This post was updated on .
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf with your employer
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT maintain, enforce, or give effect to job referral procedures that give priority or preference to members who engage in picketing that we sponsor or sanction, and which withhold referrals from members who refuse to engage in picketing and other protected activity.
WE WILL NOT give any consideration to whether you have participated in, or refrained from participation in, picketing that we sponsored or sanctioned when offering job referrals to members.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind, and strike from our written job referral procedures, provisions that grant
priority job referrals to members who engage in picketing that we sponsor or sanction, and
which withhold referrals from members who refuse to engage in picketing and other protected activity.
WE WILL make you whole for any loss of earnings and benefits that you may have suffered as a result of our discrimination since February 9, 2006, with interest.
Local 687, Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters
Case No. 07-CB-015293
Carpenters Local 687 (Conventions & Show Services) MRCC and Micheal Johnston
This post was updated on .
TEXTILE WORKERS 409 U.S. 192 (1972), the Supreme Court stated:
We noted in Scofield v. NLRB, [409 U.S. 213, 216] 394 U.S. 423, 429 , that if a union rule "invades or frustrates an overriding policy of the labor laws the rule may not be enforced, even by fine or expulsion, without violating 8 (b) (1)." On the facts, we held that Scofield, where fines were imposed on members by the union, fell within the ambit of Allis-Chalmers. But we drew the line between permissible and impermissible union action against members as follows:
". . . 8 (b) (1) leaves a union free to enforce a properly adopted rule which reflects a legitimate union interest, impairs no policy Congress has imbedded in the labor laws, and is reasonably enforced against union members who are free to leave the union and escape the rule." Id., at 430.
Under 7 of the Act the employees have "the right to refrain from any or all" concerted activities relating to collective bargaining or mutual aid and protection, as well as the right to join a union and participate in those concerted activities.
The BLUE CARD authorization, not only impairs the policy Congress imbedded in the Labor laws, it flat out ignores them and forces and illegal exaction via imposition of a $500 dollar Fine should a rank & file Member of the UBC dare exercise "the right to refrain from any or all" concerted activities and they have been getting away with this illegal exaction since 1998.
Classic HOBBS ACT extortion of property rights (YOUR VACATION PAY) and re-directing it to ORGANIZING (sign building and standouts for Politicians, leaflet, banner, picket duty etc.)
So let me see here, you extort members Vacation Wages, then the DC uses said monies thus extorted to purchase strapping at lumber yards, tools, printer fees and you force Union members to first build the signs (free of charge) and then stand out in all kinds of weather and hold them on street corners for Politicians who come around once every 2-4 year Election cycle and we have a BRAINSTORMING session with the International & District Council attorneys as to how we can coerce a senile old judge into accepting this as a legitimate and legal proposition....EUREKA says former Judge Conboy, I got it Doug-we'll tell the old coot it's "WORKING DUES" and we'll center the argument around that....he just may buy it; and Doug says, damn your good slick, I knew I'd get my monies worth out of you....besides - the members they'll never catch on, they're easy to fool.
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 is the charge filed August 10, 2011 by John, Bill Lebo & Ted. It was amended Sept. 15th.
Contact Information- should you wish to add information, submit an affidavit etc., please contact Attorney Ashok Bokde:
ASHOK BOKDE, BOARD AGENT
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
REGION 29, BROOKLYN, NY
CASE NO. 29-CB-62603
Phone: (718) 330-7713
Fax: (718) 330-7579
Two Metro Tech Center
100 Myrtle Avenue, 5th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201-4201
M-F 9:00am - 5:30 pm
scroll to bottom, click on Board Decision
You cannot be Fined for Refusing to perform Picket Duty, even during an economic strike
This post was updated on .
256 NLRB No. 92
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Carpenters' District Council of Western Pennsylvania and Industrial Local No. 2605, AFL-CIO (DeRose Industries, Inc.) and Jerry L. Campbell. Case 6-CB-4931
June 15, 1981
page 2 of 4 (585 of record)
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondents United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Carpenters' District Council of Western Pennsylvania and Industrial Local 2605, AFLCIO, are admittedly labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Jerry Campbell, the Charging Party in this case, has been an employee of DeRose Industries for approximately 9 years and has been a member of Local 2605. In connection with an economic strike which lasted from July 25 through August 20, 1978, Local 2605 required its members to assist in the picketing on a scheduled basis.
