BILLELO, LEBO WILL YOU NOT BACK MUSEMECI

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

BILLELO, LEBO WILL YOU NOT BACK MUSEMECI

ROBERT KWIECINSKI
WILL YOU NOT INTERVENE FOR YOUR BROTHER JOHN M. OR HAS THE MONEY ALREADY GONE TO YOUR HEAD. MAKE A STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF YOUR BROTHER OR ARE YOU AFRAID OF LOOSING YOUR PAYCHECK.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BILLELO, LEBO WILL YOU NOT BACK MUSEMECI

Daniel J. Franco
What do you want Bilello and Lebo to say? It wasn't the International that was going to file charges against Moose.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BILLELO, LEBO WILL YOU NOT BACK MUSEMECI

ROBERT KWIECINSKI
SUPPORT YOUR BROTHER AS HE SUPPORTED YOU. WHATS THE PROBLEM CAT GOT YOUR TOUNGE OR NO BALLS.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BILLELO, LEBO WILL YOU NOT BACK MUSEMECI

Daniel J. Franco
Rob re-read the message I posted earlier and think. If the International weren't the ones threatening to bring charges against Moose then ...... was.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BILLELO, LEBO WILL YOU NOT BACK MUSEMECI

ROBERT KWIECINSKI
DON'T NEED TO RE-READ ANYTHING. IF YOUR BROTHER IS BEING THREATENED YOU SPEAK TO SUPPORT THEM IMMEDIATELY. SILENCE DOES NOTHING.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BILLELO, LEBO WILL YOU NOT BACK MUSEMECI

Daniel J. Franco
Rob are you saying that Bilello and Lebo are the ones who should be speaking out in support of Moose?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BILLELO, LEBO WILL YOU NOT BACK MUSEMECI

Anonymous II
In reply to this post by Daniel J. Franco
At The Delegate Meeting January 11, 2011 a Delegate from Local 45 got up and stated he would file charges against Musemeci. I do not know the Delegates name, he was wearing black jacket, bald with a beard, as You faced the dais, was front row, left side, sitting near Chris Wallace.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BILLELO, LEBO WILL YOU NOT BACK MUSEMECI

Daniel J. Franco
There are more than one that wanted to file charges against Moose and they are employees at the NYCDC not the International.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BILLELO, LEBO WILL YOU NOT BACK MUSEMECI

Ted
In reply to this post by ROBERT KWIECINSKI
U.S. Supreme Court

NLRB v. HENDRICKS CTY. RURAL ELECTRIC CORP., 454 U.S. 170 (1981)
454 U.S. 170
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. HENDRICKS COUNTY RURAL ELECTRIC
MEMBERSHIP CORP.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 80-885.

Argued October 5, 1981
Decided December 2, 1981 *  


Held:

There is reasonable basis in law for the practice of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) of excluding from collective-bargaining units only those confidential employees with a "labor nexus," while rejecting any claim that all employees with access to confidential information are beyond the reach of the definition of "employee" in 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Pp. 177-192.
 

(a) There is nothing in the Taft-Hartley Act's legislative history to Support any inference, let alone conclusion, that Congress intended to alter, or disapproved, the NLRB's determination prior to the 1947 passage of the Act that only confidential employees with a "labor nexus" should be excluded from bargaining units. Rather, the contrary appears. Indeed, the Taft-Hartley Act's express inclusion of "professional employees" under the Act's coverage negates any reading of the legislative history as excluding confidential employees generally from 2(3)'s definition of "employee." Pp. 177-185.
 
(b) The dictum in NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267, 284 , n. 12, that Congress "clearly thought that the [NLRA] did not cover `confidential employees,' even under a broad definition of that term," cannot be squared with congressional intent. Nor is there any merit to the argument that the NLRB has applied the labor-nexus test inconsistently. A review of the NLRB'S decisions indicates that it has never followed a practice of depriving all employees who have access to confidential business information from the full panoply of rights afforded by the NLRA. Rather, for over 40 years, the NLRB, while declining to create any implied exclusion from the definition of "employee" for confidential employees, [454 U.S. 170, 171]   has applied a labor-nexus test in identifying those employees who should be excluded from bargaining units because of access to confidential business information. This consistent, longstanding interpretation of the NLRA by the NLRB cannot be ignored. Pp. 186-190.
 
