This post was updated on .
NYCDCC Locals upon hiring of Counsel to defend Worker and Employee Rights, per the NLRA Preamble & Section 7 & 8 Rights, per the Policy of the United States need to address this issue immediately. The NLRA is an Inferior Department of the Executive Branch under th Federal Constitution.
Chairman Liebman is granted limited Rulemaking authority under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Federal Register Rulemaking processes which require the inviting of amici briefs, public hearings an on to approval & publication.
The distinction is the Chairman cannot usurp or exceed her Executive Branch limited rulemaking authority to initiate backdoor legislative changes to the NLRA, LMRA, LMRDA which remain the perogative of the Congress. This is one such attempt and as such, it requires careful monitering and amici briefs by the UBC Local Unions to be submitted. This is where the Board will move to cement Chao into a backdoor amendment of Federal Law via an illegal rulesmaking change - and, it is illegal under the US Federal Constitution, as it exceeds the Boards and the SOL's authority, They will also move to back-door EFCA into this alleged Rulesmaking change.
Brothers & Sisters - do not be fooled. The Employee Free Chice Act (EFCA) is a backdoor liberal/progressive way of eliminating "secret ballot elections" altogether. Whenever politicans and other consumate liars wish to game the system, they always start by thinking up a clever and easily remembered acronym and assign to it a cute name, which by its very design is meant to deceive you.
EFCA has failed to pass the Congress on several attempts and there is yet another one out for 2011. EFCA is the equivalent of having a mobster put a gun to your head and say "sign the paper, or else"! No more, no less. It' unpatriotic and un-American.
Example: the UBCJA's "HELMETS TO HARDHATS" campaign....we have returning Carpenter Brothers & Sisters and new recruits brought in who have served, bled, died and fought for the Right to Vote in a Free and Democratic society, re: Afghanistan, and more aptly in Iraq, wherein, the voters there upon voting dipped their Thumbs in the purple ink to signify they had voted.
Yet here we are in the good ole USA, and we have an International UBCJA General President, a hypocrite - who denies each & every such returning Veteran and newly signed recruit that very same right. We have an NLRB with the same mindset.
If you agree with Doug McCarron and the NLRB Board pushing EFCA, and if you agree that such returning War Vet's should not have the Right to Vote in Union Carpenter Elections, via secret Ballot as the law requires - please, do us all a favor and turn your damn book in, and walk away, go work rat, work as a 1099 or work for cash - but go away!
The NLRA & Section 7 go well beyond the "initial representation election" and the rights granted by the Congress & the President when the Wagner Act passed & was signed into law in 1935....the right to "One Man, One Vote" survive this agenices politcial attempts to derail it and to deny workers and employees the right to vote in all Union Elections, each & every Election Cycle - no exceptions, no if's and's or or's about it. No bullshit spins, no lies, no chicanery or mincing of words.
The fact is, the Policy of the United States and the will of the Congress supersede the Boards ever shifting political rifts & opining of Labor Law predicated upon partisan politics, as opposed to the construction of the law as written, and considering its legislative history where appropriate cases warrant such a review.
This issue is not one of them, as the law is clear upon its face, to the every man and woman who reads it.
Statement by Chairman Wilma B. Liebman on Representation-Case Procedures Rulemaking
One of the most important duties of the National Labor Relations Board is conducting secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want to be represented by a labor union. Resolving representation questions quickly, fairly, and accurately has been an overriding goal of American labor law for more than 75 years. Under the law, as the Supreme Court has explained, the Board is responsible for the rules that govern representation cases.
Over the decades, the Board has revised its rules periodically, looking for ways to achieve a broadly-shared goal: making the representation process work as well as possible. One important result has been to reduce the typical time between the filing of an election petition (which triggers the Board’s procedures) and the actual election. But the current rules still seem to build in unnecessary delays, to encourage wasteful litigation, to reflect old-fashioned communication technologies, and to allow haphazard case-processing, by not adopting best practices. It is worth asking, again, whether the Board can now do a better job, and can better serve the employees, employers, and unions that participate in the election process.
Today, the Board is proposing several revisions to its representation-case rules, through an open notice-and-comment process that will allow full public participation. The Board’s current rules have been developed over many years, and the public notice-and-comment process – which did not exist when the Board’s first rules were adopted – has rarely been used. The notice of proposed rulemaking lays out the proposed changes in great detail, fully explains the reasoning behind them, and invites comments. An open public hearing will also be held. Before adopting any final rules, the Board will carefully consider what it learns from persons with a stake in the representation process. The Board members approach this rulemaking with open minds.
Today, of course, the Board is routinely criticized for doing what the statute requires it to do. It is fair to predict, then, that the new proposals will be controversial. That controversy is unfortunate, but it is not a good reason for the Board to abandon its responsibilities.
A few points are especially important to keep in mind:
First, whatever the Board does in rulemaking will be, and must be, consistent with what the National Labor Relations Act provides.
Second, the Board has complied, and will comply, with the legal requirements that govern the rulemaking process itself.
Third, the proposed rule changes involve only the mechanics of the representation-case procedures created by the Board itself. They do not involve the other, lawful method of achieving union representation, voluntary recognition through card-check or other means. Nor do the proposed changes regulate how election campaigns are run by unions or employers, where or how elections are conducted, what bargaining units are appropriate, or any of the other substantive election issues that the Board regulates.
Finally, the proposed changes do not establish inflexible time deadlines or mandate that elections be conducted a set number of days after the filing of a petition.
I do not expect that streamlining and modernizing the Board’s representation procedures will be an easy process. But I do expect that, in the end, it will result in rules that are simpler, that are clearer, and that come closer to achieving the aim of the National Labor Relations Act: making sure that employees are free to choose whether or not they want to be represented at work, in a quick, fair, and accurate way.
Source URL: http://www.nlrb.gov/node/526
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|