Campbell along with certain other employees failed to report to picket line duty. For each day missed a charge of $10 was assessed by Respondent. Campbell, having missed seven out of eight assigned picketing days, was notified by Local 2605 that he was fined a total of $70 and that he had a right to a hearing before the executive committee scheduled for September 27, 1978. Campbell attended the hearing before the executive
committee. It affirmed the $70 fine............
page 3 (586 record)
Campbell's refusal to pay the fine prompted his discharge
and that he was reinstated only on the basis that
the Union again considered him a member in good standing.
The law is clear, Section 8(b)(2) of the Act prohibits a
union to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate
against an employee. A union which causes the
employer to discharge an employee for his failure to pay
assessments or fines, other than periodic dues or normal
initiation fees, violates Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A). Painters
Local Union No. 1627 (William R. Johnson d/b/a
Johnson's Plastering Co.), 233 NLRB 820, 821 (1977); International
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union,
Local 13 (Pacific Maritime Association), 228 NLRB 1383,
1385 (1977), enfd. 581 F.2d 1321 (1978). Respondents, by
causing or attempting to cause the termination of Campbell's
employment, violated Section 8(b)(2) and (I)(A) of
Moreover, Respondents' statement to Campbell on
January 14 that his refusal to pay the fine would result in
a loss of good standing with the Union which in turn
would render him ineligible for work was coercive and
constitutes an independent violation of Section 8(b)(1)A)
of the Act.
Respondents' main argument is their insistence that the
Charging Party's case is barred by his failure to exhaust
internal union remedies, and that Campbell's failure to
pay the fine involved purely internal union affairs. In this
regard, Respondents point to Section 101(a)(4) of the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959, 29 U.S.C. 4 11(a)(4), which provides, inter alia, that
a member "may be required to exhaust reasonable hearing
procedures" within the union before instituting any
legal or administrative proceedings.
In N.L.R.B. v. Industrial
Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America,
AFL-CIO. et al., 391 U.S. 418, (1968), the Court interpreted
these statutory provisions. There the union was
held to have violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by expelling a
member for failure to exhaust the intraunion grievance
procedure before filing an unfair labor practice charge
with the Board. Unless plainly internal affairs of the
union are involved, according to the Court, overriding
public policy requires [u]nimpeded access to the Board.
Here, of course, the issues also go beyond purely "internal
affairs" of the Union. Important public issues are involved,
for Campbell's failure to pay the fine not only
affected his standing with the Union, but it also resulted
in the loss of his job and it implicated the Employer. Respondents'
conduct, involving an allegation of Section
8(b)(2), necessarily reached beyond the internal affairs of
the Union and was, therefore, automatically not the subject
of the Landrum Griffin proviso requiring exhaustion
of internal union remedies.
i know blue card boy and ted, you are no blue card boy. LONG LIVE "BLUE CARD BOY "
"its alive "
excerpt from the Court Transcript, dated November 7, 2011
THE COURT: Mr. Walsh, could you comment on that blue card? I'm not sure I understand that issue.
REVIEW OFFICER WALSH: It's been a long-running issue with many of the members. It was a program instituted by the Forde regime which at least in theory sought to compel one to do one's picket duty and that if you did your picket duty, some $500 that was withheld would then be paid to you. There was a demonstration a couple years ago, which was well-attended, which did get out of hand and led to the arrest of one of the members who did jump up on the security desk. He was brought up on charges and, in essence, turned into a poster boy for the authority of the Forde regime. He was convicted, he was heavily fined, and he was expelled from the union. I've always been very sympathetic to Mr. Brennan's plight, and I have told the UBC that I thought it was a situation that they should revisit, perhaps in the general president's office. Mr. Brennan has since filed a lawsuit, which I believe is active here in the Southern District under the LMRDA, and I also let my opinion be known to the UBC that I think that is a lawsuit that should be settled rather than district council moneys being expended going forward. But the program is very controversial. It is very unpopular amongst a significant percentage of the membership.
Are you able to provide a link to or the entirety of that transcript? That would be very appreciated.
see the first story right under Mobilized Membership - John Posted it there, click on "continue reading" and it will come up in a few seconds. See page 21/32 on this specific excerpt.
put the blue card boy's lawsuit up on this site.thks
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Nobody.
Ted: You have done an outstanding job educating, informing and keeping the pressure on the UBC with your BLUE CARD BOY LIVES topic.
We must continue to keep the pressure on and not allow the UBC's illegal collection of the exacted and extorted monies to which they are not entitled to receive to continue unabated. I updated and posted our letter to Review Officer Dennis Walsh in the main section today.
