by NLRB - board decision & order, excerpt:
Obviously a referral procedure that has the effect of reserving the first 80 to 85 percent of job referrals for picketers will tend to coerce members’ decisions about whether to engage in picketing.
The procedure is discriminatory and falls outside a union’s prerogatives in the operation of a nonexclusive hiring hall regardless of whether one casts the Respondent’s subjective motivation as rewarding picketers or as punishing non-picketers. See Service Employees Local 1107 (Sunrise Hospital), 347 NLRB 63, 65 (2006), citing Boilermakers Local 686 (Boiler Tube), 267 NLRB 1056, 1057 (1983) (Where a union interferes with a member’s Section 7 right to refrain from union activity, Section 8(b)(1)(A) does not require a showing of motivation or intent to establish a violation.)....
Such coercion is unlawful regardless of whether the provision also has lawful applications. The Respondent’s defense that it did not enforce paragraph 4(c), is also not viable. The mere existence of a rule that improperly discriminates on the basis of a member’s protected activity has a chilling effect on the exercise of Section 7 rights, and violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) regardless of whether the provision has ever been enforced. Awrey Bakeries, 335 NLRB 138, 139–140 (2001), enfd. 59 Fed. Appx. 690 (6th Cir. 2003); Engineers & Scientists Guild (Lockheed-California), 268 NLRB 311 (1983).
This is as short as it gets, to provide adequate context, proving Mr. Brennan was correct
This post was updated on .
13. Members who volunteer for picket duty when registering for the out-of-work list will be given preference at job sites where the member has assisted in picketing and the job sites have been organized successfully or turned over to signatory contractors All job referrals as the employer's labor needs dictate will be despatched in list order priority and according to skills' needs.
AND WHO DO YOU SUPPOSE AUTHORED THIS LITTLE GEM?
WHY, IRO KENNETH CONBOY, THAT IS WHO....SOME LABOR LAWYER HE IS.
WHO ELSE WAS INVOLVED, WHY NONE OTHERE THAN THE CURRENT USAO & IRO, THEIR FINGERPRINTS ARE ALL OVER THIS -
NOW, THE 3 AMIGOS COLLECTIVELY FEIGN STUPIDITY AS TO THE "BLUE CARD EXTORTION" FROM THE MEMBERS PAYCHECKS, WHICH BY THE WAY KEEP THEM FUNDED IN THEIR DO-NOTHING, PRODUCE NOTHING JOBS!!
excerpt - NLRB DECISION & ORDER.............................
The procedure is discriminatory and falls outside a union’s
prerogatives in the operation of a nonexclusive hiring hall
regardless of whether one casts the Respondent’s sub ective
motivation as rewarding picketers or as punishing nonpicketers.
See Service Employees Local 1107 (Sunrise Hospital),
347 NLRB 63, 65 (2006), citing Boilermakers Local 686
(Boiler Tube), 267 NLRB 1056, 1057 (1983) (Where a union
interferes with a member’s Section 7 right to refrain from union
activity, Section 8(b)(1)(A) does not require a showing of motivation
or intent to establish a violation.).
When a UNION has an Illegal Constitutional provision, or an Illegal By-Law, the appropriate remedy is an ORDER from the BOARD, or in the instance of the NYCDCC, the Court - to expunge (remove) the Illegal provisions.
THIS WAS JOB NUMBER 1 FOR THE FIRST UNITED STATES ATTORNEY & IRO.
Both failed miserably in this very simple task, as did the Court.....by FAILING to ORDER the necessary review and FAILING to EXPUNGE the Illegal sections on a LINE ITEM BASIS.
The 2-Primary Prongs of the Consent Decree - Restoration of Democracy and Elimination of Fraud & Corruption cannot occur until this simple task of EXPUNGEMENT is ordered by the COURT per Judge Berman.
Expungement remedies have been around for centuries.
ALL THOSE WHO SLAMMED BROTHER BRENNAN OVER THE YEARS - YOU OWE THE MAN AN APOLOGY!
FURRIERS JT. COUNCIL OF NEW YORK 280 NLRB 107 (1986)
We agree with the judge that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by making its members' receipt of their vacation paychecks conditional on their payment of a special assessment.
