Lum v. China Airlines Co., Ltd.
District Court, D. Hawaii
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION AND ORDER
Defendant’s threshold argument is that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to review plaintiff’s claim that the defendant, in his action of terminating the employment of the plaintiff, violated the plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed under the Railway Labor Act § 2, Fourth. That section provides:
Fourth. Employees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. . . . No carrier, its officers, or agents shall deny or in any way question the right of its employees to join, organize, or assist in organizing the labor…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Switchmen's Union v. National Mediation BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Texas & NOR Co. v. Brotherhood of Ry. & Steamship ClerksSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- General Committee v. M.-K.-TR CO.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- General Committee of Adjustment of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Simion Stepanischen v. Merchants Despatch Transportation CorporationCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1983
- International Association of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1982
- Winston B. Lewy v. Southern Pacific Transportation CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Kidder v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.District Court, S.D. Florida · 1978
- International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Altair Airlines, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1979
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.