ABF | ABF Lawsuit

I would encourage EVERYONE to go to abflegalaction.com. Judge Wright's decision is available for download. Maybe you should read it yourself.

Now...you make sense...I encourage everyone also...and if by chance anyone does conclude that ABF is asking the courts to force ABF Teamsters into the same agreement as YRC with a no vote...will you at least have the common courtesy to point out to me how you came to that conclusion.


Here it is:http://abflegalaction.com/files/2012/08/JudgeWrights08012012ruling.pdf
 
I would encourage EVERYONE to go to abflegalaction.com. Judge Wright's decision is available for download. Maybe you should read it yourself.
And your opinion of me and $5.00 will get you a nice coffee at Starbucks!

And since you brought up the ABF legal action site...how about a direct response from ABF on that very same question:

Q14 Is ABF trying to impose the terms of YRC’s concession deal on ABF drivers without giving them a vote?

* No. ABF’s position is and always has been that concessionary relief must be industry-wide and must be voted on by all NMFA Teamsters.

*It is not now and never has been ABF’s desire or intention to impose the YRC terms on ABF drivers.

*We do not consider the YRC terms to be acceptable or to represent beneficial industry-wide relief.

*IBT leadership’s claim that ABF is looking to impose the YRC terms without a vote by ABF Teamsters is simply not true.

FAQs | ABF Legal Action
 
Posting in the ABF forum is a different animal then posting in the YRC forum. Anyone can come to the YRC forum and spew venom and get a few likes like YRC is a POS company etc. I remember 4-5 years ago when a valued ABFer posted in the YRC forum that someone should stick a fork in YRC and let it die. Not so in the ABf forum. YRC posters are considered liars, deceivers or terrorists and are subject to personal attacks. It's their forum. Some threads are for ABF people only. Just look at the replies to Jimmy and Albag that were totally un-provoking..trash talk.

Obviously there is a lot of animosity toward YRC teamsters. The definition of a teamster in their eyes is one who agrees with their version that the IBT and Tyson suck. The vigilantes that some in this forum are

Getting back to the law-suit another reason the judge threw it out was ABF was not a party to the original NMFA agreement. ABF Inc is trying to keep the stock price propped up with the new law-suit..maybe a new federal judge will see it their way



but I doubt it. The YRC and IBT lawyers would not leave themselves open to a law-suit. They play this game well.
 
Posting in the ABF forum is a different animal then posting in the YRC forum. Anyone can come to the YRC forum and spew venom and get a few likes like YRC is a POS company etc. I remember 4-5 years ago when a valued ABFer posted in the YRC forum that someone should stick a fork in YRC and let it die. Not so in the ABf forum. YRC posters are considered liars, deceivers or terrorists and are subject to personal attacks. It's their forum. Some threads are for ABF people only. Just look at the replies to Jimmy and Albag that were totally un-provoking..trash talk.

Obviously there is a lot of animosity toward YRC teamsters. The definition of a teamster in their eyes is one who agrees with their version that the IBT and Tyson suck. The vigilantes that some in this forum are

Getting back to the law-suit another reason the judge threw it out was ABF was not a party to the original NMFA agreement. ABF Inc is trying to keep the stock price propped up with the new law-suit..maybe a new federal judge will see it their way



but I doubt it. The YRC and IBT lawyers would not leave themselves open to a law-suit. They play this game well.

WOW! I will have to agree with you Plunger. The yrc and IBT lawyers do play this game good. Nobody is better at disregarding and destroying contracts than they are.
 
Now...you make sense...I encourage everyone also...and if by chance anyone does conclude that ABF is asking the courts to force ABF Teamsters into the same agreement as YRC with a no vote...will you at least have the common courtesy to point out to me how you came to that conclusion.


Here it is:http://abflegalaction.com/files/2012/08/JudgeWrights08012012ruling.pdf

Scroll down to I Background. Read paragraph 5 very carefully. Then ask yourself this question. Would there be a lawsuit if ABF teamsters had ratified the wage reduction proposal? Do you get it now?
 
Scroll down to I Background. Read paragraph 5 very carefully. Then ask yourself this question. Would there be a lawsuit if ABF teamsters had ratified the wage reduction proposal? Do you get it now?
All I can say is I hope that don't happen..... If it did they(ABF) would definitely go after yrc with predatory pricing.....it's a no win situation ....
 
