Personal Injury News

Ruling On Respondent's Motion To Dismiss

On July 15, 1975 the United File Room Clerks, Messengers, and Library Personnel of Foley, Hoag & Eliot (herein Petitioner) filed a petition for certification of representative pursuant to Massachusetts G.L. c.150A, §5 for a unit of file-room clerks, messengers, and library personnel employed by Foley, Hoag & Eliot (herein Respondent). Respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on September 9, 1975. Subsequently, Petitioner and Respondent filed excellent memoranda concerning the question of the Labor Relations Commission's (herein Commission) jurisdiction in this matter.

On the basis of these memoranda and the affidavit of Laurance S. Fordham we accept for purposes of determining the jurisdictional issue Respondent's statements that it is a law firm which employs approximately one-hundred fifty (150) employees. Sixty (60) of Respondent's employees are attorneys and approximately eighty-five per cent (85%) of its business is providing Iegal services to employers who are subject to the National Labor Relations Act (hereinafter "NLRA" or "Federal Act"). Furthermore, ten to fifteen per cent of Respondent's legal services consists of labor relations advice to employers subject to the NLRA. Finally, we accept Petitioner's claim and we find that it is a labor organization within the meaning of G.L. c.150A, §2(5) . For the reasons set forth herein, we deny the Respondent's Motion To Dismiss and set the matter down for a hearing at 10 o'clock A.M. on February 5, 1976 for the purposes of determining the appropriateness of the unit sought in the petition.[

Contact a personal injury attorney in Arizona now!

Get legal help for your injuries by hiring a lawyer in Arizona that you are sure will handle the case with respect to you and the legal profession. Hire a personal injury lawyer that has experience in your claim area.

	Did You Know?
	Tort lawyer is needed when civil wrongs are done Torts fall into three general categories: intentional torts (e.g., intentionally hitting a person); negligent torts (causing an accident by failing to obey traffic rules); and strict liability torts (e.g., liability for making and selling defective products). Intentional torts are those wrongs which the defendant knew or should have known would occur through their actions or inactions.