JAVITS FORUM – November 16, 2011 – MODERATOR QUESTIONS by R.O. Walsh
Should the Hourly Contribution to the Organizing Department be Changed?
28:42 I guess I have a little bit different idea about how that should be done, uhm…I’m gonna go back to something that’s probably pretty unpopular to talk about, ahh….a while back, without the knowledge of the District Council, the Funds had sent out something that’s become called the “BLUE CARD”.
29:01 …right, I don’t like the way they did it, I don’t think there was notification, I didn’t like that I got 50-calls that morning from people wanting to know what it was; and I had no idea, because no one was notified about it, so I think it sucks. Uhm…I don’t think that was right, I don’t think it was the right thing to do.
29:16 I think it was a disaster from its inception. Personally, I’d like to see it abolished, I think that it needs to be gone.
29:24 I think what they need to do is maintain that 50 cents in the Assessment and I think right now there’s a surplus right now in the District Council, the number I believe is about $58 Million Dollars. I think that if you invested that $58 Million Dollars – instead of giving it back to the members, uhm….but I think if you invested it properly and you were able to get 3%...4% on it, I think you’d see about $1.2 Million Dollars, which was approximately what I think is brought in in from the fines from those BLUE CARDS.
29:50 So why not get rid of the BLUE CARDS – use the money that’s already in the Council, invest it properly, make sure you get your returns….this way you can abolish that, you can move forward, we can have a mechanism in place.
30:01 We have Trial Committee right now that’s primarily dealing with…from what I understand throwing Apprentices out that don’t show up for work. Why not make them responsible, let them deal with people that violate…not come out and do their mandatory participation and finally put our money to work for the members
Mr. Tyzner - you opened with a line about how you are not great public speaker. The fact is, you are a well oiled and polished McCarron stooge, who on this topic spouted the Company Line in what was obviously a well reheased and prepared statement. Were you looking for the teleprompter or were you just digging back into the deep recesses of the cranium to recall how McCarron told you to phrase these statements?
The R.O. Dennis Walsh is aware of the illegalities and has recommmended a settlement with Mr. Brennan and has advised the UBCJA International and apparently Douglas J. McCarron that settlement is the preferred option.
When settling with Mr. Brennan (if & when that should occur), that fact alone warrants the return of all the monies extorted and exacted illegally from the members Vacation Wages over the entire 13-Year period from the August 13, 1998 inception of the illegal program through to the current date with a proper make whole remedy for each and every effected member, broken down on a yearly basis with Interest.
It is time to call the Insurers and Re-Insurers for the UBCJA & the NYCDCC and settle with all the members. Our estimates are $81.25 million dollars, as opposed to the $58 Million dollar amount which you readily admit is still retained in the Council coffers. It is time for a forensic accounting by an independent CPA.
Save the spin, the lies, the obfuscation and denials of fact for someone else. No one bought your rehearsed speech or the lies told, of which there are many. Remember - anything you say can and will be used against you, so maybe it is time you lawyer up.
Of course, the preferred exit strategy is to simply resign and get while the getting is good!
He said $58,000,000 not because that's how much was taken.
He said $58,000,000 because that's how much is left from the $81,250,000 that was taken.
Not once did he discuss returning money illegally taken from the Membership. His idea is to invest it and then use the profit from those investments to pay for whatever the money they would normally be taking from the Memberships go to.
I take $100 from you. I am arrested and told by a Judge I should return it. Instead, I devise a plan that lets me keep the $100 and invest it. Earning 3% to 4% profit on it. That way, using the profit I make off of that 3% to 4%, I don't have to take any more money from you.
So, 3% on the $100 dollars means I am making $3 dollars every time that statement comes in. After the first one, that becomes $103, which gets me $3.09. Going on, and on, and on. None of which I have to return to you.
Well, then again, I may have to give some back some guy who made a stink about it that I had thrown out and blacklisted from the industry. Maybe. I'll probably just use some of that money I took from you to hire some Lawyers and drown him in legal fees and time from Injuctions and Motions and all that other nonsense.
Are you going to get that 3% to 4% returned to you, over time, in small payments, that need to be assessed? Why don't I just give you the $100 I took from you in the first place? No. Of course not.
Here is why.
Shut up and sit down.
This post was updated on .
your points are well taken & I see you feel you can do better than 3-4% as well on the $58 Million which is left (subject to a forensic accounting of course). Additional Commentary follows - Find someone else to Vote for in the DC Election
JAVITS FORUM – November 16, 2011 – MODERATOR QUESTIONS by R.O. Walsh
Should the Hourly Contribution to the Organizing Department be Changed?
