1. Reynolds v. Ozark Motor Lines, 887 S.W. 2d 822 Sup. Ct.,Tenn.(1994) the question for this case is: The jury found this to be wrongful dismissal because Ozark violated statutory public policy. Was this upheld on appeal and if so why?
The appeal was successful. The Tennessee Supreme Court argued that the Motor Carriers Act was an expression of statutory public policy. The Court stated that an action for retaliatory discharge would “lie in case the employer had violated a clear public, policy that is evidenced by an unambiguous statutory, regulatory or constitutional provision and that the employer’s violation was a considerable factor in the employee’s dismissal” (Public. Resource.org). The court affirmed that all the elements required of a retaliatory discharge were present in the case and, therefore, allowed the drivers to recover for retaliatory discharge.
2. Tanks v. GCRTA, 930 F. 2d 475,6th Cir.(1991) Question: Did she have a case and why?
Tanks did not have a case against the GCTRA. This is because her dismissal from work was based on her violation of a policy to which she was well aware. Various comprehensive and legally accepted toxicological tests proved that she was under the influence of cocaine when she hit a stationary pole (Meiners, Roger, Ringleb, & Frances, 495). The Alcohol and Drug Policy implemented by GCRTA had explicitly stated that bus drivers who were involved in accidents in which involved fixed objects would be required to accept to undergo a toxicological testing for the presence of drugs and alcohol (Public. Resource.org). Tanks’s termination was legal, and she had no legal ground to sue for violation of her rights as entrenched in the 4th Amendment.
3. Synergy Gas v. BLRB, 19 F. 3d 649 D.C. Cir. (1994) Question: What would you think was the result and why?
The appeal by Synergy Gas to block the reinstatement of Nastaci was declined by the court. This is because the Nastaci’s involvement in an accident and his consequent dismissal were not legally binding. Synergy Gas ambiguously claimed that any driver involved in an accident would be fired without laying legal guidelines through a safety policy. The fight for a workers union which Nastaci led, was bitter, and it is, therefore, justifiable to assume that his sacking was a retaliatory reaction by Synergy’s management. In addition, Synergy Gas had previously been found guilty of five unfair labor practices by the National Labor Relations Board, (NLRB) (Meiners, Roger, Ringleb, & Frances, 495). It is, therefore, in order to conclude that the appeal by Synergy was rejected, and Nastaci was reinstated.
4. Waremart Foods v. NLRB, 354 F. 3d 870D.C. Cir (2004) Question: Was the NLRB correct and why?
The NLRB was not correct in supporting that labor organizers have a right to hand out leaflets at privately owned businesses. Under the provisions of California Law, union organizers have no right to share out literature on stand-alone grocery store’s categorized as private property (Openjurist.org). The Court of Appeals after NLRB sought clarification on the case, affirmed that it had erred in its earlier decision. The correct stand was that the actions taken by NLBR contravened California laws.
Works cited
Russell, Ryan. Exceptions to the employment-At-will-Will Doctrine: The Relationship Between the common law tort of the retaliatory discharge and the Tennessee “Whistle-Blower” Act. Guy V. Mutual of Omaha Ins., 79 S.W.3d 528. (Tenn. 2002). 2002.
Meiners, Roger E., Al H. Ringleb, and Frances L. Edwards. The legal environment of business. 10th ed. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.
Openjurist.org. 354 F.3d 870 WAREMART FOODS, d/b/a WinCo Foods, Inc., Petitioners,
v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 588, Intervenor. No. 02-1038. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued April 14, 2003. Decided January 16, 2004. Retrieved November 6 2012 from: http://openjurist.org/354/f3d/870/waremart-foods-v-national-labor-relations-board
Public. Resource.org. 930 F.2d 475. 6 Indiv. Empl.Rts. Case. 593 Catherine TANKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, (GLRTA) Defendant-Appellee. No. 90-3494. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued March 21, 1991. Decided April 12, 1991. Retrieved November 6 2012 from: https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/930/930.F2d.475.90-3494.html
