|
''14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett'', , is a decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning the rights of unionized workers to sue their employer for age discrimination. In this 2009 decision, the Court decided that whenever a union contract "clearly and unmistakably" requires that all age discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) be decided through arbitration, then employees subject to that contract cannot have those claims heard in court.〔''14 Penn Plaza LLC. et al., Petitioners v. Steven Pyett et al.,'' No. 07-581, slip opinion (U.S. April 1, 2009),Opinion of the Court, Page 1, available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-581.pdf〕 Pyett’s lawyers, in addition to arguing that a union could not legally bargain away an employee’s right to pursue an ADEA claim in court, also argued that “the facts… (that the union ) Local32BJ… has not done so in this case.” 〔''14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett'' No. 07-581, Brief for Respondents, Page 2, available at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_07_08_07_581_Respondent.authcheckdam.PDF〕 However, because these arguments had not been raised in the lower courts, the Supreme Court chose not to consider them and decided that the CBA in this case did mandate that the employees’ ADEA claims had to be resolved through arbitration.〔''14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett'', No. 07-581, slip opinion (U.S. April 1, 2009), Opinion of the Court, Page 1, available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-581.pdf〕 Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in ''14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett'', employees who were covered under union contracts, often referred to as bargaining unit members, had been able to raise any claims of civil rights violations by their employer in court. This had been the case regardless of the language which was stated in their union contract, a document often referred to as a collective bargaining agreement, or CBA. == Background == Steven Pyett, Thomas O’ Connell and Michael Phillips worked for Temco Service Industries, Inc., a maintenance service and cleaning contractor in New York City. Pyett and O’Connell were night watchmen and Phillips held a similar position as a night-starter at an office building owned by Pennsylvania Building Company and 14 Penn Plaza, LLC.〔498 F.3d 88;2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 18242; 182 L.R.R.M. 2359; 104 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 807; 90 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P42,937. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2012/03/11〕 The men were members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 32BJ. Their positions at Temco were covered under a collective bargaining agreement that their union Local 32BJ had signed with the Realty Advisory Board on Labor Relations (RAB). The RAB represented both Temco and 14 Penn Plaza in labor matters.〔''14 Penn Plaza LLC v Pyett,''(07-581), FACTS -http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-581〕 In August 2003, after receiving consent from the SEIU Local 32BJ, 14 Penn Plaza hired the unionized firm Spartan Security to provide licensed security guard services. Newly contracted security guards were assigned to the building where Pyett, O’ Connell and Phillips worked, and Temco reassigned the men to other positions in the same building as night porters and light duty cleaners. “As the only building employees over the age of 50,”〔498 F.3d 88; 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 18242; 182 L.R.R.M. 2359; 104 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 807; 90 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P42,937. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2012/03/10〕 Pyett, O’ Connell and Phillips believed that their job reassignments to less desirable and less lucrative positions were the result of age discrimination and requested that their union file a grievance over the matter. The workers’ age discrimination claims progressed through four stages spanning five years on its way to the Supreme Court. Here is a summary of that path. 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「14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|