The General Counsel and the Charging Parties except to the judge's failure to find that theRespondent also violated the Act by requiring its members to pay their back dues before receiving their vacation paychecks. We find merit in these exceptions.
It appears to be commonplace in the fur industry for a worker to fall behind in paying union dues during the busy season from August to December and during the slow season from February to May. Many fur workers choose to pay their back dues. On 14 August 1984 the Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint contending that the parties had executed a settlement agreement providing, in pertinent part that the parties would discontinue or cause the discontinuance of all litigation and administrative proceedings pending between them. On 18 January 1985 the Board issued a Notice to Show Cause why the Respondent's motion should not be granted The General Counsel and the Charging Parties filed responses to the Notice to Show Cause We agree with the General Counsel that the Respondent has not established that a final settlement agreement had been reached, because the Respondent never submitted a final copy of the alleged agreement to the Board, but merely attached several selected pages of a draft of the alleged agreement to its motion to dismiss the complaint
Accordingly, we deny the Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint 2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge 's credibility findings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings when they receive their vacation paychecks from the Respondent in January and July.
The Respondent distributes the paychecks to employees after their preparation elsewhere. When a union member requests his vacation check from a cashier at the Respondent's office, the cashier checks the member's union book to determine if dues have been paid. If the member owes dues, he proceeds to a second cashier who deducts back dues from the vacation check and gives the balance of the paycheck to the employee. Should a member prefer not to have dues deducted from his vacation check, he would consult with his business agent who would determine if the back dues had to be paid from the employee's vacation check.
Charles Sanders, a shop chairman, testified it has been the Respondent's practice that a fur worker "not in good standing," i.e., in arrears in dues payments, cannot receive his vacation check; the employee receives his check only when he is paid up in dues and assessments. Although the judge found there was a "custom and practice" of conditioning delivery of its members' vacation checks upon their payment of back dues, the judge also found the Respondent did not violate the Act by engaging in this "custom and practice." We disagree.
We rely on Musicians Local 47 (American Broadcasting Co.), 255 NLRB 386 (1981), in which the respondent union, like the Respondent herein, assumed the responsibility of transmitting paychecks to its members. The union refused to transmit an employee's paycheck to him until he had paid all his back dues. We found such conduct violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
We found that receiving payment for one's labor is a term and condition of employment-an employment right-and that an underlying purpose of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) is to keep employment rights separate from membership obligations owed to an employee's labor organization, such as the payment of dues.
In order to enforce its members' financial obligations, a union may only seek the discharge of employees who do not pay their periodic dues; a union may not resort to other methods, such as withholding part or all of a paycheck, to force compliance with membership obligations.
In Musicians Union Local 47, we concluded that the union had accepted responsibility for transmitting paychecks to employees who were its members and, having agreed to become involved in that facet of the employment relationship, was obliged "to maintain the statutorily mandated separation between employment rights and membership obligations. "255 NLRB at 390.
An assessment, unlike dues and initiation
fees, is outside the scope of the proviso of Section
8(a)(3), the purpose of which is to prevent "free riders" and
may not be made a condition of employment even under a
lawful union-security device. Local No. 959. International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America.
where does blue boy live ? i hear he is homeless and on junk collecting cans.
Well, you could take up a collection for him Bill, pass the hat around. People helped you when you needed it.
who helped me ? and when ?
When a brother or sister falls, you pick them up!
A'hh, I see, so now we get to the source of your anger, 2-Questions aptly posed from your own hand, word and mouth....who helped me and when?
How about those who voted for you recently? How about this site and jawin who allow you to vent. How about those who have provided you with ample material for a positive and proactive campaign. How about Dennis Walsh and the forums or those who picked you up when you were wrongly beat down?
You are still living that day and your anger is directed at people instead of the issues - so instead of learning from it, you let hatred destroy you and now use that anger to try and destroy others. Your election campaign centered on negative attacks on all other candidates... you lost and yet you persist with the same tired, worn diatribe. That my friend is a recipe for disaster.
So the question is - will you rise above that hatred and anger or will you let it take you to an early grave? If anyone should recognize what happened to Mr. Brennan it should be you. The man was right from day one, spot on.
