29 U.S.C. § 115
Repeal of conflicting acts
All acts and parts of acts in conflict with the provisions of this chapter are repealed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 2013–2018 · leading case: Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018).
Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018). “Indeed, the NLGA expressly addresses the enforceability of contract provisions that interfere with employees’ ability to engage in concerted activities. See supra, at 17, n. 9.”
Sharon Owen v. Bristol Care, Inc., 702 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2013). “to protect workers’ rights to engage in concerted activities” and that this declaration came “seven years after the passage of the FAA.” See 29 U.S.C. § 102 . She also points to language in the Norris-LaGuardia Act expressly repealing any acts or portions of acts that conflict…”
Totten v. Kellogg Brown & Root, LLC, 152 F. Supp. 3d 1243 (C.D. Cal. 2016). “The Board also observed, assuming a "direct conflict between the NLRA and the FAA,” that the Norris-LaGuardia Act was enacted after the FAA and includes language repealing any acts that conflict with it, Horton I, 2012 WL 36274 , at *16 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 115 ). The Court need…”
Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 327 P.3d 129 (Cal. 2014). “‖ ( 29 U.S.C. § 115 .) The effect of this provision, in combination with section 3 ( 29 U.”
Iskanian v. CLS Transp. (Cal. 2014). “‖ ( 29 U.S.C. § 115 .) The effect of this provision, in combination with section 3 ( 29 U.”
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.