1. In a summary judgment, unlike the motion to say that the allegations in the complaint are not accepted as true. Instead movant relies on his / her own data and the lack of evidence of the non-moving party. In other words, the motion to dismiss is based on some procedural matters and is often able to adapt. On the other hand, a motion for summary judgment is substantive ruling and has the same legal effect as if the trial had taken place.
2. If it is common for uniformed employees in the factory X decorate their uniforms with pins and buttons, so the Mets insignia and angel pins. Then, it would be illegal (unfair labor practice) under the NLRA for discipline employees wearing union buttons Union campaign because regulatory approval (in particular, the sole purpose of discriminating against union action) immediately after the campaign has begun can have the appearance of a promulgated in unlawful purpose. Moreover, allowing restriction ‘special reasons’ special reasons, the need for security, production, or other legitimate business purpose is moot since it is common for employees to decorate their uniforms with other (non-Union) pins and buttons.
3. The creation of a department of the NLRB, the Taft-Hartley Act, that the people prosecuting unfair labor were not the same people who make the final decision represents, in my view, a negative change for two reasons. First, the Taft-Hartley Act spurred anti union attitude.
Second, the lawyer responsible for investigating and prosecuting unfair labor practice requirements while control is the ruling party that determines the unfair labor practice cases resulted. Despite the limited independence of the General Counsel is to argue for a change in the law in the presentation of cases to the Board, Chief Legal needed to defend the decision (final decision on the matter) board even if it is contrary to the position he struggled to present the case to the Board
In other words, I can not imagine a lawyer passionate and really defend the decision of the board he disagrees strongly with -. which is counterproductive to union action. For example, in 1832, when Andrew Jackson was president, the Supreme Court ruled that Georgia (ironically, anti-union State) had acted unconstitutionally. However, Jackson refused to enforce the court’s ruling.
Jackson disagreement with the Supreme Court decision led to the “tears.” Thus, the Taft-Hartley Act is a “divide and conquer ‘strategy may push trade unions towards the” tears. “Unfortunately, Taft-Hartley Act could later …. For example, the current lawyer, appointed by President Bush Jr., used to be a union busting lawyer.
4. Three factors that the employee to make a prima facie case of discrimination under section 8 (a) (3) NLRA are the complainant to show that the employee engaged in protected, concerted activity; employer had knowledge of the activities, and the employer brought against union Animus.