BLUE CARD BOY LIVES

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
140 messages Options
1234567
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: BLUE CARD BOY LIVES

Ted
This post was updated on .
FY 2006 (7-1-06 to 6-30-07) Form 990
Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax - NYCDCC WELFARE FUND

VACATION FUND ASSETS ($28,262,180)....Balance Transfer upon execution of October 17, 2006 Merger Agreement
___________________________________________________________________

Program Service Revenue, including Gov't fees & contracts
$321,720,080


Interest
$2,754,425
Dividends
$7,474,028
Gain-Sale of Securities
$3,497,277
other - Arbitration Award (brace yourselves)
$15,143

[return on investments, 4.271%.....this should increase to 6-8% per year, given revenue values}

TOTAL REVENUE
$335,460,953


Excess = YEAR END BALANCE
$38,614,843


Net Assets - Beginning of Year
$208,033,380

Other changes in Net Assets
$36,945,699    {$28,262,180 Vacation Fund Termination}
                   &{$8,683,519  Unrealized Appreciation}
Net Assets - End of Year
$283,592,922
______________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FUNCTIONAL EXPENSES, PART II, pg-2

Benefits Paid to or For Members
$283,376,397
Total Functional Expenses
$296,847,110
Difference/Operating Expenses
$12,470,713

ITEMIZATION OF OPERATIONAL EXPENSES
Salaries
$3,026,694
Pension Plan Contributions
$1,106,678
Employee Benefits
$687,192
Accounting Fees
$60,145
LEGAL FEES
$1,433,079  
   $15,143 recovery-arbitration {SWEET DEAL HERE...SERIOUSLY??}
Supplies
$234,376
Telephone
$51,842
Postage & Shipping
$144,984
Occupancy
$893,394       {lease value to Pension Fund, you own the Building, so this is a pure paper transaction and it should be cross checked with all other funds 990 tax forms to ensure money is not being shuffled around & cashed out by the former crew of felons}
Equipment Rental & Maintenance
$78,890
Printing & Publications
$85,634
Travel
$20,307
Conferences, Conventions & Meetings
$20,017
Depreciation/Depletion
$139,793
___________
TOTAL
$7,762,485


LINES 43 A-I, SCHEDULE, pg 10
a) General Insurance - $32,700
b) Scholarship Admin Expense $ 67,545 {SERIOUSLY?}
c) Security - $241,453   {time for Barry Security to go, UBC Retirees can do this}
d) Std. Data Expense $751,491        {should be reviewed further, re; cost savings}
e) Payroll Audit Expense $1,995,714  {was this reimbursed, per Contract (CBA) req'mts
                                                   and charged off to each respective Contractor}
f) Consulting Fees $191,675             {no itemization attached}
g) Computer Expenses - $300,845
h) Investment Fees - $356,650
i) ADP Data Processing Fees - $169,711 {should be done in house}
j) FIDUCIARY LIABILITY INSURANCE - $146, 328 {VALUE OF POLICY IS???}
__________________________________________
TOTAL - $4,254,112, which leaves $454,116 MIA/Unaccounted for...

FY 2006 MEMBER BENEFIT SCHEDULE
Self Insured Prescription                                     $50,047,124
Self Insured Dental                                            $9,872,046
Self insured Vision                                             $1,364,046
Self insured Hearing Aids                                     $98,896
Scholarships                                                     $474,250 {see admin fee above}
Administrative Fees                                            $647,679
Behavioral Helath Benefit (CAP's)                          $3,684,202
VACATION WAGES...vacation fund payments     $87,842,452                
Sickness, Hospitalization & Death Benefits             $130,345,646

The Vacation Fund admin. expenses & the cost to cut checks 4-times per year is minimal in the overall scheme of the total yearly value of this fund. Collection & proper crediting of member Accounts should be incorporated to the new Software Program and the cutting of checks should occur 2-times per year and be computerized and the checks processed in-house instead of subcontracting out to an over-priced vendor. This is ink, paper, computer software & postage and it should be a separate and very small department with a minimal number of employees to administer. When they are done cutting checks, they can go back to their regular position in the H & W Fund.

The fees/expenses shown above can and should be thoroughly audited & scrutinized at every conceiveable level for cost savings, waste, fraud and abuse, which is Mr Espteins task at hand. There is no justification for giving out scholarships to the tune of $474,250 per Year at a cost of $67,445 in administrative expenses simply to cut the checks to the winners, particularly when the Fund Trustees do not allow members to bank hours and when they look to squeeze out retirees or cut wholesale the benefits members do have....this is money flushed down the drain w/o ramification.

There should be a Committe of rank & file members, delegates etc formed to meet on a regular & consistent basis (quarterly etc) to review these areas. Said review has to encompass a detailed analysis of the Contracts and be compared to a list of signatory Contractors.

The funds spent nearly $2M dollars Auditing Signatory Contractors Books, yet there is no provision to ensure that for every dollar spent there, ten dollars was recovered. The Benefit Fund Trustees & the Funds Attorneys that members pay dearly for need to have their feet held to the fire and accurately show the full dollar values of each & every recovery. This is a simple question and it warrants an intelligent and proveable response....You spent $2M on "audits"....so how much was acually recovered? Was it $0 dollars, was it $100K, was it $5M,  $25M....$50M. What was the actual return on the members investment of $2M in Audit Fees?

The EST & Business Agents need to be in lock step with this process and be willing to shut down the Projects and with-hold the Carpenters Labor and enforce the Contract when the Contractor is hell bent on screwing the Members and the Funds over and not paying at all, paying consistently late (3-6 months) and doing so intentionally so they can execute a bogus Recovery Plan for 10-cents on the dollar. Another words, the Fund Attorneys have to stop the practice of settlements altogether, before it starts, as it is a complete failure.

This also has to be coordinated from day one with the Organizing Department and there has to be a detailed and throrough forensic analysis of the firms Financial Statements and assets over time, long before they are ever "Signed Up".

The Liabilities Schedule, pg. 20 shows the co-mingling of Funds which are required to be separated per the terms of the Contract, therein leaving room for cheap accounting tricks & ultimately fraud susceptible to future corruption. Given that they are all required to be separate Funds, why are these monies showing up on this report?

It is high time to get the LINE ITEM VETO PEN OUT and make damn good use of it, perhaps wear it out.

The newly elected team needs to prepare a Yearly Budget and stick to it and run this Organization like a business and get rid of the fat, the waste and any areas where fraud or non-performance of services occurs.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: BLUE CARD BOY LIVES

John Musumeci
Administrator
In reply to this post by Ted
A UBC member who wishes to remain anonymous emailed me and requested I post this.

Joseph Epstein, Director, NYCDCC Benefit Funds
New York City District Council of Carpenters
395 Hudson Street
New York, NY
 
Re: Blue Card, Opt Out
 
Dear Mr. Epstein,
I am a member of local ___ and my UBC Number is _________.  I was forced to sign a blue card under the extortion techniques of the New York City District Council of Carpenters (NYCDCC) at that time. The Blue card gave the NYCDCC authorization to take any fines and/or assessments they deemed necessary from my vacation check without my approval or authorization.  Vacation checks were then held hostage and not released until Blue Card was signed and in the hands of the NYCDCC.  I would like to opt out of the W.D.A.  assessments and/or fines and do not want to aid and assist organized crime as read in Review Officer, Dennis Walsh’s 3rd term interim report, part 1, Section H. I would also like a refund of all illegally collected assessments and/or fines.
 
Regards,
 
Signed _______________________
 
cc:  The Honorable Richard M. Berman
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: BLUE CARD BOY LIVES

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Ted
FY 2006 (7-1-06 to 6-30-07) Form 990 Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax - NYCDCC WELFARE FUND & VACATION FUND

pg 20.
FY 2006 "OTHER LIABILITIES SCHEDULE"     
BEGIN YR.         END YR.

