英语翻译A second state supreme court case involving class action

英语翻译
A second state supreme court case involving class actions in the employment relationship was decided by the Ohio Supreme Court.In that case the plaintiffs took an appeal from a lower court’s denial of their motion to certify the matter as a class action.The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of assistant public defenders and support personnel in a dispute over eligibility for the public employees’ retirement system.The lower court had denied the motion for class action status based upon a failure to show the need for such an action since any determination in favor of the plaintiffs would automatically inure to the benefit of those similarly situated.
The case does not present any new or a startling revelation in the area of class actions by employees.What it does do,however,is to set forth a good summary of the principles of class actions and what plaintiffs must present to certify a class under the state rules for class actions that are similar to the federal rules of civil procedure.
In a final case for review in the area of class actions the Tennessee Supreme Court was faced with the issue of whether a prior class action matter had tolled the statute of limitations for a new purport class of replacement workers who had been terminated when a union and employer had resolved a labor dispute an returned striking union members to work.In July of 1994 the union employees went on strike against their employer.The company hired replacement workers that were promised permanent employment.The strike ended in March of 1995 and the company started to hire back the strikers and lay off the replacement workers,all of who were laid off by September of 2005.In October of 1995,three replacement workers brought a class action against the company for breach of contract and retaliatory discharge and against the union for “procurement of breach of an employment contract.” The matter was removed to federal court which remanded it back to the state court six month later in April of 1996.

另一个国家最高法院的案件涉及一类的行动,在雇佣关系的决定是由俄亥俄州最高法院.在这种情况下原告上诉了下级法院的拒绝他们的运动证明此事作为一类的行动.原告试图表示一类助理公共辩护与支持人员在争执资格的公共雇员退休系统.下级法院已否认运动类行动的地位为基础的破坏表明需要这样一种行动以来,确定了有利于原告将自动符合利益的情况类似.案件没有提出任何新的或令人惊讶的发现在该地区行动的雇员类.它是什么做的,然而,是阐述总结好的阶级性原则行动和原告必须证明一类的状态下,规则类行动是类似于联邦民事诉讼规则.在最后的情况审查领域的一类的行动,田纳西州最高法院面临的问题是否事先集体诉讼时效问题敲响了一个新的主旨类替代工人谁已经终止时,工会和雇主已经解决劳动争议返回引人注目的工会成员工作.在七月的1994个工会的工人罢工了对他们的雇主.公司聘请替代人员,承诺永久性就业.罢工结束,3月份的1995,公司开始雇佣和解雇罢工替代工人,所有谁被解雇由九月的2005.在十月的1995个,三个替代工人带来集体起诉该公司违反了合同和报复性放电和反对联盟为“采购违反劳动合同.”这件事被联邦法院,州法院押回六个月后的四月,1996.