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: 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
Independent Monitor First Interim Report at pg. 38

The Cement League and Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters
 
, NLRB Case No. 3-CA-126938. The District Council is the Party in Interest in this case which challenges the 1:1 matching provision in its CBA with the multiemployer association, The Cement League. The National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) December 31, 2014 complaint issued by its Office of General Counsel alleged that the 1:1 matching provision, which requires any hires who are not members of the District Council to be matched 1:1 by referrals from the District Council’s OWL, on its face violates the NLRA. 1:1 matching provisions are in all of the District Council’s agreements with multiemployer associations by which the employers were granted so-called full mobility to hire anyone they wanted (except for the District Council Certified Shop Steward who must lawfully be referred by the District Council’s OWL). The Court approved all of those agreements during 2013. The District Council’s and The Cement League’s position is that the 1:1 matching provisions have an anti-corruption benefit because they ensure that there will be employees, other than the Shop Steward, who are District Council members with stakes in protecting the CBAs and the employers’ required contributions to the District Council’s Benefit Funds. A trial before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) was held on March 25, 2015. The Cement League and the District Council presented evidence and argument that the anti-corruption benefits of the matching provisions in the Court-approved multi-employer agreements favored deferring to the Consent Decree and the Court’s May 8, 2013 Decision & Order and subsequent Orders. In his May 21, 2015 Decision, the ALJ agreed with the charging party that the 1:1 matching provision is on its face unlawful under the NLRA because it favors hiring District Council members as opposed to members of the Northeast Regional Council of

Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB Document 1628 Filed 07/01/15 Page 41 of 57 

39

Carpenters. The District Council will be filing exceptions and supporting briefs with the NLRB in Washington, D.C. by the July 2, 2015 due date.

__________________

"In his May 21, 2015 Decision, the ALJ agreed with the charging party that the 1:1 matching provision is on its face unlawful under the NLRA..."

*   The "charging party" in the instant matter is not the North East Regional Council of Carpenters (NERC); rather and contrary to I.M. McGorty's report to Judge Berman, the "charging party" is the UBCJA International and its General President Douglas J. McCarron and his outside corporate interests (handlers) and developers and contractor associations.

*   Said case is a a set up or test case for McCarron & his co-conspirators to violate anti-trust laws and cement 100% Full Mobility into NLRA Board precedent and serves as a re-write/alteration of the NLRA as currently written.

Given the re-write/alteration of the NLRA was not initiated in the U.S. House of Representatives by the Congress, it is facially unlawful and evinces how far McCarron and corrupt contractor employer associations and developers will go to aovid compliance with known labor law, anti-trust law etc. McCarron is not King and the Dictator in Cheif cannot subsume the role of Congress and claim it unto himself.

*   The NYCDCC's Trusteeship has not been extended and has long expired, thus McCarrons continued interference and that of his agents under their apparent authority provides a cause of action for their jointly conspired illegal activities to effect and control intra-state and interstate commerce in direct contravention to known federal law and therin establish the anti-trust cause(s) of action.

*   The USAO's and IM's defaulting on their obligation to adequately and purposefully defend rank & file member interests in the Federal District Court as the parties with 'standing' sworn to defend same both inexcusable and negligent and both parties should be replaced with competent attorneys well versed in labor law, racketeering, anti-trust law etc.
_______________

All racketeering suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a corruption free court of law where standing & due process are not denied to the victims of the crimes as if this were a third world dictatorship run amock; or are they?
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
The Cement League and Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters
 
, NLRB Case No. 3-CA-126938. As reported in the First Interim Report, the ALJ presiding over this matter held that a provision in the District Council’s CBA requiring the 1:1 matching of non-members with referrals from the non-discriminatory OWL is on its face unlawful under the NLRA. Both the District Council and The Cement League filed exceptions andsupporting briefs against the ALJ’s Decision & Order with the NLRB in Washington,D.C. I filed an amicus brief in support of the positions taken by the District Council andThe Cement League. The NLRB accepted the amicus brief and the appeal is now fullysubmitted. The District Council’s special appellate counsel, Mr. Roth, will be assisting onthis matter should the NLRB rule against the District Council and further appeals to thisCourt or to an appropriate Court of Appeals are warranted.

__________________

*   There is no record of The CEMENT LEAGUE filing any brief with the ALJ or the NLRB Board in Washington D.C. and none appear on the record.

*   In fact, the NLRB reported that the CEMENT LEAGUE was apparently agnostic as to the outcome of this case which further shows that the entirety of the case is being driven and funded by outside sources.

*   The  CEMENT LEAGUE and their attorneys did not share joint authorship of any brief or amicus filed by the NYCDCC court appointed Independent Monitor, Glen McGorty and none appear on the record.
 
