NLRB - Chairman Liebman Feb 1th Press Brief

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

NLRB - Chairman Liebman Feb 1th Press Brief

Ted
Chairman Liebman issues statement on today's House hearing
Contact:
Office of Public Affairs
202-273-1991
publicinfo@nlrb.gov
www.nlrb.gov


This morning, a subcommittee of the House Education and The Workforce Committee held a hearing on "Emerging Trends at the National Labor Relations Board". In response to requests for comment, Chairman Wilma Liebman issued the following statement:

"The most significant ‘emerging trend’ at the NLRB is that the agency is coming back to life after a long period of dormancy. After more than two years without a quorum due to chronic vacancies, the Board now has four members and has been tackling many of the difficult cases that languished for years. We are actively seeking input from practitioners and from the public, by inviting briefs for important cases that are under review, and by using the process of federal rulemaking to seek comments on one potential rule change intended to inform American employees of their statutory workplace rights.

 It is unfortunate that the work of the Board is often viewed through a partisan lens, but that has been the case for decades. We simply intend, to the best of our ability, to continue to apply the law and carry out the agency’s statutory mission fairly and openly.  I look forward to working with Congress in the months ahead to demonstrate our adherence to that goal, and I welcome a serious dialogue about these important issues."



John - perhaps upon completing the dialogue on the petition, the members along with AUD can tap this valuable resource, that being the NLRB Board moving back toward a more Labor friendly stance...and issuing rulings or D & Os more in line with the NLRA as written.

And they have finally, albeit reluctantly admitted that a Quorum for the NLRB consists of a min. of 3 of 5 members, and that was forced by the decisions from the Supreme Court in New Process Steel, issuing June 17, 2010.

Obama still has one vacancy to fill & Liebmans term will soon expire, so the shift to a labor friendly Board is here & our time to act (vote, mobility, constitution & bylaws) is now!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NLRB - Chairman Liebman Feb 1th Press Brief

listman
Could Labor friendly be defined as a dichotomy wherein the board is friendly to the UBC & Councils and their influence, - therefore hanging the men out to dry when they file complaints ?
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NLRB - Chairman Liebman Feb 1th Press Brief

Ted
They are a Political Animal....so it could be, maybe your skin color is not correct, maybe you have a prima facie case, but it's not on their radar screen or personal agenda's & that is largely what a lot of these cases come down to....

Such is the trouble with 'quasi-judicial government agencies'......they are afterall a government agency, as opposed to a real court of law. Kinda like when they were legislating from the Board via a 2 member Quorum.

Anyone who could read, write, spelll & comprehend basic english knew that the NLRB Board could not issue decisions, the Board knew it, yet they persisted until someone had the smarts to challenge the obvious - hence, we got New Process Steel on 6-17-10 handed down from the Supreme Court.

I don't know if you have followed the 600 some cases ruled on in that 27 month period, however, last August the Board began re-issuing decisions post New Process Steel (typically 1-3 pages), and in every instance, this new Board, at every opportunity took pot shots at the Supreme Court (because they were put in their place) like spolied children. That is - up until this press release on February 11th....so it appears that they have got it out of their system.

What people should glean from this, the NEW PROCESS STEEL line of cases is not to get discouraged. Try the case through the NLRB system first. If you have a solid case & they do not take it or issue rulings which are clearly erroneous - you have alternative routes to appeal their decisions through other venues.

The NLRB deals with political hot button & to a large extent social issues. Currently, white males are not on their radar as it's not policitically chic (they are after all Liberals & they can't help themselves).

When the NLRB THUS LEGISLATES FROM THE BENCH, take it to the Appellate level & if need be - all the way to the Supreme Court.

This is the beast we face in the UBC. We have 3-Key issues which will ultimately have to be resolved at the Supreme Court....for conformance to the NLRA as written & amended - they are: Return of the Vote, Mobility & Full Mobility in non Right to Work States (union security clause) and the legality of the UBC Constitution & Bylaws.

In my mind, the preferred method would be consolidation of these 3-Key issues into one case for conservation of resources, and for the fact that they are all inextricably tied together.

The fact is New York & New England for example, none of these 7-States are Right to Work States. Thus, as a private Organization, UBC Locals have the right to exclude non-members and to initiate their own work rules for Union Jurisdiction & the unfettered right ot employ their members first, ahead of travelers, ahead of cash workers or ahead of illegal aliens.

The UBC realized this back in 1988 after Massachusetts resoundly defeated the ABC's campaign to make it a Right to Work State & it was defeated 58%-42% at the Polls, although it was very tight & nearly lost.

Enter, Tutor, McCarron in 95 & through the dopey EST Tom Harrington, they put forth the biggest fraud to Organized Labor under the sun - via & through the Harrington v. Herman suit & subsequently the Harrington v. Chao suit.

