American Postal Workers Union, Columbus Area Local Afl-Cio v. United States Postal Service (1989)

R .Civ.P. 52(a); American Postal Workers Union v. United States Postal Service, 871 F.2d 556, 561 (6th Cir.1989).

Applying O’Connor in various work environments, lower federal courts have inquired into matters such as whether the work area in question was given over to an employee’s exclusive use, compare Thompson v. Johnson County Community College, 930 F.Supp. 501, 507 (D.Kan.1996) (finding no reasonable expectation of privacy against video surveillance of an unenclosed locker area not sealed from view or provided for any employee’s exclusive use) with United States v. Taketa, 923 F.2…

Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 52(a) states that “findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of witnesses.” “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” American Postal…

Un., 871 F.2d at 560; James, 592 Fed.

See United States v. Simons, 206 F.3d 392, 398 (4th Cir.2000) (citing American Postal Workers Union v. United States Postal Serv., 871 F.2d 556 , 560 (6th Cir.1989), to compare employee lockers subject to random inspection under employer policy with computer files subject to “appropriate” inspection under employer policy allowing monitoring of employee Internet use). 2 Thus, neither case law nor common sense suggests any reason for thinking that the principles in Block do no…

See United States v. Simons, 206 F.3d 392, 398 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing American Postal Workers Union v. United States Postal Serv., 871 F.2d 556 , 560 (6th Cir. 1989), to compare employee lockers subject to random inspection under employer policy with computer files subject to "appropriate" inspection under employer policy allowing monitoring of employee Internet use). 2 Thus, neither case law nor common sense suggests any reason for thinking that the principles in Block do …

See American Postal Workers Union v. United States Postal Serv., 871 F.2d 556 , 561 (6th Cir.1989).

Auth. (3d Cir.1991) 953 F.2d 807 , 827-829 [to the best of our knowledge no court has held the right to be free from drug testing is one which cannot be negotiated away]; Utility Workers of America v. Southern Cal. Edison (9th Cir.1988) 852 F.2d 1083, 1086 [same]; see American Postal Workers Union v. U.S. Postal (1989) 871 F.2d 556 , 567 [where court rejected a Fourth Amendment challenge to searches of employee lockers because the searches were authorized by the collective b…

App. Div. 1995) (same); see also American Postal Workers Union, Columbus Area Local v. United States Postal Service, 871 F.2d 556, 560 (6th Cir. 1989) (recognizing that a union may consent to searches of employee lockers, as provided in a CBA). ¶ 68 In addition, a union can waive statutory and economic rights on behalf of its members.

App. Div. 1995) (same); see also American Postal Workers Union, Columbus Area Local v. United States Postal Service, 871 F.2d 556, 560 (6th Cir. 1989) (recognizing that a union may consent to searches of employee lockers, as provided in a CBA). ¶ 68 In addition, a union can waive statutory and economic rights on behalf of its members.

See, e.g., American Postal Workers Union, Columbus Area Local AFL-CIO v. U.S. Postal Service, 871 F.2d 556 (6th Cir.1989).