HONOLULU STAR BULLETIN, LTD

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

HONOLULU STAR BULLETIN, LTD

Ted
ANOTHER R.O. WALSH ISSUE.....HE NEEDS TO ADDRESS THIS

123 NLRB 51, date 3-26-59 page 402-403 Charge 1.

"Two specific contentions of the General Counsel relating to the Contract remain for consideration, i.e., the allegations that the Respondent violated the Act by making the payment of dues and assessments a condition of employment and by agreeing that the foreman must be an active union member and that only the foreman may employ and discharge".

"While the only specific provision requiring the payment of dues and assessments appears in the ITU's Bylaws, 21 the relevant sections must be consulted in order to interpret the above-quoted provisions of the General Laws which require that only "members", "members in good standing", or members entitled to all benefits be employed.

Examination of the pertinent sections of the bylaws quoted in footnote 21, supra, leaves no doubt that the payment of dues and assessments is essential to be a Union member, to maintain membership in good standing, and to be entitled to the benefits of membership.Hence, the payment of dues and assessments has been made a condition of employment".

"The payment of assessments may under no circumstance constitute a condition of employment, and the requirement for the payment of dues may be valid only under a union shop agreement which meets the requirements of section 8(a)(3) of the Act"......

POINT: EXAMINE YOUR CONTRACT/CBA & LOCAL/COUNCIL BYLAWS......re: Dues Assessments, Work Assessments & all other forms of Assessments are facially unlawful.
Most, UBC CBA's use the 'joint phrase' OF: DUES ASSESSMENT in the Article format of the typical UBC Contract, which then via direct reference, refer you back to Trust Fund Agreements (Pension, Annuity, Health & Welfare....and all the ones your nickeled & dimed for) which they then claim supersede the CBA's and also allow the TRUSTEES/FIDUCIARIES unfettered dictatorial control to impose any & all form of UNILATERAL CHANGES to the contracts, the CBA's at any time and in any manner they see fit, all without renegotiating the contracts, bargaining to impasse, taking a secret ballot vote of the the rank & file member(s) thus effected & impacted and therein violating the NLRA & section 7 rights via autocratic fiat.

This is the who, what, when, where, why & how of where the FUNDS FIDUCIARIES & TRUSTEES bilk the members, defraud the funds & piss away UBC brother & sisters monies, all w/o so much as a challenge from anyone (well, most...even if you do, you are shot down, then blackballed, then doomed to the OWL...etc)



CHARGE 3)
page 407-408 Wrongful discharge/termination....via Campaign Release & Ideas Expressed therein, coercion found.....see footnotes & cases cited also.....re: for being "a thorn in the side of both management and the union"......."dissemination of ideas" etc.

Hey, thats about everyone on this site, your all fired....oh wait, they can't do that....why the Board said so. Bottom Line, as long as the demand is not unlawful, your covered.

Charge 2) is on the dual agency status of a foreman, which is not being addressed in this blog format

And....Arbitration Awards upholding such a discharge are not binding upon the Board!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HONOLULU STAR BULLETIN, LTD

NYS Law
Q: What deductions can be made from an employee's wages?

A: Section 193 of the Labor Law states:

 
1. No employer shall make any deduction from the wages of an employee, except deductions which:  
a. are made in accordance with the provisions of any law or any rule or regulation issued by any governmental agency; or b. are expressly authorized in writing by the employee and are for the benefit of the employee (such as payments for insurance premiums, pension or health and welfare benefits, contributions to charitable organizations, payments for United States bonds, payments for dues or assessments to a labor organization).
Employers may not deduct from wages the cost of breakage or spoilage of materials; nor may employers make wage deductions in any indirect manner, such as requiring a worker to pay for shortages by means of a separate transaction.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HONOLULU STAR BULLETIN, LTD