What members in NY do not see, given their distractions & years of battle through the 1994 Consent Decree & the issues of Mob control & influence are thes basic issues.

"Mobility" was a brillaint end run around the Massachusetts State Legislators ability to write, author an enact legislation for its constituents. Doug & Ron like spolied children lost their chance via the ABC case which they funded through the backdoor on behalf of Contractors, so they created these cases to take away the members right to Vote and slipped the Mobility Provisions into our CBA's - right through the backdoor & no one noticed.

They have been busy little beavers ever since, & at each new contract have fine tuned & tweaked the CBA's to where they are now, and if read & understood cover to cover and put beside the UBC Constitution and the NERCC Council Bylaws, all of the changes  have come simultaneously and we now have UBC Constitution, Council Bylaws & CBA's which give away, carte blanche every member right guaranteed by the NLRA & the UBC has complete, unfettered DICTATORIAL & AUtOCRATIC control.

I have said this before & have to say it again - any case we proffer, whether with private counsel or through AUD etc has to encompass those three issues above. All Legal work to that end, must be 'reverse engineered' from the Supreme Court backwards through the Appellate Level, the the Superior Court/District Court level where the facts are tried.

Put these 3-key issues into one case & you will have Doug & the Internationals attention. They will devote every resource they have to it, to defeating it.

Get them before the Supreme Court & when reviewed in light of the NLRA as written & amended and the conflicts are readily apparent. The Sup Ct enjoys slamming the NLRB when they get out of line & when they issue idiotic rulings as was the case with NP Steel.

If NYC members fail to heed this advice, they too will soon have Mobility & Full Mobility via McCarrons Dicatatorship & the State of New York will also become a "RIGHT TO WORK STATE" via default........via MOBILITY

The MOBILITY provisions slipped into the NERCC CBA's in one fell swoop shitcanned the State Legislators ability to author legislation and it also shit on the will of the people and their vote in the 1988 campaign to turn Massachusetts into a right to work state.

Comprehension of these facts are necessary before one can understand why the UBC Local 43 case (McDowell Bldg & Fndn) and Kevin Lebovitz was put therough the NLRB.

This case was not about him. It was, is & remains another UBC International Test Case put through the NLRB to cement "MOBILITY" into Federal LABOR LAW....another words, via the 'pre-emption clause' in the U.S. Constitution, wherein Federal Law trumps State LAW(s) - the UBC DICTATORIAL MACHINE has effectively shitcanned turned every state in the Union, where anti-right to work laws exist.....into RIGHT TO WORK STATES.

I hate being this long on a blog piece - but members & attorneys we initiate any contact with, first have to grasp these concepts.....how the UBC went about it, what their motivations were and how they have carefully schemed this over the past 20+ years.

HARRINGTON & LEBOVITZ cases were no accident, they di not just appear on the scene - they were carefully crafted to achieve the results we now have today - autocratic or dictatorial rule by one man in contravention to the purpose and intent of the NLRA.

Anyone who does not see this is blind or is simply ignoring the facts. All other issues are moot, mere distractions until these 3-Key issues (MOBILITY, THE VOTE & THE UBC CONSTITUTION & BYLAWS) are resolved.

Check the laws relative to Union Security Clauses in Right to Work States, Beck rights, Agency Fee payer status etc & then compare to States like NY which are not Right to Work States, or New England....and you will see that I am correct.

Following the Liberal mantra - we need to have an 'adult conversation' with a competent labor attorney with the brainpower to handle this litigation. Once initiated, it will be a 7-10 year battle through to the United States Supreme Court before it is resolved & settled law.

Anyone who belives a battle short of a decision by the Supreme Court in these matters is deluding themselves. It will take that much to turn this sinking ship around. It will take a shitload of money to accomplish. One of the first battles we may have to undertake is in a suit to force the UBC to allow us to have the same access to funding for legal issues that the Councils & the International now enjoy.

When they have a legal issue, they use our monies at will to push whatever it is they like, This is also true of our Trust Funds - members need those same rights.....access to our own money. Sumultaneous to that fight in Court, we need to rasie money via donations on a National level & it will have to be escrowed, secure.

If 2.5% of our members gave $100 bucks to this effort, we'd raise $1,250,000 to start.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NLRB - Chairman Liebman Feb 1th Press Brief

listman
What people should glean from this, the NEW PROCESS STEEL line of cases is not to get discouraged. Try the case through the NLRB system first. If you have a solid case & they do not take it or issue rulings which are clearly erroneous - you have alternative routes to appeal their decisions through other venues.

Can speak fm experience, - The only otherr option is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$= a Lawyer !
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NLRB - Chairman Liebman Feb 1th Press Brief

Ted
Sorry I didn't qualify it properly listman...the minor issues should go before the NLRB, the every day garden variety type claim.

