Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 26

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 26, § 837

Collective bargaining rights

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REALLOCATED FROM TITLE 26, SECTION 827)
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1983, c. 452 (NEW). PL 1983, c. 583, §15 (RAL). PL 2021, c. 589, §1 (RP).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2021 · leading case: Carmichael v. Verso Paper, LLC
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carmichael v. Verso Paper, LLC (2010) med “1999) (citing 26 M.R.S.A § 837). Because the provision specifically requires the Court to interpret the CBA to determine whether the MWPA would diminish or impair rights under the CBA, Mr.”
Patterson v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2003) njd “statutory language indicates that it does not “diminish or impair the rights” of those operating under a CBA, 26 M.R.S.A. § 837, and therefore “the Court is not permitted to engage in such interpretation.”
Bishop v. Bell Atlantic Corp. (1999) med “” 26 M.R.S.A § 837. This provision would require the Court to interpret the CBA between Bell Atlantic and Bishop’s Union in order to ensure that the Whistleblowers’ Act does not “diminish or impair the rights” of those operating under the CBA.”
Bernard Nadeau v. Twin Rivers Paper Company, LLC (2021) me · cites it 3× “§ 185 (a), in combination with section 837 of the WPA, 26 M.R.S. § 837. Nadeau opposed the motion.”
Nadeau v. Twin River Paper Company, LLC (2019) mesuperct · cites it 2× “This Comi concludes that it would be called to actively interpret the CBA to adjudicate this case and thus, concludes that Nadeau's MWPA claim is preempted. § 837 of the MWPA provides: "This subchapter shall not be construed to diminish or impair the rights of a person under any…”
WEBB v. CALAIS REGIONAL HOSPITAL (2019) med “” 26 M.R.S.A § 837. This provision would require the Court to interpret the CBA between [the parties] in order to ensure that the Whistleblowers’ Act does not “diminish or impair the rights” of those operating under the CBA.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.