NYS Law
    §  193. Deductions from wages. 1. No employer shall make any deduction
  from the wages of an employee, except deductions which:
    a. are made in accordance with the provisions of any law or  any  rule
  or regulation issued by any governmental agency; or
    b. are expressly authorized in writing by the employee and are for the
  benefit  of  the  employee;  provided that such authorization is kept on
  file on the employer's premises. Such  authorized  deductions  shall  be
  limited  to  payments  for  insurance  premiums,  pension  or health and
  welfare benefits, contributions to  charitable  organizations,  payments
  for  United  States  bonds,  payments for dues or assessments to a labor
  organization, and similar payments for the benefit of the employee.
    2. No employer shall make any charge  against  wages,  or  require  an
  employee  to make any payment by separate transaction unless such charge
  or payment is permitted as a deduction from wages under  the  provisions
  of subdivision one of this section.
    3.  Nothing  in  this section shall justify noncompliance with article
  three-A of the personal property law relating to assignment of earnings,
  nor with any other law applicable to deductions from wages.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HONOLULU STAR BULLETIN, LTD

Ted
Posting the State Law is good info, however, Federal Labor Law pre-empts State Law, thus trumping it, or over-ruling it..........

The NLRB BOARD wrote the Decision & Order (D & O) specifically quoted:

"the payment of assessments may under no circumstance constitute a condition of employment",....

Fairly straight foward & easy to comprehend on its face....it says what it says & and it means what it means.

Just because your Union Officials & their counterparts on the Employer or Association side write illegal shit into contracts (CBA's) does not make it so, nor does the offering of the UBC's standard catch-all "Savings Claues or Severability Clause" at the end of the Articles in typical UBC CBA's save them from this construction.

The NLRB Board & Sup. Ct. have duly noted that bot the savings clause & the severability have to be directly tied to the specific provision of the contract so that the average man knows for sure whihc portions their qualification applies to in the CBA...so tossing a catch all in the mix does not legitimize or negate their clear intent to put forth & write ILLEGAL CONTRACT LANGUAGE into the CBA.

The UBC & the Councils & Employer Associations since the McCarron Regime started have regularly employed these illegal tactics & fraudulent contract language to extract "assessments and fees" to wit, they are not entitled to under Federal Labor Law.

They do it, because people like you will readily parrot state law which seems to allow it....it does not!

Look at your pay stub, see all the illegal deducts....that's food from your table & money being taken from your family.

Every aspect wherein your "assessments" are illegally collected, what are they used for other than to set up a make work program for cronies who are accountable to no one, who produce little to nothing of value to the rank & file. When they nickel & dime you and quarter you to death with these hourly assessments and you add up the total man-hours per year (16-25 million) , at the end of the day, that's some serious dough to which they are not entitled to receive....untold millions being raped from rank & file pay-checks.

Oh wait, I forgot, there is usually the "assessment" sponsored yearly golf tournament somewhere, again to justify their do-nothing jobs. newsflash, you can sponsor your own golf tourney through the locals, which many do.

You can challenge them on this or go along with the staus-quo, your choice!

"the payment of assessments".....of what? assessments...."under no circumstance"....under what?.......no circumstance....."may constitute a condition of employment"

Pretty simple, yet powerful staement by the NLRB Board - it should be followed & enforced....why you ask.....your net pay would increase & you should be all for that
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HONOLULU STAR BULLETIN, LTD

Sec. 8. [§ 158.] (a)(3)

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

Sec. 8. [§ 158.] (a) [Unfair labor practices by employer] It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer--




(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization: Provided, That nothing in this Act [subchapter], or in any other statute of the United States, shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization (not established, maintained, or assisted by any action defined in section 8(a) of this Act [in this subsection] as an unfair labor practice) to require as a condition of employment membership therein on or after the thirtieth day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date of such agreement, whichever is the later, (i) if such labor organization is the representative of the employees as provided in section 9(a) [section 159(a) of this title], in the appropriate collective-bargaining unit covered by such agreement when made, and (ii) unless following an election held as provided in section 9(e) [section 159(e) of this title] within one year preceding the effective date of such agreement, the Board shall have certified that at least a majority of the employees eligible to vote in such election have voted to rescind the authority of such labor organization to make such an agreement: Provided further, That no employer shall justify any discrimination against an employee for non-membership in a labor organization (A) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that such membership was not available to the employee on the same terms and conditions generally applicable to other members, or (B) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that membership was denied or terminated for reasons other than the failure of the employee to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership;
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HONOLULU STAR BULLETIN, LTD

anon
Banned User
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HONOLULU STAR BULLETIN, LTD

Ted
anon - read the case again if you must. It is not what I said - it is what the NLRB Board Said.