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
DC4LCARC

1 (In open court)
2 THE COURT: So following our last session I was quite 3 concerned about some of the issues that we discussed and that 4 appear to be going on here, and for that reason I issued the 5 November 25, 2013 order and have received some helpful 6 submissions from all of you, including the Mr. Walsh's latest 7 report, the seventh interim report of the review officer, which 8 I think is very helpful. It also raises some issues or perhaps 9 they've been bubbling under the surface which I'm quite 10 concerned about in addition to the issue of the technology and 11 the technology fixes which I want to discuss today.

12 So I'd like to get right to it. In a subsequent memo 13 endorsement of mine dated November 27, I indicated an order in 14 which I would like to proceed today and I indicated that I'd 15 like to hear from the government first and then the district 16 council and then Mr. Walsh. And let me just tell you why I 17 think that's the appropriate order and mechanism.

18 So first, obviously, this is the government's case 19 historically and currently. It's U.S. v. District Council, et 20 al., and the origin of the case has to do with, among other 21 things, what were undeniably a history of bad practices and 22 corruption in the union. 23 So I thought that given that context and given that 24 one of the central problems I'm concerned about now is the 25 implementation, the very belated in my opinion implementation

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

3 DC4LCARC

1 of these electronic reporting systems which were, as I 2 indicated in my order, part and parcel of approval of the 3 collective bargaining agreements going back over the last 4 month, given the fact that those very reporting requirements 5 were presented to me and described by you all -- and by "you 6 all" I mean, for example, Mr. Murphy and others -- as 7 anticorruption measures, I wanted to start and get the 8 government's take on this particular issue about how these 9 collective bargaining agreement aspects are being implemented 10 from the bigger perspective of what this case has been all 11 about.

12 And I don't have to remind you as I indicated in the 13 order dated November 25 that there was on my part, and others, 14 as well, there was an enormous change in these collective 15 bargaining agreements which was the implementation of what is 16 described as full mobility. 

And that was done with 17 considerable thought, but it did represent a sea change in how 18 hiring took place with these contractors. These contractors 19 got a huge benefit in that regard in my opinion.

And the quid 20 pro quo for that full mobility was the implementation of -- one 21 of the quid pro quos was implementation of these anticorruption 22 measures. And so clearly the full mobility was implemented but 23 the measures were not.
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 .
and the 100% FULL MOBILITY quid pro quo, court sanctioned McCarron & co-conspirator Anti-Trust violating CBA's have been declared "facially unlawful" by the NLRB (the Board) in Washington, D.C.; noting that the NLRB Board has previously declared the UBCJA Constitution (that Magical Mystical McCarron Puppetmaster created Document wherein the King - McCarron is declared supreme ruler over all labor law, both the House & the Senate (the Congress) and all U.S. Supreme Court precedent as only the King & his Puppetmaster criminal & corporate crimnal RICO conspirators & handlers know what is wise and beneficial for all labor, for all time) to be "facially unlawful" Who cares if the UBCJA Constitution violates every law on the book or if any R.O., I.M. or the government / USAO S.D.N.Y. ever vetted the UBCJA Constitution for all of its illegal provisions when there has never been any accountability at any level from day one.


Sunday, December 8, 2013
You Entered The Twilight Zone

(John's note: reading the Court Transcripts of December 4, made me feel like I entered the Twilight Zone).

The Obsolete Man is an episode of the television series The Twilight Zone. It deals with themes of Orwellian totalitarianism, euthanasia, collectivism and religion.

"You walk into this room at your own risk, because it leads to the future; not a future that will be, but one that might be. This is not a new world: It is simply an extension of what began in the old one. It has patterned itself after every dictator who has ever planted the ripping imprint of a boot on the pages of history since the beginning of time. It has refinements, technological advances, and a more sophisticated approach to the destruction of human freedom. But like every one of the super states that preceded it, it has one iron rule: Logic is an enemy, and truth is a menace."


source - Mobilized Membership, Dec, 2013
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
DECEMBER 4, 2013 COURT CONFERENCE - TRANSCRIPT

4 But anyway, enough said by me. I would start with 5 Mr. Torrance.

6 MR. TORRANCE: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning. 7 Benjamin Torrance for the United States. 8 Your Honor has it precisely right. This action was 9 brought by the government as an anticorruption lawsuit, 10 obviously brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 11 Organizations Act in order to eliminate racketeering and 12 corruption. We were motivated by a long history of Cosa Nostra 13 control, organized crime influence in this union. We've made 14 great progress since that time. The suit obviously dates to 15 1990, and in the interim we've had three court-appointed 16 officers: Judge Conboy, Mr. Mack, and Mr. Walsh. And, as I 17 said, they've made great strides to eliminate that. 18 But it's not enough in the government's view to push 19 out individual racketeers. It's not enough to eliminate 20 specific practices of racketeering.  

