<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="0.91">
 <channel>
  <title>The Oyez Project: Unions Issues - Bargaining</title>
  <link>http://www.oyez.org/issues/unions/bargaining/</link>
  <description>U.S. Supreme Court Cases, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</description>
  <language>en-us</language>
  
   <item>
    <title>American Hospital Assn v. NLRB</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1990/1990_90_97/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Bayside Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRB</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_1267/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Central State Univ. v. AAUP</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;To increase the amount of time that public university professors spend teaching, Ohio enacted Ohio Rev. Code Ann. section 3345.45. Central State University adopted a workload policy pursuant to section 3345.45. The university then notified its professors that it would not bargain over the issue of faculty workload. The professors' collective-bargaining agent filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that section 3345.45 created a class of public employees not entitled to bargain regarding their workload and that this classification violated the Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions. In response, the state argued that achieving equal workloads was necessary to recapture the decline in teaching and that collective bargaining produced variation in workloads. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with the professors and found that no evidence linked collective bargaining to the decline in faculty time devoted to undergraduate teaching.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1998/1998_98_1071/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service v. NLRB</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_931/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Glass</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_32/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Fall River Dyeing &amp; Finishing Corp. v. NLRB</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1208/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_14/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>FLRA v. Aberdeen Proving Ground</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_1715/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Fort Stewart Schools v. FLRA</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_65/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>IRS v. FLRA</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_2123/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Labor Board v. Borg-Warner Corp.</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_53/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Labor Board v. Fant Milling Co.</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_482/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Labor Board v. General Motors</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_404/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Labor Board v. Insurance Agents</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1959/1959_15/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Labor Board v. Katz</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_222/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Labor Board v. Lion Oil Co.</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_4/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Labor Board v. Metropolitan Ins. Co.</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_98/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Labor Board v. Truitt Mfg. Co.</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1955/1955_486/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Linden Lumber Division v. NLRB</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_73_1231/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>NFFE, Local 139 v. Department of the Interior</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;The National Federation of Federal Employees, a federal employees' union, proposed to include a provision obligating the Interior Department to negotiate midterm matters not in the original contract between the union and the Agency. The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, that created the Federal Labor Relations Authority, requires federal agencies and their employees' unions to negotiate in good faith to arrive at a collective bargaining agreement. Initially, the Authority held that the good-faith bargaining clause did not extend to union-initiated proposals during the term of the basic contract. The Court of Appeals did not agree and, in turn, the Authority reversed its decision. The Interior Department refused the proposal on the ground that union-initiated midterm bargaining is inconsistent with the Statute. The Authority then ordered the Agency to comply with the bargaining.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1998/1998_97_1184/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co.</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_52/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>NLRB v. Action Automotive, Inc.</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_83_1416/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co.</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_72_1598/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>NLRB v. Bildisco &amp; Bildisco</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_818/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>NLRB v. Burns Security Services</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_71_123/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>NLRB v. Catholic Bishop Of Chicago</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_752/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>NLRB v. Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc.</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1685/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co.</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_573/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>NLRB v. Hendricks Cty. Rural Electric Corp.</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_885/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>NLRB v. United Insurance Co.</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_178/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>NLRB v. Yeshiva University</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1979/1979_78_857/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Pittsburgh &amp; L. E. R. Co. v. Railway Executives</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_1589/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Porter Co. v. NLRB</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1969/1969_230/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Transportation Union v. Long Island R. Co.</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_1925/</link>
   </item>
  
 </channel>
</rss>
