Skip to main content

National Labor Relations Board, and Local 744, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Intervening v. Cook County School Bus, Inc.

7th CircuitMarch 20, 2002No. 01-2510Cited 18 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Cudahy, Easterbrook, Evans
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Retaliation

Outcome

The NLRB prevailed in enforcing its order that Cook County School Bus engaged in unfair labor practices by terminating the collective bargaining agreement and withdrawing union recognition based on a typographical error in the contract termination date.

What This Ruling Means

**Court Rules Against School Bus Company for Wrongfully Ending Union Contract** This case involved Cook County School Bus, Inc. and the Teamsters union. The company terminated its collective bargaining agreement with the union and stopped recognizing the union as the workers' representative. The company claimed it could do this because of a typographical error in the contract that affected the termination date. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) disagreed and ordered the company to restore the union agreement. The Court of Appeals sided with the NLRB, ruling that Cook County School Bus had engaged in unfair labor practices. The court enforced the NLRB's order, meaning the company had to recognize the union again and honor the collective bargaining agreement. The court determined that the company could not use a simple typo as an excuse to eliminate the union contract. This ruling matters for workers because it shows that employers cannot look for technical loopholes or minor errors to escape their obligations under union contracts. Courts will protect workers' collective bargaining rights and won't let companies use trivial mistakes to undermine union agreements. Workers can feel more confident that their union contracts have legal protection against employer attempts to void them over technicalities.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Retaliation cases

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.