28:42 I guess I have a little bit different idea about how that should be done, uhm…I’m gonna go back to something that’s probably pretty unpopular to talk about ( NO KIDDING), ahh….a while back, without the knowledge of the District Council (FLAT OUT LIE), the Funds (THE NYCDCC’s ROGER NEWMAN CREATED IT) had sent out something that’s become called the “BLUE CARD”.
29:01 …right, I don’t like the way they did it (LIE), I don’t think there was notification (LIE – IN & OUT OF COURT NUMEROUS TIMES, SEE HAIGHT RULING), I didn’t like that I got 50-calls that morning (WHAT MORNING, WHAT YEAR IMBECILE?) from people wanting to know what it was; and I had no idea, because no one was notified about it, so I think it sucks. (FEIGNING COMPASSION FOR THE WORKING STIFF…I’M ONE OF YOU GUYS, REALLY, I AM, YOU GOTTA BELIEVE ME, PLEASE, PLEASE VOTE FOR ME) Uhm…I don’t think that was right (SURE, YOU SAY THAT NOW), I don’t think it was the right thing to do. (WHY, BECAUSE YOU GOT CAUGHT?)
29:16 I think it was a disaster from its inception. (DOUG to FRANK, GET THAT CLOWN TYZNER IN HERE, WE NEED SOMEONE TO KEEP OUR ASS OUT OF JAIL & SELL THIS TO THE RO & THE COURT) Personally, I’d like to see it abolished, I think that it needs to be gone. (THEN WHY THE LIES BELOW?)
29:24 I think what they need to do is maintain that 50 cents in the Assessment and I think right now there’s a surplus (OF STOLEN FUNDS, MEMBERS VACATION WAGES) right now in the District Council, the number I believe is about $58 Million Dollars. I think that if you invested that $58 Million Dollars – instead of giving it back (YOU WILL GIVE IT BACK) to the members, uhm….but I think if you invested it properly and you were able to get 3%...4% on it (YOU’D HAVE TO BE A BOOB TO GET A LOUSY 3-4% ON $58M), I think you’d see about $1.2 Million Dollars, which was approximately what I think is brought in from the fines from those BLUE CARDS. (WRONG – SEE LAST YEAR’S LM-2’s…$1.507M DOLLARS)
29:50 So why not get rid of the BLUE CARDS – use the money that’s already in the Council (YOU MEAN THE MONEY WHICH THE DC ALREADY EXTORTED…THE MEMBERS VACATION MONEY PAUL….HOW ABOUT WE TAKE AWAY EVERY INTERNATIONAL & DISTRICT COUNCIL REP’S DOUBLE & TRIPLE DIP PENSIONS & CUT A REFUND CHECK TO THE RANK & FILE ACROSS THE USA? WHEN YOU GET CAUGHT, YOU DON’T GET TO KEEP THE BOOTY STOLEN DUMBASS, THE D.C. NEEDS TO RETURN IT, ALL OF IT WITH INTEREST), invest it properly, make sure you get your returns….this way you can abolish that, you can move forward (SO YOU CAN ALL ESCAPE JAIL TIME FOR EXTORTION), we can have a mechanism in place. (INCOMPLETE THOUGHT, MECHANISM FOR WHAT? MORE FORDE ERA THEFT, SPONSORED BY MCCARRON?)
30:01 We have Trial Committee right now that’s primarily dealing with…from what I understand (AND THAT AIN’T MUCH) throwing Apprentices out that don’t show up for work. Why not make them (THE SCAPEGOATS) responsible, let them deal with people that violate…not come out and do their mandatory participation (MANDATORY THIS - BECAUSE IT IS A PRIMA-FACIE VIOLATION OF OUR SECTION 7 RIGHTS TO REFRAIN FROM ANY & ALL MANDATORY BULLSHIT THAT YOU DO-NOTHING HACKS DEVISE TO JUSTIFY YOUR OVER-PAID JOBS… THAT’S WHY) and finally put our (NO DUMMY, IT IS NOT OUR MONEY….IT IS THE MEMBERS VACATION CHECK MONEY WHICH YOU EMBEZZLED, WHICH YOU STOLE FROM THEM )money to work for the members (YEAH, ORGANIZING A BUILDING WITH A DOUBLE GATE THAT IS 4-STORIES OUT OF THE GROUND WITH TH EBLOW UP RAT...RAH, RAH - MEANWHILE, THE GC HAS SET UP A DOUBLE GATE AND IS SNEAKING THE ILLEGAL ALIENS AND CASH WORKERS IN THE BACK ENTRANCE...RAH, RAH).