No one said you don't have to pay dues. Once initiated under the proviso to NLRA Sec. 8(a)(3) [30 days elapsed & you pay the initiation fees duly imposed], you are a union member. When you are not working for an employer, per the other cases posted, you do not have pay dues for the period of time you were not working. When you do go back to work, the 8(a)(3) proviso again kicks in, as does the corresponding 30-day grace period to pay your then current and owing dues. [not back dues for the time no working, current dues, which is a critical point]

As to the case cited above, 123 NLRB 51 - Again, I did not write the NLRB Board decision & order, the NLRB did - repeated here:

"the payment of assessments may under no circumstance constitute a condition of employment"

Patently clear on its face, no further explanation required.

Read your UBC/COUNCIL negotiated contract with the Employer Associations and note that the UBC, in boilerplate langauge conditions the employment of its rank & file members to payment of dues and assessments, or dues assessments. They further define this condition precedent to your obtaining employment as not only being mandatory, but being subjugated to Trust Fund Agreements for the Pension, Annuity and Health & Welfare Funds to wit, they claim supersede and over-ride the language contained within your Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

All UBC Councils employ this tactic, and then make minor reference to the TRUST FUND legalese, albeit via reference. The UBC also readily ignores at will, any & all legal cases in which it is the losing party, i.e. UBC 43 & others which have consistently ruled that the UBC's Constitution & Bylaws are facially unlawful [of no force or effect].

Now, given the average member has difficulty with the general CBA language and the basics of the NLRA, do you really believe they are in a position to contest or challenge the UBC Officials and their Corporate Counsel. The punishment for speaking up is economic starvation via blackballing.

If this case has been over-turned, show me where and when, just name the case...

Moreover, the majority of "assessment monies" generated & collected do little for the average rank & file UBC Member. Most of what is collected under the auspice of "dues assessment", "work assessment" or whatever name a particular UBC Council & it attorneys wish to ascribe to it - most of the monies go to agencies that work directly against the UBC Rank & File Members interest and are bastions of easy money, do-nothing jobs for hacks and political insiders attached to them.

The point is very simple - these illegally collected monies need to revert back to the Union brother & sisters paychecks, their take home pay. We no longer pay the AFL-CIO do we, why? Simple, they charged us $5M plus a year & did squat for the UBC rank & file. Go to their site, Trumka is busy organizing thrid world hellholes.....that would do nothing to benefit NYCDCC members - correct? Well, it's the same with the AGC here at home right now.....we pay assessments to them, yet they routinely collect our monies & then put them into their coffers & readily fund ABC legal issues which work against us....so, why the hell would we, or should we continue to do so? How many illegal issues and activities by the UBC International will it take for you to comprehend these things?

Here are a few things the UBC still does which are facillay unlawful, things which they have lost the case - yet readily ignore & flout at will:

Voting - denied, in spite of Chao, legislating from the bench, limited to one Circuit
Picketing - deemed mandatory in spite of NLRB caselaw making it unlawful
Mobility - allowed in spite of Non-Right To Work States legislation & the Union Security clause which make it illegal to enforce
Full Mobility - same issue
Collection of Dues - as noted herein
Collection of Assessments - as noted herein
Beck Rights - denied regularly
Ability to Resign to escape the Rule(s) - denied regularly in spite of Sup Ct precedent
Raiding other Trades - encouraged, regardless of the overall harm it does to UBC Brothers
Free Speech - regularly denied to members

You are either for the men or against them & to date you appear to be against the working man, in all of your actions & statements - which is it? I am not interested in your opinion nor is this a debate. I deal in factual matters - period. Seems to me that you cannot handle facts so you resort to attacks & hyperbole.