Employers Escrow Deposits                          
$3,225,064      $3,250,412
Due to Broker                                            
$2,995,042      $902,519
Due to IBC Health & Safety Fund                   
$212,781        $308,040
Due to NYC Labor Management Fund              
$309,412        $373,778
Due to Affiliated Plans                                 
$87,165         $138,887
Reciprocals Payable                                     
$1,520,000     $2,690,000
Due to Promotional Funds                             
$101,344        $133,788
Collateral Held on Loan of Securities              
$40,235,374    $36,744,376
Due to Employers, Refund of Stamps             
$15,000         $185,000
Due to other                                             
$23,593         $33,243
Cash Overdraft                                          
$3,958,881     $4,514,248
Due to NYCDCC                                          
$           0     $1,481,080

QUESTIONS, re: LACK OF PROPER DETAIL

What Broker or Brokers & for what specific tasks, duties?

Reciprocals Payable to whom, for what specific purpose?

What Affiliated Plans & for what purpose?

Due to other....please define whom "other" might be and the purpose?

Due to NYCDCC? Confirm if this is the Line Item for BLUE CARD FINES exacted from members VACATION WAGES?

The members are not stupid, yet in the world of accounting, big numbers often become blurred and the severe lack of full transparency and adeqaute disclosure and explanation is quite apparent.

All of the individual Funds shown above are required per the Contract (CBA) to have separate Escrow Accounts and separate Financial statements, re: to avoid co-mingling of funds and the inevitable shuffling of funds from one line item to another - whether to cover for fraud, losses, malfeasance or mismanagement.

Said funds were established for a specific purpose and are not for the general use of the Welfare Funds to cover for shortages elsewhere. Yet with this current system of accounting, that is exactly waht can and does occur. Hey lets move this money over here, let' s use that money for x, y & z. Since everything is done behind closed doors and the member never receive this detailed information or any explanation at their Monthly Union Meetings, there is no direct accountability, nor is there the potential to catch and stop any form of fraud before it occurs rather than applying the bandaid approach of waiting for the next scam or indictments to be handed down.

FIDUCIARY LIABILITY INSURANCE, Policy Expiration 10-17-12

pg. 10 - LINE 43j     $146,128

This is a goodly amount of money to spend to protect the Rank & File Members Interest and the assets of the Funds. Therefore, given the August 5, 2009 indictments, subsequent trials, convictions and sentencing; and the resignations or veto's of other corrupt individuals, the following Questions are in order:

A)   What is the Full Value of this Policy, noting the named Fiduciaries, their Felony Convictions & sentencing Trigger Coverage?

B)   Have the Fund Attorney's sued the Insurer under said Policy? If so when? What was recovered & when was it recovered and how were these funds put back to use for the members/fund benefit?

C)   What is the Current Value of the Fiduciary Liability Coverage under said Policy?

D)   If the Fund's Attorneys have not sued the Insurer under this Policy, please explain why and do so in detail?

E)   Was the Settlement with Mr. Brennan for his LMRDA suit settled under this Policy?

The Policy Coverage has a 6-year Staute of Limitations, thus, the terms of the Policy for this Fiscal Year are still operative and collection of the full value can be had. Moreover, each and every subsequent year past this (FY 2006-2011) have similar Policies and have increased premiums which presume that payouts have occurred and premuims and policy values or both have been increased.

F)   Please provide the Policy Numbers for FY 2006-2011, the name and address of the Insurer & primary contact and the dollar value limits for each Policy?

It is high time that the Benefit Funds Attorneys earned their money & actually did something productive on behalf of the Rank & File members who pay their wages, salaries and fees.

Each and eveyone of you get 2, 3, 4 & 5+ weeks of "VACATION PAY" every year; and to date, I don't see any Employee of the NYCDCC, any lawyer, any accountant or others similarly situated having their VACATION PAY whacked by the convicted felons for $250, OR THE NOW CURRENT $500 per year Fine. Were it done to you & yours, you'd all be running to the Courthouse to sue the Funds or your respective employer.

This is extortion plain and simple. It's high time to cut the bullshit with McCarron and his games and it is time that not only Mr. Brennan was made whole, but time for each and every Member to be MADE WHOLE, with Interest at the current market  & approved Board Rate of 4% compunded interest.

Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: BLUE CARD BOY LIVES

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Ted
July 18, 2003 Vacation Plan excerpt's NYCDCC VACATION FUND (re: NJ members questions on redemption via C-Box) Original Post 157blogspot September 2003

Stamp Plan Under Plan provisions formerly in effect through June 30,2002,employers purchased stamps to pay for contributions to the Vacation Plan and you were required to keep those stamps in a “stamp record book”provided by  the Fund.

Stamps are no longer issued under the Plan.Through December 31,1998 you were required to redeem stamps to receive vacation benefits. As of January 1,1999 the stamp redemption program was discontinued. However,stamps were still distributed through June 30,2002 as verification of contributions received by the Fund, even though benefits were credited based on remittance reports submitted by your employers to the Fund Office. If you still have stamps from before January 1,1999 that you believe are unredeemed,you should submit them to the Fund Office for investigation.

How to File a Claim
Ordinarily,you do not need to file a claim to receive vacation benefits. Your vacation benefits should be paid to you automatically when due. However,if you do not receive vacation benefits that you are entitled to,contact theFund Office to request a claim form.The Fund Office will tell you what information or documentation they will require to process your claim.

Claims should be submitted to:
New York City District Council of Carpenters Vacation Plan
395 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10014

{strike "VACATION", change to "WELFARE FUND" }

Within 90 days after receiving a claim,the Fund will decide whether the claim is approved or denied. In some instances, it may not be possible for a decision to be made on your claim within 90 days,i n which case the Fundmay take up to an additional 90 days to consider your claim.Before the endof the initial 90-day period, you will receive a written notice explaining the reason for the extension and telling you the date by which the Fund expects to make a decision.

If a Claim Is Denied

If your claim is denied, in whole or in part,the Fund Office will send you a written explanation stating the reason for the denial and the Plan provisionson which the denial is based.The Fund will also advise you of any additional information you may submit that may enable your claim to be approved,and an explanation of why such information is necessary.

Furthermore,the Fund Office will send you a description of the Plan’s review procedures and the time limits applicable to such procedures,including a statement of your right to bring a civil action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Actof 1974 (ERISA) following an adverse decision on your appeal.

You may request an appeal by filing a “Claim for Review”form with theTrustees within 180 days of the date you receive notice that your claim has been denied. A “Claim for Review”form is available from the Fund Office.The Fund Office will provide you,upon request and free of charge, reasonableaccess to and copies of all documents,records and other informationrelevant to your claim.

You may also submit information, documents,records and comments in writing. The Trustees will give your claim a full and fair review, which will take into account all comments,d ocuments,records, and other information submitted by you relating to your claim,without regard to whether such information was submitted or considered in the initial benefit determination.

The Trustees will make a decision on your appeal within 60 days after they receive your “Claim for Review” form. However,if special circumstances (such as an FBI Sting, Indictments, 5AM wake up call by the Fed's, cuffing the EST etc. or an ongoing 2-Year & 4-Month LMRDA Trusteeship should get in the way of that) require an extension of time, the decision may take up to 120 days.

In this case you will receive a written extension notice that describes the special circumstances requiring an extension and that gives the date by which the Trustees expect to render a decision on appeal. When the Trustees reach a decision, you will receive a written notice stating the reason for the decision and the Plan provisions on which the decision is based. You will also receive, upon request and free of charge, reasonable access to and copies of all documents,  records and other information relevant to your claim. The decision will be final and binding on all parties. (not per the law, settled precedent, ERISA) In the case of a denial, the notice you receive will also describe your right to bring a civil action under ERISA

pg. 6 under caption photo of Nails:
You Can’t Lose. You are fully vested in your vacation benefits from the time contributions are made by your employer to your account. This meansthe money that is deposited into your account belongs to you and can never be lost or forfeited, except in the case of fraud.
 

FRAUD
Even though your vacation benefits are fully and immediately vested,if you commit fraud, you will forfeit all of your benefits until the amount fraudulently obtained is repaid.S ome examples of fraud include altering a check and knowingly cashing a voided check. In addition, the Fund has the right to pursue legal action against you, including criminal prosecution. Funny stuff, Mikey Forde must have written this portion himself...or was it OD & B?

page 8
Unclaimed Benefits
If the Fund Office is unable to locate someone to whom Vacation Planbenefits are due, then the benefits due that individual will be canceled after one year, in accordance with procedures described fully in the Plan document. However, the Plan document also has a provision for the reinstatement of any such canceled benefits if the person later notifies the Fund Office of his whereabouts and requests payment.