Paul - don't make any large purchases...head to Home Depot or Lowe's, pick up some spackle and start fixing the holes in the wall. While you are there, grab some paint too, we want 2-coats minimum on those walls. We'll take care of the carpet afte ryou leave on January 11th. While you are there, grab an application...shit, grab the stack, we'll have a Council Upgrade Class and hire an Instructor to help you fill them out....Tyzner, Tyzner....come to Hardware...Customer needs assistance.....Tyzner, snap out of it.... there's no crying at Home Depot
All these candidates are selling the same line that Devine, Devereaux, Forde and a long list of others sold us. There is nothing new in these speeches except the verbs and direction fingers are being pointed at.
Sell our Fund to AIG or Goldman Sachs, please. They may be total scumbag Corporations, but they make money, and when some of it disappears, someone else replaces it.
Getting elected into office in the NYCDCC is an oppurtunity to fill your pockets with as much money and as many favors as possible, so that EVEN IF you are caught, you get paid.
Forde got caught. TWICE. How much of that money was returned so far? Oh ok.
I was against Full Mobility until I watched video from that meeting. Now I'm all for it. Why should I look out for my fellow members when the people running the Union aren't going to look out for mine?
This post was updated on .
Another reason why the RO recommends "settling" with Mr. Brennan.
It is well settled that the mere maintenance of a provision unconditionally requiring the payment of fines and assessments before dues, in conjunction with a collective-bargaining agreement containing a union-security clause, violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act because it constitutes an implicit threat to the employment status of an employee who has not paid a fine or an assessment. See Elevator Constructors Local 8 (San Francisco Elevator), 243 NLRB 53 (1979), motion for reconsideration denied 248 NLRB 951 (1980), enfd. 665 F.2d 376 (D.C. Cir. 1981). See also Plumbers Local 631 (Brinderson-Newberg), 297 NLRB 267 (1989); Plumbers Local 314 (American Fire Sprinkler),295 NLRB 428 (1989); Plumbers Local 460, 287 NLRB 788 (1987); Laborers Local 1445(Badger Plants), 266 NLRB 386 (1983).
The Respondent asserts that it has not enforced the fines-payable-before-dues provision in an unlawful manner, but this is immaterial. The General Counsel does not allege unlawful enforcement here. The General Counsel’s complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment allege only that maintenance of the provision in the Respondent’s bylaws violates Section 8(b)(1)(A). As the Board held in San Francisco Elevator, 248 NLRB 951: The implicit threat imposed by the coordinated operation of Respondent’s rule and a union-security clause is an actual threat. No more explicit coercion is necessary to find a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A). [Footnote omitted.]
As an affirmative defense, the Respondent contends, inter alia, that the Board is without jurisdiction to construe any provision of its internal governing documents or to require the Respondent to alter, amend, or delete any provision contained in its bylaws. We find no merit to these contentions.
Clearly, this is not the type of internal union matter that Congress sought to insulate
from the Board’s consideration. Laborers Local 1445 (Badger Plants), 266 NLRB 386 fn. 7 (1983). Furthermore, the Board has traditionally remedied violations of this type by ordering rescission of the offending provision from the union’s internal governing documents. See, e.g., Plumbers Local 631 (Brinderson-Newberg), supra; Plumbers Local 314 (American Fire Sprinkler), supra; and Elevator Constructors Local 8 (San Francisco Elevator), supra.
The Respondent also asserts that this unfair labor practice proceeding is preempted by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. We reject this assertion because Section 603(b) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 523(b) states that nothing ‘‘contained in [the LMRDA shall] be construed . . . to impair or otherwise affect the rights of any person under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.’’ Similarly, Section 10(a) of the National Labor Relations Act provides in pertinent
The Board is empowered, as hereinafter provided, to prevent any person from engaging in
any unfair labor practice affecting commerce. This power shall not be affected by any other means of adjustment or prevention that has been or may be established by agreement, law, or otherwise. . . . See generally Operating Engineers Local 400 (Hilde
Construction), 225 NLRB 596, 605–606 (1976), enfd. by unpublished decision 95 LRRM 3010 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
This means that although the NYCDCC & UBCJA may settle with Mr. Brennan under his LMRDA suit, no on else's right are effected. The Blue Card, which is the operative and controlling language remains facially unlawful, and therefore must be expunged and the June 4, 2001 order by Judge Haight must be over-turned and removed as well - as, this is where the Dougster & his slick attorney's ran to Court with altered language fraudulently claiming it was working dues, and, therefore legal.