When the men here present facts directly attributable to the NLRB Board, or any Court in the land you attack the resultant decision of the courts, put your own spin on them, or try to obfuscate the meaning of what the Court and decision clearly stated.

You then routinely go into a laborious diatribe of how the people writing in/posting here fail to comprehend English. When you are proven wrong time & again, you then resort to personal attacks.

Your behavior mimicks that exactly of all CM's & you should probably go work for one as diversion & distraction from the issue is what you do best. In the end, when the issue involves money, a real claim, the CM's always pay up, because this type of bullshit that you spew on this blog never holds up in a Claim let alone in a Court of law.

I am not going to change the way I write or state things to suit you, nor will I dumb things down as you keep suggesting. If you are not up to the task, don't start the argument on something you don't comprehend, and via your default or lack of knowledge try to ascribe what you do not know to myself or others by insulting us.

I have said it before, you have a lot of potential, and with a bit more real world experience, some time and maturity, you may go somewhere with it. But before you do that, make up your mind exactly which side you are on.

If you are with the UBC Corpporate Machine, say so. If you are with the rank & file, your fellow union brothers and sisters - then act like it, stop tearing them down and start building them up.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HONOLULU STAR BULLETIN, LTD

anon
Banned User
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HONOLULU STAR BULLETIN, LTD

Ted
"While the only specific provision requiring the payment of dues and assessments appears in the ITU's Bylaws, 21 the relevant sections must be consulted in order to interpret the above-quoted provisions of the General Laws which require that only "members", "members in good standing", or members entitled to all benefits be employed.

"Examination of the pertinent sections of the bylaws quoted in footnote 21, supra, leaves no doubt that the payment of dues and assessments is essential to be a Union member, to maintain membership in good standing, and to be entitled to the benefits of membership.Hence, the payment of dues and assessments has been made a condition of employment".

"The payment of assessments may under no circumstance constitute a condition of employment, and the requirement for the payment of dues may be valid only under a union shop agreement which meets the requirements of section 8(a)(3) of the Act"......
___________________________________________________________________________

anon -The exact portion of the case is quoted above. Take a deep breath and read the entire paragraph in its entirety.

The first two paragraph's relate entirely to the redundant commentary & summary of the ALJ's review of pertinent case facts; whereas, the third one....the line in question relates entirely to the NLRB Boards conclusion as to the totality of the facts as related to the NLRA & the effect to interstate commerce on a national level.

ALJ's & their D & O's when left unchallenged or tested at the Board in DC typically do one of the following - go for or against the individual, go for or against the company or go for or against the union. What they do not do is become part & parcel to Federal Labor Law. That is, while they may justify one of the 6-positions above in a particular matter, they only effect the parties involved directly.

This is where you misconstrue the purpose and intent of the NLRA (the Act) and the purpose & intent of NLRB Board decisions and orders. Again, par. 1 & 2 above, as directly quoted are a direct quote (reprint) of the ALJ's viewpoint & specific writings in the case.

.


Paragraph 3 is the NLRB Boards clarification of the dues & assessments by the ALJ; and they state - quite clearly I might add:

"The payment of assessments may under no circumstance constitute a condition of employment", [See how they diposed of the obvious immediately? That they addressed this first obviously confused this in your mind, but all Courts do it this way in the USA.].......,"and the requirement for the payment of dues may be valid only under a union shop agreement which meets the requirements of section 8(a)(3) of the Act"......

assessments: may under no circumstance constitute a condition of employment

while -

dues: "and the requirement for the payment of dues may be valid only under a union shop agreement which meets the requirement of section 8(a)(3)"...

So, as to FEDERAL LABOR LAW, meaning the NLRA, a Board decision & order which has not been appealed, reversed/overturned becomes part of the the NLRA via precedent.

