Main Issues in the Case
Case one involves the dispute between the city of Ontario versus Quon et al in which a dispute of sharing information that is considered confidential to Quon et al. has occurred. After an investigation of the messages, it has been discovered that the few of the messages are work-related and that majority were sexually related. Quon receives punishment for misuse of his privilege and the other parties appeal to the Supreme Court to address the subject of sharing confidential information (City of Ontario, California, et al., v. Jeff Quon, et.al., 2010).
The law used
The court relied on the fourth amendment on privacy to reach its conclusion (City of Ontario, California, et al., v. Jeff Quon, et.al., 2010).
The Difference in Opinion
There is an evident difference in the opinions held by the majority and the minority in the court ruling. This difference has placed the fourth amendment act in a spotlight requiring that it be defined fully to prevent cases of loopholes through which an individual can interpret the law to suit their personal ambitions.
Importance of the Case
The case is significant in a work environment scenario. The work environment involves a group of workers who are protected by the fourth amendment on privacy. This case determines how similar cases will be handled in the future and the degree of communication within the workplace.
The Case and the Future of Working Environments
The case has raised a significant concern and that is the mandatory protection of the fourth amendment at a workstation. Violation of privacy can lead to psychological as well as other health complications. This demands that the privacy of each individual is protected.
Case two involves a dispute between union pacific railroad company versus brotherhood of locomotive engineering and trainmen general committee of central adjustment, the central region (UPRC V. BLE & TGCA, 2009).
Main Issues in the Case
The union pacific railroad company has charged five employees for violation of disciplinary regulations while serving the company. While solving the dispute, the union is not satisfied with the decision reached by the first in relying on a late request by the railway company for a conferencing proof and consenting to its lack of jurisdiction to solve the matter. However, it is mandated by the Railway Labor act to solve such disputes and therefore the union has appealed to the Supreme Court (Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 2009).
Law Used By the Court
The court has relied on the railway labor act which has provisions necessary to handle such a dispute between the railway company and the employee (UPRC V. BLE & TGCA, 2009).
Impact of the Decision on the Resolution of Labor Disputes
The ruling by the Supreme Court has cast a shadow on the National Railway Adjustment Board (NRAB) which had earlier on expressed its inability to address the labor dispute. In future cases may be transferred directly to the Supreme Court for a hearing since it is created a caring image in the minds of the employees.
City of Ontario, California, et al., v. Jeff Quon, et.al., 560 U.S.______(U.S. Sup. Ct. 2010) No. 08-1332 (June 17,2010).
Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen General Committee of Adjustment, Central Region, 558 U.S.____(U.S. Sup. Ct. 2009) No. 08-604 (December 8, 2009).