Interpretation of the Vacation Plan
The Trustees have the sole and absolute discretionary authority to interpret the terms of the Plan, determine benefit eligibility,and resolve ambiguities or inconsistencies in the Plan.

NJ - CALL THE IG's or RO's office, File a claim or sue them. The former Vacation Fund, now merged with the Welfare Fund cannot claim your Vacation Wages, nor do they revert back to the Funds at any time for their use. They have a duty to payout, 4-times per year. The reversion claim is false on its face and violates ERISA & Sup. Ct. precedent.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: BLUE CARD BOY LIVES

Ted
This post was updated on .
page 10,  - CONT. -

Prudent Actions by Plan Fiduciaries
In addition to creating rights for Vacation Plan participants, ERISA imposes duties upon the people who are responsible for the operation of the employee benefit plan. The people who operate your Plan, called “fiduciaries” of the Plan, have a duty to do so prudently and in the interest of you and other Plan participants and beneficiaries.

(oop's, they left out the "but for" langauge....but for the sting, the indictment, the 5AM wakeup call by the FBI, subsequent plea deals, trials, conviction & sentencing & the LMRDA Trusteeship & the limited suspension of the DC & Local Union autonomy; and a few years w/o any one at the helm...)

No one, including your employer, your union, or any other person, may fire you or otherwise discriminate against you in any way to prevent you from obtaining a vacation benefit or exercising your rights under ERISA

Enforce Your Rights
If your claim for a vacation benefit is denied or ignored, in whole or in part, you have a right to know why this was done, to obtain copies of documents relating to the decision without charge, and to appeal any denial, all within certain time schedules.

Under ERISA,there are steps you can take to enforce the above rights. For instance, if you request a copy of Vacation Plan documents or the latest annual report from the Vacation Plan and do not receive them within 30 days, you may file suit in a federal court. In such a case,the court may require the Plan Administrator to provide the materials and pay you up to $110 a day until you receive the materials, unless the materials were not sent becauseof reasons beyond the control of the Administrator.

If you have a claim for benefits that is denied or ignored, in whole or in part,you may file suit in a state or federal court. In addition, if you disagree with the Plan’s decision or lack thereof concerning the qualified status of a domestic relations order, you may file suit in federal court.

If it should happen that Vacation Plan fiduciaries misuse the Plan’s money, {seriously, they wrote this...had to have been Forde...Guilty Conscience, advance admissions...you can't make this stuff up} or if you are discriminated against for asserting your rights,you may seek assistance from the U.S. Department of Labor, or you may file suit in a federal court. The court will decide who should pay court costs and legal fees.

If you are successful, the court may order the person you have sued to pay these costs and fees. If you lose, the court may order you to pay these costs and fees, for example, if it finds your claim is frivolous.

Assistance WithYour Questions
If you have any questions about your Vacation Plan, you should contact the Plan Administrator. If you have any questions about this statement or about your rights under ERISA, or if you need assistance in obtaining documents from the Plan Administrator, you should contact the nearest Office of the Employee Benefits Security Administration (formerly the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration), U.S.Department of Labor, listed in your telephone directory,or:

Division of Technical Assistance and Inquiries
Employee Benefits Security Administration
U.S.Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue,N.W.
Washington,D.C.20210


You may also obtain certain publications about your rights and responsibilities under ERISA by calling the publications hotline of the Employee Benefits Security Administration.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: BLUE CARD BOY LIVES

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Ted
ERISA § 1108(c)(2) excerpt 2nd Cir. 8-20-02

Before: MINER and SACK, Circuit Judges, and BERMAN, District Judge.*
The clear intent of § 1108(c)(2) is to allow a fiduciary, which is otherwise prohibited from engaging in self-dealing transactions by § 1106, to receive reasonable compensation for the administration of a retirement fund. As we stated in Lowen v. Tower Asset Mgmt., Inc., 829 F.2d 1209, 1216 n. 4 (2d Cir.1987), "the services exempted under ERISA Section [1108(c)(2)] are services rendered to a plan and paid for by a plan for the performance of plan duties." Lobbying, and litigation against plan beneficiaries or their trustees cannot be construed "plan duties."

Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: BLUE CARD BOY LIVES

Ted
In reply to this post by Ted
 If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech. If the antidistortion rationale were to be accepted, however, it would permit Government to ban political speech simply because the speaker is an association that has taken on the corporate form. The Government contends that Austin permits it to ban corporate expenditures for almost all forms of communication stemming from a corporation. See Part II-E, supra; Tr. of Oral Arg. 66 (Sept. 9, 2009); see also id., at 26-31 (Mar. 24, 2009). If Austin were correct, the Government could prohibit a corporation from expressing political views in media beyond those presented here, such as by printing books. The Government responds "that the FEC has never applied this statute to a book," and if it did, "there would be quite [a] good as-applied challenge." Tr. of Oral Arg. 65 (Sept. 9, 2009). This troubling assertion of brooding governmental power cannot be reconciled with the confidence and stability in civic discourse that the First Amendment must secure.
 
     Political speech is "indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual." Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 777 (footnote omitted); see ibid. (the worth of speech "does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual"); Buckley, 424 U. S., at 48-49 ("[T]he concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment"); Automobile Workers, 352 U. S., at 597 (Douglas, J., dissenting); CIO, 335 U. S., at 154-155 (Rutledge, J., concurring in result). This protection for speech is inconsistent with Austin's antidistortion rationale. Austin sought to defend the antidistortion rationale as a means to prevent corporations from obtaining " 'an unfair advantage in the political marketplace' " by using " 'resources amassed in the economic marketplace.' " 494 U. S., at 659 (quoting MCFL, supra, at 257). But Buckley rejected the premise that the Government has an interest "in equalizing the relative ability of individuals and groups to influence the outcome of elections." 424 U. S., at 48; see Bellotti, supra, at 791, n. 30. Buckley was specific in stating that "the skyrocketing cost of political campaigns" could not sustain the governmental prohibition. 424 U. S., at 26. The First Amendment's protections do not depend on the speaker's "financial ability to engage in public discussion." Id., at 49.
__________________________________________

See case's for 'time, place and manner' as well, relative to the First Amendment and Free speech.

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech". Accordingly, the converse of this is also true.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: BLUE CARD BOY LIVES

John Musumeci
Administrator
From the December 20, 2011 Court Transcript, on the topic of the Blue Card.

MR. MAROWSKI: The third issue I want to put forward to you is I was given, by our recording secretary this morning, a motion that was passed at last night's meeting. It has to do with the blue card assessments; to abolish them, to make it ago away, to end this controversy once and for all. The only person that didn't receive a copy of this so far was the U.S. Attorney Mr. Torrance but everybody else has been copied on it, so I have two copies here and I would like to hand them up.

THE COURT: One for the U.S. Attorney?

MR. MAROWSKI: I have one for the U.S. Attorney that she didn't get yet and everybody else will be copied.

THE COURT: We will make that Court Exhibit B. Thanks.

MR. MAROWSKI: Thank you.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: BLUE CARD BOY LIVES

Ted
In reply to this post by Ted
UBCJA - Silver State Council of Carpenters
NLRB DIVISION OF ADVISE MEMORANDUM, issued June 12, 1995, by Barry J. Kearney (excerpt)

We conclude, in agreement with the Region, that the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by threatening members with arrest, and calling the police, because they were engaged in dissident activities at the Union hall.

The LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. 411(a)(2), confers upon union members the right to participate freely in the internal affairs of a union, including the right to distribute dissident literature critical of the union's operations. The failure to permit distribution of dissident literature on union property, under certain circumstances, has been found to violate the LMRDA. (2) Further, Section 7 protection has been extended to the exercise of these rights. Thus, in Carpenters Local 22 (Graziano Construction), 195 NLRB 1, 2 (1972), the Board held that a union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) when it fined union members in retaliation for exercising their LMRDA and Section 7 rights to participate fully and freely in internal union affairs. 

