re: Stackhouse Oldsmobile
In Lebovitz, the NLRB Board, by it very wording and direction in the D & O, regarding the UBC's Constitution & Bylaws, issued a ruling far beyond that contemplated by the parties in the instant case.
Given the NLRB & the Appellate Courts impose no time limits on Appeals of Board D & O's, said issue is ripe for review in the First Circuit - period.
Anon, this is where you seperate the men from the boys, and you are clearly a girl!
The current NLRB Board & very recent appointees by President Obama are political creatures, professors & staunch liberals as opposed to seasoned trial attorneys. Being that they have not practiced law for quite some time, their recent spate of NLRB Board Decision & Orders are replete with political diatribe & personal opinions vs. absolute rulings on the laws at hand.
The best example is in the NLRB Boards General Counsel arguing the merits of a 2-Member Board Quorum in New Process Steel, which the Supreme Court subsequently shit on - June 17, 2010.
To date, in spite of the Supreme Court having a field day with the NLRB's General Counsels inept presentation & concept of what the law is, the NLRB Board members have at every opportunity continued to try & spin this major precedent their way, for political as opposed to legal rationale.
They still believe that maintaining an argument, clearly put to rest by the Supreme Court, will somehow transpose itself to the idea that if they repeat it enough times through subsequent decision & orders of the Board - eventually they shall be able to cite back, albeit, 3, 5 or 10 years later to some obscure reference in an insignificant case that a decision by a 2-member Board quorum shall be legal & binding.
This is because they are political junkies & liberals first, girls second & lastly lawyers. Read all the D & O's regarding/citing New Process Steel, some 94 of 600 cases & in each & everyone, they're still sore-smarting from the Sup/ Ct. biitch-slapping, making inante references & statements as to how they are right & the Supreme Court is wrong...(akin to Anon's exact behavior on this site)
What Anon & his boyfriend at the NLRB, or his Pee Wee Herman make believe buddy fail to comprehend with respect to the law is simply this....the inept clown at the NLRB Board who authored the D & O relative to the UBC Constitution & Bylaws opened up the door for Appellate review to this issue; with no time limit. The UBC shall lose & appeal to the Sup Ct & that is where the issue shall be settled.
The UBC-NERCC CBA's as written do not have the appropriate savings clause within them. And, legally, clauses for seperability-severability when put in for show & not followed do not negate the fact(s) of non-compliant and Illegal Contract Lanaguage, simply given the fact that the average member not having a law degree.
It is in fact still Illegal under the Law. That NERCC Counsel is still trying to spin the ruling as is the NLRB post New Process Steel, evinces their fear of loss of power & dictatorial control via challenge by informed members on this and other fronts.
The UBC Constitution and its Bylaws, when put beside the NLRA, torn apart on a line by line basis in no way, shape or form conforms to the requirements of the Act as originally passed or as amended and that is why it is "facially unlawful", thus the door has been opened, Anon's girly screams aside!
PATS 34 - JETS 21