Interpreting Laws and Court Decisions Essay

Interpreting Laws and speak to DecisionsInterpreting labor and function laws, as well as court endings, can be a tedious task at best. The laws set in place be constantly changing and use language that is not easily decipher by the average courseing American. The United States Labor laws cover the vertebral column legal connection between the employers, their employees and the employee labor nubs. Within the borders of the United States it is slackly know that employers and labor unions do not see middle to eye on most issues regarding labor and employment laws. Labor laws can turn to one of three different plazas A union attempts to organize the employees of an employer and to clear the employer to recognize it as the employees bargaining representative (2) a union seeks to talk over a collective bargaining symmetry with an employer or (3) a union and employer disagree on the interpretation and application of an existing contract between the two. Within these three si tuations, specific rules have been created to deal with rights of employees and employers. (Labor Law, 2005) The third situation is often seen more times than not thus creating an everlasting fracture between the two parties.In the case body of work 1-1 of our text, Rein renderment and Back redeem Remedy for Illegal Discharge, it seemed like a common sense straight-from-the-shoulder and shut scenario. My initial thoughts without any research had me thinking there was no way an employer would need to touch on an unlawfully terminated employee, since the person in question is an illegal alien. Recent events in the United States Court of Appeals for the game Circuit showed that my thoughts were way off base and wrong. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided on a case, Palma v NLRB, on July 10, 2013 that an employer could be essential to reinstate illegal aliens previously terminated in violation of the NRLA or National Labor Relations Act. (Palma v NRLB, 2013) This particula r case was on appeal from a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision that was Hoffman Plastics Compounds, Inc v. National Labor Relations Board, which found the employer unlawfully terminated the aliens for move n concerted protected activity under the NRLA, but the aliens were not en name to anaward of back pay. (Hoffman Plastics v. NLRB, 2001) On appeal, the Second Circuit reaffirmed the Hoffman Plastics judgment prohibiting back pay to undocumented aliens, however the bare bones of the terminal ruling states than an employer that fires employees in violation of the NLRA essentially could be required to reinstate ex-employees it knows to be illegal aliens pending these workers can show proof of work authorization and present it to the employers (Palma v. NRLB, 2013).The next question for this particular case study is if its possible for the court to enforce the voluntary settlement agreement between the employer and NRLB without violating any immigration laws? I believe t he answer is yes on account of the Palma ruling, as long as the illegal aliens can appropriate proof of work authorization, theyre sitting in the drivers seat with minimal worries.Case Study 3-3 within our text book, titled NLRB Jurisdiction over a Private shoot School, were being asked if the postulate Schools Professional Management Inc (CSPMI) meets the definition of an employer, as utter n Section 2 (2), LMRA and therefore, the board may assert legal power and conduct a representation election? (Holley, Jennings, Wolters, 2012). The case study tells us that To be exempt from NLRB jurisdiction as a political offshoot of a state, the employer must either (1) be created directly by the state so as to constitute a department or administrative arm of the establishment, or (2) administered by individuals who are responsible to semipublic officials or to the general electorate (pgs. 114-115) CSPMI was not created by the state or any government entity, rather is a private, for-pr ofit organization and the board is elected by the possession of the corporation.This right here shows me that they are not exempt from NLRB jurisdiction. An interesting case, gelt Mathematics & Science Academy Charter School, Inc., Employer and stops Alliance of Charter Teachers & Staff, F, AFT, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, was discussing the issue on whether a private, nonprofit corporation that established and operates a public charter school in Chicago, Illinois, is exempt from our jurisdiction because its a political subdivision of the State of Illinois within the meaning of region 2(2) of the NLRA (Chicago, 2012). The summaryof this particular case state While CMSA is not a political subdivision of the State of Illinois or the City of Chicago, I would bloodline jurisdiction because it is so closely intertwined with and defined by those governmental entities in providing services of a peculiarly public and local nature. I am also noting that declining jurisdiction would not leave CMS As employees without the possibility of collective-bargaining representation. It would only if subject them to the same labor relations laws as are relevant to others who, like them, are defined by statute as public employees in a public educational system. Accordingly, I would dismiss the petition. (Chicago, 2012)REFERENCESChicago Mathematics & Science Academy Charter School, Inc., Employer and Chicago Alliance of Charter Teachers & Staff, F, AFT, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 13-RM-001768, 2012Holley Jr, W., Jennings, K, & Wolters, R (2012) The Labor Relations Process 10th edition. South-Western CENAGE knowledge United StatesLabor Law. Wests Encyclopedia of American Law. 2005. Retrieved from Encyclopedia.com http//www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437702567.HTMLPalma v. NLRB, 12-1199 (2d Cir. 2013)