RAYMOND INTERIOR SYSTEMS

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

RAYMOND INTERIOR SYSTEMS

Ted
This post was updated on .
http://www.nlrb.gov/case/21-CA-037649

This is "RAYMOND INTERIORS" the base chain in the progeny of this case. It is the lead example of the UBC's raiding efforts of other Trades.

All UBC Brothers, legal beagles & everyone else should read these briefs & then you will comprehend what the UBC is about, how this ties directly to what is ongoing in KC & the Pacific Northwest Regional Councils (skills forms, Senior Drywall Utility Worker for 60% of the Journeman Rate) etc.

Currently, per conversation with Jill Griffin, the case is held in abeyance.

The UBC's base argument is in the 9(a) to 8(f) conversion scenario. What they did, which is illegal, is execute a secret/backdoor confidentiality agreement with the Owner of Raymond Interiors to convert the Tapers to UBC Carpenters and presented it to the Company Men as a fait accompli (done deal).

They failed to initiate talks with the Painters Union, or to bargain to Impasse with them while the Painters Contract was being negotiated, and via NLRB Board precedent, Appellate & Sup. Ct. precedent the painters contract (like ours) is automatically extended for 12-months.

The UBC is doing this for one reason - to avoid having & holding a "representation election" for those previously excluded (historically) from the craft/trade unit. This is a representation issue & it follows an entirely different line of precedent case-law at all levels and also falls under the Accretion Doctrine. The Companys attorneys presented the least favorable argument, the painters was not much better - enter DeCarlo-Shanley (same firm as here in NYC) who made a slightly better overall argument.

None are factually based on the particulars in the case, just more semantics, legal manuevering, chicanery, lies (usual daily agenda of UBC) and it seems to me that it cannot and will not pass muster at the Supreme Court level if they decide to hear the case. Make no mistake about it - here, the UBC & McCarron are hoping & praying they get this one in, so they can walk away with a landmark precedent case & use it as a Template in having the Supreme Court give them the stamp of approval for continued Trade Raiding nationwide. respectourcrafts - better step up, get aboard, file an amici on behalf of other building trades

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RAYMOND INTERIOR SYSTEMS

listman
Say no to specialty locals.

Say no to appointed eboards.

This is assuredly why 608 & now I hear 926 (?) thanks Mr. Corrigan, and as we are about to have jammed down our throats as to 157 with or without dissolution there will be the birth of 395.

Just say NO to more McCarron spawn !  

With this done there will be no one man one vote whenever the election issue gets presented to us. Why do you think we don't have the bylaws in our possesion yet !

Are you all going to let McCarron get away with this even though he's about completley done with a an end run around that pesky Decree !
owl
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RAYMOND INTERIOR SYSTEMS

owl
if this new local is made who decides and how do they decide who gets in.

Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RAYMOND INTERIOR SYSTEMS

Ted
In reply to this post by Ted
Filed December 12, 2012

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
RAYMOND INTERIOR SYSTEMS, INC.; )
SOUTHWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL )
OF CARPENTERS )
)
Petitioners )
v. ) Nos. 12-1011
) 12-1012 ) 12-1013
) 12-1047
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD )
) Board Case Nos.
Respondent ) 21-CA-37649
) 21-CB-14259
and )
)
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PAINTERS AND )
ALLIED TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 36, )
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS AND )
ALLIED TRADES, AFL-CIO, )
)
Intervenor for )
Respondent )
______________________________________________)
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PAINTERS AND )
ALLIED TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 36, )
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS AND )
ALLIED TRADES, AFL-CIO, )
)
Petitioner )
v. )
)
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD )
)
Respondent )


______________________________________________)
2
CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES
Pursuant to Rule 28(a)(1) of this Court, counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (“the Board”) certify the following:

A. Parties and Amici: Raymond Interior Systems, Inc. (“Raymond”), the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“the Carpenters”), and the Southern California Painters and Allied Trades District Council No. 36, International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO (“the Painters”) are the petitioners before the Court. Raymond and the Carpenters were the respondents before the Board; the Painters were the charging party. The Board is the respondent before the Court; its General Counsel was a party before the Board. The Painters have also intervened in favor of the Board’s enforcement case against Raymond and the Carpenters; the Painters’ petition for review is limited to challenging the scope of the remedy the Board awarded against those parties.

B. Ruling Under Review: The case involves the parties’ petition to review, and the Board’s cross-application to enforce, a Decision and Order the Board issued against Raymond and the Carpenters on September 30, 2010 (355 NLRB No. 209); and the Board’s Order issued on December 30, 2011 (357 NLRB No. 166), granting in part and denying in part Raymond’s and the Carpenters’ motion to reconsider the September 2010 Order.
C. Related Cases: Raymond, the Carpenters, and the Painters filed, in the

3

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, petitions for review, and the Board filed a cross-application for enforcement, of the Decision and Order issued in the instant case by a two-member Board panel (9th Cir. Case Nos. 09-73210, 10-70208 &10-70209).

The parties had completed briefing and were awaiting oral argument. On June 17, 2010, the Supreme Court issued New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 130 S. Ct. 2635, holding that the two-member Board lacked authority to issue decisions when there were no other sitting Board members.