There, the Board found that the imposition of a $75 fine impaired an overriding policy of the Federal labor laws, set forth in the LMRDA, and constituted restraint and coercion within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A). (3)
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: BLUE CARD BOY LIVES

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Ted
https://www.nlrb.gov/case/21-CB-015010

80-page Decision & Order w/ Non-Admissions clause. Time to end these practices once & for all, as they damage the UBC Brand.

The disturbing aspect is in how easy it is for the UBCJA International to always receive a favorable ruling from BJK, particularly the more egregious the violation. It appears that one-sided justice is for sale at the NLRB.

{a short time later, another SWRCC Local did exactly what this D & O prohibited, at a Jewish Temple in Tarzana, CA.)

These so called "Organizing" tactic, replete with the Nationwide $500.00 dollar yearly Fine for a members refusal to participate, aside from the potential criminal aspects, remain a violation of the rank & file's clearly established section 7 right to "refrain from any & all" such activities ordered by inept council employees, regardless of the council of the UBCJA which it takes place in.
_____________________________

excerpt:
DATE: February 7, 2011
TO: Lester A. Heltzer,
Executive Secretary
FROM: Barry J. Kearney
Associate General Counsel

SUBJECT: Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, et al.
Cases 21-CB-15010, 21-CB-15017, 21-CB-15027, 21-CC-3430, and 21-CP-841


footnotes:

1 In 2008, the Ninth Circuit twice enforced Board consent orders issued against the Southwest Regional Council and Local 209 in cases involving 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(4) picket
line misconduct similar to the Respondents' misconduct against Silverline in the instant cases.

2 As noted by the Region, misconduct during this period would likely prevent approval of the settlement, in which case the Region could institute the Section 10(j) proceedings authorized by the Board in December 2010.

3 The Respondents requested the addition of the nonadmissions clause language stating that the stipulation "shall not be used or usable as an admission or for any such purpose by any party or non-party hereto" because of their concern that the stipulation might be used against them in other lawsuits that have been filed against them. Given that this language made settlement possible and is harmless, we agree that it is appropriately included

The language is not harmless because the UBCJA GP has played this card one too many times, in order to keep doing the exact same thing the order allegedly was designed to cure. The fact is, the real reason the UBCJA has worked so hard behind the scenes - is to continue the program of extortion of rank & file member Vacation Wages, via implementation of a $500 dollar Fine (currently being rolled out Council by Council on a National basis).

The UBC's total for the Illegal Fine will exceed $256M annually at the $500 dollar level and over Half a Billion dollars when Doug McCarron increases (doubles it) to $1,000 per man, per year.

That kind of change buys an awful lot of favors down in DC. No Hobbs Act racketeering going on here your Honor, Scouts Honor.....the facts, Section 7 & LMRDA 7 the Hobbs Act say otherwise.


July 18, 2003 VACATION FUND excerpt:
If it should happen that Vacation Plan fiduciaries misuse the Plan’s money,
 {seriously, they wrote this...had to have been Forde...Guilty Conscience, advance admissions...you can't make this stuff up} or if you are discriminated against for asserting your rights,you may seek assistance from the U.S. Department of Labor, or you may file suit in a federal court. The court will decide who should pay court costs and legal fees.

Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: BLUE CARD BOY LIVES

Ted
In reply to this post by Ted
D.R. HORTON D & O by NLRB dated 1-3-12 @ pg. 5

During this same period of time, the Board held unlawful a clause in individual employment contracts that required employees to attempt to resolve employment disputes individually with the employer and then provided for arbitration. J. H. Stone & Sons, 33 NLRB 1014 (1941), enfd. in relevant part, 125 F.2d 752 (7th Cir. 1942).9 “The effect of this restriction,” the Board explained, “is that, at the earliest and most crucial stages of adjustment of any dispute, the employee is denied the right to act through a representative and is compelled to pit his individual bargaining strength against the superior bargaining power of the employer.” Id. at 1023 (footnote
omitted).

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the Board’s holding, describing the contract clause as a per se violation of the Act, even if “entered into without coercion,” because it “obligated [the employee] to bargain individually” and was a “restraint upon collective action.” NLRB v. Stone, 125 F.2d 752, 756 (7th Cir. 1942).10  

{re: BLUE CARD, SKILLS FORM, CONSENT DECREE, the same legal theories apply to Unions & the Operative and Controlling Language in each and the UBC's intentional denial of these basic rights and any form of appeal are a manifest injustice which they cement via direct coercion and intimidation by the hammer of the Consent Decree, knowing that rank & file members have no direct standing in the case, unless granted by the Court; and that the average member will be frustrated or not have the resources to stand against an International willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to shred and eviscerate the NLRA, LMRA & LMRDA - hence, the game is rigged and continuation of clearly illegal policies is inevitable.}

These precedents compel the conclusion that the MAA violates the NLRA.

Just as the substantive right to engage in concerted activity aimed at improving wages, hours or working conditions through litigation or arbitration lies at the core of the rights protected by Section 7, the prohibition of individual agreements imposed on employees as a means of requiring that they waive their right to engage in protected, concerted activity lies at the core of the prohibitions
contained in Section 8.


Understanding why this is so requires consideration of the origins of Section 7
rights. In construing the NLRA, we must “reconstitute the gamut of values current at the time when the words [of the statute] were uttered.” National Woodwork Mfrs. Assn. v. NLRB, 386 U.S. 612, 620 & fn. 5 (1967).


Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: BLUE CARD BOY LIVES

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Ted
ERISA Section 413...See also ERISA Statute of Limitations.

§ 1113. Limitation of actions

No action may be commenced under this subchapter with respect to a fiduciary's breach of any responsibility, duty, or obligation under this part, or with respect to a violation of this part, after the earlier of--
 
(1) six years after (A) the date of the last action which constituted a part of the breach or violation, or (B) in the case of an omission the latest date on which the fiduciary could have cured the breach or violation, or
 
(2) three years after the earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach or violation;
 
except that in the case of fraud or concealment, such action may be commenced not later than six years after the date of discovery of such breach or violation.
________________________________
JULY 18, 2001 - VACATION FUND - SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION, excerpt:

If it should happen that Vacation Plan fiduciaries misuse the Plan’s money, {seriously, they wrote this...had to have been Forde...Guilty Conscience, advance admissions...you can't make this stuff up} or if you are discriminated against for asserting your rights,you may seek assistance from the U.S. Department of Labor, or you may file suit in a federal court. The court will decide who should pay court costs and legal fees.
__________________________________

FIDUCIARY LIABILITY INSURANCE, Policy Expiration 10-17-12

pg. 10 - LINE 43j     $146,128


DELEGATES:
Please provide the Policy Numbers for FY 2006-2011, the name and address of the Insurer & primary contact and the dollar value limits for each Policy?

It is time to settle up with all members who were the victims of Forde, Greaney, Oliveri & crew breach of Fiduciary Duites with respect to the illegal Hobbs Act extortion of members Vacation Wages.

Brian Brennan was one of tens of thousands of rank & file members screwed over the years due to the illegal actions of convicted Racketeers, Fiduciaries & Benefit Fund Trustees & it is time to pay up - with interest, attorneys fees, expenses & punitive damages.

An injury to one is an injury to all! It is time to step up to the plate and defend your fellow Union Brothers & Sisters who elected you to office.
_________________________

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/oemanual/cha48.html


 
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: BLUE CARD BOY LIVES

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Ted

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/553/639.html

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 07–210
JOHN BRIDGE, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. PHOENIX
BOND & INDEMNITY CO. ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
[June 9, 2008]


JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO or Act), 18 U. S. C. §§1961–1968, provides aprivate right of action for treble damages to “[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation” of the Act’s criminal prohibitions. §1964(c). The question presented in this case is whether a plaintiff asserting a RICO claim predicated on mail fraud must plead and prove that it relied on the defendant’s alleged misrepresentations. Because we agree with the Court of Appeals that a showing of first-party reliance is not required, we affirm.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: BLUE CARD BOY LIVES

Ted
This post was updated on .
MUSICIANS LOCAL 47 & ABC, 255 NLRB 386 (1981)   {Excerpt, page 5-6}

Therefore, I find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that Respondent had held Fidelibus' paychecks between June 14 and August 8, 1979, because he had failed to satisfy the dues obligation owing to Respondent by virtue of his membership.