Posting in the ABF forum is a different animal then posting in the YRC forum. Anyone can come to the YRC forum and spew venom and get a few likes like YRC is a POS company etc. I remember 4-5 years ago when a valued ABFer posted in the YRC forum that someone should stick a fork in YRC and let it die. Not so in the ABf forum. YRC posters are considered liars, deceivers or terrorists and are subject to personal attacks. It's their forum. Some threads are for ABF people only. Just look at the replies to Jimmy and Albag that were totally un-provoking..trash talk.

Obviously there is a lot of animosity toward YRC teamsters. The definition of a teamster in their eyes is one who agrees with their version that the IBT and Tyson suck. The vigilantes that some in this forum are

Getting back to the law-suit another reason the judge threw it out was ABF was not a party to the original NMFA agreement. ABF Inc is trying to keep the stock price propped up with the new law-suit..maybe a new federal judge will see it their way



but I doubt it. The YRC and IBT lawyers would not leave themselves open to a law-suit. They play this game well.
If you know so much why were you a truck driver your whole career. You act like you are Perry Mason. And like those that post in this forum we the ABF Teamsters have a right to our opinions. If you and your buddies don't like it don't come over here. We will decide what we want and there is not a damn thing you can do about it. And it makes some of you angry. That is tough. We have money in the bank and we still turned a profit. Some are comparing stock prices and I don't see you reminding them that the yrc price in 325 to 1 which puts it's real value at around 1.84 cents a share. Remember you said you bought thousands of shares before the last reverse split. Maybe that will show some that you don't know as much as you try to make some believe. I myself find it amusing that you all are so worried about what we do. I have not seen where any of you Brothers surfing our forum have posted one thing that would help in our up coming talks. So I for one have to say it looks like you all just want trouble. If that is the case you have come to the right place. But you will have to do it on another thread and not interfere with my ABF Brothers and Sisters. So all you concerned Brothers start posting your helpful information with the links. We can only hope that you all can give us better advise than you gave yourselves. YOUR NOT VOTING TILL I GET RIGHT BROTHER ALWAYS!
 
Your obviously "thin skin" is showing docker. Perhaps you should examine your motives. Unlike many who spout, I HAVE read all the documents related to ABF's lawsuit; perhaps you should, too. Have you read ANY of the judicial decisions? From your inanely provocative responses OBVIOUSLY not. But perhaps after you have become more informed you will have answered many of the silly questions that you pose to me.
ABF DOES WANT IT'S TEAMSTERS AT THE SAME WAGES AND CONDITIONS AS YRCW TEAMSTERS.
You can bury your head in the sand and point fingers all you want. But in the end the FACTS DO speak for themselves.
If you have read them then post the links and the quotes that you are speaking of. That should be no problem. Post the links and then post the quotes from the links to show your proof.
 
Some of you guys crack me up. If we had taken a pay cut and affected your pension all hell would have broken loose. If only you trolls could see how dumb it sounds when you try to sound as if you know what you are talking about. The ABF Teamsters on this site do not put any credence in anything you all post.
Many have contacted me laughing about how can they tell us anything when they themselves stood by and did nothing. But they have a right to their opinions and I just listen and draw my own conclusions about the trolls that come to this forum. YOUR 100% TEAMSTER BROTHER ALWAYS!
 
Scroll down to I Background. Read paragraph 5 very carefully. Then ask yourself this question. Would there be a lawsuit if ABF teamsters had ratified the wage reduction proposal? Do you get it now?


roflmao.gif
Tell me...you just didn't ask me a question troll.
roflmao.gif



Do you actually think that I would answer any question that you will ask me from now on...since you haven't had the common courtesy or decency to answer mine which was asked of you at least four times now? You really are a pip...lol

Let me put it to you this way troll...when you decided to refuse to answer my simple question...then even went as far of accusing me of provoking you with such a foolish question as to supply proof of your statement and then continuing with a flat out lie...you lost all respect and credibility that you ever had with me...so don't even try and have a reasonable debate with this poster...because as I have learned with Joe...it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with a troll. This is why I now consider you a troll...which is someone that posts a deliberately provocative statement on a forum with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument...refuses to supply proof of their statements and lies. And you get a gold troll star for that because you just did all three. So be prepared to be labeled as such when you honor us with your presence when visiting our forum.

