NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
72 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!

roy ernst
so its been about 11 weeks since I filed with the nlrb    it turns out that I filed for fines and harresment  and excessive union dues   so I am waiting for a decision from regional director this week    but what it looks like now is I will have to startover  and file  aginst the legality of the mups   as per the agreement    we  have a right to refrain    the union says we will  not          do anything to prevent you from exersicing the above rights     so the union is allowed to fine u according to our bylaws   what they cant do is not accept your dues or demand u pay fine first   so now I will be staring over to file the correct paperwork       oh and by the way   the union reresponse to possibility of losing membership  is   the membership to internally union activity  such as right to vote   picnics   etc        
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!

Steward
In reply to this post by Bill Walsh
My name is Sam Tarallo,i am a retired active carpenter,shop steward,i just received a500.00assessment to pay for not doing pick it duty,i understand the rules and imI'behind them to a certain extend.i use to do pick it duty 3 to 4 times a year,my question to everyone,should I just pay the fine,i will,but would appreciate positive feedback.My only grip is,i live out of state,live on a fixed pension income,and I feel it' unfair to hit a retired carpenter with this fee,especially living out of state,what are our rights,i like to fight this,if it's worth it,i do work 39.50 hours a month,i try to help the union out as much as I could,where is the respect ,and justice for the men and women who already put in there time.,in solidarity,Sam Tarallo,shop steward,local 20.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!

RichardDorrough
Every member should want to participate in their Union but NOT ALLOW SOME UBC PUNK to force them. The REAL LAW, and not some UBC BS bylaw, says the choice to participate is the members.It is not the choice of some UBC punk telling you that you will "or Else" Since the UBC is so bad to its members and is run by low IQ hand picked morons and punks why should a members want to participate. Instead of getting rid of the punks and cleaning up its act the UBC are extorting and threatening their own membership .The Newell case which the corrupt bought and paid for NLRB fought tooth and nail rules ruled this. And it precedent that apply s to all Union members. They can tell you that you must picket and you can tell them to kiss your ass. They can lie and call the fine an assessment when it is a fine and you can tell them to kiss your ass.They can tell you owe them money for not picketing and you can refuse to pay it and tell them to kiss your ass. There is not a f...ing think they can do to you if you do not pay.But since the NYC Council was told by their punk lawyer Murphy that they can ignore any NLRB ruling you are going to have to teach the NYC UBC punks a lesson once and for all.Let me ask you this. Would you let some little bitch on the street rob your wallet for $500.Would you let some little bitch on the street tell you "you will or else" If not, and I imagine you are saying no, then why would you let some little bitch do it just because they are wearing a UBC name tag. Name tags they achieved because they are  morons and suck ass hand picked for their willingness to do as they are told. You feel that dont fight these kind of scum and should just pay up??
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!

royernst
In reply to this post by Steward
sam I have two in nlrb charges in philly region 4 and I am getting the run around I have been contacting Washington headquarters and all   the regional directory in philly has already been suspended for 30 days from headquarters for etics strong union ties in 2016   I was told by nlrb  the union is allowed to fine u   but they can not  not allow u to pay not   your      dues because u have a dues assement against u   so I had to open another charge last sunday questioning the legality of the program   my first charge from 1/23 was being looked at this week I still have not heard   what else I heard the union is claiming that in their letters where they state u could possibyl be suspended from membership   they told the nlrb they are talking about internal unionactivity voting   picnics etc     I will tell u this I will never    pay   the only way they can try and get there money is to take u to court   and trust me they are not going in front of a judge to tell them u are  being fined   forhaving your federal rights violiated                                                                                                                           it is easy to file an unfair labor charge   efile on line and u will have to go in and give a sworn statement  but be prepared for the runaround   they are in bed with the union     if u were going out to dinner and a guy on the street said it would be 125 dollars to walk down the street u would not pay him so do u want to pay them    they made 2 million dollars in fines alone last year from assements alone         I could use a little help the more charges the better just file and say u right to refrain from union activity is being violated    it right on their fucking website they already signed it      
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!

royernst
so the first charge I filed was the fines are illegal   so they are playing on the words   the second charge is for legality of the program    for which I think I have a much better chance       the suspension that heineyman is telling the nlrb   is not work related    so only union activites    so am trying to get the laborboard to make them say that because most members still belive if they are suspened they can not work   not true     but honestly the more members that start filing charges we can make them honor what they signed   I hear everyone bitch  about them and I know not everyone can file a charge  because these pieces of shit will try and hold against you   but those that can the time is now to step up  I am a 30 year member  who has never been more embarresed of our union then what we are turning into
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!

RichardDorrough
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by royernst
Actually they are playing on words and the NLRB is absolutely a Union bought and paid for agency. They cannot create bylaws that conflict with the UBC constitution.Show me where in the UBC Constitution that allows them to screw with your membership or internal union activity especially voting. You have another charge there for LMRDA violations.File a charge with the OLMS. I can give you proof that not only have they removed a members name from the master membership list for refusing to pay or picket but they also called his employer and demanded he be fired because he is no longer in the Union.
 