2. The General Counsel alleges that the withholding of Fidelibus' paychecks until he paid his membership dues constituted a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. Respondent disputes that allegation.

Yet, receiving payment for one's labor is both a term and a condition of employment. "Indeed, we are hard pressed to think of a matter of more vital concern to employees than that involved herein-receiving payment for one's labor." Air Surrey Corporation, 229 NLRB 1064 (1977).

One of the purposes of the Act is to keep separate employment rights, such as the right to receive a paycheck, from membership obligations owed to labor organizations by employees.

"Integral to the policy underlying both Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act was the intent to separate membership obligations owed by employees to their labor organizations from the employment rights of those employees." International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 13 (Pacific Maritime Association), 228 NLRB 1383, 1385 (1977), enfd. 581 F.2d 1321(9th Cir. 1978), and cases cited therein.

Thus, while a labor organization is free to seek the discharge of employees who fall behind in their financial obligations to it, that is the sole measure available to it under the Actto enforce the financial obligations of its members. "Nothing in the Act or its legislative history persuades us that the union-shop provisions to Section 8(a)(3) and 8(b)(2) were designed to give employers and unions a license to use various discriminatory devices, short of discharge [to require that employees join or maintain their union membership]." Krambo Foods Stores, Incorporated, et al., 106 NLRB 870, 877 (1953).

Here, Respondent has accepted responsibility for serving as a conduit for transmitting some paychecks from employers to employees. Having become involved in this facet of the employment relationship, it is obliged, as are labor organizations operating exclusive hiring halls, to maintain the statutorily mandated separation between employment rights and membership obligations.

Therefore, by withholding Fidelibus' paychecks as a lever to extract the membership
dues which he owed to it, Respondent violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act.

________________________________________
The same holds for the Blue Card Vacation Wage extortion.

NYCDCC is an "Exclusive Hiring Hall" as defined by the Board case & the Appellate case won by Gene Clarke, Hart & McMurray. The UBCJA International and the NYCDCC, it's Fiducuiary Liabilty Insurers, the former I.R.O, & the current R.O. and the U.S.A.O. certainly knew that the DC was using the With-holding of Members Vacation Pay as an EXTORTION LEVER to exact Leaflet, Banner, Picket Duty; in two day increments, subsequently reduced to one day increments which they defined as a "Mandatory Union Participation Requirement" etc. in violation of Section 7 LMRDA rights. 

Notification of the illegal requirement and extortion/exactions, collection & receipt of said Fines has crossed state lines via the mail and the wires - accordingly, said actions are predicate RICO offenses for continuation of the Racketeering which the Consent Decree was allegedly designed, implemented and contracted to prevent. This is Labor Law 101 and the actions and inactions to date were, are and remain criminal. Time to pony up and settle with every rank & file member.

The UBCJA International does not escape direct liability, as it was the primary actor under two seperate LMRDA Trusteeships, wherein it's Officers were direct agents enforcing same. The International directly authored the program in the first instance and had Forde, Greaney, Oliveri and other Trustees implement the procedures that the International demanded and which it continues unabated to this day through the NYCDCC and through other Regional/District Councils of the UBCJA.
_______________________________________________

3. Respondent has raised a series of defenses. The first one, alluded to in footnote 2, supra, pertains to the General Counsel's failure to adduce evidence showing that MCA Records, Inc., National Broadcasting Company, Inc., and Ray Ellis Enterprises, Inc., have operations of sufficient magnitude to satisfy the legal and discretionary jurisdictional standards. Even according full credence to this defense, the absence of evidence regarding the volume of operations of those three employers does not suffice to deprive the Board of jurisdiction in this matter.

As set forth in section I, supra, the operations of ABC are of sufficient magnitude to establish Board jurisdiction. Fidelibus' check that was first denied to Johnson on June 14 had been one issued by its division. Accordingly, Respondent's refusal to transmit that paycheck to Fidelibus, through Johnson, suffices, of itself, to establish a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.

Additional findings regarding each of the succeeding checks, which Respondent refused to transmit to him, would be cumulative. It would not serve to change the substance of the remedy warranted by its refusal to transmit the initial check.  {THE SAME HOLDS FOR THE NYCDCC, in THE WITH-HOLDING OF ANY OF THE QUARTERLY VACATION CHECKS FOR ANY MEMBER}Therefore, the General Counsel's failure to produce evidence to overcome Respondent's denial of Board jurisdiction over MCA Records, Inc., National Broadcasting Company, Inc., and Ray Ellis Enterprises, Inc., does not serve to preclude a finding that Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act in this proceeding. ' 6

4. Respondent argues that it has internal disputes-resolution procedures and that Fidelibus should be required to exhaust those procedures before the Board is burdened with having to resolve the issue arising from the withholding of his paychecks pending payment of his back dues. In making this assertion, Respondent relies on the doctrine enunciated in Collyer Insulated Wire, A Gulfand Western Systems Co., 192 NLRB 837 (1971). Yet, that doctrine replies to disputes arising under collective bargaining agreements between unions and employers. It is confined to situations "where disputes turn on collective bargaining agreements .... " Newspaper Guild of Greater Philadelphia, Local 10, et al. [Peerless Publications] v. N.L.R.B., 636 F.2d 550 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

Moreover, there has been no showing here that Fidelibus' dispute with Respondent could have been resolved under the 'I Nor does the fact that Fidelibus may have been employed by ABC Circle Films, a Division of ABC, when he had performed the services covered by that check. As is true of the Division of ABC that issued the check refused to Johnson on June 14, there has been no showing that ABC Circle Films is an entity separate and distinct from ABC. Moreover, regardless of which entity actually employed Fidelibus, there is, as is pointed out in fn. 4, supra, no dispute that, at all times material, he had been an employee within the meaning of Sec. 2(3) of the Act. As expressly stated in that subsection, to satisfy the definition of employee, there need be no showing that an individual is employed by a specific employer.

Sec. 2(3) of the Act "includes not only the existing employees of an employer but also, in a generic sense, members of the working class. "John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company v. N.L.R.B., 191 F.2d 483, 485 (D.C. Cir. 1951).
----
MUSICIANS UNION LOCAL 47,  391

Terms of any of the collective-bargaining agreements produced during the course of the hearing. Section 10(a) of the Act provides specifically that the Board's power to prevent unfair labor practices "shall not be affected by any other means of adjustment or prevention that has been or may be established by agreement, law, or otherwise."

The Board has not adopted a policy of deferral for exhaustion of internal disputes resolution procedures between labor organizations and their members. Fidelibus has a statutory right to be free of job interference, save as prescribed by the Act, for disputes between Respondent and him concerning his dues obligations. As pointed in Conclusions of Law 2, supra, this is a right which is integral to operation of the Act and one to which he is entitled to protection under the Act.

Therefore, "inasmuch as this case involves allegations of [union] interference with an employees' individual basic protected rights under Section 7 of the Act [deferral is not warranted]." Melones Contractors. A Joint Venture,
241 NLRB 14 (1979).

Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: BLUE CARD BOY LIVES

Ted
In reply to this post by Ted
Lutheran Heritage, 343 N.L.R.B. 646 (2004).

Lutheran Heritage clarified the nature of the Board's inquiry  [*18]  and confirmed the Board's prior caselaw that "mere maintenance" of a rule that "would reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights" is unlawful under Board caselaw, Lafayette Park, 326 N.L.R.B. at 825, and that there need not be any evidence of actual chilling of union activity as NLS claims.
 
In Lutheran Heritage, the Board articulated a two-step framework for determining whether an employer's maintenance of a work rule violates section 8(a)(1).

First, if the rule explicitly restricts section 7 activity, it is unlawful. Id. at 646.