When the real enemy cannot attack the legal issues and the facts, they resort to attacking the man, his character, his reputation, his wife, his mother, the kids and the dog. This is the UBCJA's standard modus operandi as exemplified by McCarrons own mouth, in branding good men "deranged commies and loners" and otherwise seeing them to economic ruin. Divide & Conquer - right?
If you want to earn some respect and trust, go find him if he is under a bridge and pick the man up. Kicking a man when he is down puts you in the same stead as those who did it to you. You're better than that.
I saw brian yesterday at courthouse and talked with him as we waited in line together. I don't think he is homeless. He looked good and healthy.
Donny - good to know, let him know others got his back
ted ,you are a fool. i was only joking. blue card boy is my friend for many years. do u even know him ? what i post on these blogs is what i believe to be true. the truth is negative ????????u read me the riot act about my tiff with ---,until u had one with him. i guess i was wrong there too. one question for you ted, are you on the pot ?
Please form a committee to investigate the Blue Card Fiasco. Give us a dollar amount spent to what has turn out to be an unenforceable rule. Did the trustees act in good faith? How about their judgment of seeking legal advise AFTER they decided to withhold funds not legally theirs? Tell us what the rules are in regards to carpenters convicted of taking cash and how was a new blue card of authority was going to help the union in regards to cash takers? Tell us why they attempted to lie to us in regards to the first mailing and saying this was an attempt to update records? Was that legal?
As set forth above, the law is settled that Section
8(a)(3) and Section 8(b)(2) of the Act do not allow an
employer and a union to condition employment on the
payment of uniform " assessments," as opposed to "periodic
dues," to a union. NLRB v. Food Fair Stores, 307
F.2d 3, 9-16 (3d. Cir. 1962).
BLUE CARD - EXCERPT
"The said amount so deducted represents a working assessment and/or fines or penalties which I hereby direct to be paid to said District Council or Local Union as the case may be to the extent permissable under apllicable law".
DO NOT SIGN THE BLUE CARD, it expired with the contract.
The District Council cannot make you perform Leaflet, Banner, Picket Duty, Sign-Building Standouts for Politicians, Volunteer Projects a "condition precedent" to your receipt of your Vacation Wages.
Under Section 7 of the Act, you have the right to refrain from any/all such activity. You can volunteer to do it, but they cannot force you to do it. This has been settled law for quite some time.
This post was updated on .
NYCDCC BYLAWS, pg. 8
Section 21 (G) "It shall be mandatory that each active member provide at least 1 day and/or 7 hours of Union activity (picketing etc.) per calender year when called upon by the New York City District Council of Carpenters... any assessment, fine or penalty for failure to perform such activity... shall be used to defray the expenses of organizing and shall not be used for any other purpose. UBC Constitution provides: Any member found guilty of violating the BY-Laws many be fined an amount not in excess of three hundred ($300) dollars."
Said language, is a willful & wanton violation of NLRA Section 7 rights. Mandated/forced/coerced wage extortion of Vacation Wages and/or Threats of and implementation of charges and phony Kangaroo Court Trials notwithstanding.
Eleven years of illegal exactions and extortion of your Vacation Wages has occurred, replete with a $250 dollar fine for the first 7-years and a $500 dollar Fine for the last 4-years.
All of the monies thus collected (whether or not you volunteered or were coerced and directly threatened with charges, fines, trials expulsion threats etc) are facially unlawful as is the express langauge on the Blue Card. Items A-G under section 21 establishing the council operations and funding are facially unlawful.
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by EDDIE
Preliminary estimates for the BLUE CARD WAGE EXTORTION = $81,250,000 dollars before any make whole remedy, interest etc.
The Lawyers involved in the authoring of this illegal Language and the Trustees have at all times acted in "bad faith" - as they knew full well the BLUE CARD langauge to be illegal and that it constituted Hobbs Act Extortion...another words, more racketeering.
Carpenters taking cash is an entirely different subject and not part of the Blue Card issue.
As far as the language, the NLRA allows a Union Security clause under Sect. 8(a)(3). The only thing they can legally charge you for is - initiation fee and monthly dues.
