The following letter may give clarification and guidance to a fellow brother or sister that may face a similar situation in the future. I never recieved one answer to any of the legitimate questions asked. It just goes to show that if you speak up for the membership and dont agree with the status quo, you will be removed and silenced. There has and currently been a retired Delegate sitting that hasn't worked one hour but still remains on the Delegate body. I have worked or waited on the OWL for 18 months uninterrupted but still would never be allowed to serve my Union.
February 6, 2018
Mr. Graham McHugh President, Local 157 NYC District Council of Carpenters 395 Hudson Street New York, New York 10014
Dear Sir and Brother:
In am in receipt of your unofficial email dated January 29, 2018 (herein referred as “Eligibility Determination”) filed pursuant to Section 53-G of the UBC Constitution and questions namelessly raised by the District Council Chief Compliance Officer, Josh Leicht. Section 53-G provides, in part, that, “(a)ll protests directed to the conduct of nominations or elections, or election procedures, in any subordinate body may be appealed to the General President within thirty (30) days from the date of the election.” Section 33-A states, “The President shall determine all questions of eligibility for office” which you preformed proceeding nominations and by accepting the election results on May 18, 2017. However, I received a letter via certified mail on February 5, 2018 regarding District Council Chief Compliance Officers opinion, I am not currently eligible to serve and finish my term duly member elected position as Delegate to the Council.
This official Local 157 correspondence will oblige your demand for me to review all documents and respond with evidence in my defense. We spoke briefly on the phone January 31, 2018 when you informed me of the communication from Mr. Leicht. I am not exactly sure what I am defending myself from. If there is a question that I am not considered a member in good standing, privy to an official protest that was filled or an issue collecting my “on the tools” pension, I would appreciate an explanation.
In regards to the letter you received from Mr. Leicht, I will address some of my concerns and look forward to clarification from you. Why didn’t the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) have any problems about the status or eligibility of Mr. Carty, Mr. Kelty or myself up until the results of the recent New York City District Council of Carpenters (NYCDCC) Executive Committee Election? We have all honorably served, without any official protests for sixteen months lacking concern from the Independent Monitor or anyone else. The only protest were from Council President, Steve McInnis who stated “there is too much theatre at Delegate meetings”.
My eligibility turns upon the language which evaluates whether I am:
[w]orking for a livelihood in a classification within the trade autonomy of the United Brotherhood as defined in Section 7 or in employment which qualifies me for membership or is depending on the trade for a livelihood.” The part of Section 7 being overlooked is “or in employment which qualifies me for membership”. Any work I secure is most defiantly helping me “depend on the trade” with my family’s financial responsibilities and livelihood. Any member who collects his pension is depending on the trade for their livelihood, something Review Officer, Dennis Walsh stated many times.
• Mr. Leicht refers to Mr. McCarron’s response noting: I only worked for 53.3 hours as of May 30, 2017. He conveniently left out that I was waiting on the Out of Work (OWL) list from April 3, 2017. That’s six weeks trying to securing work, calling several companies I have previously worked for, which is considered depending on the trade.
• Mr. Leicht refers: I had no reported hours in the months of February, March and April 2017. It was not included I was actively trying to secure work by making phone calls to companies and waiting on the list for six weeks. One can check if truly interested, and see this was a very slow time for employment for all Carpenters in New York City. For the record, my wife was extremely ill needing my help during February and March which was clearly explained to UBC Investigator, Anthony Pena. I guess “family matters” do not matter in our Union because it was omitted from his report.
• Mr. Leicht refers: In the first four and one-half months of 2017, I earned more income from my pension benefit than I did from qualifying employment. Please provide me guidance in writing, where it refers to this work requirement or rule in the Bylaws. This pension income ratio has never surfaced until now and is not in the UBC Constitution.
• Mr. Leicht refers: I added my name to the OWL for the first time in 2017 on April 3 and referred for employment on May 15th. That is confirmation I waited on the list for six weeks depending on the trade for my livelihood. I added my name back on the OWL on May 16th dispatched to a two hour show up time job and was referred for employment, on May 17th. Mr. Leicht refers: “Walsh did not subsequently re-add his name to the OWL”. I was dispatched and worked for Supreme Woodwork for 35 hours in May and put my name back on the OWL until June 23, 2017 and discovered I was placed on the back of the OWL. I lost all my referrals for adhering to the rules and was deemed deserting the job, as per Section 32 of the District Council’s Job Referral Policy. Perhaps the CCO would have listened to the complaints made by retiree’s who work their monthly allotted hours as a Steward and forced to leave a job because of Section 32. Then they are discriminated against for following the rules as a “deserter” and lose their referrals and put to the back of the OWL. Where’s the compliance and common sense to this scenario?
