(166,721 - 166,740 of 182,662)
Pages
-
-
Title
-
CRS86620Apage04
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:72229
-
Text
-
of the Garcia decision. The Senate bill, S. 1570, was reported by the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee on October 17, 1985. The anti-retaliation provision read as follows: Sec. 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 8, an employee of a public agency who asserts rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 between February 19, 1985, and April 14, 1986, shall be accorded the same protection
-
-
Title
-
CRS86620Apage01
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:72229
-
Text
-
\\ A ([7 86--62oA Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress Washington. D.C. 20540 REDUCTION OF WAGE RATES UNDER ANTI-RETALIATION PROVISIONS OF 1985 FLSA AMENDMENTS Vincent E. Treacy Legislative Attorney American Law Division January 22, 1986 N 0 E Q N G P no P E RT§'R Q P 0 L 1 N E E RA Ric" Hn§mg',.Si-W Government pubucoations Unfi AUG 0 2 I994 Washiggton g
-
-
Title
-
CRS86620Apage14
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:72229
-
Text
-
CRS-11 ANALYSIS ‘The anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA provides that it shall be unlawful for any person "(3) to discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this Act, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding, or has served
-
-
Title
-
CRS86620Apage10
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:72229
-
Text
-
on or after February 19, 1985, the employee asserted coverage under section 7 of the Fair Labor Stan- dards Act of 1938 shall be held to have violated section 15(a)(3) of such Act. The protection against discrimination afforded by the preceding sentence shall be available after August 1, 1986, only for an employee who takes an action described in section 15(a)(3) of such Act. H.R. Rep. No. 99-357, 99th Cong
-
-
Title
-
CRS86620Apage03
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:72229
-
Text
-
REDUCTION OF WAGE RATES UNDER ANTI-RETALIATIONS PROVISIONS OF 1985 FLSA AMENDMENTS The Supreme Court's decision in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, (No. 82-1913, Feb. 19, 1985) held that the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) could constitutionally be applied to state and local public employers. The FLSA requires an employer to pay its employees one-and-one half
-
-
Title
-
CRS86620Apage06
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:72229
-
Text
-
had been redesignated as section 8, and the language was revised as follows: DISCRIMINATION Sec. 8. An employee of a public agency who as- serts coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 between February 19, 1985, and April 14, 1986, shall be accorded the same protection against dis- charge or discrimination as is available under sec- tion 15(a)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
-
-
Title
-
CRS86620Apage25
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:72229
-
Text
-
and unambiguous on its face, that the plain meaning of the statute is logical and consistent with expressions of congressional intent, and that the conflicting portion of the legislative history is ambiguous and unclear, it appears that a re- viewing court would apply the language of the statute to any discriminatory employer actions instituted on or after February 19, 1985. Public employees thus appear
-
-
Title
-
CRS85631Epage13
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:53881
-
Text
-
; (Emphasis added.) 0.” 2' 4/ The 1935 amendments to the Davis-Bacon Act (P.L. 74-403) provided for: fig (a) predetermination of the prevailing wage by the Secretary of Labor; (b) ex- E;tension of the Act to include public worxs as well as public buildings; (c) lower- § ing of the dollar volume threshold for coverage from $5,000 (as in the 1931 statute) to $2,000; and (d) for various enforcement
-
-
Title
-
CRS85631Epage17
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:53881
-
Text
-
. Issue Brief No. IB8lO38, by Bolle and Whittaker, March 25, f9b3i- 29 p.A 2] U.S. Library of3Congress. Congressional Research Service. The Davis- Bacon Act: A Review of the Literature- Report No. 84-137 E, by William G. Whittaker, Washington, October 4, l984;;b26 p. I
-
-
Title
-
CRS861007Apage05
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:75615
-
Text
-
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF I986 RESTRICTION ON UNITED STATES MILITARY INVOLVEMENT IN NICARAGUA A This report sets forth the legislative history of the statutory provision prohibiting the use of United States military advisers and combat troops within Nicaraguag Enacted as section 203(e) of the military construction title of Pub. L. No. 99-500, making continuing appropriations for fiscal 1987
-
-
Title
-
CRS861007Apage14
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:75615
-
Text
-
the Constitution and under language is strong enough to keep the the law that the Congress has in re- President of the United States from o - sponse to the Chief Executive's au- dispatching troops into N icaragua?$ _ thority. p s p C 0 --- % ~ $3: 11431-82. In response to the colloquy, Senator Harkin expressed the View that the bill is a "blank check" with "no assurances" and might
-
-
Title
-
CRS861007Apage12
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:75615
-
Text
-
the Sasser-Dodd amendment and again that section 203(e) did not authorize the introduction of combat troops. Ed; $11479. Senator Harkin, who had earlier indicated how difficult it would be to determine what would constitute an area of 20 miles outside the Nicaraguan border, as proposed in another restrictive amendment to H.R. 5052, stated that the Contras could be adequately trained within the United
-
-
Title
-
CRS861007Apage13
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:75615
-
Text
-
a sregard to the introduction of such troops, Senator Lugar stated the following: ‘= cRs+9 "There is no limit on advisers. It can go from 10 to 50 to 100. Alf wewantto prevent happening in Nicaragua what happened in Vietnam, if we want to prevent that kind of involvement, let us deny the use of U.S. advisers.” Id; S14480. Senator Lugar countered by asserting that the training of Contras
-
-
Title
-
CRS861007Apage09
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:75615
-
Text
-
CRS-Sod appropriations bill for fiscal 1986, which had contained a Contra aid proposal and later the amendment withholding it. 132 Cong. Rec. H1848-93 (daily ed- ‘April 16, 1986). See generally, 44 Cong. Q. 835-37 (1986). Contra aid llegislation resurfaced in the House in June when Representatives McCurdy, . Edwards, and Hamilton each submitted proposals to be inserted into H.R. SO52, pthe 1987
Pages