trending Market Intelligence /marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/GiI027_W-XegZj3u-IEk7A2 content
Log in to other products

Login to Market Intelligence Platform

 /


Looking for more?

Contact Us

Request a Demo

You're one step closer to unlocking our suite of comprehensive and robust tools.

Fill out the form so we can connect you to the right person.

If your company has a current subscription with S&P Global Market Intelligence, you can register as a new user for access to the platform(s) covered by your license at Market Intelligence platform or S&P Capital IQ.

  • First Name*
  • Last Name*
  • Business Email *
  • Phone *
  • Company Name *
  • City *
  • We generated a verification code for you

  • Enter verification Code here*

* Required

In this list

Murray Energy appeal in coal mine labor practice case denied

客户案例:跨国公用事业公司有效增强对新客户信用风险的认知

S&P podcast - Coronavirus pandemic, oil price crash shake up energy sector

Case Study: A Utility Company Efficiently Sharpens Its Focus on the Credit Risk of New Customers

Energy Evolution Podcast

Energy Evolution Why solar energy could get even cheaper


Murray Energy appeal in coal mine labor practice case denied

A federal appeals court denied Murray Energy Corp.'s attempt to challenge a federal labor board's determination that the company committed unfair labor practices.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a 2017 National Labor Relations Board decision and order finding that four Murray Energy subsidiaries in West Virginia violated the National Labor Relations Act by interfering with workers' rights to participate in union activity.

According to the March 12 filing, Murray Energy directed employees not to file safety complaints, threatened employees with discipline for filing grievances, threatened an employee for requesting union representation, surveilled union activities, retaliated against an employee for pursuing an unfair labor practice charge, refused to provide or unreasonably delayed providing information to the union and unilaterally changed the place at which parties convene for grievance meetings. The labor board's order directed Murray Energy to cease and desist from the unlawful activity, compensate one employee for lost earnings, furnish the union with requested information and rescind the unilateral change of place for where parties convene for grievance meetings.

In its petition for review, Murray Energy questioned the credibility of witnesses supporting the allegations against the company and otherwise challenged the decision. The appellate court wrote that it found "no merit" in Murray Energy's arguments against the allegations and denied Murray Energy's petition for review.