skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Search for:
All decisions
Only decisions since 1991
Only summaries of decisions
Only historic decisions
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

Your query collective and bargaining returned 39 results.

1000
[Syllabus]
931 LOCKE V. KARASS
[Syllabus]
924 BROWN V. PRO FOOTBALL, INC.., 518 U.S. 231 (1996)
[Syllabus]
905
[Syllabus]
882 14 PENN PLAZA LLC V. PYETT
[Syllabus]
867 AUCIELLO IRON WORKS, INC. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BD., 517 U.S. 781 (1996)
[Syllabus]
678 TEXTRON LYCOMING RECIPROCATING ENGINE DIV., AVCO CORP. V. AUTOMOBILE WORKERS, 523 U.S. 653 (1998)
[Syllabus]
640 MARQUEZ V. SCREEN ACTORS
[Syllabus]
628 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES V. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 526 U.S. 86 (1999)
[Syllabus]
598
[Syllabus]
598
[Syllabus]
564
[Syllabus]
564
[Syllabus]
564
[Syllabus]
545
[Syllabus]
522
[Syllabus]
522
[Syllabus]
522 EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORP. V. MINE WORKERS
[Syllabus]
1. Whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, there is a well defined and dominant public policy that prohibits enforcement of arbitration awards requiring reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of employees who test positive for illegal drugs, or whether, as the Second, Ninth, Tenth, and now Fourth Circuits have held, no such policy exists and courts must therefore uphold reinstatement to safety sensitive positions of those who test positive for illegal drugs. 2. Whether, as the Fourth, Ninth, and District of Columbia have held, an arbitration award should be vacated on public policy grounds only when the award itself violates positive law or requires unlawful conduct by the employer, or whether, as the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, such an award need not violate positive law to violate public policy---a question on which the Court granted certiorari, but did not reach, in United Paperwork's International Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1987)."
522 DAVENPORT V. WASHINGTON ED. ASSN.
[Syllabus]
469
[Syllabus]
465 AIR LINE PILOTS V. MILLER, 523 U.S. 866 (1998)
[Syllabus]
465 BARNHART V. SIGMON COAL CO.
[Syllabus]
The Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 does not permit the Commissioner of Social Security to assign retired miners to the successors in interest of out-of-business coal operators that signed agreements requiring contributions to the 1950 or 1974 Benefits Plans for miners.
412 EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE, INC. V. MCVEIGH
[Syllabus]
390 ALLENTOWN MACK SALES AND SERVICE, INC. V. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359 (1998)
[Syllabus]
337
[Syllabus]
337 CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT V. DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION, 519 U.S. 316 (1997)
[Syllabus]
261
[Syllabus]
261 PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP. V. THE LTV CORP., 496 U.S. 633 (1990)
[Syllabus]
261 N.L.R.B. V. TOWN & COUNTRY ELEC, INC., ET, 516 U.S. 85 (1995)
[Syllabus]
261 GRANITE ROCK CO. V. TEAMSTERS
[Syllabus]
261 POSTAL SERVICE V. GREGORY
[Syllabus]
The Merit Systems Protection Board may review independently prior disciplinary actions pending in grievance proceedings when reviewing termination and other serious disciplinary actions.
261 INTER MODAL RAIL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY, 520 U.S. 510 (1997)
[Syllabus]
261
[Syllabus]
261
[Syllabus]
261 558 U. S. ____ (2009)
[Syllabus]
261 GENERAL DYNAMICS LAND SYSTEMS, INC. V. CLINE
[Syllabus]
Whether the Court of appeals erred in holding, contrary to decisions of the First and Seventh Circuits, that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621-634, prohibits reverse discrimination, I.e., employer action practices, or policies that treat older workers more favorably than younger workers who are at least 40 years old.
261 BE&K CONSTR. CO. V. NLRB
[Syllabus]
Respondent National Labor Relations Board lacked authority to find that petitioner violated federal labor law by prosecuting against respondent unions an unsuccessful lawsuit with a retaliatory motive.
261 WRIGHT V. UNIVERSAL MARITIME SERVICE CORP.
[Syllabus]
261 BARTNICKI V. VOPPER
[Syllabus]
Respondent news media's disclosure of the contents of an illegally intercepted cell phone conversation about a public issue is protected by the First Amendment.