The UBC & Council issues I framed are of far more import & significance & should go the route of District/Superior Court & Federal Court pending venue/jurisdiction.

As for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ AGREED, it will take a pispot of dough to perfect the case, like you said before.....$200k..........then its Hi, Glad to meet ya...I get that - the kiss on the way in & the hourly fees & expenses throughout - hence an example of how to start. Blogs, petitions, sidebar meetings will get us so far & we need to build the consensus of the members in NYCDCC, get funded, get some decent attorneys & get this moving. We cannot sit back and talk it to death for 3, 5, 10 years.....we have to act.

Ultimately the whole things comes down to what issues are framed to make a prima-facia case, what are our "Causes of Action". We have to line those out. The three I tied together can be framed within the same case to the US Supreme Court.

The Sup. Ct. will not be deciding a case on the factual matters as those are handled in the lower courts which you well know. I have framed the 3-critical issues which have the most probable success of getting before them. If you win at the District/Superior Court level with those 3 issues, guaranteed appeal from Doug & crew.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals is just Liberal enough to make errors which will get it to the Supreme Court. Point - you can have a great factual case, but if you have an attorney who does not preserve issues for appeal, at the correct time etc, a lot of great cases get tossed due to technicalities & never make to the Supreme Court. You have to reverse engineer the case & the attorney hired has to have that mindframe & have Appellate & Supreme Court experience... a proven/winning track record....

The Vote, Mobility & the UBC Constitution & Bylaws are the 3-core issues which are Global in nature to all UBC rank & file members......all are tied directly to the NLRA & the DOL/SOL's failure to enforce the law as written/amended and the 3-primary issues which Doug McCarron has used to destroy the UBC & become it's unchallenged Dictator.

Do you have any issues higher in priority than those 3? Do you have 3 more, 5 more? I ask this with all deference & respect. What are the top 10 issues? Which ones are most critical to restoring Democratic control of the UBC to the Rank & File brother & sister?

I say we get 10, 20 issues identified, no specific number & take it to a competent attorney, AUD etc & see which ones the attorney can frame together to make the best case for all concerned. You can help us immensely here with your vast knowledge & experience with these matters - so how about it, what say you?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NLRB - Chairman Liebman Feb 1th Press Brief

listman
Charging partyy's nbame will not be copied. Got to find out what this is about ?




Case Number: 21-CB-15010
 
 
Case Docket
    Case 21-CB-15010
Hide Activities
 
Date Activity
02/08/2011 Formal Settlement Stipulation w/attmts dtd 2/7/11, rec'd, ptys srvd (lma)
 
 
 
Case Participants
   
Participant Address Telephone
Respondent Union
    SOUTHWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, UNITED B
   
533 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE
10TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES
CA
90071
   
213-385-1457
 
Respondent Union
    UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AM
   
15881 VALLEY VIEW COURT
SYLMAR
CA
91342
   
818-364-9303
 
Respondent Union MR
    DECARLO, CONNOR & SHANLEY
    DESMOND C. LEE, ESQ.
   
533 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE
9TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES
CA
90071-1706
   
213-488-4100
 
Charging Party Employer
    G.H. PALMER ASSOCIATES
   
924 WEST SUNSET BOULEVARD
LOS ANGELES
CA
90012
   
213-346-9796
 
Charging Party Employer
    SILVERLINE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
   
1421 WEST 132ND STREET
GARDENA
CA
90248
   
310-464-8314
 
Charging Party Employer MR
    ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
    RONALD W. NOVOTRY, ESQ.
   
12800 CENTER COURT DRIVE
SUITE 300
CERRITOS
CA
09703-9364
   
562-653-3200
 
Charging Party Employer MR
    ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
    Thomas A. Lenz
    Partner
   
12800 Center Court Drive
Suite 300
Cerritos
CA
90703
   
(562)653-3200
 
Copy To
    UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AM
    Douglas J. McCarron
    President
   
101 CONSTITUTION AVENUE NW
WASHINGTON
DC
20001
   
202-546-6206
 
NLRB Region
    NLRB REGION 21 - LOS ANGELES
   
888 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
9TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES
CA
90017
   
213 - 894-5200
 
 
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NLRB - Chairman Liebman Feb 1th Press Brief

listman
In reply to this post by Ted
One more thing Ted, and I'll get to addressing your preceeding questions within a couple of days.

How do the words, "miscarriage of justice" sound in relation to the councils prior actions when pronounced by an agency charged with enforcing our rights.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NLRB - Chairman Liebman Feb 1th Press Brief

listman
In reply to this post by Ted
We've got to directly communicate w/ each other,- directly.  
I feel it would be extremely valuable for the membership.