Nassau New York Jury Instruction - 1.8.1 Employee Claim Against Employer and Union - Vaca v. Sipes - General Instruction

• Category: Federal - Jury Instructions - Adverse Employment Action
• State: Multi-State
• County: Nassau
• Control #: US-11CF-1-8-1
• Format: Word; Rich Text

Description

This form contains sample jury instructions, to be used across the United States. These questions are to be used only as a model, and should be altered to more perfectly fit your own cause of action needs. Nassau New York Jury Instruction — 1.8.1 Employee Claim Against Employer and Union NACAca v. Sipes - General Instruction This Nassau New York Jury Instruction, 1.8.1, relates to employee claims against both their employer and union. It draws upon the precedent set in the case of NACA v. Sides, which serves as a guiding reference for this legal instruction. The instruction covers various aspects of such employee claims, providing a comprehensive guideline for juries to understand and decide upon disputes in Nassau County courtrooms. Here are the key points covered by this general instruction: 1. Employee rights: The instruction clarifies the rights of employees when making claims against their employer and union, emphasizing the importance of fair treatment, just cause, and non-arbitrary actions by both parties. 2. Collusion between the employer and union: It explains that collusion or cooperation between the employer and union to deprive or discriminate against an employee is an important factor in these claims. The instruction advises jurors to consider any evidence of such collusion when assessing the validity of the employee's claims. 3. Exhaustion of union remedies: This instruction highlights the requirement for an employee to exhaust all internal union remedies before pursuing legal action against both the employer and union. Juries are instructed to consider whether the employee has demonstrated reasonable efforts in pursuing internal remedies, which may include filing grievances or appealing within the union structure. 4. Duty of fair representation: The instruction explains the concept of "duty of fair representation" imposed on the union. It clarifies that the union is obligated to represent the member's interests in good faith, without arbitrary or discriminatory actions. Juries are advised to evaluate whether the union fulfilled its duty to fairly represent the employee when assessing the employee's claim against the union. 5. Legal standard: The instruction outlines the standard of proof that must be met by the employee for a successful claim. It emphasizes the need for the employee to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that both the employer and union violated their respective obligations and caused harm to the employee. It's important to note that this general instruction, 1.8.1, may have additional variations or specific instructions tailored to different scenarios or subcategories of Employee Claims Against Employer and Union. These variations may address unique circumstances or claims arising from specific employment sectors or industries within Nassau County, New York.

Nassau New York Jury Instruction — 1.8.1 Employee Claim Against Employer and Union NACAca v. Sipes - General Instruction This Nassau New York Jury Instruction, 1.8.1, relates to employee claims against both their employer and union. It draws upon the precedent set in the case of NACA v. Sides, which serves as a guiding reference for this legal instruction. The instruction covers various aspects of such employee claims, providing a comprehensive guideline for juries to understand and decide upon disputes in Nassau County courtrooms. Here are the key points covered by this general instruction: 1. Employee rights: The instruction clarifies the rights of employees when making claims against their employer and union, emphasizing the importance of fair treatment, just cause, and non-arbitrary actions by both parties. 2. Collusion between the employer and union: It explains that collusion or cooperation between the employer and union to deprive or discriminate against an employee is an important factor in these claims. The instruction advises jurors to consider any evidence of such collusion when assessing the validity of the employee's claims. 3. Exhaustion of union remedies: This instruction highlights the requirement for an employee to exhaust all internal union remedies before pursuing legal action against both the employer and union. Juries are instructed to consider whether the employee has demonstrated reasonable efforts in pursuing internal remedies, which may include filing grievances or appealing within the union structure. 4. Duty of fair representation: The instruction explains the concept of "duty of fair representation" imposed on the union. It clarifies that the union is obligated to represent the member's interests in good faith, without arbitrary or discriminatory actions. Juries are advised to evaluate whether the union fulfilled its duty to fairly represent the employee when assessing the employee's claim against the union. 5. Legal standard: The instruction outlines the standard of proof that must be met by the employee for a successful claim. It emphasizes the need for the employee to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that both the employer and union violated their respective obligations and caused harm to the employee. It's important to note that this general instruction, 1.8.1, may have additional variations or specific instructions tailored to different scenarios or subcategories of Employee Claims Against Employer and Union. These variations may address unique circumstances or claims arising from specific employment sectors or industries within Nassau County, New York.