Do not sign the BLUE CARD or a SKILLS FORM. Both items form an illegal individual contract. Both expired with the Contract expiration. When they bring out new Blue Cards or SKILLS FORMS for signature at LU Meetings, Jobsites, Apprentice School or anywhere else (mailings), burn them....do not sign them!
If it were an attempt to simply update records, they could do that via letter, postcard, e-mail or a simple phone call. NO - This was a flat out attempt to coerce and decieve the rank & file to sign the illegal individual contract...the Blue Card .
The 2-primary lawyers involved in authoring this little scam and pushing it through the Court over the years, before a senile Judge Haight, know who they are & they know full well that the language on these cards and put forth via the contracts and the court was facially unlawful and would not pass muster in Labor Law 101 - Yet - they did it nevertheless. Before this is done, we'll be going after a few bar cards.
Kasten v. St Gobain, decided 3-22-11 Sup Ct (excerpt)
re: Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 1938...'oral vs. written complaints'
Several functional considerations indicate that Congress intended the antiretaliation provision to cover oral, as well as written, "complaint[s]." First, an interpretation that limited the provision's coverage to written complaints would undermine the Act's basic objectives.
The Act seeks to prohibit "labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers." 29 U. S. C. §202(a). It does so in part by setting forth substantive wage, hour, and overtime standards. It relies for enforcement of these standards, not upon "continuing detailed federal supervision or inspection of payrolls," but upon "information and complaints received from employees seeking to vindicate rights claimed to have been denied." Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U. S. 288, 292 (1960). And its antiretaliation provision makes this enforcement scheme effective by preventing "fear of economic retaliation" from inducing workers "quietly to accept substandard conditions." Ibid.
Why would Congress want to limit the enforcement scheme's effectiveness by inhibiting use of the Act's complaint procedure by those who would find it difficult to reduce their complaints to writing, particularly illiterate, less educated, or overworked workers? President Franklin Roosevelt pointed out at the time that these were the workers most in need of the Act's help. See Message to Congress, May 24, 1937, H. R. Doc. No. 255, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 4 (seeking a bill to help the poorest of "those who toil in factory").
FOLLOW BLUE CARD BOY HERE - THIS IS THE MICHIGAN CASE
Initial charges filed in NLRB Region 29 August 10, 2011 & amended September 15, 2011. Stay tuned.
III. Analysis and Discussion
The Board has held that a union violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act in the operation of a nonexclusive hiring hall when it discriminatorily denies referrals to members because those members have engaged in activities protected by Section 7 of the Act. Carpenters Local 370 (Eastern Contractors Assn.), 332 NLRB 174 (2000); Newspaper & Mail Deliverers (City & Suburban Delivery), 332 NLRB 870, 870 fn.1 (2000); Carpenters Local 626 (Strawbridge & Clothier), 310 NLRB 500, 500 fn. 2 (1993), enfd. 16 F.3d 404 (3d Cir. 1993) (Table); Laborers Local 135 (Bechtel Corp.), 271 NLRB 777, 780 (1984), enfd. 782 F.2d 1030 (3d Cir. 1986) (Table). Such discrimination is unlawfully coercive in the context of nonexclusive hiring halls, despite the fact that the coercion is greater when the discriminating union is party to an exclusive hiring arrangement. Chauffeur’s Union Local 923, Teamsters (Yellow Cab Co.), 172 NLRB 2137, 2138 (1968). 5 The protections provided by Section 7 extend not only to a member’s decision to participate in union activities, but also to a member’s decision to refrain from union activities, including union-sponsored picketing. Service Employees District 1199 (Staten Island University Hospital), 339 NLRB 1059, 1060-61 (2003); District 65, Distributive Workers (Blume Associates, Inc.) 214 NLRB 1059 (1974); see also Service Employees Local 87 (Able Building Maintenance Co.), 349 NLRB No. 40, slip op. at 5 (2007) (“An essential element of any violation of Section 8(b)(1) is restraint or coercion in the exercise of a Section 7 right; i.e., the right to form, join, or assist a labor organization, or to refrain from such activity.”).
excerpt Paul Bogas ALJ D & O 12-27-07
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|