The Board clearly addressed two issues & they disposed of the first one, "ASSESSMENTS" in short order & matter of factly with the qualifying statement shown above in 9-WORDS!

The UBC intersperses the words "dues assessment" as a legal tactic to end run the known caselaw. Why do you think they hire slick attorneys?

Again, per the NLRB Board the terms "DUES" and "ASSESSMENTS" have two seperate and distinct Legal Meanings and progenies of Caselaw behind them. The Board here, in this case seperated the two and made individual D& O's as to their meaning as defined under the NLRA.
___________________________________________________________________________

Anon, the UBC Corporate Counsel (International Level) regularly engages with all Council Attorneys for each & every case that comes down the pike, whether directly from Union Carpenters and/or other trades with similar interests as our own. When they deal with issues that adversely impact the way they see the world, or the way McCarron wants to operate things....guess what the first thing they do is?

Simple - Find me a fucking way around it (not being rude, that is how it is and how they think). "Dues Assessment" is their end run around it, it is what they came up with, but it is still illegal. "Work Assessment" confuses it further and that is what attorneys all do when they are not lying - obfuscating issues, using semantics, talking in circles, verbal masturbation (sorry, another lawyer funny, bit it is what it is).
___________________________________________________________________________

The NLRB Board then proceeded to the second & final issues "DUES", the validity of which requires a union shop agreement meeting the requirements of 8(a)(3). By valid union shop agreement, they are referring to a valid union security clause. The proviso to section 8(a)(3) and the appropriate caselaw on that issue was posted elsewhere on this blog & you were referred to it so you could read it/follow the paper trail.

I have not disputed the UBC's ability to collect dues. All Unions have that right. However, I have disputed when they can and cannot collect them as per NLRB Board precedent and posted the caselaw, as written/authored by the NLRB Board for others to absorb and digest.

Any problem you have with their decision & order should be directed to them in Washington DC.

You have to read these cases more carefully. The Board and it's attorneys & legal aides who prep these cases for them regularly parrot and directly quote the ALJ's cases ver batim. What the Board does in its review is two-fold, predicated upon briefs and their aides direct review....that is - they seek out & find errors in law or fact as related to the NLRA and to Judicial error in citations or ALJ's interpretations of past Board or Appellate decisions.

When they find such errors in the ALJ's decision & order(s), they correct them to conform to the NLRA & for the Judicial error.

This is exactly what they did here. They corrected the ALJ on the issue of "ASSESSMENTS" and they let stand the portion of the decision for "DUES" with minor modification/qualification.

Anon - you opened the door on this by asking good questions. What you forget, as you note how difficult the legalese is [it's not a bad thing], the Board may hear & review and write opinions on many of these cases at once, so words get mashed, the crap gets long & tedious and can therefore lead to confusion. This is especially true if your are reading & reviewing thousands of cases, it's the nature of the beast.

You have to learn to seperate what the ALJ stated in his or her opinion via direct quote, when it is interspersed directly in the NLRB Boards decision & order and read it in its full context, knowing who (which actor) is stating what and for what reason. This is where you misread the case.

Subject - "the payment of assessments"......4-words, was disposed of by 9-words....

"may under no circumstance constitute a condition of employment".

Because the NLRB Board made this pronouncement, and the case is not overturned - it is embedded into precedent and thus Federal Labor Law. It stands until challenged and overturned.....by the Board, an Appeals Court or the Supreme Court as the case may be.

Your mistake is in reading this in the context of an ALJ Case which is never appealed and which only effect the direct actors involved, thus never impacting the Federal landscape of what the NLRA & Federal Labor Law protect.

When the Board says it, no one can do it...not the printing company, not a UBC GC or Sub, not an Electrical Contractor etc.

Even when you are insulting, I am still teaching you...the only thing you have to decide is this (you still did not answer my question):

Are you for the rank & file, or are you for the UBC Corporatism? I believe I know the answer to that, I just want to hear you state it one way or another, for clarity's sake...