Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
While the main formal term for ending someone's employment is "dismissal", there are a number of colloquial or euphemistic expressions for the same action. "Firing" is a common colloquial term in the English language (particularly used in the U.S. and Canada), which may have originated in the 1910s at the National Cash Register Company. [2]
A good employment agreement should also have clauses covering the term of employment, protection of the employer's confidential information, leave (statutory and non-statutory), redundancy, termination of employment, serious misconduct, suspension, and where applicable, clauses covering probationary periods, targets and bonuses, and restraint ...
Employees, including Pannell, filed complaints with the Idaho Human Rights Commission, provided emails sent to CDH leaders and the attorney general’s office, and showed copies of their appeals ...
A wide range of workers are covered, including employees, volunteers and contractors, and the legislation covers both public and private sector organisations. [108] Protection is limited to serious misconduct, and disclosure by workers it does not cover others who learn of serious misconduct.
An unfair labor practice (ULP) in United States labor law refers to certain actions taken by employers or unions that violate the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (49 Stat. 449) 29 U.S.C. § 151–169 (also known as the NLRA and the Wagner Act after NY Senator Robert F. Wagner [1]) and other legislation.
United States labor law sets the rights and duties for employees, labor unions, and employers in the US. Labor law's basic aim is to remedy the "inequality of bargaining power" between employees and employers, especially employers "organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association". [3]
A Cook County judge on Thursday ruled that Chicago police officers accused of serious misconduct will have the right to have their cases decided by a third-party arbitrator, but those hearings ...
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving First Amendment free speech protections for government employees. The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been passed up for a promotion for criticizing the legitimacy of a warrant.