The facts remains it has been a fine/assessment from day one. The UBCJA International and its Officers, as the direct agents controlling all matters within the DC are squarely on the hook for the continuation of the illegal exactions under the LMRDA Trusteeship and its extension. Last years total "take" was $1.507 Million dollars. This years have yet to be published as the LM's are now 60-days late.
That is a lot of Vacation fun ($81.25M) that hard working Rank & File members and their families missed out on because the UBC Dictatorship thinks your time and your kids time should be spent on a useless Picket line, protesting some non-union double gated project where the illegal aliens and cash workers are slipping in the back door after the building is out of the ground.
Under settled law, your employment rights and organizational rights are separate and distinct. Mandatory 1-Day, 7-Hour "Union Participation Requirements", backed via a coerced fine/assessment and Illegal exaction of your Vacation Wages is a form of Hobbs Act Extortion & Racketeering. The DC is stealing your property (money) a tangible asset and source of wealth from you and yours and has been doing so for 13-years. If this 22-year+ RICO matter is to have an ounce of credibility relative to the elimination of racketeering, fraud, theft & corruption; and if the Federal Court is to maintain its level of authority and respect, the time to act is now.
In reply to this post by John Musumeci
John - can you verify this post was from Mr. Epstein?
Assessment VACATION CHECK
From: Joseph Epstein
Date: 06 Dec 2011
Time: 07:59 PM
We greatly value your participation in the Funds and we are here to serve if you didnt sign your blue card you should have NOT gotten a Assessment if you did please call or email and the money will be refunded i do not expect you to add to hard earn money to Organized crime or criminal organizations . You can contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org you can email me directly @ Joseph Epstein" email@example.com ,Joseph Epstein Executive Director If you have questions, contact the Fund Office at212-366-7300.
NYCDCC VACATION FUND FY ending 6-30-07
$28,444,985 Vacation Wages earned
$ 93,556 Interest on Savings
$ 208,239 Dividends on Securities
$ 4,598 Arbitration Award
$28,751,378 Total-Vacation Fund
$26,268,712 Paid to Members
$2,482,666 Retained DC Play $
AMOUNTS PAID BY CONTRIBUTING EMPLOYERS AS CONSIDERATION FOR PROVIDING SERVICES IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PURPOSE CONSTITUTING THE BASIS FOR THE EXEMPTION OF THE ORGANIZATION
You cannot make this up! The above quote is a flat out lie. Consideration is the first aspect of forming a contract. It takes two parties to form a contract and those who refused were summarily fined.
The purpose of the Vacation Fund, is to provide Vacation Wages rightly earned by the rank & file member for the benefit of his/her family. The Vacation Wages are required to be paid, per Contract (CBA) directly to the member, four (4) times per year, plus earned interest while said funds are held in escrow on the members behalf - nothing more, nothing less! Payment of Vacation Wages are required by the FLSA & State law by the Wage & Hour Division.
Vacation Wages and the payment to the rank & file member who rightly earned them, has absoultely nothing to do with the "purpose constituting the basis for the [TAX] Exemption of the Organization. This is apples and oranges and utter bullshit, propagated by a now convicted felon and his cronies who were also subsequently convicted and are now serving their sentences.
$ 49,518 Pension Plan
$ 39,568 Other Employee Benefits
$ 12,979 Payroll Taxes
$ 205 Accounting Fees
$114,624 LEGAL FEES
$ 15,295 Supplies
$ 4,625 Telephone
$ 16,278 Postage & Shipping
$ 78,084 Occupancy
$ 8,409 Equip Rental
$ 9,060 Printing & Publications
$ 8,413 Depreciation
$1,601,768 other liabilities
_________ VACATION WAGE FINES...
$2,396,441 in VIOLATION OF SECT 7
$2,482,666 ($89,225 MIA)...COKE $
This is priceless...$114,624 to recover a $4,598 dollar Arbitration award...WOW, stellar job by the Funds Attorney
SIGNED BY FORDE 4-10-08, MONEY TRANSFERRED OVER TO "WELFARE FUND" per Merger Agreement executed October 17, 2006....wait till ya see the additional amounts grabbed for the same Fiscal Year
December 15, 2011 7:03 PM
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|