– Re: UBC International Refuses right Under 25 b to create local bylaws
In Reply To
"Finally, the Union Security clause in Article V is facially unlawful. The union-security clause explicitly requires compliance with the Union's Constitution and Bylaws, a requirement which violates Section 8(b)(1)(A)" ...see Stackhouse Oldsmobile, Inc. v. NLRB, 330 F2d. 559 (6th Cir. 1964); and....
One trick idiot my ars. English comprehension classes - anon - re-read the above QUOTATION from the ALJ who authored it - what part of that do you fail to comprehend?
It does not get any simpler....the ALJ obviously read the NLRA, the facts of this case and he made a blanket statement, which I now simplify for you:
The Union Security Clause is Facially Unlawful & the Unions Constitution & Bylaws violate section 8(b)(1)(A).
This was without Qualification as to the UBC Constitution, the ALJ & the NLRB Board upheld his decision & order. The ALJ & the NLRB Board spoke of the entire document and their effect of not complying with the National Labor Relations Act - period.
Had the ALJ or the NLRB Board wished to qualify this ruling to a specific Article, paragraph, sentence, phrase or group of words within either the UBC Constitution or its Bylaws - they would have qualified it. That means they would have specifically picked out in piecemeal fashion those portions they wished to address in their multiple rulings, however, they did not do so. They said the opposite of what you proffer and they had both Documents available to read, review, decipher, study, tear apart, rip to shreds and in their view, their decision & order, their written words state the obvious - both Documents are facially unlawful, both documents violate NLRA Section 8 (b)(1) (A).
While you may believe that the D&O was only in regard to the mobility issues, it was not. The ALJ & NLRB Board decision reflected that. As of 12-31-09, this has been the case. After NERCC Appeals, consideration of New Process Steel, the NLRB Board on August 26, 2010 upheld the prior ruling of the ALJ.
They tweaked the portion on mobility, but they left alone the portion regarding the UBC Constitution & Bylaws being "facially unlawful & violative of NLRA Section 8(b)(1)(A)".
That your hero's McCarron & his 38 EST's & Council hacks have refused to address or correct the CBA's nationwide on a council by council basis and address the fact that the UBC Constitution & Bylaws are facially unlawful & violate the NLRA from cover to cover, that my friend does not change the facts one iota.
Doug & his hack EST's or the Council lackeys like yourself - instead of following the Boards direction, making the required changes so that the Constitution & Bylaws and the CBA's conform to the ruling and the NLRA, which is now embedded to Federal Labor law as as precedent - HAVE SIMPLY CHOSEN TO IGNORE THE RULING(S), PRETEND THEY DID NOT OCCUR AND CONTINUE TO RUN THEIR DICTATORSHIP PRETENDING THE CASES NEVER OCCURRED.
All of their alleged powers stem from two Documents which are of no legal force and effect upon UBC members, effective 8-26-10.
Again ANON, name the case or case(s) which over-turned the D & O....NLRB or any other Court in the Land??? Come on smart ass - you got all the answers, so name them?
The fact is you cannot, so you again resort to insults & name calling. How many cases have you personally put your name on & won, in any forum, any Court of Law? And how many of them are precedent setting cases?
anon - NLRB 354-12 (12-31-09)