• Mr. Leicht refers: “Walsh does not solicit work on his own. Although Walsh could work up to 39 hours per month in “Covered Employment” (within the collective bargaining jurisdiction of the District Council) under terms of the NYC Pension Plan, he does not do so.” This fabrication of not “soliciting my own work”, which Mr. Pena and I clearly discussed, was specifically examined, when I defined the January 2016/2017AWI employment. I am a Certified Steward and also gain employment through this system. My name was not on the OWL until June 23, 2017 because I waited to gain “back to back” employment the end of the month. I have been continuously “Depending on the Trade” working or waiting on the Out of Work List” since April, 2017, up until today.
Mr. Leicht establishes his findings referring from UBC Representative, Anthony Pena’s poor investigation and Mr. McCarron’s ruling I find problematic. Perhaps Mr. Leicht should properly investigate the facts before giving his “opinion” or risk his own credibility.
All of Mr. Pena’s errors and Mr. Leicht basing his opinion on our eligibility puts Greg Kelty, John Carty and I in an uncomplimentary posture. I am appalled at Mr. Pena’s lack of understanding and proficiency that would be presented to you to make a genuine determination of our eligibility status.
In finding that I do not meet any of the quoted eligibility requirements, “in employment which qualifies me…..for membership”, in order to understand future uncertainty, please explain how if one works for UBC signatory contractor and not be “in employment which qualifies me for membership? Could you also clarify and provide guidance and cite any prior determinations, either made by yourself or by any of your predecessors as Local 157 President, in which these criteria were interpreted and applied.
That a member can be eligible not only by “working for a livelihood” but by “depending on the trade for a livelihood” necessarily seem to mean that a member can be eligible even if, in a period immediately prior to nominations, the member was not working at all, or not working whatever the requisite number of hours which would be deemed sufficient in itself: were this not the case the category of “depending” would be unnecessary-----only “working” and not “depending” would make one eligible. What is the definition of “working for a livelihood”? What is the definition of “depending on the trade for a livelihood?” Can you please provide guidance with respect to when a certain threshold level of hours of work that will be deemed “working for a livelihood” as opposed to working for some other purpose? What objective standards go into making this determination? When a member engaged in employment which qualifies him or her for membership and when a member is depending on the trade for a livelihood? Our membership deserves cohesive mathematical guidelines to move forward and not keep kicking the can down the road with this issue.
Based on the information provided, facts and circumstances, I ask you fairly determine and allow me to continue as a Delegate of Local 157. Please consider I have been elected to three positions and served passionately as Recording Secretary for a full three year term, without any tribulations. I was also elected in 2015 to the 41st General Convention and NYCDCC, 2016 Delegate Body. I am currently in the same “depending on the trade” status as I was in 2015 and up until the recent May 18, 2017 Local 157 nominations. There were no inquiries from the NYCDCC Chief Compliance Officer or the UBC on my of “depending on the trade for a livelihood” status during the last few years, until NYCDCC, President, Steve McInnis incited and asked his intimate friends to send (Protest) letters, as we enter the NYCDCC Executive Committee political season.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
William R. Walsh Local 157
cc: Michael Capelli, District Vice President, Eastern District (via email) Joe Geiger, EST, NYCDCC (via email) R.S. Local Union 157 (via email) Glen McGorty, Esq. (via email) Barbara Jones, Esq. (via email) Benjamin Torrance, USDOJ. (via email) Josh Leicht, NYCDCC, CCO. (via email) Brian Quinn, Esq. (via email)
Hi Bill its Bill Kane your not approved to serve as a delegate because you dont believe ubc bullshyte and fairy tales actually come true. if you voted yes on every bad idea that you had to review as a delegate theres a good chance you would be employed by the DC. Not employed because your qualified you would be employed cause your a YES MAN like every delegate thats employed by the DC and the delegates who hope to be employed by the DC in the future. Thank you Mr Walsh for standing with the membership and voting in the best interests of the membership at all times. Maybe if the other delegates with sesame seeds for balls and the integrity of a stock broker acted like union brothers our union members would stand behind them and progress for members would flourish. Josh leicht is a good dog who apparently couldnt make it in the real world so the membership is stuck with paying this albatross. good luck hire a real lawyer and sue them. When they go in front of actual court of law they always lose. Good Luck Brother
Labor Omnia Vincit
In reply to this post by Bill Walsh
Stop crucifying members who stand up for our whole union,we all have a voice,we all have rights,privileges,and everyone should be treated equally,please do not forget where u all come from,strength lies in-between all members coming together in troubled times such as picketing a nonunion job,lets all come together,turn jobs over union,raise the allowable work for retires to 2500.00,there has been a lot of contributions to hour benefit funds,thank god,give our retired members,along with regular members,the best in benefits,lower the hospization deductable too,its a severe hardship to some of our members going threw hard times,qe should have a continuously fund to help out members facing a severe hardship,good luck to everyone,i hope all jobs come out 100percent 100percent union,forget nonunion,its about time we help out all our members first,build funds up,every hr. Counts,good luck to everyone on a successful year,in solidarity,Sam Tarallo,steward
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|