Let me also tell you this...I read your posts over at the YRC forum...and if you want to make everything smell like roses over there and pretend everything is fine with the way you have been and are being treated...that's your business...but don't for a moment think that you will take out all your frustrations by disrupting our forum by spreading misleading information and outright lies over here on ABF and the ABF Teamsters!
 
Posting in the ABF forum is a different animal then posting in the YRC forum. Anyone can come to the YRC forum and spew venom and get a few likes like YRC is a POS company etc. I remember 4-5 years ago when a valued ABFer posted in the YRC forum that someone should stick a fork in YRC and let it die. Not so in the ABf forum. YRC posters are considered liars, deceivers or terrorists and are subject to personal attacks. It's their forum. Some threads are for ABF people only. Just look at the replies to Jimmy and Albag that were totally un-provoking..trash talk.

Obviously there is a lot of animosity toward YRC teamsters. The definition of a teamster in their eyes is one who agrees with their version that the IBT and Tyson suck. The vigilantes that some in this forum are

Getting back to the law-suit another reason the judge threw it out was ABF was not a party to the original NMFA agreement. ABF Inc is trying to keep the stock price propped up with the new law-suit..maybe a new federal judge will see it their way



but I doubt it. The YRC and IBT lawyers would not leave themselves open to a law-suit. They play this game well.


All that I can reply to this senseless post is to be thankful to Slim66 and some other YRC Teamsters for posting on our forum because if I were to conclude that all YRC Teamsters were like joe and albag...I sure would have a lot of animosity toward YRC teamsters. But I do realize that a few rotten apples doesn't spoil the bushel.
 
All that I can reply to this senseless post is to be thankful to Slim66 and some other YRC Teamsters for posting on our forum because if I were to conclude that all YRC Teamsters were like joe and albag...I sure would have a lot of animosity toward YRC teamsters. But I do realize that a few rotten apples doesn't spoil the bushel.

Well, slim-e is an old Ron Carey boy. If slim-e and Carey were calling the shots today YRC would non-existent. Look what's going on out there. Verizon and AT&T unions taking more cuts while the company is making huge profits. Steel and iron workers taking big pay cuts. Not to mention public unions. But yet no strikes from the big unions. Why? Because they are not stupid like slim-e and Carey. They (big unions) know 'it's the economy stupid' factor. Union power and wages will come back when Obama loses his job
 
Well, slim-e is an old Ron Carey boy. If slim-e and Carey were calling the shots today YRC would non-existent. Look what's going on out there. Verizon and AT&T unions taking more cuts while the company is making huge profits. Steel and iron workers taking big pay cuts. Not to mention public unions. But yet no strikes from the big unions. Why? Because they are not stupid like slim-e and Carey. They (big unions) know 'it's the economy stupid' factor. Union power and wages will come back when Obama loses his job
That excuse is getting old, im not saying the economy is great but people are starting to get pissed! Not eveyone is willing
to keep getting kicked to the curb....I imagine its a lot easier to make the comments like you do when your retired or willing to take anything thats given....
 
That excuse is getting old, im not saying the economy is great but people are starting to get pissed! Not eveyone is willing
to keep getting kicked to the curb....I imagine its a lot easier to make the comments like you do when your retired or willing to take anything thats given....

I don't or never did make the big calls. Do what you gotta do
 
Union power and wages will come back when Obama loses his job


Explain something to me...you being an avid junior worshiper and all...why is that is junior going all out to get Barry re-elected then? Are you saying that junior doesn't want the union power and wages to come back or that he just doesn't have a clue in what he's doing? So...why don't you just be a good little trooper of Obama's Teamster army...shut up and 'Take Those Sons Of Beeches Out!'
roflmao.gif
 
Well, slim-e is an old Ron Carey boy. If slim-e and Carey were calling the shots today YRC would non-existent. Look what's going on out there. Verizon and AT&T unions taking more cuts while the company is making huge profits. Steel and iron workers taking big pay cuts. Not to mention public unions. But yet no strikes from the big unions. Why? Because they are not stupid like slim-e and Carey. They (big unions) know 'it's the economy stupid' factor. Union power and wages will come back when Obama loses his job
All you do is talk about following what others do. You are never one to lead. Just a follower. And not a good one at that.
 