Accordingly, on August 25, 2010, the Ninth Circuit remanded its cases to the Board for further proceedings. On September 30, 2010, a three-member Board panel issued the Order now before the Court. The Board is not aware of any related cases pending in or about to be presented to this Court or any other court. s/Linda Dreeben_____________

Linda Dreeben
Deputy Associate General Counsel
National Labor Relations Board
1099 14th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20570
Dated at Washington, DC
this 11th day of December, 2012.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Headings Page(s)
Statement of subject matter and appellate jurisdiction ..............................................2
Statement of the issues presented ..............................................................................3
Relevant statutory provisions.....................................................................................4
Statement of the case..................................................................................................4
Statement of facts.......................................................................................................7
I. The Board’s factual findings ..............................................................................7

A. Background; Raymond employs two distinct groups of employees— drywall-finishing employees and drywall-hanging employees—who perform different work and who have been historically represented by different unions in separate units .................................................................7

B. In May 2006, Raymond lawfully terminates its Section 8(f)
relationship with the Painters, effective September 30, 2006, the day the Painters’ Agreement expired by its terms ......................................10

C. Raymond calls the employees to a meeting on October 2, 2006................11

D. Company President Winsor and Superintendent Zorrero tell employees that they must sign up with the Carpenters “that day” or else they will have no more work......................................................................................12

E. The Carpenters presents employees with a single document containing membership, dues checkoff, and authorization forms, but does not at that time provide them with a Beck notice of their rights regarding union membership and the use and payment of union dues; most employees comply by signing and returning the document that day...........................14
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Headings-Cont’d Page(s)

F. Later on October 2, Raymond recognizes the Carpenters as the employees’ Section 9(a) representative based on the authorization cards the employees signed that day......................................................16
II. The Board’s conclusions and order...............................................................16
III. The Board’s order on reconsideration ......................................................... 18

Summary of argument..............................................................................................20
Argument..................................................................................................................24

I. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings that Raymond unlawfully assisted the Carpenters in obtaining union-authorization cards, that Raymond unlawfully granted, and the Carpenters unlawfully accepted, Section 9(a) recognition, and that they unlawfully applied the Carpenters agreement and its union-security clause .......................................................................................24

A. Introduction .....................................................................................24

B. The Act requires that employees’ free choice of bargaining
representative be untainted by any employer compulsion or influence ......................................................................................25

C. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings that Raymond unlawfully assisted and recognized the Carpenters as Section 9(a) representative; that the Carpenters unlawfully accepted that assistance and recognition; and that they both violated the Act by applying the Carpenters 2006 master agreement to the drywall-finishing employees at a time when the Carpenters lacked uncoerced majority support ...............................30

D. The parties fail to meet their heavy burden in seeking to overturn the Board’s reasonable credibility determinations........34
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Headings-Cont’d Page(s)
II. The Carpenters violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by failing to timely inform employees of their Beck rights at the time it first sought to obligate them to become union members and pay union dues..............................41

A. The Carpenters failed to timely provide a Beck notice...................41

B. Raymond’s and Carpenters’ contentions lack merit .......................44

III. The Board acted within its broad discretion when it awarded the the traditional, court-approved remedy for the unlawful assistance and Section 9(a) recognition found here.................................................46

A. The Board is afforded broad discretion in formulating
remedies ........................................................................................47

B. The Board’s remedy appropriately prevents Raymond and the Carpenters from benefitting from the tainted union- authorization cards.........................................................................47

C. Raymond’s and the Carpenters’ contentions are without
merit ...............................................................................................48

D. The Painters’ challenge to the remedy must fail ...........................50

1. The Board reasonably declined to order Raymond to provide alternate-benefits coverage .......................................................51
a. The Painters’ claims lack merit..........................................52

2. The Board properly acknowledged Raymond’s statutory right to recognize a union as its employees Section 8(f) representative ............................................................................56
Conclusion .............................................................................................................
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RAYMOND INTERIOR SYSTEMS

Ted
This post was updated on .
Raymond Interior Systems
Case Number: 21-CA-038492 Location: Orange, CA Date Filed: 09/03/2008 Region Assigned: Region 21, Los Angeles, California Status: Open
Docket Activity

Datesort ascending Document Issued/Filed By
04/03/2014 Circuit Court Order* Court
12/30/2011 Board Decision NLRB - Board
07/21/2010 Brief* NLRB - GC
07/20/2010 Reply Brief to Answer to Cross Exceptions Charging Party
07/20/2010 Motion Charging Party
07/06/2010 Answering Brief to Cross Exceptions Charged Party / Respondent
07/02/2010 Answering Brief to Cross Exceptions Involved Party
06/28/2010 Brief* NLRB - GC
06/28/2010 Reply Brief to Answer to Exceptions Charged Party / Respondent
06/25/2010 Letter Charging Party Pages
1 2 3 4 5 6 next › last »
The Docket Activity list does not reflect all actions in this case.

* This document may require redactions before it can be viewed. To obtain a copy, please file a request through our FOIA Branch.

Related Documents

Administrative Law Judges Decision
Allegations

8(a)(3) Union Security Related Actions
8(a)(2) Assistance
8(a)(1) Coercive Actions (Surveillance, etc)
8(a)(5) Refusal to Recognize
8(a)(5) Refusal to Furnish Information
_______________________

Classic - break the law throughout the U.S. and when caught in acts of criminal racketeering, have the board redact the documents and enter into confidential settlement agreements with the NLRB to avoid criminal prosecution (nothing funny going on here your honor, just business as usual in the UBC).
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RAYMOND INTERIOR SYSTEMS

Question?
In reply to this post by Ted
What does a 2012 California dead brief have to do with anything?
Perhaps it's time for this %$&# from out of town to change his old briefs.  
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RAYMOND INTERIOR SYSTEMS

Ted
The case is still live - pay attention, you may learn something. The cases was first held in abeyance (look it up) and McCarron orchestrated that as well as as having public information redacted on an alleged independent government agency.

Rank & file carpenters should not have to make FOIA requests or pay copying & mailing fees due to Doug McCarron's illegal activities. Have you even made an attempt to read the case & do you comprehend what it is about?

Note: You can go play on the C-Box if you don't like it over here. Instead of crying like a girl, how about you apply yourself and your energy and stand up for yourself for once instead of expecting everyone else to do it for you.