Randall Pace Jr’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “employees covered . . . are all regular full time employees of the Contractor employed in the State of Hawaii in the classifications set forth in the classification and hourly wage schedule which is attached hereto as Exhibit `A,' . . . except for office clerical employees . . . and supervisors . . . . " Exhibit A, as in the first CBA, lists the same seven classifications, including roll-off drivers. The second CBA also includes similar health/welfare, pension, and annuity trust fund provisions and adds a training fund provision requiring the contractor to participate in and contribute to the fund on the same basis as the other funds, that is, "for each hour worked by each employee covered by this Agreement.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pace v. Honolulu Disposal Service, Inc.

2. “) and decide whether evidence of an oral agreement is admissible to supplement the terms of unambiguous CBAs. The heart of the case is a contractual rather than representational dispute, and the district court had jurisdiction to decide it. Because we conclude that the parol evidence rule bars admission of an oral agreement that not only contradicts the terms of an unambiguous CBA but would essentially eviscerate its plain language, we reverse. BACKGROUND and PROCEEDINGS 2 Appellants, four former and current employees who have worked as roll-off drivers (the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pace v. Honolulu Disposal Service, Inc.

3. “), 1 argue that the Drivers are not covered by the CBAs because HDS and the Union orally agreed to limit the scope of the bargaining unit to a couple of employees not including these Drivers. Invoking the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to challenge both the district court's and our jurisdiction, appellees contend that this case boils down to a representational dispute over who is in the bargaining unit--or, to put it another way, whom the Union represents--that must be decided in the first instance by the National Labor Relations Board (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pace v. Honolulu Disposal Service, Inc.