Reply – Re: 50-50% or 67-33% or 90%-10% EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC HIRING HALL
Your Name
Subject
Message
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: 50-50% or 67-33% or 90%-10% EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC HIRING HALL
— by Ted Ted
McGorty - excerpt pg. 5,6 Amicus Curie

A WAY FORWARD

In order to attempt to avoid a conflict with the Court’s Orders in United States v. District
Council, et al., I suggest that the Board consider remanding this proceeding to the ALJ to provide him and the General Counsel the opportunity to bring this matter before the Court to discuss the possibility of a mutually agreeable accommodation of the Court’s oversight of the District Council under the Consent Decree within the Board’s enforcement of the NLRA. To that end, I highlight that the District Council’s various collective bargaining
agreements are temporary in nature. The Court’s reoccurring necessary approval of these

6
agreements (to the extent they contain terms vary from the dictates of the Consent Decree and subsequent orders) supports remand to the ALJ so that the Court, wielding the power of the All Writs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1651(a), can enable a long-term, far-reaching and context-sensitive resolution. The expiration on June 30, 2017 of the District Council-WCC agreement which served as the template for the other multiemployer collective bargaining agreements provides a natural time at which the District Council’s collective bargaining agreements could be further normalized to statutory expectations of how unionized construction industry jobs may be staffed.

______________________

McGorty (McFly) take the All Writs Act & shove it where the sun doesn't shine bub. We've been down this road before with both Walsh & Judge Berman and its never been used or applied to this case.

Your line bolded above on the All WRITS ACT sounds like a typical threat from a thug; e.g. Doug McCarron for instance, Frank Spencer, Capelli or their corporate legal counsel such as DeCarlo & Shanley. Do you now propse as a defense threatening the NLRB Board with such thuggery and do you have the balls to back it all up when the time comes in the Appellate Court?

I can't wait to read your briefs. How was you conviction rate as an alleged criminal prosecutor? If you spent 15-years as a criminal prosecutor; you could not have been that good - otherwise you'd have a boatload of prima-facie material to file in concert with the corrupt morons at the USAO's office for use against McCarron & his criminal co-conspirators & fellow racketeers - right McFly?

Moreover, your line or page 3-4 quoted as follows:

"Third, my experience and that of my predecessor, Dennis M. Walsh, who served as the
Court-appointed Review Officer under United States v. District Council, et al. from June 2010 through December 2014, is that no non-member of the District Council has ever called the

4
telephone hotline maintained by the Review Office (and now by me) to provide information
(anonymously if the caller desires) about corrupt practices. This is so even though the hotline number has been widely publicized throughout the District Council’s jurisdiction. Thus the 1:1 matching provision, by facilitating the presence of District Council members on the jobsite, supports my office’s anti-corruption operations."

Your line here is pure unadulterated bullshit & the members & non-members of the D.C. filed a 150-page response to the Court in 2011. Of said 150-pages, more than half was devoted to the 100% Full Mobility and hiring ratio for exclusive & non-exclusive hiring halls; along with more complex legal issues which you as a non-labor attorney would obviously fail to grasp.

__________________

All criminal racketeers, participating attorneys, USAO's current & former RO's, NRCC & NYCDCC corporate Council and every political hack in the UBCJA are guilty until proven innocent in a UBCJA Kangaroo Court of LAW; ahh crap, scratch that - I meant innocent until proven guilty; or did I?

 Fuck the Rules, right McFly?  (WINK-WINK)