—is almost certainly constitutional.
It was an Alice in Wonderland investigation: The conclusion seemed to come first—let’s focus on the clerks and employees, not the justices, as the likely source of the leak—rather than result from a consistent investigation focusing on all potential leakers.
It’s been standard everywhere I’ve heard of, that your PTO is essentially part of your compensation package and can’t be taken away. If you quit and have banked PTO, the company is generally required to pay you for it.
I guess maybe you are right though, in that maybe it depends upon your employment contract or corporate policy.