Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Antideficiency Act was not uniformly enforced, and many funding gaps still did not lead to shutdowns at all. [3] Examples include a brief funding gap in 1982 where nonessential workers were told to report to work but to cancel meetings and not perform their ordinary duties, [ 4 ] and a three-day funding gap in November 1983 that did not ...
Section 165 (), called the "Buy America" provision or Buy America Act—not to be confused with the 1933-enacted Buy American Act—applies to mass-transit-related procurements. [2] It established requirements intended to give preference to the use of domestically produced materials on any procurements funded at least in part by federal funds ...
That began to change in the early 1960s, as the American civil rights movement began to challenge employment discrimination in the north, then picked up steam in the 1970s as the federal government began using the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to knock down some of the barriers to African-American workers' entry into the industry. Some local unions ...
Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation, 549 U.S. 561 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that while a term may be used more than once in a statute, an agency has the discretion to interpret each use of the term in a different way based on the context.
Dislocated worker funding is typically used to help workers in events of mass employment loss. A dislocated or displaced worker is defined as an individual who has been laid off or received notice of a potential layoff and has very little chance of finding employment in their current occupation when attempting to return to the workforce. [1]
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
In addition, Congress has extended the LHWCA to cover non-appropriated fund employees (i.e. certain MWR and AAFES employees), [1] Outer Continental Shelf workers, [2] and U.S. government contractors working in foreign countries under the Defense Base Act [3] This coverage is mandated for all employees, including owners and officers of companies ...
The 20 workers sought relief on three claims: 1) That the agency fee was too high to cover only collective bargaining activities as authorized by NLRA Section 8(a)(3); 2) That the high agency fee breached the CWA's duty of fair representation; and 3) That the high agency fee violated the workers' First Amendment rights. [81]