My Photo

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    March 2015

    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7
    8 9 10 11 12 13 14
    15 16 17 18 19 20 21
    22 23 24 25 26 27 28
    29 30 31        

    « Are Meal and Rest Period Payments Part of One's Pay Rate for OT Purposes? | Main | Issues on Review Stated in Review Granted in Amalgamated Transit Union »

    Comments

    tommyk

    I think you are overstating the scope of the holding as being that a unionized employee cannot be deprived of the protections of state law. Labor Code Section 514 expressly allows it in the case of daily overtime and alternative workweeks. Multiple cases have held that LC 514 does not violate the NLRA and does not constitute discrimination against union members. I think the court was deciding which interpretation of Wage Order 16 was preferable and chose the one that provided more protection to the unionized employee.

    michael walsh

    The holding, viewed in context, might not be that broad, but here's the full quote from which we made that statement:

    "Read together, then, Metropolitan Life Insurance, Fort
    Halifax Packing, and Livadas crystallize the Supreme Court’s view that a unionized employee cannot be deprived of the full protections afforded by state law simply by virtue of the fact that her union has entered into a CBA."

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    Become a Fan

    AddThis Social Bookmark Button