Part 1 of 2

Now...you make sense...I encourage everyone also...and if by chance anyone does conclude that ABF is asking the courts to force ABF Teamsters into the same agreement as YRC with a no vote...will you at least have the common courtesy to point out to me how you came to that conclusion.


Here it is:http://abflegalaction.com/files/2012/08/JudgeWrights08012012ruling.pdf

Okay folks get your reading glasses out cause here we go………..
http://abflegalaction.com/files/2011/07/EighthCircuitsRuling.pdf
Page 3, paragraph 1. A separate agreement???
Page 3, paragraph 3 last sentence. Does everyone see the bulls eye on ABF’s foot?
It’s ok for ABF to enter into extra contract agreements.
Page 4, paragraph 2. Another bulls eye!
It’s ok for ABF to negotiate extra contract agreements.
Page 4, paragraph 3. Uh oh ABFs on a roll now!
ABF is NOW arguing that even though they proposed a wage and benefit reduction plan that was rejected, now ABF claims that it is a violation of the NMFA to enact wage reduction plans.
Page 15, paragraph 1. Gee wiz looks like the grievance must be heard for ABF to gain standing!
CEO Letter to Employees 11/1 | ABF Legal Action
How come Wes Kemp doesn’t mention what Muler and Docker refer to as the “beg back”?
http://abflegalaction.com/files/2012/08/JudgeWrights08012012ruling.pdf
Even though ABF later claims that negotiating separate agreements is a contravention of the NMFA:
ABF and TNFINC negotiated and entered a separate compromise, entitled the ABF
Freight System, Inc. Wage Reduction-Job Security Plan,2 which included salary reductions for ABF employees. However, ABF employees voted against the plan. Subsequently, on November 1, 2010, ABF submitted a grievance pursuant to the national grievance procedure set forth under Article 8 of the NMFA.
Defendants rightly note that they did not agree to the form of dispute resolution proposed
by ABF. In essence, ABF is asking the Court to compel Defendants to submit to a dispute
resolution process that has little resemblance to the national grievance process set forth under the NMFA. At step one, the NMFA procedure calls for a joint committee composed of an equal number of employer and union representatives. The bargained-for dispute resolution method does not, as ABF insists, call for a panel composed of neutral and disinterested third parties. The Eighth Circuit has noted that the type of joint labor-employer committee procedure adopted by the parties “is not true arbitration by a neutral third party, but instead involves decisions by joint labor-management panels.” Stevens v. Highway, City & Air Freight Drivers, Dockmen, and Helpers Local Union No. 600 of the Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, 794 F.2d 376, 377-378 (8th Cir. 1986).
Even where an effort to achieve impartiality is made by a requirement that neither the
employer nor the local union involved in the particular dispute is to be represented on the
grievance panel, it cannot be said that panel members are disinterested or neutral, and the joint committee method is still subject to abuses, including “the potential sacrifice of individual grievants’ interests to the broader institutional concerns of labor and management.” Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, 615 F.2d 1194, 1201 (8th Cir.1980), rev'd on other grounds, 450 U.S. 728, 101 S.Ct. 1437 (1981). Nonetheless, “the law seems to be established that the joint committee method ... is valid.” Id.
In addition to asking for a disinterested panel to hear its grievance, ABF seeks to bypass
steps two and three of the bargained-for grievance process by proposing that if the court appointedpanel deadlocks and fails to resolve ABF’s grievance, the Court should resolve its
12
Case 2:10-cv-02165-SWW Document 138 Filed 08/01/12 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 2523
breach of contract claims. The Court finds that the parties did not agree to the dispute resolution process proposed by ABF and that the remedy sought would not give effect to the parties’ agreement.
ABF notes that courts frequently appoint arbitrators under the Federal Arbitration Act
(“FAA”), pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 5, which reads:
If in the agreement provision be made for a method of naming or appointing an
arbitrator or arbitrators or an umpire, such method shall be followed; but if no
method be provided therein, or if a method be provided and any party thereto shall
fail to avail himself of such method, or if for any other reason there shall be a lapse
in the naming of an arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire, or in filling a vacancy, then
upon the application of either party to the controversy the court shall designate and
appoint an arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire, as the case may require, who shall act
under the said agreement with the same force and effect as if he or they had been
specifically named therein; and unless otherwise provided in the agreement the
arbitration shall be by a single arbitrator. 9 U.S.C. § 5(emphasis added). The Court disagrees that the forgoing provision applies here.The NMFA, which calls for an open-ended grievance process and does not mandate binding arbitration, provides that the NGC shall be composed of an equal number of employer and union representatives, and it specifically gives the NGC the duty to adopt procedural rules. The NGC procedural rules, in turn, require that NGC members be selected by the President of TMI, with respect to employer representative, and the Chairman of TNFINC, with respect to union
representatives. Although the NGC Rules of Procedure prohibit an employer or union
representative from participating on a panel hearing a case in which he or she was directly involved or which involves his or her union or company, the Rules also provide: “These Rules of Procedure may be amended or modified by majority vote of the National Grievance Committee.” Amend. Compl., Ex. G (NGC R. P. Art. VII). Accordingly, this is not a case in
13
Case 2:10-cv-02165-SWW Document 138 Filed 08/01/12 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 2524
which the parties’ agreement fails to provide a method for naming or appointing an arbitrator.9
ABF asserts that the NGC is disqualified from addressing the procedural standstill in this
case, but neither the NMFA nor the NGC Rules of Procedure require that only disinterested, uninvolved, or neutral representatives serve on the NGC for the purpose of adopting procedural rules.
ABF protests that the parties did not intend that the NGC would resolve the procedural
dispute at issue. To support this argument, ABF submits a copy of the 1998-2003 and 2003-2008 NGC Rules of Procedure, which also required that neither employer nor union
representatives involved in a particular dispute serve on a committee hearing that dispute. Seedocket entry #118, Ex. A, docket entry #119, Ex. B. ABF proposes that inclusion of the noninvolvement provision in past versions of the NGC Rules demonstrates that it has “long been afundamental part of the parties’ agreed-upon grievance system.” See docket entry #117, at 2-3.
Defendants note, however, that the NGC Rules in force under the 1998-2003 and 2003-2008 NMFA’s also provided that the Rules could be amended or modified by majority vote of the NGC.
9ABF suggests that the Court must have “clear and unmistakable” evidence that the
parties intended that the NGC resolve issues regarding the selection of panel members. When deciding whether the parties have agreed to submit the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator,courts should not assume that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability unless there is clear and unmistakable evidence that they did so. See First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S.938, 944, 115 S. Ct. 1920, 1924 (1995)(citations omitted). “In this manner the law treats silence or ambiguity about the question “who (primarily) should decide arbitrability; differently from the way it treats silence or ambiguity about the question ‘whether a particular merits-related dispute is arbitrable because it is within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement–for in respect
to this latter question the law reverses the presumption.” First Options, 514 U.S. at 944-945,115 S. Ct at 1924(citation omitted). Here, the NMFA is not silent or ambiguous about who will adopt rules of procedure governing the grievance process, and the question whether NGC has such authority has no bearing on the principle that the court decides arbitrability..
14
 