627 F.2d 766 and 631 F.2d 734, reversed and remanded.
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. POWELL, J. filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which BURGER, C. J., and REHNQUIST and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 192.
 
Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for petitioner in No. 80-885 and respondent in No. 80-1103. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Lee, former Solicitor General McCree, Barry Sullivan, Norton J. Come, and Linda Sher.
 
Warren D. Krebs argued the cause and filed a brief for Hendricks Rural Electric Membership Corp., respondent in No. 80-885 and petitioner in No. 80-1103. Russ R. Mueller argued the cause and filed a brief for Malleable Iron Range Co., respondent in No. 80-885.Fn
 


[ Footnote * ] Together with National Labor Relations Board v. Malleable Iron Range Co. (see this Court's Rule 19.4), and No. 80-1103, Hendricks county Rural Electric Membership Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, also on certiorari to the same court.
 
Fn [454 U.S. 170, 171]   Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal in both no. 80-885 and No. 80-1103 were filed by J. Albert Woll, Laurence Gold, and George Kaufmann for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations; and by John A. Fillion for United Auto Workers. Joseph E. Finley filed a brief for the Office and Professional Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, urging reversal in No. 80-885.
 
David Crump filed a brief for the Legal Foundation of American as amicus curiae urging affirmance in both No. 80-885 and No. 80-1103.
 
Stephen A. Bokat filed a brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States as amicus curiae in both No. 80-885 and No. 80-1103.
 
JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented is whether an employee who, in the course of his employment, may have access to information considered confidential by his employer is impliedly excluded [454 U.S. 170, 172]   from the definition of "employee" in 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act and denied all protections under the Act. 1  

________________________________________________

John M is not an employee of the Council...he is employed by a signatory employer and he retains all rights under the NLRA ascribed to "employees" under common definition and application, notwithstanding any UBCJA claims to the contrary or their failure to sever illegal provision within their own constitution, by-laws etc.

UBCJA boiler-plate savings & severability clauses, in their world are only applied for their benefit and no other. If a case inures to the benefit of a member they are trying to screw over with bogus charges, they simply ignore it and play a game of hide & seek - rightly assuming that 99.9% of its membership would never find the item at issue which would prevent the UBCJA from acting or enforcing an otherwise illegal fine, suspension or expulsion. Of course, this is a form of coercion & intimidation they use regularly to keep someone in line, rightly assuming that most members would not sue them for fear of being black-balled and starved out of existence.

Accordingly, given the availability of information via the internet and the speed at which information can be disseminated and members can inform and educate each other as to their rights, John's blog is a direct threat to their former hold or superior knowledge of the laws governing labor and as such, they seek to deny rights otherwise afforded under the first amendment and free speech; and that alone makes him an easy target.

This blog irritates McCarron because he cannot control its content and it has kept him from walking all over the NYCDCC rank & file Carpenter. It is a direct threat to his Dictatorial control and accordingly must be eliminated. McCarron will use any stooge he can to try the issue without putting his name on it directly.

Given the events of the past year and the fact that McCarron wrongly assumed NYC would mount no challenge to his restructuring, elections and contract negotiation plans - 157-blogspot is now the target of his wrath. The fact is he has no case no matter where he turns and he knows it.

People have to remember one thing, it is not the asking of intelligent questions that is at issue, rather, it is the denial of an intelligent response which should be the source of discontent. It's not personal, its business & there is in lies the distinction.

When people refuse to answer the question - that is where the personal attacks come into play. All that signifies is a lack of maturity, typically on the part of the person who refuses to answer. Five year-olds take their ball and go home. The elected rep's for the NYCDCC should move past the childish antics and std. UBCJA games of direct or indirect threats, character assassination and using stooges to file or threaten to file trumped up and unsustainable charges and focus on the real issues effecting all members.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: BILLELO, LEBO WILL YOU NOT BACK MUSEMECI

ROBERT KWIECINSKI
In reply to this post by Anonymous II
WHO IS THE DELEGATE FROM LOCAL 45 LETS BRING HIS IDENTITY TO LIGHT. LETS SEE WHO IT IS THAT WOULD KEEP THE MEMBERS MISINFORMED AND FILE CHARGES AGAONST JOHN M.