    Point one. Who ever told you at the NLRB that they can fine you is full of shit. If they use the word fine or admit the money is to try to force you to picket or pay then their case is over. To cover for their Union benefactors the NLRB is using a 50 year old case where the judges ruled the Union could increase dues by 6 dollars and give it back if a member attended a Union meeting.It was labeled an incentive but that is not the case here. However they could do nothing to you if you refused to pay the 6 dollars.The case hinged on the Judges claim that a worker could leave the Union and become an agency fee payer and still (1) work on all Union jobs for Union contractors(2)still use all Union functions such as the Out of work list and etc and (3) exercise all rights THE LAW allows as an agency fee payer to avoid the rule. However that is a lie and you can prove it. The Northeast Council before it was seized by McCarron had NO agency fee payers. Check their LM2. There is a line for it.Further the person who they told was off the master membership list for not paying, which is a violation of the UBC Constitution and as such the LMRDA,and also they tried to have fired is right now filing charges as well.

Here is the UBC argument..Following the issuance of ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN PULP AND PAPER WORKERS
LOCAL 171(Boise cascade), 165 NLRB 941 (1967), for the past 50 years, the Board has uniformly
recognized the right of unions to prescribe dues rebates and other financial incentives intended to
attract attendance at union meetings and participation in union activities and reward employees,
giving of time to union functions.


It appears the UBC scum bags have an English comprehension problem. I know many council Officers and reps are picked for their stupidity and willingness to drop to their knees on command but this will be  no excuse in front of a Judge. Despite the NLRB warning that the UBC will NOT try to coerce or force UBC members to picket or take action against them if they refuse the UBC punks have and are still violating the law. The Northeast Council recently raped and given to Tommy “the ass clown” Flynn and the New England Council are still threatening members, still demanding the Picket extortion money and are now threatening to try and ruin a members credit. Despite the clear notice from the NLRB stating they will not coerce members.


"Brother Newell's case applies to ALL union Locals within the United Brotherhood of Carpenters.  And it applies to all UNIONS. Anyone who says otherwise is full of shit." That is correct but they will still force you to file another NLRB case to stop them because they are arrogant punks. Look at the NYC Council punks lawyer Murphy who advised the Council to ignore the NLRB because they have no enforcement power when the Northeast Council attacked NYC jobs.The NLRB does have enforcement power. If you keep filing these cases this will stop completely. Had others joined Newell as requested in his case this would have gone different. If you join together now you efforts will stop this extortion BS.. As each member files a charge you need to include the information of previous and existing charges with your charge.

      As we advised you the NLRB is clearly bought and paid for and goes out of its way to screw Union members trying to protect themselves from the rats at their own Union. This fact is documented in many places.  The region 3 office as expected tried to screw the case. The appeal was already decided and prepared for before the region 3 office even acted.
     The Union, the NLRB Regional Office and newly appointed appeals office Director Mark Arbesfeld did everything in their power to see that this matter did not go before the Administrative Law Judge. Newells appeal was approved and scheduled to go before a law Judge but suddenly newly appointed Director Mark Arbesfeld, who was appointed in December 5, 2017, reversed his fellow NLRB lawyer and  stopped the appeal. He canceled the ALJ court appearance. Its funny how a newly appointed director was aware of the Newell appeal and with all his new duties made time to take over Newells case himself. Despite this Newell did not fold and give up despite once again in violation of the NLRA the UBC lawyers threatened Newell for pursuing the charges. Perhaps it was because of Arbsfelds personal connection to the Region 3 Office and or because he is yet another Union bought and paid for NLRB employee.
     Either way the result of the Newell decisions is that despite them insisting you picket “or else” they now have no “or else” so you can tell them to go f themselves. They can tell you that you owe them $500 or $250 and you can tell them to kiss your ass. DO NOT PAY IT. DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO TAKE IT. They can tell you must picket and you can tell them to kiss your ass. If you do not pay them the extortion they cannot do a f….ing thing. If you do not picket they cannot do a f….ing thing. That is not to imply they will not try. The question is will you let some UBC punk and loud mouth pussie rob your paycheck, threaten your membership and try to force you to do something the law says they cannot or will you tell them to kiss your ass and fight back.



"The procedure is discriminatory and falls outside a union’s prerogatives in the operation of a nonexclusive hiring hall regardless of whether one casts the Respondent’s subjective motivation as rewarding picketers or as punishing non-picketers."
by NLRB - board decision & order, excerpt:

Obviously a referral procedure that has the effect of reserving the first 80 to 85 percent of job referrals for picketers will tend to coerce members’ decisions about whether to engage in picketing.

