Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Maybe getting rid of 2/3 isn't a good idea..
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="zubenelgenubi" data-source="post: 3952026" data-attributes="member: 63706"><p>Also, from Article XIX section 2:</p><p></p><p>"(d) Failure of any interested party in any case to ap‑ pear before any trial or appellate body at the time and place designated in the notice shall constitute a waiver of appearance and the trial shall proceed or the appeal be heard regardless of the absence of such party</p><p>If the charging party fails to appear in person before any trial or appellate body on the date set for trial or hear‑ ing, the charges shall be dismissed Failure of the charging party to present evidence in support of the charges shall require dismissal of the charges In either event, such dismissal shall constitute a fnal adjudication from which there can be no appeal, and after such dis‑ missal the accused may not be retried on the same charges"</p><p></p><p>What this means is that only someone who is in a position to perform an investigation to collect evidence of the charges can even hope to file charges that might go anywhere. Also, the person filing the charges has to appear at the trial, or all charges will be dismissed and the accused cannot be retried on the same offense. So the person filing charges would have to be able to get time off work and pay to travel to the trial. Based on those facts, what is the likelihood an average member could successfully file charges against an elected official of the IBT? Approaching zero?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="zubenelgenubi, post: 3952026, member: 63706"] Also, from Article XIX section 2: "(d) Failure of any interested party in any case to ap‑ pear before any trial or appellate body at the time and place designated in the notice shall constitute a waiver of appearance and the trial shall proceed or the appeal be heard regardless of the absence of such party If the charging party fails to appear in person before any trial or appellate body on the date set for trial or hear‑ ing, the charges shall be dismissed Failure of the charging party to present evidence in support of the charges shall require dismissal of the charges In either event, such dismissal shall constitute a fnal adjudication from which there can be no appeal, and after such dis‑ missal the accused may not be retried on the same charges" What this means is that only someone who is in a position to perform an investigation to collect evidence of the charges can even hope to file charges that might go anywhere. Also, the person filing the charges has to appear at the trial, or all charges will be dismissed and the accused cannot be retried on the same offense. So the person filing charges would have to be able to get time off work and pay to travel to the trial. Based on those facts, what is the likelihood an average member could successfully file charges against an elected official of the IBT? Approaching zero? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
Maybe getting rid of 2/3 isn't a good idea..
Top