5 ms·
> That's a pretty nice piece of leverage to have in hand while negotiating a settlement. Isn't that how things usually work? If one party does something illega
by seoaeu 6y ago
> That's a pretty nice piece of leverage to have in hand while negotiating a settlement.
Isn't that how things usually work? If one party does something illegal, then the other can offer a settlement using the threat of other legal action as leverage?
- tyingq 6y agoI think it's a pretty unusual situation in an unlawful termination negotiation, yes. That is: having a piece of paper in hand, from the Federal government, undeniably saying government intervention will happen if a settlement isn't reached. I believe this particular settlement, especially the one for Costa (based on Principal title and 15 years tenure), is going to be a very big number. It's also terrible timing for Amazon with all the anti-trust sentiment and gaffes in the warehouse union situation. I imagine they really want this to go away.
- GavinMcG 6y agoWhen you file a lawsuit, you get a summons to serve on the other party. That is "a piece of paper, from the government, undeniably saying government intervention will happen if a settlement isn't reached." The government intervention is in the form of a legal proceeding. But the summons certainly doesn't mean the government/judicial system has made up its mind about the substance of the suit! Same here: the government intervention is in the form of a legal proceeding, it's just one that takes place within NLRB channels rather than in the judicial system. It doesn't mean the NLRB has made up its mind about whether a ULP was committed.
- tyingq 6y agoIt's a very specialized venue as opposed to a regular court, and the NLRB is able to take quite a lot of action without a trial or court proceeding, as well as to take a very specific position on the matter. They also very regularly reject claims. It's not the same thing, it isn't an impartial judicial process. It's more similar to, say, the FTC.