Part 2 of 2

Case 2:10-cv-02165-SWW Document 138 Filed 08/01/12 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 2525
In sum, the Court disagrees that 9 U.S.C. § 5 supports ABF’s request for appointment of
a neutral arbitrator, as that provision does not empower a court to appoint an arbitrator when the parties have agreed to a method for naming or appointing an arbitrator.
The Court further finds that permitting the NGC to address the procedural problem in this
case effectuates national labor policy. The LMRA provides: “Final adjustment by a method agreed upon by the parties is declared to be the desirable method for settlement of grievance disputes arising over the application or interpretation of an existing collective-bargaining agreement.” 29 U.S.C. § 173(d). “That policy can be effectuated only if the means chosen by the parties for settlement of their differences under a collective bargaining agreement is given full play.” United Steelworkers of America v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564, 566, 80 S.Ct. 1343, 1346 (1960). Additionally, permitting the NGC to address the procedural issue preventing the grievance procedure from going forward is consistent with the Supreme Court’s admonition that procedural questions should be left to the arbitrator: Once it is determined . . . that the parties are obligated to submit the subject matter of a dispute to arbitration, ‘procedural' questions which grow out of the dispute and bear on its final disposition should be left to the arbitrator.
* * * * *
[W]e think it best accords with the usual purposes of an arbitration clause and with
the policy behind federal labor law to regard procedural disagreements not as
separate disputes but as aspects of the dispute which called the grievance procedures
into play.John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 558-559, 84 S.Ct. 909, 919 (1964).
In conclusion, the Court finds that ABF has failed to state facts which would allow the
Court to appoint an alternative tribunal to hear its grievance. Accordingly, the Court agrees that ABF’s first cause of action must be dismissed.
15
What all that means is that unless and until ABF submits it’s grievance to the NGC the courts will NOT intervene!
YOUR WELL INFORMED TEAMSTER BROTHER ALWAYS and YES that is intended as sarcasm!
 
