Early Christmas for McGruff

[McGruff]

McGruff has received an early Christmas present that makes him happier than a box of Milk Bones & a two inch thick New York cut. The NLRB has long been criticized for its dwindling number of Gissel bargaining orders. Under a Gissel order,an employer that committed enough Sec.8 violations to undermine the ability to hold a fair election must bargain with a union that once had evidence of majority support, but cannot show such support at the time of the order. The Board deserves some of the blame for mishandling these cases, but on the other hand the courts have been extraordinarily hostile to Gissel orders for quite some time. It was therefore heartening to see not only the current Board issuing a Gissel order, but also to see a court "not known as being particularly union-friendly" enforcing the order. That's exactly what happened in a recent Fifth Circuit decision, Cal. Gas Transp. v. NLRB, 06-60871 (5th Cir. Nov. 7, 2007). The 5th Cir encompasses Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana the heart of the right to work.

The court relied on the unit's small size, the severity of the Sec.8 violations, and high-level officials' anti-union activity in agreeing with the Board that traditional remedies could not ensure a fair election.

<!-- / message --><!-- attachments -->

[Buzzard]

Thanks, brother.
And welcome to the site!:American:

We don`t have many here yet, but your experience with Labor Law will be very appreciated!

And you`ll not find any union busters on this site.

[McGruff]

Thank you Buzzard. Those Union busters:snake: need a blanket party.:American:

[Buzzard]

McGruff has received an early Christmas present that makes him happier than a box of Milk Bones & a two inch thick New York cut. The NLRB has long been criticized for its dwindling number of Gissel bargaining orders. Under a Gissel order,an employer that committed enough Sec.8 violations to undermine the ability to hold a fair election must bargain with a union that once had evidence of majority support, but cannot show such support at the time of the order. The Board deserves some of the blame for mishandling these cases, but on the other hand the courts have been extraordinarily hostile to Gissel orders for quite some time. It was therefore heartening to see not only the current Board issuing a Gissel order, but also to see a court "not known as being particularly union-friendly" enforcing the order. That's exactly what happened in a recent Fifth Circuit decision, Cal. Gas Transp. v. NLRB, 06-60871 (5th Cir. Nov. 7, 2007). The 5th Cir encompasses Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana the heart of the right to work.

The court relied on the unit's small size, the severity of the Sec.8 violations, and high-level officials' anti-union activity in agreeing with the Board that traditional remedies could not ensure a fair election.

<!-- / message --><!-- attachments -->
Seems that a topic similar to this just mysteriously vanished from another forum
Believe I had a few replies on the topic.
Magic!
There one minute, gone the next.
But that is what happens when union men support each other on anti-union forums.:American:

[McGruff]

No mystery that site is moderated by a low life H.R consultant. Management consultant ,labor consultant ,and H.R consultant is code for Unionbuster.

She pretends to be neutral on the subject of Unions,as you can see that is far from true. She sees a thread she does not like she just removes it.
She protects a small cartel of :ButtKisser: who no little about Labor/Employment law. She has run off attorneys shop stewards,many others.

[Buzzard]

In my opinion, we had had that anti-union scumbag posting on your topic in a pincher action. At least 3 of us, which had included an attorney. The moderator understanding that the execution was at hand, deleted the entire topic before anyone could see the unionbuster going down in flames.
But I had not expected the entire topic to be deleted. That had been unjust---but had shown the moderators true colors. :snake:

[McGruff]

I posted a court action against them what happened to it?:Hay...:

[Buzzard]

Same thing that happened to a threat of action that I had posted to the moderator, brother. Got damn tired of the near misses that the United Association had been taking. Not only on your topic, but on several. The possible libel is not coming from any specific posting, but the general trend of the postings and the moderators actions (or inactions)….in my opinion. And I`m sure that you know as much, and likely more about internet law than I.
If you need anything from me, just let me know. As I had told you by pm, two of us had caused the closure of a legal forum sometime back. Same type of thing---but the possible libel against the Boy Scouts of America had been the issue. The person to cause had been an attorney. The webmaster had been an attorney.
I usually keep mdi copies of entire topics that I post on----was going back to do just that when I had noticed the entire topic gone. Missed my chance by a few minutes… :American: