THE CEMENT (CONCRETE) LEAGUE & ALJ Greens 5-21-15 Decision & the NLRB Boards 2-16-16 Decision & Order; EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC Hiring Hall, the HARTE, McMURRAY & CLARKE legacy vs. 50-50%, 67-33% & 90%-10% vs. the McCarron, Walsh, Berman & Torrance Conversion of the BLUE CARD to the WHITE CARD 8(f) to illegal 9(a) Agreement w/o Proof or the req'd. NLRB Board Election

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
76 messages Options
1234
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

THE CEMENT (CONCRETE) LEAGUE & ALJ Greens 5-21-15 Decision & the NLRB Boards 2-16-16 Decision & Order; EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC Hiring Hall, the HARTE, McMURRAY & CLARKE legacy vs. 50-50%, 67-33% & 90%-10% vs. the McCarron, Walsh, Berman & Torrance Conversion of the BLUE CARD to the WHITE CARD 8(f) to illegal 9(a) Agreement w/o Proof or the req'd. NLRB Board Election

Ted
This post was updated on .
May Gene rest in peace. He was one of a kind!

He left you gentlemen a legacy of standing up, if only you would use it.

Read the two cases below & absorb it; then, keep reading some more. NYC & NY State are not Right to Work (RTW) states as I've stated & written many times over. The moves the former disgraced Judge Conboy, his former junior attorney & the former R.O. Dennis Walsh & Mr. Corruption - the King, Doug McCarron are here for all to see, all of which was illegally rubber stamped by a co-conspiring USAO's office & a sitting Federal District Court Judge, one Richard M. Berman.

Together they make the Teamsters & Hoffa senior look like pansy's or a girl scout troop relative to the criminal RICO racketeering scam, crossing all state lines, as orchestrated against the rank & file through NYC and the NYCDCC under a private contract (Consent Decree) so far outside the realm of legal conduct that the U.S. D.O.J. must get involved. This blog is chock full of criminal violations & the court cases & precedent citations to back it up, if only the D.O.J. would have the spine to go after the aforementioned suspects.

All suspects & those named above are guilty until proven innocent; ahh, crap - innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, or are they?

____________________________________



50-50% Rule, Duty of Fair Representation, Discrimination, Shape Halls
DECISION & ORDER of NLRB dated April 30, 1986

https://www.nlrb.gov/case/02-CB-009767

Carpenters Local 608, 279 NLRB No. 99, Harte, McMurray & Clarke
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 50-50% or 67-33% HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

Ted
This post was updated on .
DECISION & ORDER of THE SECOND CIRCUIT

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/811/149/205705/

¶1
The National Labor Relations Board (the Board) petitions for enforcement of an order requiring Carpenters Local 608, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (the union), to permit union members to inspect and duplicate hiring hall records that contain the names, addresses and telephone numbers of persons who had used the hiring hall. The union objects to enforcement, arguing that its refusal to supply those records did not constitute a breach of its duty of fair representation under section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 158(b)(1)(A), and contending that the Board's order conflicts with section 401(c) of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 481(c), which permits a union to keep its membership lists confidential. For the reasons that follow, we enforce the Board's order.

¶2
The order under review concerns the efforts of three union members, John Harte, Franklin McMurray and Eugene Clarke (the dissidents), to obtain information concerning the union's hiring hall and referral practices. The union operated its hiring hall through a telephone referral system; members seeking work as well as employers needing workers would call the union, and the union would refer workers to particular jobs. The union maintained daily and monthly "shape-up" and "referral" lists. The former contained names and telephone numbers of persons requesting referrals; the latter contained the names of workers and the employers to whom they were referred. According to the union, workers were referred to jobs in the order in which they called in, taking into account any special qualifications requested by the employer and any worker's preference for certain types of work.

¶3
Harte, McMurray and Clarke were founders of a dissident group within the union called "Carpenters for a Stronger Union," and each had been involved in unsuccessful election campaigns against incumbent union officers. At union meetings and in publications distributed to union members, the dissidents objected to various union policies and criticized the performance of several union officers. Some of their concerns related to the operation of the hiring hall. The dissidents maintained that the referral system was unfair and arbitrary, did not allow members to check whether referrals were being administered fairly, and gave Paschal McGuiness, the union's business manager, and his staff, too much control.

¶4
Beginning in the summer of 1982 and continuing into the first half of 1983, the dissidents made several requests of union officials to inspect hiring hall records. The dissidents were concerned that their activities within the union were adversely affecting their referral opportunities. The dissidents, however, were never permitted to inspect those records. Instead, they were shown their individual work cards, which reflected when each had called the union for work and when each had been referred to a job.

¶5
In February and March 1983, the dissidents filed unfair labor practice charges against the union, claiming that the union violated its duty of fair representation when it refused their requests to inspect the hiring hall records. In March 1985, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held that the union had violated section 8(b)(1)(A) of the NLRA by arbitrarily refusing the dissidents' requests to inspect the records and by refusing to supply them with information concerning the operation of the hiring hall. In April 1986, the Board affirmed the ALJ's rulings, findings and conclusions, and ordered the union, among other things, to allow its members to "review, inspect, photocopy, or duplicate all hiring hall records." This petition by the Board for enforcement followed.

¶6
A union breaches its duty of fair representation in violation of section 8(b)(1)(A) of the NLRA when it arbitrarily denies a member's request for job referral information, when that request is reasonably directed towards ascertaining whether the member has been fairly treated with respect to obtaining job referrals. See NLRB v. Local 139, International Union of Operating Engineers, 796 F.2d 985, 992-94 (7th Cir.1986) (hereinafter Local 139 ). See generally Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 177, 87 S.Ct. 903, 909, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967). Unions must "deal fairly" with such requests, Local 139, 796 F.2d at 993, and in resolving disputes over disclosing information the Board must balance the member's need for the information against the union's legitimate interest in keeping the information confidential. See Id. Cf. Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 314-15, 99 S.Ct. 1123, 1130-31, 59 L.Ed.2d 333 (1979) (union requests for information from employer); NLRB v. Local Union 497, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 795 F.2d 836 (9th Cir.1986) (hereinafter Local 497) (employer request for hiring hall information).

¶7
The union argues that the Board erred in finding that the dissidents had a good faith reason for seeking the hiring hall records, contending that the dissidents' requests should be considered within the context of their efforts to gain elective office within the union. The union claims that the dissidents requested the information in connection with their intra-union political activities and maintains that the union justifiably rejected their demands since the leadership was properly elected. We disagree. Characterizing this dispute solely as part of the dissidents' attempt to wrest control of the union from the incumbents would unnecessarily constrict the rights of members seeking union office and penalize them for exercising activities that are protected under the NLRA. See 29 U.S.C. Sec. 158(b)(1)(A). Even if the dissidents had political purposes for the information, the union could not deny their requests as long as the dissidents were also motivated by a reasonable belief that they were being treated unfairly by union officials in connection with work assignments. See NLRB v. Leonard B. Hebert, Jr. & Co., 696 F.2d 1120, 1126 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 817, 104 S.Ct. 76, 78 L.Ed.2d 88 (1983); Utica Observer-Dispatch, Inc. v. NLRB, 229 F.2d 575, 577 (2d Cir.1956).

¶8
The union's arguments challenging the dissidents' motives do not require extended discussion, and only two arguments warrant any discussion at all. The union claims that McGuiness' determination that the dissidents had received their "fair share" of work was a satisfactory response to their requests for information. McGuiness, however, only reviewed the dissidents' individual work records. That investigation could not have addressed the dissidents' concern that they were being treated unfairly as compared to other workers because McGuiness did not analyze the job referral records of any other persons using the hiring hall. In any event, a union is not permitted to refuse a request for information based on its own determination that the grievance underlying the request is non-meritorious or that the information sought is not essential. Cf. NLRB v. Associated General Contractors, 33 F.2d 766, 771-72 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 915, 101 S.Ct. 3049, 69 L.Ed.2d 418 (1981). If the request is made in good faith, members are entitled to receive the information and determine for themselves whether they have a claim that the union has discriminated against them.

¶9
The union also notes that McMurray, who ran against McGuiness in a June 1983 election, attempted to obtain the names and addresses of union members by recording this information without the union's knowledge or consent. The ALJ properly found that this event did not affect McMurray's good faith basis for seeking the hiring hall records because it occurred after he had made almost all of his requests. Moreover, as the Board points out, the hiring hall information "would not have done [the dissidents] much good" in their political activities because the referral lists contain information concerning only 700 to 800 of the union's 3200 to 3500 members.

¶10
The record in this case contains ample evidence that the dissidents' requests for hiring hall records were based on a good faith belief that they were being treated unfairly. For example, almost all of the dissidents' requests were made while they were unemployed and awaiting referral and while union officials were announcing that there was 100% employment among the membership. There was also evidence that the dissidents' work cards contained incorrect information and that the dissidents were offered referrals to jobs outside of their specialties when the union had apparently just referred other workers to jobs in those specialties. We therefore conclude that there is "substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole" to support the Board's finding that the dissidents had a good faith basis for requesting the hiring hall records. Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 493, 71 S.Ct. 456, 467, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951).

¶11
The union also argues that its denial of the dissidents' requests was not arbitrary and therefore did not constitute a breach of its duty of fair representation. The union notes that it is not required to honor all requests for information, but need only "deal fairly" with such requests, see Local 139, 796 F.2d at 993, and claims that its denial of the dissidents' requests to inspect hiring hall records was reasonably based on its desire to protect confidential information. The ALJ found, however, that the union's claims of confidentiality were only an "afterthought," and that they were "entirely specious and pretextual." He noted that the union did not have a formal or written policy of confidentiality with respect to this information. In fact, union officials admitted that they had "no guidelines or precedents" for responding to requests for information.

¶12
By contrast, there was substantial evidence that the union did not consider this information to be confidential. McGuiness stated at union meetings that job referral lists were available for anyone to examine, and Article VII, section 1, of the collective bargaining agreement then in effect between the union and the employer associations required the union to "establish and maintain an open employment list." It is also significant that union officials never raised their confidentiality concerns with the dissidents as a reason for denying their requests, and that the union did not offer any evidence that its members sought to keep this information confidential.

¶13
On this record, the Board could properly determine that the dissidents' interest in assuring the protection of rights that they reasonably suspected were being violated outweighed any legitimate interest the union had in keeping the hiring hall records confidential. See Local 139, 796 F.2d at 992-94. Accordingly, we affirm the Board's holding that the union violated section 8(b)(1)(A) by arbitrarily denying the dissidents' reasonable requests to inspect hiring hall records.

¶14
The union also attacks the scope of the Board's remedy. It claims that the dissidents, through their requests for hiring hall records, should not be allowed to obtain information concerning the membership that they are not otherwise entitled to receive. This argument is based on section 401(c) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 481(c), which requires labor organizations to,

¶15
comply with all reasonable requests of any candidate to distribute by mail or otherwise at the candidate's expense campaign literature in aid of such person's candidacy to all members in good standing of such organization....

¶16
and gives every bona fide candidate for office,

¶17
the right, once within 30 days prior to an election ... to inspect a list containing the names and last known addresses of all members....

¶18
Under the LMRDA, a union may keep its membership lists confidential if it complies with the requirements set out in section 401(c) and if it treats all candidates for union office equally in denying requests for the lists. See Schultz v. Radio Officers' Union, 344 F.Supp. 58, 67-69 (S.D.N.Y.1972); Conley v. Aiello, 276 F.Supp. 614, 616 (S.D.N.Y.1967). The union claims that it has never allowed any such requests and argues that the Board failed to construct a remedy that adequately considered the union's right, under the LMRDA, to keep its membership lists confidential.

¶19
The LMRDA, however, only regulates intra-union election campaigns and does not prohibit a union from granting more extensive disclosure than the minimum the statute requires. It would be anomalous to conclude that the LMRDA, a statute designed to protect union members from potential abuse by union officials, see Marshall v. Local Union 478, Laborers' International Union, 461 F.Supp. 185, 188 (S.D.Fla.1978), prohibits a union from disclosing names, addresses and telephone numbers of union members where, as here, such information is necessary to determine whether the union has violated a worker's rights. See Local 139, 796 F.2d at 992-93; Local Union 497, 795 F.2d at 838. See also Conley v. United Steelworkers of America, Local Union No. 1014, 549 F.2d 1122, 1125 & n. 4 (7th Cir.1977); Local 324, International Union of Operating Engineers, 226 N.L.R.B. 587, 599 n. 34 (1976) (LMRDA does not "delimit[ ] the scope of a union's obligation to furnish information to the employees it represents").

¶20
We also reject the union's contention that the portion of the Board's order permitting the dissidents to copy addresses and telephone numbers of members using the hiring hall was overbroad. The dissidents will need this information to verify the accuracy of the hiring hall records. Although it is conceivable, as the union now suggests, that the Board could have provided the same relief and kept the information confidential by having union employees check the information, considering the animus between the union and the dissidents in this case we cannot say that the Board abused its broad discretion, Lipman Motors, Inc. v. NLRB, 451 F.2d 823, 829 (2d Cir.1971), in ordering a remedy that would enable the dissidents to verify the records. See NLRB v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 575, 773 F.2d 746, 750 (6th Cir.1985).

¶21
The Board's order is enforced.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 50-50% or 67-33% HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

Ted
This post was updated on .
From 2001 through the January 13, 2009 memorandum of Opinion & Order, the NYCDCC allowed the Contractor Associations to make unlimited requests and to avoid the OWL list.

For this - Peter Thomassen & the DC were held in contempt of the Consent Decree.


Gene Clarke was granted amicus curie status & the Contractor Associations were granted motions to intervene. The end result was the Haight Ruling dated May 26, 2009, a mere 71 days prior to the August 5, 2009 indictments, arrest's and what began the UBCJA International's LMRDA Trusteeship while they feigned clean hands.

For eight (8) plus years the Contractor Assoc. had an unfettered 100% hiring Rule in effect. Punishment for the offenses via the Court exercising its inherent authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Sect. 1651(a) to alter provisions in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the District Council and the Intervenors (Contractor Associations),reduced it to 67% and obvioulsy failed to stop the fraud, corruption or racketeering and the Contractors again soon figured out ways around it. 50-50% appeared to lead to triple pike's with 2-1/2 twists off the Triboro Bridge, body never found, beatings, stabbings etc.

Also, under the 130+ Project Labor Agreements (PLA's) executed, covering project durations of 2-5 years, plus an additonal contractual one (1) Year Warranty Period for any & all call backs/servicing etc, the PLA's thus executed contractually require all candidates to go through the Union Hiring Halls, the NYCDCC, is an Exclusive Hiring Hall and should remain such, noting that the 10% direct Employer Requests defined as foreman, general foreman & superintendents have the ability to hire & fire and are statutory supervisors under the NLRA and Board precedent.

In the 22-year & 4-month History of the Criminal RICO action, 17+ of which have been under a public-private contract via the March 3, 1994 Consent Decree, every program tried by the UBCJA International, USAO & former IRO (Judge Conboy) relative to the Employer Referral Systems, which said parties have controlled nearly unilaterally, have failed to end the Racketeering, Fraud & Corruption, Discrimination in Hiring, or to fully restore any semblance of Democracy, thus the two Primary Prongs of the Consent Decree have not been achieved.

The UBCJA International & Contractor Associations had direct control under their 1997 Restructuring Plan through Janaury 11, 2012, and their 15-year history together has only exacerbated the racketeering, fraud and corruption.
While they feign "clean hands", the results say otherwise and their continued mocking of the Court's authority needs to end and that begins with a firm hand, orders to appear and formal motion practice, no excuses. Contempt orders should issue where appropriate and with fines directed at getting their attention. McCarron has nothing but utter contempt for the Court, no different than his disdain for working men and woman of this Council.

It is time for the new RO, the new Judge and the newly elected DC team to formulate another approach, free from UBCJA interference or any form of direct control or reversion of control to the Contractor Associations or UBC International.

Given the above systems failed to eliminate the rampant fraud & corruption - it is time for Judge Richard M. Berman to exercise his authority and to approve a 90% Union Referral and a 10% Contractor Association/Employer request system.

90% - 10% wherein the DC retains control of all Hiring as an Exclusive Hiring Hall and 10% of hires constitute company men, or foreman, general foreman and superintendents as direct requests. This is required to both restore Democracy and to eliminate the Racketeering, Fraud & Corruption which the parites with direct standing have failed to control for 22-years, 4-months.

The new By-Laws and specific controls initiated by the RO through the Court warrant this program being implemented immediately.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 50-50% or 67-33% HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Ted
CARPENTERS LOCAL 608, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO (Various Employers) and JOhn Harte, Franklin McMurray and Eugene Clarke, 2-CB--9767, 2-CB-9811, AND 2-CG-9812
         30 April 1986

     DECISION & ORDER
      279 NLRB No. 99


III. ANALYSIS

A. The Exclusivity of the Hiring Hall

Respondent contends that its hiring hall herein is nonexclusive in nature, because in order for such an arrangement to be considered exclusive, "all" hiring authority must be reserved to the Union. I do not agree.

It is well settled that a hiring is deemed to be exclusive where the union retains exclusive authority for referrals for some specified period of time, such as 24 or 48 hours, before an employer can hire on its own. Mountain Pacific Chapter AGC, 119 NLRB 883 (1957); Boilermakers Local 587 (Stone & Webster), 233 NLRB 612, 614 (1977); Carpenters Local 78 (Murray Walter), 223 NLRB 733, 734-735 (1976). Thus to the extent that that union retains such exclusive authority during this period, it operates an exclusive hiring hall.

Similarly, an exclusive hiring hall can also exist where an employer has the contractual right to bring in a certain number or percentage of employees onto a job. Bricklayers Local 8 (California Mason Contractors), 235 NLRB 1001, 1003 (1978). Thus the employers herein have given up and delegated to Respondent the right to hire the first employee on the job and 50 percent of the remainder after the employer selects a second employee. I conclude that to such an extent an exclusive hiring hall is contemplated by the agreement. Heavy Construction Laborers Local 663 (Robert A. Treuner), 205 NLRB 455, 456 (1973).26

Since the record is bereft of any evidence that the terms of the contract have not been adhered to, I conclude that to the extent specified, Respondent operates an exclusive hiring hall, and is subject to the obligations and requirements which flow from such a finding.27
______________________
In 119 NLRB 883, Mountain Pacific, at 12:

The fact that the agreement limits the union's exclusive control to a 48-hour period after a request for employees is immaterial, for if unqualified exclusive delegation of hiring to a union is unlawful, the vice is not cured by a reversion back to the employer of the hiring privilege after the union is unable to enjoy the power conferred upon it.2
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 50-50% or 67-33% or 90%-10% EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC HIRING HALL

Ted
In reply to this post by Ted
https://www.nlrb.gov/case/14-CA-008683

J.S. ALBERICI 231 NLRB No. 172 (1977)
50-50% Hiring Hall to an Exclusive Hiring Hall, via "first in, first out" under Court Order of Federal RICO Consent Decree.


In this case, the aforementioned contractors layed off 25 employees to recall them as requests/direct hires to avoid the "first in - first out" order of the Consent Decree effective 20-days thereafter.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 50-50% or 67-33% or 90%-10% EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC HIRING HALL

procity
In reply to this post by Ted
IT SHOULD BE 70/40  70 OWL.  OR HOW ABOUT 100 % OWL IF YOU DONT WANT TO BE ON THE LIST THEN YOU GET PREVAILING WAGE. ITS EITHER ALL OR NOTHING

80 % CITY PEOPLE 20 % JERSEY AND LONG ISLAND THIS IS A CITY UNION
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 50-50% or 67-33% or 90%-10% EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC HIRING HALL

Ted
How about 90-10%, first in, first out? You have an Exclusive Hiring Hall...about time you all used it. Everyone knows 50-50% and 67-33% failed miserably, via Restructuring Plan No. 1, Forde, Greaney, Oliveri & their pals correct?

90% - 10% fits within the inherent 2-Prong Consent Decree mandates. However, after 22-years and 5-months (8,189 days....1,169 weeks) from the filing of the September 6, 1990 suit by the Government, the issue of competence comes into play.

Were you to tell your boss......we're looking at getting that done on or about 2,034 or so, plus or minus a decade - you'd have your walking papers in short order.

The Government got to the Moon a hell of a lot quicker, for what obviously was a far more complicated activity. Anyone know what's on the Agenda for the 25th Anniversary Party. At the pace the government works, you'd better start planning it now.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 50-50% or 67-33% or 90%-10% EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC HIRING HALL

Ted
In reply to this post by Ted
Just say No to FULL MOBILITY! Time to toss the MOU's & Proposed Contracts in the trash where they belong.

NEWSFLASH - This is not the Contractors Union, it belongs to the members and not having a seat at the Table is an affront to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Everyone need remember that although Thomassen was held in contempt by the Court for violations of the 50%-50% Rule, Judge Haight punished him by awarding him & the Contractor Association  and additional 17%.

Anyone not see a problem here with this asinine logic? How senile was this man? It's akin to your kid breaking their 10:00 pm curfew and you punishing them by saying - ok Bobby & Susie...and for punishment, now you can only stay out till Midnight? Your kid's would look at you like you had 10-heads, & go well, OK Dad if you say so & laugh their ass off on the way out the door, much like the Contractor Assoc. did on May 26, 2009.

NYCDCC is an Exclusive Hiring Hall and it should be 90% - 10%, no more, no less. Read all your PLA Contracts....no direct hiring on site right? All referrals must go through the what...the Hiring Hall ladies. Should the NYCDCC not be able to fill the request in 72-hours, then reversion of control of the specific decision can go to the Company. Somehow however, the DC will not have a problem in that regard
____________________________________________

Now that the International is relived of this concern, they should focus on the issue with Amalagamated and re-evaluate that failed decision

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

Re: 50-50% or 67-33% or 90%-10% EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC HIRING HALL

Ted
In reply to this post by Ted
VOTE NO ON ALL MOU's & PROPOSED CONTRACTS
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 50-50% or 67-33% or 90%-10% EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC HIRING HALL

Ted
In reply to this post by Ted
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
………………………………………………………X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

        PLAINTIFF
                                                                                                   90 Civ. #5722 (RMB)
                  -against-

DISTRICT COUNCIL of NEW YORK CITY
and VICINITY of THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD
of CARPENTERS and JOINERS of AMERICA, et al,

        DEFENDANT
………………………………………………………..X

PROPOSED ORDER on JOB REFERRAL RULES UNDER ALL CONTRACTOR ASSOCIATION COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS MODIFYING:  
Final Order & Judgment of Contempt and Remedy” (Order) Document #961, dated May 26, 2009 by Judge Charles Haight


1) WHEREAS, This Court entered a Consent Decree on March 4, 1994 brought by the United States of America under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (R.I.C.O.) against & amongst other defendants and The District Council of New York City & Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (the “District Council”);

2) WHEREAS, The CONSENT DECREE required the District Council and all Multi-Employer Contractor Associations and their respective Signatory Contractors to Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA’s) to comply with Job Referral Rules as mandated and ordered by the Court;


3) WHEREAS, This COURT entered a Final Order & Judgment of Contempt and Remedy” (Order) Document #961, dated May 26, 2009 by Judge Charles Haight mandating specific hiring/referral ratios be followed by the parties to CBA’s, providing no more than 67% of the Union Carpenters on the Project could be hired by the Employer; and, that a minimum of 33% percent of the Union Carpenters shall be referred directly from the UBCJA-District Council Ultra-Out of Work List (OWL);

4) WHEREAS, the New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters and the Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc., one of the multiple Multi-Employer Contractor Associations bound to the Consent Decree’s mandatory Job Hiring/Referral procedures ordered by this honorable Court have failed to abide by the Court approved August 5, 2011 By-laws, Section 5, 12 & 20 and the Past Practice of Contract Ratification, as approved by the Council Delegate Body (CDB), and, as voted upon by the rank & file Union Carpenter on March 27, 2012 wherein a reversion of control of all Hiring/Referral Ratio’s of 100% Full Mobility (Mobility) was soundly rejected at the ballot box, as certified by the American Arbitration Association (AAA);

5) WHEREAS, the New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters and the Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc., have put forth a fraudulent vote of the Council Delegate Body, dated August 12, 2012, with 52-blank pages of a proposed contract not shown or disclosed; and, which contract proposal was not put to a contract ratification vote of the rank & file Union Carpenter as duly established by the past practice under the new August 5, 2011 By-laws, as the condition precedent required to sustain same;


6) WHEREAS, the New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters and the Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc., have failed to negotiate the contract for a new successor Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in good faith; and, rather, have proceeded to violate the many statute’s, settled law & binding precedents of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the nations Appellate Courts and the United States Supreme Court as noted within the Table of Cases, Table of Statutes/Authorities and Argument presented herein;

7) WHEREAS, the prior 50% - 50% Contractor Hiring/Referral Ratio’s increased Contractor corruption; and, whereas the Final Order & Judgment of Contempt and Remedy” (Order) Document #961, dated May 26, 2009 mandating an increase of 17% changed the Contractor Hiring/Referral Ratios to 67% Contractor hires and 33% District Council hires and said increase favoring signatory Multi-Employer Contractor Associations also allowed said associations to increase their workforce percentages to near 100%; and, said increase favoring Contractors created a vacuum of rank & file eyes and ears on District Council projects and led directly to increased fraud, corruption, extortion, bribery, kick-backs and fraud upon the Benefit Trust Funds;


8) WHEREAS, the UBCJA International, the District Council have willfully & wantonly failed to expunge illegal provisions within the UBCJA Constitution and District Council By-laws which fail to comply with Federal law, settled NLRB, Appellate Court & U.S. Supreme Court precedent Decisions & Orders, and whereas, the District Councils in-house legal counsel has failed to vet same and strike illegal provisions under the existing severability clause;

9) WHEREAS; the New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters and the Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc., have presented a DRAFT CBA which had 52-blank pages; and, whereas, the Electronic Reporting and Verification System Vendor presentation can and should be incorporated into the Benefit Trust Fund By-laws in the first instance and does not directly or expressly effect Contractor Hiring or the District Council Referral procedures;


10) WHEREAS, the New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters have failed to demonstrate “EXCLUSIVE” or “MAJORITY” status as required by NLRA Sec. 9(a) and have willfully & wantonly refused to turn-over definitive proof of majority status by signed Authorization Cards;

11) WHEREAS, the New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters and the Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc, and District Council in house Legal Counsel have included within the DRAFT CBA an illegal Maintenance of Membership clause via ART. V, Sec. 2, and an “Authorization” demand via ART. V, Sec. 5, page 15 of the contract (CBA) submitted February 27, 2012 section for Dues and Assessments deductions found to be illegal under the Blue Card Vacation Wage extortion which the UBCJA International and District Council kept alive during the UBCJA’s Trusteeship from August 5, 2009 through January 12, 2012 and beyond – through to July 2012 after it was long proven to violate Federal Law and settled precedent of the NLRB Appellate & Supreme Courts; [Exhibit # 1 attached]


12) WHEREAS, Prong 1 of the Consent Decree requires the elimination of Racketeering; and, Prong 2 requires the Restoration of Democracy and the New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters and the Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc., and other Multi-Employer Contractor Associations have failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree for Hiring/Referrals and/or otherwise failed to control Contractor corruption via the fostering of Hiring Ratio’s and Work Force percentage’s they have collectively championed for 19-years, under the former and current U.S.A.O. and I.R.O and R.O. and said corruption has continued unabated, ad-nausea;

NOW THEREFORE, IN DUE CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS NUMBERED 1-12;
 And UNDER THE INHERENT AUTHORITY OF THIS HONORABLE COURT,
 IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:


A) The Final Order & Judgment of Contempt and Remedy” (Order) Document #961, dated May 26, 2009 by Judge Charles Haight, wherein the Contractors were awarded 67% Hiring/Referral and the rank & file Union Carpenter working from the District Council OWL were limited to 33% Hiring/Referral, that said order being in contravention to the Public Policy of the United States of America, as declared by the preamble to the NLRA (1935), The Wagner Act; and, NLRA Section 7 and having failed to control or deter contractor corruption and fraud and, that the 67% - 33% Hiring Ratio be changed or modified as follows:

NYCDCC Union Carpenters working from the list shall be allowed a Hiring/Referral ratio or percentage of 90% with 10% being reserved for direct Company hires for card carrying General Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, General Foreman, Foreman and 2-key traveling non-working members, as is practiced by multiple other trades within New York City and the outer Boroughs; and/or an Order for no less than 70% NYCDCC Union Carpenters working from the District Council OWL, with the 30% balance reserved for the aforementioned Company/Contractor Association permanent employees and supervisors described above.

Respectfully submitted,


Demian Schroeder








358 NLRB No. 73 June 27, 2012 Comeau, Inc and Automated Systems Workers (AWS) Local 1123 affiliated with Carpenters Industrial Council and United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America & Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters (MRCC)

DUES CHECKOFF/AUTHORIZATION FORMS, pg. 4/26

3. We agree with the judge, for the reasons he set forth, that Comau violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening employees Nizar Akkari and Gasper Calandrino with discipline or discharge if they did not execute dues-check off authorization forms for the CEA.

We further agree with the judge, for the reasons he gave and for the additional reasons set forth below, that Comau and the CEA violated Section 8(a) (1) and Section 8(b)(1)(A), respectively, by making statements and engaging in other conduct that had a reasonable tendency to coerce employee Jeffrey T. Brown to execute a dues check off authorization form.

*An employer may not lead employees to believe that the dues-check off authorization method of fulfilling financial obligations to their union is compulsory. Rochester Mfg. Co., 323 NLRB 260 (1997). The Board has repeatedly held that “the Act guarantees to each employee the right to determine for himself, free from coercion, whether he shall sign a check off authorization or not.” Herman Bros., Inc., 264 NLRB 439, 442 (1982).13

“Any conduct, express or implied, which coerces an employee in his attempt to exercise this right clearly violates [the Act].” Electronic Workers IUE Local 601 (Westinghouse Electric Corp.), 180 NLRB 1062 (1970).
_____________________________________

* Neither may a Union

http://www.nlrb.gov/case/07-CA-052614



PROPOSED ORDER
EXHIBIT 1
90-Civ. #5722
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 50-50% or 67-33% or 90%-10% EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC HIRING HALL

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Ted
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 627 April 17, 2013, excerpt @ pg. 7-9

Three things here:

1)   Thank Gene Clarke for standing up for your rights & note that his case remains "good law" and is being cited continually through the present day

2)   With respect to Court mandated 67% - 33% Hiring/Referral Hall OWL procedure ordered by Judge Haight via a standing order dated May 26, 2009; the 33% Hiring Ratio ordered by the Federal District Court is a mandate to the District Councils Officers, Agents, Principals and Contractors for a 33% EXCLUSIVE HIRING HALL arrangement.

3)   See citation @ Footnote 13 at bottom of page relative to your ability to view the OWL Hiring/Referral list

Understand your rights here.

Under Judge Haights Court Order, the 67% of hires subject to "Non-Exclusive Hiring Hall" status are employer direct hires or those you have shaped and/or solicited directly upon your own volition & effort.

The remaining 33% of Hires by definition & by Court Order are "Exclusive Hiring Hall" status as all such hires must come directly from the District Council's court mandated Out of Work List (OWL), thus, they cannot be accorded "non-exclusive status" contrary to the District Council's false claims of non-exclusive status, the District Council & the corrupt Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc. must comply under the terms and conditions of the March 3, 1994 Consent Decree and via the District Councils waiver of rights under same.

Wall & Ceiling has no legal "standing" in the Federal District Court to either contest the decision & order of Judge Haight, but more importantly to hold the contract (CBA) negotiations hostage for 2+ years under the directed and extortive threat that should the D.C. refuse to turn over 100% control of all hiring to it and its Contractor members, that the Wall-Ceiling Contractor Association will refuse to negotiate in good faith or bargain to impasse.

It is an untenable and very illegal attempt to extort the rank & file union carpenters federally protected section 7 rights from them and it cannot be sustained under any rationale or legal basis. Their actions here, in concert with McCarron, Conboy, Quinn and others are the very predicate of criminal racketeering that the Consent Decree was allegedly designed to cure. Conboy's cutely worded letter describing the extortion effort, via the May 26, 2011 Restructuring Plan does not save any or all of their actions from the inherent illegality of the conduct.

It's quite obvious here that the DOJ's USAO, the UBCJA International, DC & Contractor Assocation attorneys all failed labor law 101. The Federal District Court standing order of Judge Haight cannot be negotiated away by a corrupt International Union, District Council or Contractor Association or their associated legal counsel of record.
 
_______________________________
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 627 NLRB BOARD D & O 4-17-13, excerpt pg. 7-9

III. DECISION AND ANALYSIS
A. Alleged Denial of Requests to Examine the Out-of-Work List

The Acting General Counsel, at complaint paragraphs 5(b) and 6, alleges that the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by refusing Loerwald’s requests to examine the exclusive hiring hall work referral list and referral records.

Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act provides that it is an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents to restrain or coerce employees “in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 [section 157 of this title]: Provided, That this paragraph shall not impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein.” The rights guaranteed in Section 7 include, in pertinent part, the right “to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection.”

As a judicially recognized protection implicit within the Act, a union has a duty of fair representation to its members. See Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330 (1953). More specifically, in Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 177 (1967), the Supreme Court defined this duty as “a statutory obligation to serve the interests of all members without hostility or discrimination toward any, to exercise its discretion with complete good faith and honesty, and to avoid arbitrary conduct.” The Board thus has determined that a union’s breach of the duty of fair representation qualifies as an unfair labor practice under the Act. See Miranda Fuel Co., 140 NLRB 181, 185 (1962), enf. denied 326 F.2d 172 (2d Cir. 1963).

Within the Union’s broad duty of fair representation there exist a number of more specifically defined obligations in the exclusive hiring hall context. One of these obligations is that unions must provide their members access to its job referral
lists so that the members may determine whether or not their referral rights are being protected. See Operating Engineers Local 324, 226 NLRB 587 (1976); Electrical Workers IBEW Local 24, 356 NLRB No. 89, slip. op. at 1 fn. 3 (2011). The Board has explained that a member’s right to referral information must be respected by the union because it is the member’s only means to “fully investigate whether or not [their] referral rights [are] being protected.” Operating Engineers Local 324, supra. Accordingly, the Board has found on numerous occasions that a union operating an exclusive hiring hall commits an unfair labor practice when it denies members access to its referral records. See, e.g. Plumbers Local 32, 346 NLRB 1095, 1096 (2006); Boilermakers Local 197(Northeastern State Boilermaker Employers), 318 NLRB 205 (1995) (finding that the Respondent union arbitrarily denied one of its members a photocopy of referral records in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A)); Iron Workers Local 709, 296 NLRB 199 (1989) (affirming the administrative law judge’s decision that union violated the Act by refusing to let a members review the out-of-work list). Some Board cases have articulated a more stringent standard, requiring the union to permit inspection of the referral records upon a “reasonable belief” that the union treated him unfairly. See, e.g., Boilermakers, supra.

Turning to the instant case, even under the more stringent standard, I find that Loerwald reasonably believed she was being treated unfairly by the hiring hall for a number of reasons. As discussed fully in the statement of facts, she believed that the Union should have referred her to the Northwest Crane job because she was the first qualified member on the OWL, yet she was never sent to the jobsite. Farris acknowledged that
she should have been sent. (GC Exh. 3, pp. 31–34.) In addition, Loerwald learned that Farris was not moving members to the bottom of the list after three job refusals, as the bylaws require. (GC Exh. 3, p. 30.) Finally, I find the repeated denials of access themselves, and the arguments that ensued during Loerwald’s attempts to see the OWL, reasonably caused Loerwald to believe it was not being properly maintained.

It is undeniable that on numerous occasions the Union refused Loerwald access to the OWL. Beginning on November 2, both the Union’s business manager, Stark, and the Union’s
business agent, Farris, continuously withheld the referral list from Loerwald, citing to a variety of inadequate excuses

On November 2, Stark told Loerwald that it was not the Union’s policy to show members the OWL every day. (GC Exh. 8, pp. 2–3.) At the end of their discussion, when asked if he
was refusing Loerwald access to the list, Stark replied, “You’re on the out-of-work list, and that’s all I need to tell you. Go talk to your attorney about it.” (GC Exh. 8, p.7.) I find this to be an unlawful denial of the Charging Party’s right to review theOWL.

On November 23, Loerwald again requested to see the OWL. This time Farris denied her access, stating that he did not currently have a copy printed out and that he was installing a new system on his computer that would make it impossible for her to see the list until after Thanksgiving. (GC Exh. 15.) Given the nature of the OWL and the constant updates it requires, I find it implausible that Farris was unable to produce a copy of the list for Loerwald at this time. Additionally, the Union’s bylaws explicitly state that the OWL “shall be posted at Local 627’s office.” (Jt. Exh. 4.) This rule thus demonstrates the
Union’s recognition of its own duty to have the list available to its members, and therefore runs contrary to Farris’ excuses.13 I therefore find this also to be an unlawful denial of Loerwald’s rights.

On November 30, after Thanksgiving, Loerwald attempted to follow up on Farris’ promise; however he again refused her access to the OWL. This time Farris claimed that she was not allowed to see the list because he had written notes with other members’ personal information on it. (GC Exh. 16.) I find this excuse to also lack merit. The record has shown that the OWL is a computer-generated document. Therefore if the notes Farris
referred to were hand written, he could have easily printed out a new copy of the list. If the notes had been made on the computer, this too could have easily been cured with some form of redaction or revision. Indeed, under Farris’ rationale, the Union could feasibly never have to show members the list because of personal notes on the document. This runs contrary to the Act and established precedent, and I find that it was an unlawful denial of Loerwald’s right to inspect the OWL.

On December 5 and 14, Loerwald again asked Farris if she could see the OWL. On both occasions, Farris refused. Accordingly, I find that these two instances amount to unlawful
denials of Loerwald’s right to see the OWL. At hearing, I granted the Acting General Counsel’s request

Therefore, I find that on January 4, 2012, Respondent again unlawfully denied Loerwald access to the OWL. Finally, in its brief, counsel for the Acting General Counsel notes two other occasions where the Union denied Loerwald access to the OWL that were not originally pleaded in the complaint. Counsel contends that because all of the relevant witnesses were available and testified about these instances, they were fully litigated and should be ruled on as well. I agree, and further find that the allegations are closely connected to the complaint allegations. See Pergament United Sales, 296 NLRB 333, 334 (1989), enfd. 920 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1990); HiTech Cable Corp., 318 NLRB 280, 280 (1995), enfd. in part 128 F.3d 271 (5th Cir. 1997).14

The first additional alleged denial occurred on October 20, 2011. On that day, Loerwald requested to see the OWL, and Farris showed her the page she was on but did not let her see any other pages. (Tr. 61–62, 259). I find that this sort of limited access to the OWL was inadequate for allowing Loerwald to “fully investigate” whether or not the list was being properly maintained. Operating Engineers Local 324, 226 NLRB at 587; (Tr. 61). Therefore, because Farris stopped Loerwald from reviewing the entire OWL, I find that the Respondent again committed an unfair labor practice.

Lastly, the Acting General Counsel alleges that on January 17, 2012, Loerwald once more attempted to the see the OWL but was again denied. The transcript of Farris and Loerwald’s recorded conversation from that day reveals that she told him she was there to see the OWL. Farris’ eventual response, however, was to deny her access to the list and tell her that she should go “speak with [her] attorney” about it. (GC Exh. 22).
Accordingly, I find that the Respondent again unlawfully denied Loerwald her right to review the OWL.15

Respondent argues that once she was taken off the OWL, Loerwald had no right to see the list, and her attempts to do so were useless and futile. Respondent cites to no authority, most likely because none exists. The cases cited at the outset of this section hold that the right to see the list belongs to the employee-members, not just to those who are on the list.16 Certainly a claim, such as here, that a member was improperly
removed from a referral list, is “reasonably directed towards ascertaining whether the member has been fairly treated with respect to obtaining job referrals.” NLRB v. Carpenters Local 608, 811 F.2d 149, 152 (2d Cir. 1987), enfg. 279 NLRB 747
(1986). The GENE CLARKE case
 I therefore reject this argument and find that Loerwald had a right to see the OWL even when her name was not on it. To hold otherwise would sanction the act of arbitrarily removing a member from the list.

Overall, I find that each of the afore-mentioned denials was in breach of the Union’s duty of fair representation in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.

B. Alleged Removal from the Out-of-Work List and Failure to Permit Re-Registration

The Acting General Counsel, at complaint paragraphs 5(c) and 7, alleges that the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act as follows: “On or about November 7, 2011, and continuing to date, Respondent has failed and refused to permit Loerwald to register for referral from its exclusive hiring hall to employer-members of the Association or to other employers signatory or bound by the CBA or to permit Loerwald’s name to remain on the exclusive hiring hall referral list.”17 Section 8(b)(1)(A) is set forth in the Section A of this decision. Section 8(b)(2) makes it an unfair labor practice for a union: “To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of subsection (a)(3) of [the Act] or to discriminate against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied or terminated on some ground other than failure to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership.”

Causing or attempting to cause an employer to discriminate does not necessarily require an overt demand by the union to discriminate. Rather, the discrimination in some cases may take the form of the union’s mere failure to refer the employee for work, without any direction to the employer. In Electrical Workers IBEW Local 675 (S & M Electric Co.), 223 NLRB 1499 (1976), enfd. mem. 556 F.2d 574 (4th Cir. 1977), the Board noted:

The Board has consistently found a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act where a union has discriminatorily refused to refer an employee for employment pursuant to the terms of an exclusive referral system in effect between the union and the employer. Such union conduct, by its very nature, indirectly induces the employer to refuse employment to that employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3). [Footnote omitted.]
There is more than one way to prove a Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) allegation that a Union operating an exclusive hiring hall has managed its referral list to the detriment of a member’s employment status. When the allegation involves discrimina-

SEE NLRB BOARD DECISION

http://www.nlrb.gov/case/17-CB-072671


FOOTNOTES:

13 When questioned about how he interpreted the Bylaws’ posting requirement, Stark stated that he believed it just meant the list has to be “posted in a computer.” (Tr. 216). This interpretation is absurd.
Stark’s attempt to find refuge in the technological version of “post” also fails to comport with any reasonable definition of the term. In his testimony, he made the analogy of posting to Craigslist, which places items on-line and open for others to view. Indeed, the hope of posting an item for sale on such a site is that many will view the item and want
to buy it. This type of posting is in line with one of the term’s accepted definitions. For illustration purposes only, Merriam-Webster defines “post” as it relates to an electronic posting as: “to publish (as a message) in an online forum (as an electronic bulletin board).” See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/post. Maintaining a list in an internal computer system, without open access to the list, however, is out of line with any rational definition of the term. THIS INCLUDES THE UBCJA's & D.C.'s venerbale "ULTRA LIST" WHICH THEY ALWAYS DENY MEMBERS THE RIGHT TO SEE IN EVALUATING WHERE THEY STAND IN RELATION TO OTHERS. THE D.C. or YOUR LOCAL MUST MAKE A COMPUTER TERMINAL AVAILABLE TO YOU FOR YOUR OWN REVIEW & THEY CANNOT  LIMIT YOU TO A ONE PAGE OR ON LINE ULTRA PRINTOUT LIMITED TO YOUR NAME. IF 7 WHEN THEY PULL THIS WITH YOU, FILE A CHARGE & HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE Nonetheless, it is clear that Farris still did not satisfy his own interpretation of “post” because his computer was ostensibly unable to produce the list. to amend the complaint to allege another unlawful refusal on January 4, 2012. On that occasion, Loerwald received a copy of the OWL with all information blacked out except for the page numbers, the date the document was printed, and the workers’ qualifications. (Tr. 96). I find that without any identifying information, such as names or member numbers, the list was useless for purposes of determining whether or not Loerwald
was registered, or where she stood in comparison to others.

14 Though deciding these denials will not alter the remedy, I am ruling on the two additional allegations to make the record complete.

15 It is clear that the union business agents, including Coleman (Tr. 184), found Loerwald’s repeated attempts to see the OWL as a pain. This does not matter, absent evidence, which does not exist here, that Loerwald behaved in such a way as to lose the Act’s protection.

16 In any event, as discussed below, Loerwald should have remained on the OWL.

17 It appears as if the word “to” should appear after “signatory” but the allegation, though rather cumbersome, is clear enough. In his closing brief, the Acting General Counsel framed the allegation as removing Loerwald from the referral list and then failing to restore her to it. Though the complaint does not allege that she was unlawfully “removed” from the referral list, it does state that the Union refused to “permit Loerwald’s name to remain on the exclusive hiring hall referral list” as of November 7. Refusing to allow Loerwald’s name to remaing on the list and removing it from the list are effectively the same.tory motivation for engaging in activity protected by Section 7 of the Act, the Board has utilized the framework for proving claims of discrimination adopted in Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied
455 U.S. 989 (1982). The Board has also recognized that when a Union operating an exclusive hiring hall fails to follow established procedures and acts in a manner that is arbitrary, provided the actions amount to more than occasional negligent mistakes, a violation may be found without regard to motive. Both are discussed below, and I note each paradigm relies on most of the same facts. The key difference is that the former
focuses on whether or not the facts support animus related to Section 7 activity, while the latter does not.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 50-50% or 67-33% or 90%-10% EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC HIRING HALL

Ted
In reply to this post by Ted
EST Bilello & Executive Committe members - Where is the Referral Preference based upon Area Residency (Home Local) for members of the NYCDCC?

New York City Residents who are also members of the D.C. & a home/Local Union within the Distirct Councils structure have a statutory right to be put to work over and above any & all traveling UBCJA members per long settled Board Law, which remains "good law" to this day. 

This is contrary to the UBCJA International's and/or Contractor Association false claims which seek to turn New York into a "Right to Work" (RTW) state contrary to NLRA Section 14(b) and contrary to New York State Law which has not declared New York a Right to Work (RTW) state.

Why is this provision not being required to be put into all contracts (CBA's) to protect the 3-Million plus Man-Hours per year lost to Travelers? Where's the leadership EST Bilello? Why is your in-house legal counsel (Murphy, McGuire) not aware of this "good law" and failing to advise you to apply it to help assist the Benefit Trust Funds return to solvency past the 65% endangered status & 80% critical funding status as defined under ERISA?

Not for nothing, you don't need an attorney to advise you of something which you should have committed to rote memorization, given you've been a member since 1975. A 38-year member and you don't know the basics which is truly sad for a labor leader.
______________________________________


It is not unlawful to base a referral preference on the objective criteria of area residence. In J. Willis & Son Masonry, 191NLRB 872, 874 and fn. 6 (1971), the Board found lawful contractual language that could be construed to give preference to area residents. In Metropolitan District Council, 194 NLRB 159 (1971) (MDC), the Board found no violation where a Carpenters local caused the discharge of three carpenters who had been hired from another geographical area.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 50-50% or 67-33% or 90%-10% EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC HIRING HALL

Ted
In reply to this post by Ted
Anyone have a copy of the 3-Referral Rule here? If so, can you post here.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 50-50% or 67-33% or 90%-10% EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC HIRING HALL

Question?
In reply to this post by Ted
!00% of nothing is nothing.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC HIRING HALL the HARTE, McMURRAY & CLARKE legacy vs. 50-50%, 67-33% & 90%-10% vs. the McCarron, Walsh, Berman & Torrance Conversion of the BLUE CARD to the WHITE CARD 8(f) to illegal 9(a) Agreement w/o Proof or the req'd. NLRB Board Election

Ted
In reply to this post by Ted
This post was updated on Jun 21, 2015; 7:59am.
May Gene rest in peace. He was one of a kind!

He left you gentlemen a legacy of standing up, if only you would use it.

Read the two cases below & absorb it; then, keep reading some more. NYC & NY State are not Right to Work (RTW) states as I've stated & written many times over. The moves the former disgraced Judge Conboy, his former junior attorney & the former R.O. Dennis Walsh & Mr. Corruption - the King, Doug McCarron are here for all to see, all of which was illegally rubber stamped by a co-conspiring USAO's office & a sitting Federal District Court Judge, one Richard M. Berman.

Together they make the Teamsters & Hoffa senior look like pansy's or a girl scout troop relative to the criminal RICO racketeering scam, crossing all state lines, as orchestrated against the rank & file through NYC and the NYCDCC under a private contract (Consent Decree) so far outside the realm of legal conduct that the U.S. D.O.J. must get involved. This blog is chock full of criminal violations & the court cases & precedent citations to back it up, if only the D.O.J. would have the spine to go after the aforementioned suspects.

All suspects & those named above are guilty until proen innocent; ahh, crap - innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, or are they?

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

Re: 50-50% or 67-33% or 90%-10% EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC HIRING HALL

done
In reply to this post by Ted
there should also be a residence requirement thats says if you live within the five boros you will be given work before anybody from long island and new jersey even if they have a 157 or 45 card.

if you don’t live within the 5 boros your an out of towner and you should not come before a city local residence
jeb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 50-50% or 67-33% or 90%-10% EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC HIRING HALL

jeb
city tax or local tax is quite a bite for 5 borough residents. 70 $$$. is there a difference between joe from long island+nj + jeb from kentuccky ? neither leech pays local tax.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 50-50% or 67-33% or 90%-10% EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC HIRING HALL

Ted
In reply to this post by done
I've duly noted that on the "Out of Towners" thread & I agree; re: NLRA 14(b) amongst other legitimate & legal reasoning simply following the law & precedent(s) already on the so called books (the ones Conboy, McCarron, Newman, Spencer, the RO & USAO and Judge Haight & Berman have ignored for near 25-years, since the formation of their joint venture in criminal RICO racketeering activity, via private contract).

All suspects, named and those yet named are innocent until proven guilty in a UBCJA Kangaroo Court of law; ahh, crap, I meant a real court of law outside the control of the corrupt racketeers & co-conpsirator's in this abortion of a Consent Decree scam/racketeering enterprise - or did I?
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 50-50% or 67-33% or 90%-10% EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC HIRING HALL

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Ted
Once the NYCDCC formally declares the District Council to be under NLRA Section 9(a) Contracts (vs. 8(f)); the D.C. loses its Non-Exclusive Hiring Hall status & the District Council; under NLRA Sec. 9(a) officially becomes a 100% "Exclusive Hiring Hall" under the Gene Clarke NLRB & 2nd Circuit precedent decisions.

Whether or not the UBCJA & NYCDCC offer proof via signed Authorization Cards is another story. We'll soon see if McGorty has the balls or brains to take this one into Judge Bermans Courtroom to offer formal & legal proof of same.

Should he fail to get his ducks in a row & offer the formal/legal proof required under Federal Labor Law, then both he & the D.C's hack attorneys need to be brought before the State Bar Association on charges of corruption.

Short of that, the corrupt New York City & Vicinty District Council can hold the Representation Election as required by Federal Law.

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

Re: EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC HIRING HALL the HARTE, McMURRAY & CLARKE legacy vs. 50-50%, 67-33% & 90%-10% vs. the McCarron, Walsh, Berman & Torrance Conversion of the BLUE CARD to the WHITE CARD 8(f) to illegal 9(a) Agreement w/o Proof or the req'd. NLRB Board Election

robert m. marshall
In reply to this post by Ted
Huh? Courts, Judges, Prosecutors, ROs, Lawyers from all sides have got this wrong? Try to remember 1984 is a work of fiction.
1234
Loading...