What all that means is that unless and until ABF submits it’s grievance to the NGC the courts will NOT intervene!
YOUR WELL INFORMED TEAMSTER BROTHER ALWAYS and YES that is intended as sarcasm!


No...what all this means is that you posted two long posts of BS to try and cover up the fact that you can't back up and has absolutely nothing to to with your statement that ABF wants the courts to force the terms of YRC’s concession deal on ABF Teamsters without giving them a vote?

Oh what tangled webs we weave when we practice to deceive.
roflmao.gif


How about trying again troll!
 
Case 2:10-cv-02165-SWW Document 138 Filed 08/01/12 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 2525
In sum, the Court disagrees that 9 U.S.C. § 5 supports ABF’s request for appointment of
a neutral arbitrator, as that provision does not empower a court to appoint an arbitrator when the parties have agreed to a method for naming or appointing an arbitrator.
The Court further finds that permitting the NGC to address the procedural problem in this
case effectuates national labor policy. The LMRA provides: “Final adjustment by a method agreed upon by the parties is declared to be the desirable method for settlement of grievance disputes arising over the application or interpretation of an existing collective-bargaining agreement.” 29 U.S.C. § 173(d). “That policy can be effectuated only if the means chosen by the parties for settlement of their differences under a collective bargaining agreement is given full play.” United Steelworkers of America v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564, 566, 80 S.Ct. 1343, 1346 (1960). Additionally, permitting the NGC to address the procedural issue preventing the grievance procedure from going forward is consistent with the Supreme Court’s admonition that procedural questions should be left to the arbitrator: Once it is determined . . . that the parties are obligated to submit the subject matter of a dispute to arbitration, ‘procedural' questions which grow out of the dispute and bear on its final disposition should be left to the arbitrator.
* * * * *
[W]e think it best accords with the usual purposes of an arbitration clause and with
the policy behind federal labor law to regard procedural disagreements not as
separate disputes but as aspects of the dispute which called the grievance procedures
into play.John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 558-559, 84 S.Ct. 909, 919 (1964).
In conclusion, the Court finds that ABF has failed to state facts which would allow the
Court to appoint an alternative tribunal to hear its grievance. Accordingly, the Court agrees that ABF’s first cause of action must be dismissed.
15
What all that means is that unless and until ABF submits it’s grievance to the NGC the courts will NOT intervene!
YOUR WELL INFORMED TEAMSTER BROTHER ALWAYS and YES that is intended as sarcasm!
I will give you the benefit of the doubt. But did you know that besides ABF the only other members of the Grievance Committees are yrc people. And if all the other company members are yrc people who do you think are sitting on the Union side? That's right yrc people. Now would you think it but just a formality? But I do agree that ABF should let it be heard so as too strengthen their case. Like I have said all along I don't know where this case will go but every AMERICAN has the right to their day in court. If you are correct why do you get so worked up? It should not bother you that ABF is spending their money. As for your lower court judge throwing it out. Remember the JUDGES that sent it back are much more powerful than her. They are the very people that will now hear the appeal.
Docker is right you have came on this thread to cause trouble. You have not added one post that was helpful to any ABF Teamster. So that shows where you are coming from in my opinion. Judges will decide the lawsuit not us. YOUR DISAPPOINTED BROTHER ALWAYS!
 
Top