Ua Local 342 Collective Bargaining Agreement
- 19. Dezember 2020
- Not categorized
- Publiziert von Administrator
- Kommentare deaktiviert für Ua Local 342 Collective Bargaining Agreement
The applicants have introduced evidence that clearly supports their claims under ERISA. The collective agreement expressly requires defendants to make contributions to their employees` trust plans. See Blevins Decl. Exh. A, art. X. In addition, defendants are required to submit monthly reports of transmission to applicants. Id. The defendants did not respond to this action at all. The Court finds that the applicants are clearly entitled to judge in their favour and orders the defendant to submit the monthly transmission reports in accordance with the collective agreement. While the order of the RBA is not entirely free of ambiguities in this case, the case judgment teaches us that our enforcement function includes the power to adapt this provision through narrow interpretation. I think it is entirely reasonable to say that, to the extent that the House has not indicated that it intends to adopt a full provision, the narrow interpretation proposed by the consultants of the RBAA should be adopted in a reasonable, reasonable and correct manner as a solution to any ambiguities.
The relevance of this orientation is underlined by the fact that it is an interpretation that avoids serious doubts as to its validity, because the narrow interpretation of the decision applies despite the absence of a definition of bargaining unit, whereas in the broader interpretation of that failure, this failure raises serious questions of validity. The trade union council does not protest against the decree, as interpreted in a restrictive way, and this is useful, but not controlling. The approach advocated by the majority creates unnecessary work and raises an abstract logic on common sense and good judgment. The court should enforce the order of the chamber in the order that is designed so that it prohibits any claim of steam grids on the entire task of making fed and coated tubes. The Master Labor Agreement between Local 342 and Northern California Mechanical Contractors Association and Industrial Contractors UMIC, Inc. (“Collective Agreement”). In addition to the monthly transfers of employer contributions due, the applicants require the client, liquidated damages and interest due. The establishment of monthly transfers is appropriate in light of the complainants` evidence of the defendants` obligation to make monthly contributions under the collective agreement. However, since this amount is not known at this time, the court will not order the defendants to make these contributions, since the applicants receive no proof of the amount owed and the non-payment of the defendant. In addition, the Tribunal finds that the applicants have not provided evidence, in accordance with the provisions of the collective agreement, that the applicants are entitled to 20% of liquidated damages on the monthly contributions due, nor that the imposition of 12% annual interest on the amount of unpaid capital must be compensated on a daily basis. The Council issued the recommended order of the ALJ, which had ordered Steamfitters to “no longer make effective the provisions of the work retention provisions of its agreement with C.
Overaa Co. in the manner deemed illegal. J.A. 405. Neither the ALJ`s opinion nor the board`s decision explicitly determines the exact scope of Steamfitters` claim, and the conduct prohibited by the House is therefore unclear. The applicants calculated an annual interest rate of 12% for 511 days. The applicants` calculations are based on the fact that, since April 20, 2004 – the date when the contributions were due in March 2004 – and September 13, 2005 – the hearing date for the applicants` late judgment application has expired 511 days.