2 edition of Allis-Chalmers Corporation v. Lueck found in the catalog.
Published 1986 by Administrator in National Foundation for the Study of Equal Employment Policy
Includes bibliographical references.
|Statement||National Foundation for the Study of Equal Employment Policy|
|Publishers||National Foundation for the Study of Equal Employment Policy|
|The Physical Object|
|Pagination||xvi, 104 p. :|
|Number of Pages||58|
nodata File Size: 8MB.
Rather, the limited surrender of the employer's exclusive authority over mine safety is a concession made by the employer to the Union. 21 Illinois courts will only impose liability for the intentional infliction of emotional distress where the defendant's conduct " 'has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency.at 103, 82 S. 1987the conduct that Ms. Illinois Bell removed this case to federal court under 28 U. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant instructed its supervisors to make crude and vulgar remarks about the plaintiff's family in order to cause him distress and to provoke him into throwing a punch at the supervisor, thus giving the defendant a basis to discharge the plaintiff.
301 arises exclusively under that section. At this point you may be wondering about that other Allis-Chalmers Corporation v. Lueck of the hypothetical clause that says that arbitration is a non-exclusive remedy.
Finally, the court found that Aetna could be liable to Lueck for bad-faith administration of his disability claim since it was an agent of Allis-Chalmers for the purpose of administering claims. Unless federal law governs that claim, the meaning of the disability benefit provisions of the collective bargaining agreement Page 203 would be subject to varying interpretations, and the congressional goal of a unified body of labor contract law would be subverted.
Similarly, the question whether Allis-Chalmers required Lueck to be examined by an inordinate number of physicians evidently depends in part upon the parties' understanding concerning the medical evidence required to support a benefit claim.
United Steelworkers of America, 100 Idaho Allis-Chalmers Corporation v. Lueck, 602 P. 62 The Farmer analysis reveals that Idaho may hold the union liable for negligence in inspecting the mine.
The Court assumes that only union members could recover from the Union for its negligence in inspecting the mine and that union members could not recover from anyone else for comparable negligence.
Even if the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Lueck announced a change in the nature of the tort, the derivation of the tort in contract law would still require a court to evaluate the nature of the contractual relationship in order to assess liability.
The Wisconsin courts have made the bad-faith handling of an insurance claim a tort under state law.
13 After extensive discovery, the trial court again granted summary judgment for the Union.