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
|

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
si - educate your self
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Ted
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.


Where is R.O. McGorty's official proof and submission of direct evidence of 9(a) status to Federal District Court Judge Richard M. Berman?

Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Ted
This post was updated on .
The infallible Judge Richard M. Bermans approval of New York & Vicinity Distirct Council of Carpenters Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA's) is being called on the carpet for his approval of alleged "hiring preferences' & the associated tie in to the District Councils Out of Work List (OWL) run by non-union, non carpenter personnel chosen by the Ccourt and District Council without member consent or member vote.

As with all UBCJA legal matters and Court cases or Board procedures wherein one District Council sues another - all of us must look not only at the facts of the case as presented by either side, but;

*   whether the case being presented is the actual truth,

*   what the fabricated lies & elements of the case might actually be;

for when the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America appears in any NLRB forum or any Superior Court, State Court, Federal District Court or State or Federal Appeals Court you can be sure that what appears on the face or surface of the case; or the facts as the UBCJA or its subordinate District Council are arguing is not the truth, nor is it what they are really after - given the UBCJA's corrupt past and current practices under the direction of Douglas J. McCarron as there is always an ulterior or corrupt motive.

The case to be presented and discussed and all of the requisite precedent case law from the NLRB Board as well as the Appellate Courts and U.S. Supreme Court has long been discussed and presented in great detail on 157 blogspot for a half dozen years and presented in Judge Bermans court room as well; all of it falling on the deaf, dumb & blind ears and eyes at the RO's Office, the United States Attorneys Office and the Federal District Court itself.

Currently, after 25-1/2 years there is no ready end in sight to the Criminal RICO case presented by the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) which the UBCJA and Goverment converted to a private Civil RICO Consent Decree - a private Contract wherein the benefit of the corrupt bargain inure to:

$$$   the lawyers first,

$$$   the UBCJA second,

$$$   the Court third and;

the members are left unrepresented by a corrupt system and corrupt Private Contract by and between the corrupt UBCJA International and the corrupt Federal Government represented in this case by the United States Attorneys Office (U.S.A.O.) S.D.N.Y. and its lead attorney Preet Bharrara on a contract so corrupt and illegal it denies them 'standing' but also which crushes and obliterates the absolute and guaranteed Constitutional right of Due Process and leaves that right desolate of meaning while they unilaterally siphon and convert member funds to their own purposes.

In short - the entire case whether viewed from the criminal allegations initially alleged or the revamped private Contract version under the so called Civil RICO Consent Decree - continues to be an Abortion of Justice; for without standing in a court of law, no members Due Process rights can be rightfully vindicated.

25-1/2 Years of the UBCJA, the NYCDCC, the Court appointed Review Officers and the United States Attorneys Office malfeasance, direct participation in further criminal extortion scams replete with the goverment and courts rubber stamp of approval have borne those acts out far beyond a reasonable doubt; the criminal standard they use to judge and try others.

These very same actors couldn't even pass scrutiny under a civil standard of the preponderance of the evidence for their jointly conspired crimes against the rank & file members, wherein back-room, in chambers deal making is the rule of law every time they meet or confer.

What we have here are lawyers who don't know or comprehend the basics of Labor Law 101, lawyers and corrupt judges who do not know or comprehend NLRB Board or Court precedent(s) at any level. a former judge playing IRO one day & then using that position to bring his firm a contract with the UBCJA International; the phony revolving door of injustice such that this farcical case makes the current court under Judge Berman & USAO Preet Bhararra look like Judge Henry T. Flemings court room in 'And Justice for All'.

And while they all play their games and continue to rape the member Trust Funds for their hourly billings, fees & expenses, this case has become old enough where the initial prosecutors kids will be out of law school looking to make their career and a buck on the backs of working carpenters for the next 25-years in this contemptable abortive case.

Questions to be asked:

**   What is Doug McCarron & the UBCJA after?

**   Who are McCarrons puppet masters & what are they after?

**   What does the  Northeast District Council & the New York & Vicinity District Council really want want in this case? And, does it matter when Doug McCarron and his puppet masters are driving the legal matters in this case.

**   What do the Contractor Associations want in this case?

**   What does the ALJ & NLRB Board want in this case?

**   Who is more powerful - the Federal District Court Judge Richard M. Berman or the NLRB ALJ Green or the full NLRB Board in Washington; D.C.?

**   What agenda does the NLRB suddenly have intervening after 25-1/2 years? Who paid them off? What political purpose does this suit within the current NLRB Board and who are they serving by ruling the way they have? And, is it legal and does their ruling comport with actual law or precedent or is it purely political?

**   Why do the NLRB and the Federal District Court & Judge Berman steadfastly ignore the NLRA as written and why do they both presume to think they can amend Federal law without Congressional approval? (given they're all legal & Constitutional or Labor law scholars)

**   Why do the NLRB & the Federal District Court under Judge Berman ignore the differences in an 8(f) hiring agreement verses a 9(a) hiring agreement and why do all sides refuse to enforce Federal law and offer/show corroborating evidence of actual 'signed Authorization Cards' and by not doing so what benefits do the Locals, the District Councils & the UBCJA International receive?

**  How does all of the above impact and effect NYCDCC members and who in these proceedings is representing your interests and enforcing the law on your behalf - particularly members using the Hiring Hall or, non-company men.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Ted
NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE XIII

Public Officers


[Oath of office; no other test for public office]

Section 1.  Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers as shall be by law exempted, shall, before they enter on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the [C]onstitution of the United States, and the [C]onstitution of the State of New York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ......, according to the best of my ability;"

and no other oath, declaration or test shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust, except that any committee of a political party may, by rule, provide for equal representation of the sexes on any such committee, and a state convention of a political party, at which candidates for public office are nominated, may, by rule, provide for equal representation of the sexes on any committee of such party. (Amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.)
___________________________

NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP ME GOD...

Right Dennis Walsh?

Right Preet Bharrara?

Right Murphy?

Nothing could be further from the truth than a sworn oath which has about the same value as a piece of used toilet paper.

When you swear an oath upon the U.S. Constitution and/or any State Constitution, particularly Officers of the Court (attorneys); said oath comes with the requisite duty to know, follow and abide by all statutes, laws and all known precedent and to obey them as written or decided - period.

The cast of characters which have been presented on this site - the very Officers of the court, along with Douglas J. McCarron and his criminal co-conspirators have all failed this very simple test and none have abided by the rules thereof.

Sue me - I double dog dare any of you. In advance, take your unlimited civil jurisdiction & shove it up your proverbial ars!
______________


All Hobbs Act Criminal Racketeering suspects are guilty until proven innocent; ahh, shit - I meant innocent until proven guilty in a corruption free court of law - or did I?
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Ted
NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION

Bill of Rights - ARTICLE XIII


[Labor not a commodity; hours and wages in public work; right to organize and bargain collectively]

§17. Labor of human beings is not a commodity nor an article of commerce and shall never be so considered or construed.

 No laborer, worker or mechanic, in the employ of a contractor or sub-contractor engaged in the performance of any public work, shall be permitted to work more than eight hours in any day or more than five days in any week, except in cases of extraordinary emergency; nor shall he or she be paid less than the rate of wages prevailing in the same trade or occupation in the locality within the state where such public work is to be situated, erected or used. 

Employees shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938; amended by vote of the people November 6, 2001.)
_______________________

re: The Cement League & its phony Provisional Carpenter rate ordered by the corrupt unilateral direction of Douglas J. McCarron clearly violate the NY State Constitution as the "prevailing rate" is the Union Rate for Manhattan and the 5-borroughs.

Moroever, it violates the UBCJA Constitution (the very document McCarron uses in every NLRB or Court case he files, wherein he falsely claims that the UBC Const. supersedes every Federal law on the book and the Congressional mandate to initiate legislation or to alter and amend laws passed) as noted below:

STANDING DECISIONS OF THE GENERAL EXECUTIVE BOARD

1887   September 17
....Grading wages is demoralizing to Union principles and to the welfare of the trade and no Local Union should adopt the principle of grading wages.

The "Provisional Carpenter" rate and the "New Local" proposed by Douglas J. McCarron violates the very same UBCJA Constitution which the UBCJA cites in every case it submits in any forum or court of law, as the 'law of the land' and which it uses to win cases, decision & orders (notwithstanding the multitude of violations of Federal law (the NLRA, ERISA, EBSA etc.) contained in its current version which the UBCJA & McCarrons criminal co-conspirators & fellow racketeers and puppet masters use to their advantage in direct collusion with the NLRB & the Federal District Court, SDNY in NYC.

***   The "Provisional Carpenter" rate violates both state & federal law and the operative and standing decision of the UBCJA Executive Board as it is a "graded wage" and benefit package less than the negotiated/executed Union rate for similarly situated workers.


***   The NYC & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters (NYCDCC) is the "Local Union" as it directly controls every CBA/contract and it and it alone negotiates and executes every CBA/contract in direct and open collusion with the District Council attorneys, the Court appointed Review Officer and the United States Attorneys Office for the S.D.N.Y.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Ted
original post February 14, 2012 - Blue Card Boy Lives, pg. 4

The Thirteenth Amendment reads: 

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
 
"Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
 
U.S.C. Title 8, Section 56, reads:
 
"The holding of any person to service or labor under the system known as peonage is abolished and forever prohibited in any Territory or the United States, and all acts, laws, resolutions, orders, regulations, or usages of any Territory or State, which have heretofore established, maintained, or enforced, or by virtue of which any attempt shall hereafter be made to establish, maintain, or enforce, directly or indirectly, the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or otherwise, are declared null and void."
 
U.S.C. Title 18, Section 444:
 
"Whoever holds, arrests, returns, or causes to be held, arrested, or returned, or in any manner aids in the arrest or return of any person to a condition of peonage shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
________________________________

The UBC's Master Plan for a yearly $256M Extortion scheme, which is soon to be a half Billion Dollar per year $512M Extortion scheme from members vacation wages or any form of wages for that matter, does not pass scrutiny.

To force and coerce involuntary servitude via leaflet, banner, picket duty etc. and disguise it as a refund and/or via a name change to "working dues", or "working dues assessment" also does not pass muster, morally, legally or otherwise, notwithstanding the bamboozling of a senile old judge under the Federal RICO Consent Decree.

Massachusetts now requires the Union's form an employment contract with the person performing the leaflet, banner or picket duty, so that proper application of employment laws, liability and recoupment of income taxes etc attach.
 
This includes both Union Members and/or bums they find on the street. In the south and southwest, the UBCJA regularly hires non carpenters or bums off the street to perform these duties as Union members refuse to do so. The International which creates these policies and condones their continued use by individual EST's and District or Regional Councils also do not withstand scrutiny.

In the NYCDCC, the fact that Roger Newman, IRO Judge Conboy and the current RO endorsed the policy and the illegal exactions also does not save it from the inherent illegality. Because the USAO & IRO ran to Court under the guise of an internal Union Rule and simple By-law change, it was by design meant to intimidate the rank & file member to believe that it had an air of credibility. It does not. Rather, it was used as part of the coercive scheme to continue the extortion, fraud and involuntary servitude under threat of fine, expulsion or removal from the OWL list; under the so called watchful eye of the United States Attorneys office and the power of the Federal Government who is admittedly engaged in a private contract making it complicit in the scheme to defraud rank & file members to either cough up the tribute money to the DC & the UBC International, or - to submit, become indentured initially for 2-seven (7) hour days and subsequently one (1) seven (7) hour day against their will.

The United States Attorneys Office is charged with enforcing the laws, not willfully or by gross negligence assisting the UBCJA & NYCDCC continue violating the laws as are the other attorneys and parties of record in the matter of the Federal RICO Consent Decree.

Regardless of whether a rank & file members submits or pretends not to and thus claims it is voluntary, in either case the indentured servitude remains and it does not remove it from illegal conditions mandated by Federal law or State law(s).

The UBCJA International seems to believe that its venerable UBC Constitution stands supreme above all the laws of the land, including the Federal Constitution and State laws; and, once we start discussing the total take, the extortionate part of said scheme becomes clear and plain for all to see. The BLUE CARD is a Brinks Job of grand proportion.

___________________________

The UBCJA Internationals master scheme to force its Union Carpenters to work as "PROVISIONAL CARPENTERS" in a new Local Union wherein the autocratic fiat of one clearly corrupt son of a bitch unilaterally annoints new bitches to unelected positions of leadership in exchange for their unbridled ogling & fawning over him as their fearless leader (a Sieg Heil lovefest) clearly violate Federal & State law, the UBCJA Constitutions standing order of the General Executive Board dating to September 17, 1887; and more importantly clearly & unequivocally show a pattern of abuse by the NLRB & the courts that when McCarron can use his illegal UBCJA Constitution to his advantage - the judges & justices and ALJ's and the NLRB Board side with him, however, when the UBCJA Constitution provide a victory to working rank & file Union Carpenters, McCarron simply ignores it and the corrupt NLRB & courts and the United States Attorneys Office go along with it and they pretend its not there.

**   Standing denied; you Chumps....right Judge Berman, right Walsh, right McGorty, right Bharrara?

**   Tom Brady of the NE Patriots who also works under a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) comes to court with a deflated balls case; "Standing Approved" - right Judge Berman? Now square that circle if you can. So the bottom line is that "it's pay to play" in Judge Bermans court room.

Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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
SOURCE - MOBILIZED MEMBERSHIP

Saturday, July 28, 2012
Contract Negotiations Update

 
John Delollis. Executive Director
John Delollis, Director of the Wall & Ceiling Association (WC&C), was invited to address the delegate body on Wednesday July 25th and present the WC&C proposals for the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

Mr. Delollis proposed basically the same proposal he gave the executive committee back in June.

The four major issues the WC&C want are:

•Full Mobility with only NYCDC members 50/50 with all outsiders.
•No pay differential for shift work.
•Eliminate the half day work for full days pay for Christmas Eve and New Years Eve. These days to remain as regular work days.
•Allow two man jobs without the assignment of a shop steward.
In exchange for these four items the WC&C has offered a wage and benefit increase of $13.13 per hour = 15.4% total for 5 years.

Carpenters have been working without a contract since June 30, 2011. The terms and conditions of our previous contracts have been extended to July 31, 2012.

Posted by John Musumeci at 3:13 PM  
Labels: wage freeze
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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
SOURCE - MOBILIZED MEMBERSHIP

Wednesday, September 21, 2011
COURT HOUSE RALLY!!!

 
Click to print and enlarge.
Union Carpenters Stand Up For Your Rights!

Where: 500 PEARL STREET
When: 3pm Monday September 26, 2011
Why: Protest UBC Full Mobility

Sound permits are in place for a protest rally outside 500 Pearl Street (US Courthouse) to send a message to federal judge Richard Berman, that the rank and file are against full mobility.

Carpenters will be be gathering outside 500 Pearl Street starting at 7:30 am. There is a status conference scheduled at 9:00 am in courtroom 21B if you would like to attend and voice your concerns to judge Berman. The protest rally will begin at 3:00 pm.

For more information go to nyccrfo.blogspot.com

On September 14, Delegates to the District Council voted and approved a "Memorandum of Understanding" (MOU) with the Association of Wall-Ceiling and Carpentry Industries, by a vote of 35-28.

The MOU is for five years and provides no raise the first year, an increase of $2.60 in the second year, $2.65 in the third year and $2.70 in each of the fourth and fifth years.

As part of the deal contractors will get full mobility, or contractors' insistence on the right to hire 100% of workers they choose. Presently, as per a federal judge's order, they must hire a third of their workers through the councils out-of-work-list.

Rank and fliers argue that full mobility will destroy the union by turning it into a contractors club with no ability to obtain work from the out-of-work-list. The full mobility provision is contingent on judge Berman's approval and a formal motion must be presented before the court.

Also in the MOU, contractors will get a 20% wage discount (Market Recovery Rate) on residential and hotel projects of 20 stories or less in Manhattan and on all residential and hotel projects in the outer boroughs, regardless of size. The deal also includes a helper/scrap[p]er category, (language to be determined) with a total package not to exceed $25 per hour to "clean up and handle deliveries," and jobs with two carpenters will not need a shop steward.


Posted by John Musumeci at 5:50 PM  
Labels: Judge Berman, rally, wage freeze

_________________

McFly - you ignorant slut. Lying and doing so in writing to the court or NLRB is not a great idea.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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
SOURCE - MOBILIZED MEMBERSHIP

Sunday, September 18, 2011
Contract Negotiations Update: Delegates Approve Tentative Agreement
Deal reaches tentative agreement on contract with Cement League and Wall and Ceiling which boost wages and includes full mobility.


No Wage Cuts: Carpenters pressured union leadership.
After several contract extensions, the District Council of Carpenters has hammered out a new, tentative five-year deal with the Association of Wall-Ceiling and Carpentry Industries, though agreements with several other industry associations remain outstanding.

Last Wednesday Delegates to the council (see sign in sheet below) voted and approved a Cement League "Memorandum of Understanding" (MOU) by a vote of 45 to 18 and voted and approve a Wall-Ceiling MOU by a vote of 35-28. Unfortunately, under the current council by-laws the rank-and-file does not get to vote and approve contracts.

With 10,400 members local 157 is the largest local in the UBC and is grossly underrepresented in the delegate body with only 22 delegates (local 2790 has 3000 members with 15 delegates). Since being elected in June, President Patrick Nee has been demanding fair representation and has asked to make additional pro tem appointments which has been denied by Supervisor Spencer. The delegate vote would most likely been defeated if local 157 had its fair amount of representation.

The Wall-Ceiling MOU is contingent on full mobility, or contractors' insistence on the right to hire 100% of workers they choose. Presently, as per a federal judge's order, they must hire a third of their workers through the union's out-of-work-list.

Contractors argue that the system is inefficient and hurts productivity because they end up with workers who may not have certain skills needed on specific job sites. Rank and fliers argue that full mobility will turn the union into a contractors union with no ability to obtain work from the out-of-work-list. The full mobility provision must go before federal judge Richard Berman in the form of a motion for approval.

Review Officer Dennis Walsh, held a forum on September 14, and according to RO Walsh the Cement League MOU is for three years and provides raises of $1.50 an hour in the first year, $2.50 in the second year and $3 in the third year. The Wall-Ceiling MOU is for five years and provides no raise the first year, an increase of $2.60 in the second year, $2.65 in the third year and $2.70 in each of the fourth and fifth years.

As part of the deal, contractors will get a 20% wage discount (Market Recovery Rate) on residential and hotel projects of 20 stories or less in Manhattan and on all residential and hotel projects in the outer boroughs, regardless of size, Walsh said.

[re: it's called a shake down or a kick-back in the underworld McFly]

The deal also includes a helper/scrap[p]er category, (language to be determined) with a total package not to exceed $25 per hour to "clean up and handle deliveries," and jobs with two carpenters will not need a shop steward. The association thought it had a deal in place several weeks ago that would have actually cut wages by 5% in the first year, but it fell apart, presumably after rank and file carpenters staged two protest rallies (against wage cuts and full mobility) outside council headquarters and pressured union leadership to scuttle the agreement.  

“It's not as much as we hoped, but it's a step in the right direction,” according to John DeLollis, executive director of the Wall and Ceiling association. “We looked for 5% roll back in first year. That was a greater step towards leveling competition with nonunion (firms), but it's gone.”

Contract negotiations for the carpenters are being led by Frank Spencer, who was appointed in 2009 by the general president of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America to oversee the local union after several of its officials were indicted for bribery.  [AND HERE WE HAVE IT, THE VERY DIRECT LINK TO THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE UBCJA INTERNATIONAL CRAFTED SAID CONTRACT AND ARE THEMSELVES VERY GUILTY OF THE NLRB BOARD CHARGES NOTWITHSTANDING THE MANY INSTANCE OF INTER & INTRA-STATE CRIMINAL RACKETEERING ON A NATIONAL SCALE; ALTHOUGH AS EXPECTED IN THE INSTANT MATTER, AS IN ALL OTHERS THEY FEIGN CLEAN HANDS WHERE THEIR HANDS ARE COVERED IN SHIT TIL IT DRIPS FROM THEIR ELBOWS]

As usual the council has not updated their website with detailed information about Wednesday's delegate vote. A statement posted on September 9th, announced the Wall-Ceiling deal, (giving no details) and said that progress was made this week in talks with the Building Contractors Association and the General Contractors Association.

“The District Council continues to make positive movement to reach our overall goal of reaching agreements with all of our association partners,” the statement said.

Bargaining will resume on Monday September 12, with those two remaining groups, according to the statement.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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
SOURCE - MOBILIZED MEMBERSHIP

Thursday, February 28, 2013


Judge Berman Invites Comments on Full Mobility and Compliance Measures

On Wednesday, February 27, Judge Richard Berman reserved decision on the approval of the compliance provision for the Wall & Ceiling Contract to allow for full mobility within the collective bargaining agreement. Judge Berman’s approval is the final step in implementing the Delegate approved Wall & Ceiling contract.

As part of this proposed contract, members will get an increase in their wage and benefit package of $2.13 an hour upon implementation, plus annual bumps of $2.40. The wage and benefit package will rise to $99.16 at the end of the deal, from a current level of $85.03--a nearly 17% increase.

Judge Berman hasn't yet scheduled a future conference, but stated that he would accept written comments on this matter up to March 12, 2013.

To read the letter to Judge Berman from counsel to the NYCDC or the WC&C contract, or to write comments see below.


Written comments should be mailed or delivered to:
Hon. Richard M. Berman
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
_______________________

So much for McFly's false statements to the NLRB in his amicus curie brief last November.
McGorty - ever try reading the 25-1/2 year Docket for the Criminal Racketeering. It's called getting up to speed bub, doing the necessary leg work to keep up with this complex case and its associated Labor Law issues, rulings, precedent decision & orders and the simple stuff like knowing if the members ever complained or responded to the Court regarding 100% Full Mobility; issues to which you readily admit having no experience or clue in.

So tell me, how the hell did the Federal District Court find you qualified and competent to take this position over?

You are obviously not competent to perform your duties as the court appointed Review Officer. I could do this job in my sleep as could a few other members who I won't name here - given the history of UBCJA Jersey & NYC Mobstyle beatings, stabbings, murders & swan dives off certain New York bridges, notwithstanding the criminal acts or actions of the UBCJA International and their thugs whom they employ to harass, threaten, coerce, bully and intimidate members including hiring private investigators, following people around and filming guys wives. You know what I'm saying McFly?

Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Ted
In reply to this post by Ted
This post was updated on Dec 21, 2011; 12:47am.

ERISA § 1108(c)(2) excerpt 2nd Cir. 8-20-02

Before: MINER and SACK, Circuit Judges, and BERMAN, District Judge.*

The clear intent of § 1108(c)(2) is to allow a fiduciary, which is otherwise prohibited from engaging in self-dealing transactions by § 1106, to receive reasonable compensation for the administration of a retirement fund. As we stated in Lowen v. Tower Asset Mgmt., Inc., 829 F.2d 1209, 1216 n. 4 (2d Cir.1987), "the services exempted under ERISA Section [1108(c)(2)] are services rendered to a plan and paid for by a plan for the performance of plan duties." Lobbying, and litigation against plan beneficiaries or their trustees cannot be construed "plan duties."
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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
McGorty - excerpt pg. 5,6 Amicus Curie

A WAY FORWARD

In order to attempt to avoid a conflict with the Court’s Orders in United States v. District
Council, et al., I suggest that the Board consider remanding this proceeding to the ALJ to provide him and the General Counsel the opportunity to bring this matter before the Court to discuss the possibility of a mutually agreeable accommodation of the Court’s oversight of the District Council under the Consent Decree within the Board’s enforcement of the NLRA. To that end, I highlight that the District Council’s various collective bargaining
agreements are temporary in nature. The Court’s reoccurring necessary approval of these

6
agreements (to the extent they contain terms vary from the dictates of the Consent Decree and subsequent orders) supports remand to the ALJ so that the Court, wielding the power of the All Writs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1651(a), can enable a long-term, far-reaching and context-sensitive resolution. The expiration on June 30, 2017 of the District Council-WCC agreement which served as the template for the other multiemployer collective bargaining agreements provides a natural time at which the District Council’s collective bargaining agreements could be further normalized to statutory expectations of how unionized construction industry jobs may be staffed.

______________________

McGorty (McFly) take the All Writs Act & shove it where the sun doesn't shine bub. We've been down this road before with both Walsh & Judge Berman and its never been used or applied to this case.

Your line bolded above on the All WRITS ACT sounds like a typical threat from a thug; e.g. Doug McCarron for instance, Frank Spencer, Capelli or their corporate legal counsel such as DeCarlo & Shanley. Do you now propse as a defense threatening the NLRB Board with such thuggery and do you have the balls to back it all up when the time comes in the Appellate Court?

I can't wait to read your briefs. How was you conviction rate as an alleged criminal prosecutor? If you spent 15-years as a criminal prosecutor; you could not have been that good - otherwise you'd have a boatload of prima-facie material to file in concert with the corrupt morons at the USAO's office for use against McCarron & his criminal co-conspirators & fellow racketeers - right McFly?

Moreover, your line or page 3-4 quoted as follows:

"Third, my experience and that of my predecessor, Dennis M. Walsh, who served as the
Court-appointed Review Officer under United States v. District Council, et al. from June 2010 through December 2014, is that no non-member of the District Council has ever called the

4
telephone hotline maintained by the Review Office (and now by me) to provide information
(anonymously if the caller desires) about corrupt practices. This is so even though the hotline number has been widely publicized throughout the District Council’s jurisdiction. Thus the 1:1 matching provision, by facilitating the presence of District Council members on the jobsite, supports my office’s anti-corruption operations."

Your line here is pure unadulterated bullshit & the members & non-members of the D.C. filed a 150-page response to the Court in 2011. Of said 150-pages, more than half was devoted to the 100% Full Mobility and hiring ratio for exclusive & non-exclusive hiring halls; along with more complex legal issues which you as a non-labor attorney would obviously fail to grasp.

__________________

All criminal racketeers, participating attorneys, USAO's current & former RO's, NRCC & NYCDCC corporate Council and every political hack in the UBCJA are guilty until proven innocent in a UBCJA Kangaroo Court of LAW; ahh crap, scratch that - I meant innocent until proven guilty; or did I?

 Fuck the Rules, right McFly?  (WINK-WINK)
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 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 .
In reply to this post by Ted
The NYCDCC forfeited its Non-Exclusive Hiring Hall status and converted to an Exclusive Hiring Hall with the advent of the White Card Authorizations, authorizing the NYCDCC as the exclusive bargaining representative of the signatory carpenter to said card and providing the UBCJA NYCDCC member and the District Council with a dues collection program.

It doesn't get any simpler than this.

You are an EXCLUSIVE HRING HALL, thus all the bullshit argued by each side is superfluos, meaningless, null & void or moot should you prefer; notwithstanding R.O. McGorty's ready admission in his interim report no. 2 to the Court & Judge Richard M. Berman that the NYCDCC has collected 80% of the total membership cards authorizing the D.C. as the EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE.

Case closed McCarron - you lose!

In the interim McGorty, time for you to brush up on the legal difference & NLRB, Appellate Court & U.S. Supreme Court precedent decisions & orders relative to Exclusive Bargaining Representatives and Exclusive Hiring Halls

***   The NYCDCC officially obtained Exclusive Bargaing Representative / Exclusive Hiring Hall status prior to Douglas J. McCarrons initiation & direct (back-door) funding of this sham lawsuit co-sponsored by his corporate puppet master(s) and handlers.

ALL CRIMINAL HOBBS ACT RACKETEERING SUSPECTS ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY; OR ARE THEY?
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

THE CEMENT LEAGUE
and                                                        Case 03-CA-126938
NORTHEAST REGIONAL COUNCIL OF
CARPENTERS
and
NEW YORK CITY AND VICINITY DISTRICT
COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS (PARTY IN
INTEREST)

GENERAL COUNSEL’S ANSWERING BRIEF
TO THE PARTY IN INTEREST’S EXCEPTIONS TO THE
DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
Submitted


excerpt, page 3-6

pg. 3

Moreover,the Party In Interest,by stating that the Court dealt with and approvedthe same contractual hiring language at issue, disingenuously implies that Judge Berman was aware

pg. 4

of the pending unfair labor practice charges in this matter and that he analyzed the language in the context of both RICO and the NLRA. As the General Counsel was not a party to United States v. District Council, et al., 90-CV-5722, it is not aware, and there is no record evidence, that the district court considered or decided the issue of whether the clause at issue, the “fullmobility” clause, is lawful under the Act, which it is not. The General Counsel is unaware of and there is no evidence that the Section 7 rights of employees and Section 8(a)(1) implications of the contractual hiring language were ever raised and evaluated by Judge Berman, or the full-time Monitor (Review Officer) appointed by the Court, or any of the parties. The General Counsel can only conclude that no such analysis was ever undertaken or Respondent and/or the Party In Interest would have introduced such evidence. Why Respondent, the Party In Interest, and/or the Review Officer have still not made application to the Court to bring the contract and Consent
Decree into compliance with the NLRA, even 15 months after the charge was first filed in April 2014, remains inscrutable to the General Counsel.
 The Party In Interest excepts to the fact that the ALJ’s Decision is in direct conflict with the Consent Decree and the Orders of the Court in United States v. District Council, et al., 90-CV-5722. (J Exh. 2).

Again, as the General Counsel is not a party to the District Court proceedings under Judge Berman, it does not pass on the extent of the conflict between the ALJ Decision and the Consent Decree. However, the General Counsel does dispute the assumption that in the event of a direct conflict the public policy interests of employees’ Section 7 rights would yield to the anticorruption public policy interests of RICO, and not vice versa. The Board or a federal court may eventually be required to resolve any such direct conflict, but at this stage there has been no factual record developed for such a ruling. Notably, the parties’ contract itself allows for the parties to return to the former court approvedjob referral procedure contained in the expired contract should the district court “or any

pg. 5

court of competent jurisdiction” reject the “full mobility” clause. (GC Exh. 2, Article 19). As the ALJ correctly found, “if the contract provisions violate the Act, they need to be remedied.” (ALJD at 6:39-40). Essentially the sum and substance of the Party In Interest’s arguments is that RICO trumps the NLRA and that the case law and precedent of the District Court trumps that of the National Labor Relations Board. Therefore, the General Counsel should have exercised its prosecutorial discretion by not issuing its Complaint and the Board should now dismiss the Complaint because the anticorruption public policy goal of the Consent Decree is so overwhelming. The General Counsel is not, however, estopped from issuing complaint and the Board from finding a violation because the district court did not consider or decide the issue of whether the “full mobility” clause is lawful under the Act. There is no indication that the district court in its October 23, 2013 order was made aware of the possibility that the “full mobility” violates federal labor law. Rather, the Court decided the only issue it had retained jurisdiction to consider, i.e., whether the “full mobility” clause complies with the RICO consent decree. See e.g., Tri-County Roofing, Inc., 311 NLRB 1368, 1368, n.1 (1993)(district court’s decision in RICO case did not preclude Board’s order remedying union’s unlawful hiring hall practices),enfd.mem. 148 LRRM 2640 (3d Cir. 1995).

Further, a Board order requiring modification of the “full mobility” clause would not conflict with the district court order of October 23 or jurisdiction over the consent decree. The Court’s October 23 approval of the “full mobility” clause was not premised on the conclusion that only the “full mobility” clause would satisfy the decree’s anti-corruption requirements. A modification of the “full mobility” clause, as required by a Board order, could also comply with the consent decree, and the court would not be precluded from reviewing such a modification pursuant to its jurisdiction over the consent decree. In that regard, requiring a 1:1 match from the hiring hall for every non-hall selection (rather than only for non-member selections) would be lawful under the NLRA and also acceptable under the consent decree as well. The same arguments presumably apply to the Court’s April 27, 2015 order, which also does reference Section 7 rights of the NLRA. As noted above, the contract itself provides for the return to the former job referral procedure from the expired contract should a court of competent jurisdiction reject the “full mobility” provision. Finally, the Party In Interest’s reliance on defenses to the allegations from only outside of the scope of the NLRA should be viewed as an implicit admission that the contractual hiring provisions at issue do in fact violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act under Board case law.


B. Oral Argument on the Party In Interest’s Exceptions is Unwarranted.

The Party In Interest fails to identify any special circumstances requiring oral argument
before the Board that it could not have or did not already raise at the hearing before the ALJ, in its post-hearing brief, or in its memorandum of law supporting its exceptions. Oral argument is unwarranted as the Party In Interest has already had a full opportunity to present its case by calling or subpoenaing witnesses and cross-examining the witnesses of other parties. Nonetheless, the General Counsel is fully prepared to present its case to the Board by means of oral argument if so desired by the Board.

III. CONCLUSION

For all the reasons set forth above, General Counsel respectfully requests that the Board deny the Party In Interest’s Exceptions to the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge in their entirety.

DATED at Albany, New York, this 16th day of July 2015.

Respectfully submitted,
s/John Grunert
JOHN GRUNERT

Counsel for the General Counsel
National Labor Relations Board
Third Region, Albany Resident Office
Leo W. O’Brien Federal Building
11A Clinton Avenue, Room 342
Albany, New York 12207


_________________________

Very interesting, so no one ever brought up the fact that 100% Full Mobility violates Federal Labor Law; right R.O. Dennis Walsh, right  D.C. legal counsel James Murphy, right USAO's Benjamin Torrance & Preet Bharrara?

"As the General Counsel was not a party to United States v. District Council, et al., 90-CV-5722, it is not aware, and there is no record evidence, that the district court considered or decided the issue of whether the clause at issue, the “fullmobility” clause, is lawful under the Act, which it is not."

"The General Counsel is unaware of and there is no evidence that the Section 7 rights of employees and Section 8(a)(1) implications of the contractual hiring language were ever raised and evaluated by Judge Berman, or the full-time Monitor (Review Officer) appointed by the Court, or any of the parties."

"There is no indication that the district court in its October 23, 2013 order was made aware of the possibility that the “full mobility” violates federal labor law."

FACT: All of the aforementioned 'players' above were made aware via numerous member filings to the court appointed Review Officer, via e-mail, letter, orally at so called Town Hall Forums & Judge Berman & the Review Officer were made aware via formal docketed submissions to the Federal District Court. (wink-wink right ladies)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Ethics
The only way the rank and file and retirees are going to get forty pages and a ruling of true justice from the 'honorable' [?] judge Richard M. Berman is if they create a new American football league and then  flatten their balls.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Ted
Guys like you flatten their own balls by allowing McCarron, Spencer, Ballantyne the current & former R.O. to run roughshod over you, by not paying attention to the facts, known case law or precedent decisions & orders effecting your wages, hours, terms & conditions of employement and by failing to be men or to stand up for yourselves and file the appropriate charges with the NLRA or with the Federal District Court.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Ethics
Guys like me? REALLY? It seems like you would pick a fight with anybody, as long as it's over the internet, and you don't have to face anyone in real life.

                                                                                    But why?


           Why the instant hate? You seem too intelligent to  flounder in emotion, yet you choose to do just that with little or no provocation?

                 My guess is, you were bullied as a child, and your social skills as an adult suffer for it.

 I don't need you to respond to this, but I'm sure you will, vehemently and with great passion.