Second, even if the rule does not explicitly restrict section 7 activity, it is nonetheless unlawful if

"(1) employees would reasonably construe the language [of the rule] to prohibit Section 7 activity;

(2) the rule was promulgated in response to union activity; or (3) the rule has been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights." Id. at 647
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: BLUE CARD BOY LIVES

Ted
This post was updated on .
The BLUE CARD is an illegal individual contract and illegal waiver of Section 7 & 8 rights, hence under the holding in  NLRB v. Stone, 125 F.2d 752, 756 (7th Cir. 1942) would violate members rights...."even if entered into without coercion, because it obligated [the employee] to bargain individually” and was a restraint upon collective action.”

It is also violative of the longstanding J. I. Case Co. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 332 (1944),

Individual contracts no matter what the circumstances that justify their execution or what their terms, may not be availed of to defeat or delay the procedures prescribed by the National Labor Relations Act. . . .
. . . .
Wherever private contracts conflict with [the Board’s] functions [of preventing unfair labor practices], they obviously must yield or the Act would be reduced to a futility.
Id. at 337.

____________________________

excerpt: CITIZENS UNITED v. FEC, 1-21-10 U.S. Supreme Court

Political speech is "indispensable to decision making in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual." Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 777 (footnote omitted); see ibid. (the worth of speech "does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual"); Buckley, 424 U. S., at 48-49 ("[T]he concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment"); Automobile Workers, 352 U. S., at 597 (Douglas, J., dissenting); CIO, 335 U. S., at 154-155 (Rutledge, J., concurring in result).
____________________________

LEAFLET, BANNER & PICKET DUTY all contain one common element........words.

Words strung together constitute Speech!
The UBCJA is a Private 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Corporation under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) regulations, and they file as such on the 990'S & 5,500's. Aside from the obvious Section 7 & 8 Violations for Illegal Contract, Illegal Waiver & their unilateral execution under the directed threat of a Mandatory Union Participation Requirement, backed up an illegal $500.00 Dollar Fine/Assessment which is payable before your dues, and the Duty is required for a Maintenance of Membership Obligation in order to obtain your "Work Card" or "Permit" to work and be employed in the district Council - it is an express violation of your First Amendment Rights and your equally important Section 7 rights to refrain from "any & all" such activities., and an illegal waiver under 8 of the Act.

The collections of the fines and enforcement via notification via the mail or wires also constitute a predicate act required for Hobbs Act extortion under the RICO statutes.

RESCIND THE BLUE CARD POLICY NOW! No time like the present to act.

Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: BLUE CARD BOY LIVES

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Ted
Manley Truck Line, Inc. and Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse Workers Union (Independent). Case 13-CA-23356

31 July 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN AND DENNIS


On 9 February 1984 Administrative Law Judge Lowell Goerlich issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three member panel.

The Board has considered the decision and record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, ' and conclusions2 and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.

AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Substitute the following for Conclusion of Law
4.
"4. By instituting wage deferrals on 4 March and 1 July 1983, the Respondent effected a midterm modification of its labor agreement with the Union in violation of Section 8(d) of the Act and thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act."

ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Respondent, Manley Truck Line, Inc., Hodgkins, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified.

1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a). "(a) Forthwith commence to pay without deferral or deductions (except those required by law)
I We agree with the judge's findings, but note that W.R. Grace A Co. v. Rubber Workers Local 759, 103 S.Ct. 2177 (May 31, 1983), is not controlling. The word "agreement" in fn. 4 of the judge's decision should be "argument." The Respondent filed no exception to the finding that it violated Sec. 8(a)() by threatening plant closure and discharge.

2 The judge's recommended remedy, Order, and notice require that the Respondent reimburse all employees in the collective-bargaining unit for withheld wages. The Respondent and the General Counsel agree that the amended complaint covered only unit employees who did not voluntarily sign authorization forms. We modify the judge's recommended remedy, Order, and notice accordingly.

Conclusion of Law 4 states that the Respondent instituted a wage deferral on 4 May 1983, although it is clear from the judge's findings of facts and the record evidence that this wage deferral began on 4 March 1983. We amend the Conclusions of Law accordingly.
271 NLRB No. 107

full wages to its employees who are covered by the current labor agreement between the Respondent and the Union and who have not voluntarily authorized such deferral or deductions, in conformity with the provisions of the agreement, and to reimburse and make whole any such employee covered by the agreement the amount of any moneys deferred
or withheld without consent from his or her wages as set forth in the section of this decision entitled 'The Remedy."'

2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge.
APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government...
WE WILL NOT unlawfully threaten to close our Hodgkins, Illinois facility if our employees do not agree to waive contractual rights.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully threaten our employees with discharge because they refuse to waive contractual rights and because they cooperate in a
Board investigation.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL forthwith commence to pay without deferral or deductions (except those required by law) full wages to our employees who are covered by our labor agreement with the above-named Union and who have not voluntarily authorized such deferral or deductions, in conformity with the provisions of the agreement, and to reimburse and make whole any such employee covered by the agreement the amount of any moneys deferred or 679

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
withheld without consent from his or her wages together with interest thereon.
WE WILL henceforth comply fully with the wage payment requirements of the labor agreement, unless the Union has agreed that we may ask employees for a waiver of the requirements and we have received such a voluntary waiver from the employee.

MANLEY TRUCK LINE, INC. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LOWELL GOERLICH, Administrative Law Judge. The original charge filed on June 13, 1983, by the Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse Workers Union (Independent) (the Union) was served on the Manley Truck Line, Inc. (the Respondent) by certified mail on
June 22, 1983. The first amended charge filed by the Union on July 19, 1983, was served on the Respondent by certified mail on July 22, 1983. A complaint and notice of hearing was issued on July 25, 1983. Among other things it was alleged in the complaint that the Respondent had made certain unilateral changes in a subsisting contract between the Union and the Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).

The Respondent filed a timely answer denying that it had engaged or was engaging in the unfair labor practices alleged. The case came on for hearing in Chicago, Illinois, on
December 14, 1983. Each party was afforded a full opportunity to be heard, to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally on the record,2 to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions, and to file briefs. All briefs have been carefully considered.

On the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following...

ll. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Respondent has admitted in its answer as alleged in the complaint that:
The following employees of Respondent ...constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:

All helpers and drivers, but excluding all other employees and all guards and supervisors as defined in the Act [the unit]. Since on or about April 13, 1981, and continuing to date the Union has been the designated representative of the unit and that since on or about April 13, 1981, the Union has been recognized as such representative by the Respondent.
The current collective-bargaining agreement between the Respondent and the Union for the unit is effective by its terms for the period April 1, 1982, through March 31, 1985.

At all times since April 13, 1981, the Union by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act has been and is the exclusive representative of the unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment. On March 4, 1983, after consulting with the Union the Respondent instituted a 15-percent wage deferral plan due to dire economic circumstances.

Findings are made in conformity with these admissions.

The uncontroverted evidence further discloses that the Respondent, faced with financial stress, met with the union representatives in February 1983 to discuss a proposed
wage deferral plan. The Union agreed that such a plan could be implemented on a voluntary basis, that is, the deferment of wages could be effected only for those employees who individually agreed to the deferment. The Union advised the Respondent that involuntary wage deferment would be treated as a contract violation
which the Union would grieve.3

Nevertheless, a 15-per-3 Art. 3 of the current collective-bargaining agreement provides:

Section 8. All Employees covered by this Agreement shall be paid in full each week. Not more than five (5) days' pay may be held back but then only by an Employer who presently adheres to such program. Employees shall be paid in full when laid off or discharged.
On pay day each Employee shall be provided with an itemized statement of gross earnings and all deductions for any purpose. Art. 23, sec. I(c), provides: Continued 680

MANLEY TRUCK LINE
cent wage deferral was imposed on all Chicago unit employees by the Respondent on March 4, 1983, and such amount was withheld from their wages. A grievance was filed dated March 17, 1983, reciting:

"We, the undersigned below, did not consent to Manley taking any money from our paychecks at any time. We did not give them any authority to take it out. We did not sign any papers for them to do so."4

On or about June 7, 1983, the Respondent again met with union representatives regarding a revision of the 15-percent deferral plan. The Respondent felt that it needed to continue a deferment but it needed a lesser amount; a 10-percent wage deferment was proposed.

