Reply – Re: NLRB - Chairman Liebman Feb 1th Press Brief
Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: NLRB - Chairman Liebman Feb 1th Press Brief
— by Ted Ted
They are a Political 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 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 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.