  Think about it.
NYC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

NYC
Hot shit from someone you have previously lamented, hey ethics?
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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
THE CEMENT LEAGUE
and Case 03-CA-126938
NORTHEAST REGIONAL COUNCIL OF
CARPENTERS
and
NEW YORK CITY AND VICINITY DISTRICT
COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS (PARTY IN
INTEREST)
GENERAL COUNSEL’S RESPONSE TO
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE COURT–APPOINTED INDEPENDENT
MONITOR GLEN G. McGORTY


excerpt, pages 4-8


III. THE WAY FORWARD

The Independent Monitor suggests that the Board attempt to a avoid a conflict with the District Court’s Orders by remanding this proceeding to ALJ Green to “provide him and the General Counsel the opportunity to bring this matter before the Court to discuss the possibility of a mutually agreeable accommodation of the Court’s oversight of the District Council under the Consent Decree.” (Brief Amicus Curiae at 5). There will be no mutually agreeable accommodation. It is not in the interest of the General Counsel, The Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters (Charging Party), or the public interest, to make concessions after prevailing at an unfair labor practice hearing. As ALJ Green stated at the hearing in reference to the matching provisions, “[t]here are many ways of dealing with and getting appropriate preferences that are - - that could be applicable to this situation. There are a number of different ways of accomplishing that. But if it’s based on union membership then I have no choice and I don’t think the Board would have a big - - have any choice, but to enforce the law as it was written. You know, we don’t make a law and then say okay, but for equitable purposes we’ll ignore it for this particular set of circumstances.” (Tr. 82). The General Counsel wholly rejects the circular suggestion of remanding the case back to the ALJ. Given that Respondent, the Party In Interest, and the Independent Monitor do not assert that the clauses at issue are lawful and have had ample time to submit revised clauses that do not violate the NLRA for Judge Berman’s approval, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the Independent Monitor’s request to remand represents an attempt to “run out the clock” until the agreement expires rather than revise the facially invalid provision now.


5
Remanding this matter to ALJ Green provides no path forward to putting it before Judge Berman in District Court. The Independent Monitor was present at the hearing before ALJ Green on March 25, 2015, had an opportunity to give his perspective on the record, and had an opportunity to file a brief amicus curiae. It is not at all clear to the General Counsel what the Independent Monitor hopes to achieve by remanding the case, other than to delay the affirmation and enforcement of ALJ Green’s Order. If the Independent Monitor is in essence proposing settlement discussions by reference to a “mutually agreeable accommodation” then remanding is not a path to settlement either. The Independent Monitor could have attempted to involve the parties in formal or informal settlement talks at any time during the course of these proceedings, but to the General Counsel’s knowledge has not done so. Essentially, there is no path forward unless the Independent Monitor is willing to draft non-discriminatory language to replace the contractual provisions at issue and to then present such language to the interested parties and Judge Berman for approval. There are undoubtedly ways to craft language that would not violate the Act, yet still achieve anti-corruption objectives. For example, a modification of the unlawful clauses as required by a Board order, could also comply with the consent decree, and the District Court would not be precluded from reviewing such a modification pursuant to its jurisdiction over the Consent Decree. Notably, the contract itself allows for the parties’ return to the former court-approved job referral procedure contained in the expired contract should the district court “or any court of competent jurisdiction” reject the “full mobility” provision. Requiring a 1:1 match from the hiring hall for every non-hall selection (rather than only for non-member selections) would be lawful under the NLRA and would pass muster under the consent decree as well. Thus, the General Counsel does not presume to draft such language, select the criteria for

6
the matching provisions, or devise anti-corruption mechanisms itself, but rather leaves this to the parties governed by the Consent Decree.
Second, in regards to remanding the case, the Independent Monitor does not explain why whatever discussions he wishes to hold can only occur before ALJ Green and not before the District Court or simply among the parties. If the Independent Monitor is truly interested in bringing this matter before Judge Berman then he does not require the permission of the Board, ALJ Green, or the General Counsel to do so. The Independent Monitor, as he is appointed by the District Court, is free to go before Judge Berman at any time using whatever procedural mechanisms are at his disposal in order to seek approval of a revised collective-bargaining agreement that conforms with the Act. The Independent Monitor has never presented to ALJ Green or the General Counsel any procedural mechanism by which this type of NLRB unfair labor practice hearing could be brought before a District Court. Moreover, the General Counsel does not believe it has any authority to do so if it were so disposed, which it is not.

Third, the General Counsel disagrees with the notion that June 30, 2017, the date the collective-bargaining agreement between the Party In Interest and the Association of Wall-Ceiling and Carpentry Industries of New York (WCC) expires, in any way serves as a “natural time” at which the agreement at issue “could be further normalized to statutory expectations of how unionized construction industry jobs may be staffed.” The WCC is not a party to these proceedings, and the WCC agreement, while a template for the agreement at issue, it not itself at issue before the NLRB. Conversely, the General Counsel argues that several opportunities for the Independent Monitor, or prior to January 1, 2015 his predecessor Dennis Walsh, Esq., to bring this matter before the District Court have already come and gone with no action from the Independent Monitor. The Independent Monitor could have attempted to go before the District

Court after the initial unfair labor practice charge was filed on April 21, 2014; after the Complaint issued on December 31, 2014; on March 30, 2015 at oral argument before Judge Berman in a peripheral case (GC Exh. 1(q)); after the ALJ’s Decision issued on May 21, 2015; upon the expiration of the Agreement on June 30, 2015; or in any of the past 18 months since the charge was filed. However, the Independent Monitor has seemingly failed to do so, without explanation.