The Respondent was advised by the Union that, if the 10-percent wage deferment plan was implemented on other than a voluntary basis, the Union would file grievances on behalf of the employees who did not voluntarily ascribe to the plan. Nevertheless, the Respondent put in effect the 10-percent wage deferral plan on July 1, 1983, and commenced issuing the reduced wage payments to its Chicago terminal employees.

The deferral plan provided that, if the Respondent's operating ratio was 97 percent or better, it agreed to begin a payback system in the susbequent quarter. In its brief the Respondent states: ". . . this case involves the narrow issue of whether the employer maydefer wages due to economic necessity alone."

While it is clear from the record that the Respondent instituted the involuntary wage deferment plans in order to alleviate its financial plight, the Respondent, which urges that it be excused from a violation of the Act for such reasons, has cited no authority which frees an employer from his duty to conform with a labor agreement because it fears the probability of a financial disaster. The Supreme Court in the case of W.R. Grace & Co. v. Rubber Workers Local 759, 113 LRRM 2641, 2647, 97 CCH LC ¶ 10,131 (5th Cir. 1983), has said, "Absent a judicial determination . . . the Company, cannot alter the collective bargaining agreement without the Union's consent.... Permitting such a result would undermine the federal labor policy that parties to a collective bargaining agreement must have reasonable assurances that their contract will be honored." Section 8(d) of the Act makes it clear that a party to a labor agreement is not required "to discuss or agree to any modifications of the terms and conditions contained in a contract for a fixed
period, if such modification is to become effective before such terms and conditions can be reopened under the provisions of the contract." Moreover, under the circumstances
revealed in this record, Section 8(d) required the Respondent, as its duty to bargain, to refrain from modifying the aforesaid labor agreement.

No Employer shall put into effect any new plan of an economic nature affecting Employees (such as incentive plans, sick leave schedules, piece rate plans, etc.) without first checking with and securing the approval of the Union. It is these provisions of the agreement which the Respondent violated.

I On p. 9 of the Respondent's brief it is stated: "The parties have also agreed that there is no agreement that the Board should defer to the grievance proceedings herein which were deadlocked." I find accordingly. Thus United Technologies Corp., 268 NLRB 557 (1984), is not applicable. Financial stress is not cited as an exception in the statute. In this regard the Board in the case of Airport Limousine Service, 231 NLRB 932 (1977), reiterated the rule verbatim from the case of Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Co., 207 NLRB 1063, 1064 (1973):

We have no doubt that Respondent's description of its motive and its object is a truthful one. But we have here a situation where these considerations are irrelevant. The unambiguous language of Section 8(d) of the Act explicitly: (1) forbade Respondent's
midterm modification of the contract's wage provisions without the Union's consent; and (2) granted the Union the privilege it exercised to refuse to grant consent. Nowhere in the statutory terms is any authority granted to us to excuse the commission of the proscribed action because of a showing of either that such action was compelled by economic need or that it may have served what may appear to us to be a desirable economic objective.

To borrow the words of the Supreme Court, what must here be recognized is that "[t]he law is its own measure of right and wrong, of what it permits, or forbids, and the judgment of the courts [and of the Board] cannot be set up against it in the supposed accomodation of its policy with the good intentions of the parties, and, it may be, of some good results."
Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. U.S., 266 U.S. 2049.

Since the Respondent's institution of the wage deferral plans constituted a midterm modification of its labor agreement in violation of Section 8(d) of the Act, the Respondent thereby violated Section 8(aXS) of the Act. See Fourco Glass Co., 250 NLRB 953, 955 (1980); Michigan Drywall Corp., 232 NLRB 120 (1977).

The Respondent withdrew its answer to the following allegations in the complaint:
On or about June 22, 1983, Respondent, acting through Gene Scott, at Respondent's facility:

(a) threatened that Respondent would close Respondent's facility if the employees did not agree to waive contractual rights.

(b) threatened an employee with discharge because he refused to waive contractual rights and because he cooperated in a Labor Board investigation. Findings are made in accordance with these allegations and the Respondent is found to have violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Manley Truck Line, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse Workers Union (Independent), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The following unit constitutes an appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:

681
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All helpers and drivers, but excluding all other employees and all guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
4. By instituting wage deferrals on May 4 and July 1, 1983, the Respondent effected a midterm modification of its labor agreement with the Union in violation of Section 8(d) of the Act and thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

THE REMEDY
It is recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative action deemed necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
It is further recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from making any wage deferrals or withholding any moneys from its unit employees' wages at its Chicago terminal without the consent of the Union or except as is provided by the current labor agreement between the Respondent and the Union and that all those employees covered by said agreement from whom the Respondent has deducted and withheld wages shall be forthwith reimbursed for the amounts of the wages so deducted and withheld together with interest therein to be computed in the manner set forth in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977), (See generally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 176 (1962).)

On the basis of these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended "
ORDER
The Respondent, Manley Truck Line, Inc., Hodgkins,
Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Chicago
Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse Workers Union (Independent), in the appropriate unit described below in violation of Section 8(d) of the Act by continuing the deferral of its Chicago terminal employees' wages in violation of its labor agreement with the Union without the prior consent of the Union.

The appropriate unit is:
I If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
All helpers and drivers, but excluding all other employees and all guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Unlawfully threatening to close Respondent's facility if the employees do not agree to waive contractual rights.
(c) Unlawfully threatening an employee or employees with discharge because they refuse to waive contractual rights and because they cooperate in a Board investigation.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Forthwith commence to pay without deferral or deductions (except those required by law) full wages to its employees covered by the current labor agreement between the Respondent and the Union in conformity with the provisions of such agreement and to reimburse and make whole forthwith any employee covered by said labor agreement the amount of any moneys deferred or withheld from his or her wages as set forth in the section of this decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Comply fully with the wage payment requirements of the current labor agreement between the Respondent and the Union.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its Hodgkins, Illinois facility (Chicago terminal) copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."

6 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act other than those found in this decision.

6 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
682
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: BLUE CARD BOY LIVES

Ted
In reply to this post by Ted
re: In response to the original Question posed by Pete Corrigan....your new By-Laws have seen the BLUE CARD VACATION WAGE EXTORTION SCHEME (half billion dollar fraud/extortion/Criminal RICO violations by McCarron) morph right back to the OLD PERMIT SYSTEM as evidenced below. NYCDCC is an EXCLUSIVE HIRING HALL as defined by the NLRB and the SECOND CIRCUIT, via the Gene Clarke cases, which remain "good law".
_________________________________________________

AUGUST 2011 NYCDCC BY-LAWS APPROVED BY JUDGE BERMAN:

SECTION 14:  
WORKING DUES (DUES CHECK-OFF); SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND PER CAPITA TAX  


(A) The Council shall receive working dues in the amount of 1% of the members total package rate as reflected in the current collective bargaining agreement covering members for each hour worked. The Council shall also receive working dues from each member of $.60 per hour for each hour worked, subject to review and modification by the Council Delegate Body after review and report by the Audit Committee. This $.60 will be allocated to Organizing in the amount of $.50 an hour, $.05 for Communications and $.05 for Civic Action. The apportionment of working dues amongst Organizing, Communications, and Civic Action shall be maintained in the same proportions as outlined in the prior sentence, subject to review and modification by the Council Delegate Body after review and report by the Audit Committee. The working dues to this Council shall be due on the first day of the month and must be paid not later than the 15th day of the following month. The Council shall also receive working dues of $500 per year from every carpenter who has performed carpentry work for a signatory contractor in our jurisdiction during the calendar year. This $500 working dues to this Council shall be due on the first day of the month following the first day of work performed in our jurisdiction each year and must be paid not later than April 15th of the following year, provided however, that any member who shall have satisfied his or her Union Participation requirement for the applicable year, pursuant to Section 14(F) of the Bylaws, will receive credit for this $500 working dues requirement. The sums stated in this paragraph shall be reviewed periodically to determine if prudence requires that they be reduced or increased.
__________________________________________

The NYCDCC, USAO, RO and the Court have collectively failed to remove the illegal provisions mandating forced compliance against your Section 7 Federal Right to "refrain from any & all activities", per LMRDA 1959 amendments. Instead of expunging the extortionate exaction in violation of NLRA Section 7 and the LMRDA, they have simply altered the language slightly and re-worded it to something they believe will allow them to continue the Master Plan for McCarron to implement the program nationally, raise it to $1,000 per head, per year and ultimately allow him to extort half a billion plus each and every year.

