翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Smith v Knights of Columbus ・ Smith v Land and House Property Corp ・ Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd ・ Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd ・ Smith v Parsons ・ Smith v Smith ・ Smith v. Allwright ・ Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County ・ Smith v. Bolles ・ Smith v. California ・ Smith v. Commissioner ・ Smith v. Doe ・ Smith v. Goguen ・ Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co. ・ Smith v. Maryland ・ Smith v. Pilots Union ・ Smith v. Spisak ・ Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC ・ Smith v. Texas ・ Smith v. Texas (2007) ・ Smith v. United States ・ Smith v. Van Gorkom ・ Smith Valley, Indiana ・ Smith Valley, Nevada ・ Smith Village, Oklahoma ・ Smith Vocational and Agricultural High School ・ Smith Volcano ・ Smith W. Brookhart ・ Smith Warehouse ・ Smith Westerns Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Smith v. Pilots Union ： ウィキペディア英語版 Smith v. Pilots Union ''Smith v. Pilots Union'', 296 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2002), is a court case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that although third officer aboard an oceangoing cargo vessel was a supervisor, Section 10(b)'s six-month period of limitations still applies to Smith's suit against the union whether or not he was a supervisor. ==Facts== On October 3, 1992, Appellant Stuart H. Smith, Jr., was serving as third officer aboard an oceangoing cargo vessel berthed in the Port of New Orleans. Smith was employed by Waterman Steamship Corporation ("Waterman"), the owner and operator of the vessel. On that day, the vessel was undocking when it collided with the dock. The collision caused damage to both the vessel and the dock. Holding Smith responsible, Waterman fired him the following day. At the time, Smith was a union member belonging to the International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, a division of the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA). The union and Waterman were parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), along with other employers. The agreement contained a grievance mechanism for solving labor-management disputes. Under the agreement, the union had the right to bring a grievance either on its own behalf or on behalf of a member. The agreement further authorized the union to pursue arbitration should the grievance procedure provide an unsatisfactory resolution. On October 7, 1992, Smith contacted the union and asked it to initiate grievance procedures with respect to his October 4 discharge. He claimed that the discharge was without cause. Smith and the union, each through counsel, exchanged correspondence regarding the grievance for over a year. During that time, the Coast Guard began an investigation of the October 3 collision. The union would not pursue Smith's grievance until it had received a complete report of the Coast Guard's investigation, which was not available until the Coast Guard completed its investigation in July 1999. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Smith v. Pilots Union」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.