Additionally, on February 10, 2015, Respondent filed a request for postponement of the hearing in which was stated, “Independent Monitor McGorty, whose tenure with the District Council began on January 1, 2015, has requested a one month adjournment of the trial to afford him the time to review the facts and legal issues and make a determination as to what position he will take and recommend to the Court.” (GC Exh. 1(j)). However, the General Counsel never received any further information and can only conclude that the Independent Monitor never made any recommendation to the District Court up to the present, despite representations that he would do so by about March 2015. Therefore, it appears that the Independent Monitor has no sincere interest in speedily bringing this matter and a non-discriminatory agreement before Judge Berman. The General Counsel’s impetus to avoid any further delay arises from its desire to carry out its own obligations under the Act and from the knowledge that with the passage of time the Charging Party is likely suffering greater harm. The discriminatory matching provisions in the Agreement have had the effect of encouraging at least 275 individuals to switch their union membership from the Charging Party to the Party In Interest. (Tr. 96). These 275 individuals likely changed their Union membership due to unlawful coercion between October 2013 and March 2015 alone. (Tr. 96). As several more months have since passed, the General Counsel can

only presume that these numbers will increase. The Independent Monitor argues for an equitable outcome, but takes no account of the harm being suffered by the Charging Party.

As the Independent Monitor’s suggestion is unacceptable, the General Counsel urges that the Board wholly affirm the ALJ’s decision. The Independent Monitor without awaiting further rulings from the Board, can inform Judge Berman of the current status of this case and the ALJ’s decision, or engage in discussions with all parties to the Agreement in order to remove or modify the unlawful language.
WHEREFORE, the General Counsel respectfully requests that the Board affirm the ALJ’s decision in its entirety.

DATED at Albany, New York, this 5th day of November, 2015.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John J. Grunert
JOHN J. GRUNERT

Counsel for the General Counsel
National Labor Relations Board
Third Region, Albany Resident Office
Leo W. O’Brien Federal Building
11A Clinton Avenue, Room 342
Albany, New York 12207
____________________________

"As ALJ Green stated at the hearing in reference to the matching provisions, “[t]here are many ways of dealing with and getting appropriate preferences that are - - that could be applicable to this situation. There are a number of different ways of accomplishing that. But if it’s based on union membership then I have no choice and I don’t think the Board would have a big - - have any choice, but to enforce the law as it was written."

WOW - No bias here. 

"Appropriate preferences" is code for the D.C. to take on non citizens, minorities, woman, the lgbt crowd and of course the liberals favorite people - criminal aliens. Oop's, excuse me, the undocumented & their anchor babies. Appropriate preferences my ass. That statement in & of itself is cause for appeal and a further example of the NLRB Code which in their warped little minds means that the NYCDCC cannot use any preference for its own dues paying members; but the General Counsel could conceivably craft "appropriate preferences" to suit their own political agenda which oft times inures to the NLRB & General Counsel wholly ignoring the law and its own precedent to suit its own illegal political agenda & causes which never involve protecting any white guys.

Whose kidding who here? The General Counsel followed this gem with an even better one - one which readily admits what they do day in, day out:

"You know, we don’t make a law and then say okay, but for equitable purposes we’ll ignore it for this particular set of circumstances."

Bullshit - The NLRB does it every single day as part of its politically driven modus operandi!

Of course, after the NLRB "Equitable Purposes" "Appropriate Preferences" group of new hires were put on the projects for the statutory minimum time frame of 7 to 30 days, then the District Council would be forced to take on new members it does not necessarily want nor need and in the process the General Counsels alternative"equitable purposes" "appropriate preferences" program for those described above then permanently displaces dues paying members working from the Hiring Hall; yet the ALJ or General Counsel openly support that kind of discrimination as it only concerns caucasions and it would have the added remedy of legitimizing non citizens and speed their path to citizenship or amnesty; the NLRB's end all be all cure for America.

"Requiring a 1:1 match from the hiring hall for every non-hall selection (rather than only for non-member selections) would be lawful under the NLRA and would pass muster under the consent decree as well." See above comments. The NLRB can openly discriminate but the NYCDCC when it protects its own members cannot. (wink-wink)

"The discriminatory matching provisions in the Agreement have had the effect of encouraging at least 275 individuals to switch their union membership from the Charging Party to the Party In Interest. (Tr. 96). These 275 individuals likely changed their Union membership due to unlawful coercion between October 2013 and March 2015 alone."

More bullshit - Assumes facts not admitted in evidence and presumes members cannot make a decision of their own free will & accord w/o the NLRB holding their hand; thus requiring the protection of the Boards favorite groups described above, notwithstanding the fact that the entire case is a typical UBCJA International test case; funded wholly by the International to further the illegal agenda of their monetary interests as well as their corporate puppet masters & fellow racketeers a.k.a developers & contractor associations.

"The Independent Monitor has never presented to ALJ Green or the General Counsel any procedural mechanism by which this type of NLRB unfair labor practice hearing could be brought before a District Court."

Simple - File a Motion to be heard. Done.

"The WCC is not a party to these proceedings, and the WCC agreement, while a template for the agreement at issue, it[is] sic not itself at issue before the NLRB."

Hardly, as the "template" it is the cruxt of the matter and were the General Counsel actually doing its job, it would see through the back door agenda of the corrupt UBCJA International and its General Presidents corporate puppet masters attempt at cementing an illegal 100% Full Mobility hiring program designed for the UBCJA's corrupt contractor associations and developers to NLRB Board precedent while wholly ignoring other sections in the NLRA which unequivocally would render the McCarron & Northeast Regional Council scheme to a further criminal RICO conspiracy and further Hobbs Act violations.

The Mob is back ladies and it simply went from one side of the river to the other. This newly formed Jersey Mob replete with its corporate puppet masters makes the previous one involving the NYCDCC look like a Girl Scout troop by comparison.

That however, would require the General Counsel to use its bean, do some long overdue homework and research and file its own charges sua-sponte and since it involves white guys and does not favor its favorite class of individuals noted above - the General Counsel will ignore what is right under its nose to further its own "equitable purposes" "appropriate preferences" agenda; itself a criminal act via the GC's failing to abide by its sworn oath to uphold the laws and precedent(s) as written and to enforce them.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 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
In reply to this post by Ted
A principal purpose of the antitrust private cause of action, see 15 U.S.C. 15, is, of course, to deter anticompetitive practices. Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India, 434 U.S. 308, 314 (1978); Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp., 392 U.S., at 139 ; see Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 342 -344 (1979).
1234