$512 Million dollars per year based on UBCJA International reports filed with OLMS, thus mooting the false claims of eliminating racketeering and restoring democracy. This scam is better than running drugs it seems, and far more profitable. That kind of money buys a lot of injustice.

The current By-Laws below have additional illegalities built in, which also must be severed & expunged, short of filing additional charges at the NLRB. This is labor law 101, and the coerced/mandated compliance to a facially unlawful rule does not survive scrutiny within Board, Appellate or Supreme Court precedents, notwithstanding application of the All Writs Act yet applied, but doomed to failure as well.

The NYC District Council of Carpenters paid top dollar for the Fiduciary Liability Covergae and policies, each of which has a 6-year statute of limitations. It is time for the newly elected EST, President & Vice President to call in these policies, all of them from 2006-2011 and it is time that the Insurer made the members who were defrauded whole, with punitive damages, attorney fees & expenses and interest and it is time for the Welfare Fund to forego any & all illegal gotten gains now held in their control, to which Paul Tyzner admittedly stated totaled $58 Million dollars during the November 16, 2011 Javit's debate.

No time like the present to act decisively, denial and silence not being options on the table.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: BLUE CARD BOY LIVES

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Ted
excerpt from:

TEN YEARS OF COURT-SUPERVISED REFORM:
A CHRONICLE AND ASSESSMENT
by James B. Jacobs* and Kristin Stohner**

Cite as 6 Cal. Crim. Law Rev. 3

Pincite using paragraph numbers, e.g. 6 Cal. Crim. Law Rev. 3, ¶11

 


6.              Terminating the IRO and the UBC
                                                Trusteeship

            ¶63In October 1996, the court approved another six-month extension of the IRO’s tenure. Due to the District Council’s shaky financial status, Conboy consented to a reduction in compensation from $65,000 per month to $45,000 and agreed not to seek further extensions.[225]  On March 3, 1997, President McCarron, who was not precluded from seeking extensions, extended the IRO’s tenure through March 4, 1998.  Then, pursuant to the Third Stipulation of Extension, the IRO’s tenure was extended to June 5, 1998.  Finally, on June 4, 1998, the parties agreed to a final twelve-month extension.[226]  One year later, Judge Haight wrote, “The District Council's refusal to extend the IRO's tenure means that the IRO will not be able to discharge the last vestiges of his previously delineated responsibilities.  Accordingly, this is likely the last opportunity that the Court will have to address former Judge Conboy in a formal opinion.  I seize the opportunity to thank him for his tireless and invaluable service to the parties and to the Court during the course of an arduous, complex and challenging case.  The Court’s IRO has been the very model of a modern Court-appointed officer. Ave atque vale.”[227]

            ¶64In 1999, UBC International dissolved its trusteeship over the New York District Council, stating that it had accomplished its goals.[228]  In January 2000, almost ten years after the civil RICO case was filed, Michael Forde, the president of Local 608, was elected president of the District Council.[229]  Ominously, perhaps, Forde’s father, who preceded Forde as president of Local 608, had been convicted of Taft-Hartley crimes a decade before.[230]  Even more ominous, Conboy had charged Forde himself in May 1997 with violating job referral rules in assigning jobs to members of Local 608.[231]
_____________________________

And on August 13, 1998 - the BLUE CARD VACATION WAGE EXTORTION was born
_____________________________

[225] Ninth Interim Report, supra note 173, at 3.

[226] Tenth Interim Report, supra note 212, at 1 n.1.

[227] United States v. Dist. Council, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8781, at *22 n.4.  Conboy also has his critics.  For example,  “[T]he IRO’s tenure under the consent decree was about to expire at the time the UBC took over our council, the UBC extended his tenure at the time of the take over at the cost of sixty-five thousand a month.  Ever since, the IRO has been writing shining reports to the court regarding Mr. McCarron’s actions and it seems every time he writes a report he gets another extension of his tenure.”  Impediments to Union Democracy Part II app. F, supra note 197, at 101, available at http://edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/105th/eer/ud62598/lebo.htm (statement of William S. Lebo).

Conboy’s Sixth Interim Report says that some union members who complained about the International trusteeship were Devine supporters with, in some cases, ties to organized crime.  Sixth Interim Report, supra note 172, at 11-12.

[228] Since the trusteeship ended, President McCarron has been tarnished by his involvement in the “Ullico Scandal.”  McCarron was a board member of the union-dominated insurance firm Ullico, which was linked to the now bankrupt firm, Global Crossing.  He, along with other board members, allegedly cashed in approximately 71,000 Ullico shares at the expense of union pension funds.  Though this scandal doesn’t involve any organized crime connection and may not even involve criminal wrongdoing, it certainly suggests improper profiteering by top union officials.  See National Legal and Policy Center, ULLICO Scandal Grows: Maddaloni, McCarron, Bahr Sold Shares, 5 Union Corruption Update 8, Apr. 15, 2002, at http://nlpc.org/olap/UCU3/05_08_02.htm.

[229] Tom Robbins, Back to the Mob, The Village Voice, Sept. 19, 2000, at 31.

[230] Id.

[231] Eighth Interim Report, supra note 178, at 21.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: BLUE CARD BOY LIVES

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Ted
http://www.scribd.com/doc/59427408/07-06-11-Nycdcc-250-500-Exaction-for-Picket-Duty

pg. 1017
B. The Complaint
The complaint alleges that, since about February 9, 2006, the Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act in the operation of its nonexclusive hiring hall by maintaining written employment referral procedures that grant priority to its members who engage in Respondent-sponsored picketing, and withhold referrals from its members who refuse to engage in such picketing, for the purpose of encouraging members to engage in protected activities on behalf of the Respondent and to discourage members from exercising their Section 7 right to refrain from engaging in such activities.

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. mem. 16 F.3d 404 (3d Cir. 1993); Laborers Local 135 (Bechtel Corp.), 271 NLRB 777, 780 (1984), enfd.

-pg. 1018-
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. Teamsters Local 923 (Yellow Cab Co.), 172 NLRB 2137, 2138 (1968).5  {NYCDCC is an EXCLUSIVE HIRING HALL, thus the BLUE CARD COERCION nexus}

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. {CORE LMRDA AMENDMENT TO NLRA SECTION 7...the RIGHT TO REFRAIN FROM ANY & ALL ACTIVITIES} Service Employees District 1199 (Staten Island University Hospital), 339 NLRB 1059, 1060–1061 (2003); District 65, Distributive Workers (Blume Associates, Inc.), 214 NLRB 1059 (1974); see also Service Employees Local 87 (Able Building Maintenance Co.), 349 NLRB 408, 412 (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.”).

Footnotes PG. 1017:

1 Other, unchallenged, portions of the referral rules provide that the Respondent may offer referrals without regard to numerical order when placing a union steward or when an employer makes a written request for a particular individual. There was also testimony that some employers supply the Respondent with “do not hire lists,” and that theRespondent will not refer an individual to an employer who has placed that individual on such a list, regardless of whether that individual is the next qualified member in the out-of-work box.

2 In the answer to the complaint, the Respondent admitted that McCreary was its agent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act.

3 McCreary testified that the number varies over time. At the time of trial, the number of cards in the out-of-work box had swelled to about 700, but at other times the number of cards has dropped to as low as 200.

4 McCreary makes these offers by phone. Approximately 70 percent of the time that he calls someone to offer a referral, that individual is not present and does not return the call in time to obtain the referral. This failed-contact rate is the same for picketers and nonpicketers.
1234567
Loading...