Reply – Re: 157 MEETING
Your Name
Subject
Message
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: 157 MEETING
— by Ted Ted
anon - unsubstantiated by the Court's my ass. You ignore every post, every precedent, every landmark case ever written/decided....settled law......

MOUNTAIN PACIFIC - cont. (cruxt of the ruling) pg. 897
"The basis for a Unions referral of one individual and refusal to refer another may be any selective criterion which an employer could lawfully utilize in selecting from among job seekers.
   We believe, however, that the inherent and unlawful encouragement of union membership that stems from unfettered union control over the hiring process would be negated, and we would find an agreement to be nondiscriminatory on its face, only if the agreement explicitly provided that:

(1) Selection of applicants for referral to jobs shall be on a nondiscriminatory basis and shall not be based on, or in any way affected by, union membership, bylaws, rules, regulations, constitutional provisions, or any other aspect or obligation of union membership, policies, or requirements.

(2) The employer retains the right to reject any job applicant referred by the union.


(3) The parties to the agreement post in places where notices to employees and applicants for employment are customarily posted, all provisions related to the functioning of the hiring arrangement, including safeguards that we deem essential to the legality of an exclusive hiring agreement."


ANON
WHAT PART OF ITEM 1 DO YOU FAIL TO COMPREHEND? THIS CASE & UBC LOCAL 43 & LEBOVITZ REMAIN UNQUALIFIED, NETITHER HAVE BEEN OVER-RULED, OVER-TURNED BY ANY COURT IN THE LAND...THE END..........let it go, you lost this argument a long time ago

by the way, how much are the Council twits paying you to post meningless tripe on this site to aggravate good union brothers? just wondering