An NLRB administrative law judge ruled last November that Massey violated federal labor laws by refusing to rehire the miners after acquiring the mine. The injunction would force Massey to abide by the decision, which the Richmond, Va.-based company is appealing. The injunction also would force Massey to recognize the UMW at the mine.
They are appealing, so how can they get an injunction to force them to abid by the ruling that they are appealing?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/22939890/for/cnbc
They are appealing, so how can they get an injunction to force them to abid by the ruling that they are appealing?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/22939890/for/cnbc
....what in the world are you talking about?
Tmutarakhan
01-02-2008, 07:38
This is always an issue when a ruling is appealed. Often the ruling is "stayed" pending appeal (you do not have to obey the ruling, unless and until the appeals court says it agrees with it), but it can be "enjoined" (you do have to obey the ruling, unless and until the appeals court says it disagrees with it). The question is whether one side or the other might suffer "irreparable harm" if the decision is temporarily wrong. If the ruling is a judgement for $10 million, that will likely be "stayed" pending appeal: if the defendants have to pay out all that money, and then the appeals court says they shouldn't have, they may have trouble getting it back. On the other hand, if preservationists have won a ruling that a building cannot be demolished, but the developers appeal, the ruling will be "enjoined": you can't let the developers knock the building down, and then have the appeals court agree that it should not have been!