The procedure is discriminatory and falls outside a union’s prerogatives in the operation of a nonexclusive hiring hall regardless of whether one casts the Respondent’s subjective motivation as rewarding picketers or as punishing non-picketers. See Service Employees Local 1107 (Sunrise Hospital), 347 NLRB 63, 65 (2006), citing Boilermakers Local 686 (Boiler Tube), 267 NLRB 1056, 1057 (1983) (Where a union interferes with a member’s Section 7 right to refrain from union activity, Section 8(b)(1)(A) does not require a showing of motivation or intent to establish a violation.)....

      -AND-

Such coercion is unlawful regardless of whether the provision also has lawful applications. The Respondent’s defense that it did not enforce paragraph 4(c), is also not viable. The mere existence of a rule that improperly discriminates on the basis of a member’s protected activity has a chilling effect on the exercise of Section 7 rights, and violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) regardless of whether the provision has ever been enforced. Awrey Bakeries, 335 NLRB 138, 139–140 (2001), enfd. 59 Fed. Appx. 690 (6th Cir. 2003); Engineers & Scientists Guild (Lockheed-California), 268 NLRB 311 (1983).

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!

roy ernst
you are not getting an argument from me  I am telling u what is being told to me and I clearly agree they are in bed with them im trying to decide now if I go with outside counsel  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!

roy ernst
hey rich any advice for my sworn statement on wed     in wording  because they are trying to make me go away
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!

RichardDorrough
Yes anytime tomorrow to talk??Can you get a small delay on the sworn statement.This should also help you for proof of continued coercion.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!

roy ernst
 I will se if I can delay a little  I would like to talk to u about this if u could email at rernst@riffgroup.com I will give u my phone number and u can call me whatever time works out for u
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!

Steward
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
Thank you for the feedback,the union demanding to take 500.00from me is ludicrous,on top of that,i am a retired union carpenter., Anyway thank you for the feedback,i appreciate it.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!

roy ernst
ray hineyman the unions lawer was a field investigator for nlrb for 10 years its amazing how intertangled all of this shit is
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!

Steward
Are there any aveune of resources iIcouls turn to,i will speak to some of my higher up delegates who represent my local union on concern to this matter,any information we could get out to our members is for our rights,protections as union members,because I feel it's a very steep fine or assessment,especislly if you are a retired member,there should be a justice or amend in the bylaws,they defitely should make changes,especially to retires who have already put in there time,and did there countless pick it 3 or 4 times a year,also we all haded out leaflets at stores that tried to build nonunion,we also did campaigning for candidates,who would be labor friendly,i feel if over the years,u have demonstrated your a good union member,u also called in on nonunion,u got union brothers and sister s on the job,it should be all put into consideration,not to assess the hrllhout of our knees with these ridiculous fines.In solidarity,Ssmuel Tarallo,Retired shop steward,who believes in justice and rights for all union members.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!

Steward
You cannotbecooerse,into doing pick it duty,it is a violation under section ,the right not to participate in union activities,the union official cannot force u to participate,its your god givens for any individual to participate,if they so do so,most members ,like myself do to help the union out to turn the job over union.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!

Roy ernst
Good luck getting your higher ups to help u out.  There are are not to many willing to go against the union grain.   Not in philly anyway.       Wish u the best. Of luck
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!

Roy ernst
Hey rich if u can email at rernst@riffgroup .com. I will give u my phone number.   Going I n tommorow.  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!

Steward
Keep us updated on what decision u get upon the fines or assessment they impose on a member from not being doing pick it duty.We need the right language of how it is stated that they could fine us or suspend us if we do not pay the fine,this apply to all members,and even retired members,thank you.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!

Steward
Roy and Rich,keep me up to date on the court hearings outcome from NLRB,thanks.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!

Roy ernst
In reply to this post by Steward
Will do your probably 3 months out just gave swor statement. Yesterday
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!

Steward
It's very interesting the way they word the pick it duty,its a disgrace,and I am mad about it,normally,they will send a notice,at least they use to ,to do pick it duty,timeplace,etc,know for some reason it's all about the money,what about the members rights being exploited,it sure is slot of money to pay,i always was told they would deduct out of your vacation pAy,how ironic is that,bunch ofbullshit,what the hell they do to members,especially retired members who cannot even enjoy retirement,especially living out of state,something is wrong,did I miss something,i will get answers,im going to my local union first,hopefully I will get answers of what the hell they are doing.I appreciate everyone's feedback,im going all the way to the chance in command,i also would like to know,when I'm not in city,no more being active every year in the future,are they going to penalize me with that500.00assessment or fine not doing pick it duty,its Constitution,its inmoral,its disrespectful for the men and women who made the union,something has to be done,it will affect all future retires and members too,i securely demand the right answers,hopefully my Union delegates,or officials could address this this unfortunate situation.Any imforinform on here should be posted,it affects us all,its totally wrong,and discriminates towards all the brotherhood.
1234