The payroll plan has been frozen for four years. The new agreement includes two phases this year and adds about $1,000 to each teacher`s salary. It also includes a $500 scholarship for «highly qualified» teachers (about 2,200 of the community`s 3,000 teachers) and $500 for advanced degrees added to the base salary. With a simplified payroll plan, each teacher will receive an additional $500 over the next two years. 1 Federal courts do not have jurisdiction to rule on cases where a worker violates a collective agreement under the Labour Relations Act 2, unless the worker has exhausted contractual redress procedures.3 This rule does not exclude jurisdiction if the union has wrongly refused: 4 If an employer refuses to do so in the collective agreement, the worker does not need to attempt to impose arbitration.5 Meredith cannot claim a breach of the employment contract under Louisiana law for violation of the collective agreement by the Louisiana Federation. Since the complaint is based on a breach of a collective agreement, it is anticipated by the LMRA. To Rabalais v. We found that a worker had not exhausted his contractual remedies by failing to initiate arbitration.7 Rabalais` employer and union had reviewed the complaint at previous contract levels and found that the complaint was not covered by the collective agreement.8 the intervention of the non-exhaustion of remedies, because she rejected the contractual proceedings when she was accused by Meredith that Meredith was not covered by the collective agreement between the Louisiana Federation and United Professional Staff. We agree. Unlike Rabalais` employer, the Louisiana Federation asserted that Meredith was not covered by the collective agreement and that it had ignored her complaint.9 In these circumstances, the District Court duly established that the Louisiana Federation rejected the contractual proceedings. Meredith sued the two unions for violating the employment contract, violating the Laboratory Management and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) for not hearing her resignation by the St. Tammany Federation and the Louisian Federation`s refusal to reinstate her, and violating the collective agreement by the Louisiana Federation. We are satisfied that the jury`s conclusion of a contract is supported by substantial evidence.18 Meredith stated that she told Burkhalter that she was demanding the same terms and «rights» she had under the collective agreement between the Louisiana Federation and United Professional Staff.
. . .