Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
Like Tree20Likes

Thread: Here Come 'd Judge...Again

  1. #11
    I Am Rocking Now

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Local Union
    81
    Employer
    Retired; OHFL
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,767
    Rep Power
    272

    Default Re: Here Come 'd Judge...Again

    The Court denied Oak Harbor's motion for a 90 day stay of the order. Bet it is getting tense in the Glass Palace.

    https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document....031d4582520268
    222lifer likes this.

  2. #12
    Retired !

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Local Union
    107
    Employer
    Retired - New Penn
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    12,771
    Rep Power
    304

    Default Re: Here Come 'd Judge...Again

    First, they must have some deep pockets.
    Second, they also must have some poor excuse for attorneys. Or they don't listen to counsel.
    222lifer likes this.

  3. #13
    I Am Rocking Now

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Local Union
    81
    Employer
    Retired; OHFL
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,767
    Rep Power
    272

    Default Re: Here Come 'd Judge...Again

    Quote Originally Posted by fxstc07 View Post
    First, they must have some deep pockets.
    Second, they also must have some poor excuse for attorneys. Or they don't listen to counsel.
    Would you believe all three are true?

    They have a big problem of walking over dollars to pick up pennies. They just never learn.

    Two years ago, we were told by the local they would have owed the Oregon H&W Trust about $20 million.
    I was told, by an attorney who knows, that it is a minimum of one million dollars to get your ducks lined up to appeal to the SCOUS. Then you have have to have an attorney that is qualified to argue in the court.

    Will the case be heard by the SCOUS? Who knows. How ever now that there is a pro big business judge that wanted to let a truck driver freeze to death I wouldn't be surprised. But then look what we have occupying the White House.
    fxstc07 likes this.

  4. #14
    I Am Rocking Now

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Local Union
    81
    Employer
    Retired; OHFL
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,767
    Rep Power
    272

    Default Re: Here Come 'd Judge...Again

    It is official now. Oak Harbor has filed with the SCOUS. It appears nothing has changed in their argument just the SOSDD.

    https://nlrb.gov/case/19-CA-031797
    fxstc07 and 222lifer like this.

  5. #15
    I Am Rocking Now

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Local Union
    81
    Employer
    Retired; OHFL
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,767
    Rep Power
    272

    Default Re: Here Come 'd Judge...Again

    I thought that I posted about the number of cases The Supreme's hear in a year. If I did I was WAY off.

    Ran into an ex-coworker the other day at the store and his numbers were vastly different than mine. I thought about 700-800 cases were appealed and about 80-100 heard. He said 7000-8000 with about 80 to 100 heard. He is right

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/justicecaseload.aspx

    Can't get this to paste but it confirms the numbers.

    But then that is only the cases filed reguarding Our Glorious Exalted Leader.

  6. #16
    I Am Rocking Now

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Local Union
    81
    Employer
    Retired; OHFL
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,767
    Rep Power
    272

    Default Re: Here Come 'd Judge...Again

    It looks a Oak's appeal to the Supreme Court is on the way to denial. Seems as though the Solicitor General is saying it is without merit. Bet things are rather tense in the Glass Palace. Again.

    Petitioner’s argument that the October 2008
    agreement extended to all unit employees, rather than
    merely to crossovers, is not only contradicted by the
    text of petitioner’s October 2008 letter, see id. at 350a
    (proposing temporary arrangement for “crossovers”),
    but is also inconsistent with the trial testimony of petitioner’s
    own lead negotiator.


    But to the extent petitioner suggests (Pet. 7, 21,
    35) that an “impasse” existed on the subject of returning
    strikers’ benefits, that suggestion is erroneous. As
    the Board found, the evidence established that the parties
    had not exhausted negotiations on that issue...


    In any event, even assuming a deadlock specifically
    on the issue of medical coverage for returning
    strikers, that deadlock would not justify unilateral action
    absent either overall impasse in negotiations or a
    showing that that single issue was of such overriding
    importance that it frustrated the progress of further negotiations.

    The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
    Respectfully submitted.

    NOEL J. FRANCISCO
    Solicitor General
    https://nlrb.gov/case/19-CA-031797
    crazy and 222lifer like this.

  7. #17
    I Am Rocking Now

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Local Union
    81
    Employer
    Retired; OHFL
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,767
    Rep Power
    272

    Default Re: Here Come 'd Judge...Again

    Too late to edit. Looks like it is a done deal, but then I flunked law school.
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/17-531.html

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332