Welcome to the TeamstersOnline.com.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11
    I Am Rocking Now

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Local Union
    81
    Employer
    Retired; OHFL
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,264
    Rep Power
    300

    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

  2. Likes 222lifer Liked this post
  3. #12
    Retired !

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Local Union
    107
    Employer
    Retired - New Penn
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    16,891
    Rep Power
    366

    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.

  4. Likes 222lifer Liked this post
  5. #13
    I Am Rocking Now

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Local Union
    81
    Employer
    Retired; OHFL
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,264
    Rep Power
    300

    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.

  6. Likes fxstc07 Liked this post
  7. #14
    I Am Rocking Now

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Local Union
    81
    Employer
    Retired; OHFL
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,264
    Rep Power
    300

    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

  8. Likes 222lifer, fxstc07 Liked this post
  9. #15
    I Am Rocking Now

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Local Union
    81
    Employer
    Retired; OHFL
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,264
    Rep Power
    300

    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.

  10. #16
    I Am Rocking Now

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Local Union
    81
    Employer
    Retired; OHFL
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,264
    Rep Power
    300

    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

  11. Likes 222lifer, crazy Liked this post
  12. #17
    I Am Rocking Now

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Local Union
    81
    Employer
    Retired; OHFL
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,264
    Rep Power
    300

    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
  •