{Yeah, but it's a hell of a start & we suggest you stop ignoring the UBCJA General President Douglas J. McCarron and his criminal RICO racketeers, co-conspirators and puppet master corporate developers and handlers and initiate a grand jury investigation & pursue a case against them for the many RICO crimes committed during your & Preet Bharrara's tenure representing the Government}

The point in a sense of a 21 civil RICO action is to create structures that will prevent 22 corruption going forward, that will prevent this problem from 23 returning to the union. We can prosecute individuals and, in 24 fact, have prosecuted individuals for criminal actions. But if 25 the system of the union and if the culture and the structure of SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300


6 DC4LCARC 1 the union remain open to corruption, then corruption will 2 return.

{It never left, McCarron has been directly under your nose since 1995. He has refused to appear in open court & has been allowed to run amock, rape trust funds, have full access to Judge Berman via in chambers meetings & feign clean hands - all the while robbing the members & the NYCDCC & every other DC in the nation blind & the government, by its gross negligence and failure to vet any doucment at any level for compliance to known laws does nothing other than playing the part of Mickey the Dunce thus becoming complicit in the continued fraud, extortion, conversion of assets, violations of anti-trust laws and the furthering of the UBCJA's national criminal RICO enterprise}

 3 In recent years the form of corruption that we've seen 4 has been what Mr. Mack and Judge Haight referred to as job site 5 corruption. This is the practice of manipulating the presence 6 and the hours and the reporting of carpenters, paying them off 7 the books in order to commit fraud.

8 THE COURT: And underreport benefits and underpay 9 benefits that might otherwise. 10

MR. TORRANCE: Yes, that practice being concealed by 11 the off-books payments that we saw so much of particularly as 12 detailed in Mr. Mack's reports. 13 For years we fought for the 50/50 rule. We viewed 14 that as an anticorruption measure. We viewed it as positive 15 for the union to have people on the jobs who were not beholden 16 to contractors, potentially corrupt contractors, who would then 17 not have the incentive to conceal that kind of job site 18 corruption. 19 But under Mr. Walsh's tenure we have agreed, as the 20 Court knows, to essentially make a trade. We agreed to forgo 21 that 50/50 mechanism in order to achieve what we hoped would be 22 a more effective way of monitoring who is on the job, who is 23 being paid, what benefits were being paid; and that, of course, 24 was the electronic reporting that Mr. Walsh has recommended and 25 worked to implement. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

7 DC4LCARC 1 But it should of course go without saying that that 2 has to be an effective system. We would not have made that 3 trade had we thought that this system would not work; and it 4 will require efforts by, of course, Mr. Walsh and the union to 5 make sure that it does work. We need the data to be current 6 and accurate in order for it to be tracked and monitored to 7 prevent that kind of job site corruption and that is our 8 motivating principle here. 9 It seems from the recent record that the information 10 technology failures and the failures of accurate reporting by 11 shop stewards are a threat to the effectiveness of that system 12 and that is of great concern for us. 13 THE COURT: That is of great concern to me as well, 14 just so you know. 15 MR. TORRANCE: Right. 16 THE COURT: Because it's not clear to me from these 17 submissions that this is a technological problem exclusively 18 which can be resolved by an RFP and bringing in some 19 consultant. It appears, reading not only between the lines but 20 the lines themselves, that there's more to it than that and I'd 21 like your opinion on that as well. 22 MR. TORRANCE: Well, the shop steward reporting, we 23 understand that there is going to be some inertia and that 24 people need to relearn practices that perhaps they've been 25 following for years. I have not had a chance to talk with SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300













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
8 THE COURT: I get all that. I read Judge Jones' 9 letter. I think it's a very good letter. I don't understand 10 how it squares with what you said to me months ago in this 11 courtroom that we tested the system, it looks like it works, 12 and you strongly urged me to [ap]prove full mobility on the 13 understanding that these anticorruption measures were up and 14 ready to go. And, frankly, that is the basis or substantial 15 basis for which I did approve full mobility, notwithstanding 16 some of the members of the union said, you know, Judge, don't, 17 don't approve full mobility. So I did, but in large measure 18 based on assurances from you in particular as the counsel for 19 the district council that this other piece of the pie was, you 20 know, in place and now all of a sudden it's dramatically 21 different. 22 And, by the way, Mr. Walsh has been ringing this bell, 23 so to speak, right from the get-go. He on each occasion that 24 we've had a conference over the last I can't remember how many 25 months, each time he said that he had a concern that things \
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300


11 DC4LCARC 1 were not happening as they were promised. And, honestly, 2 that's what I don't understand. And I don't think, as I said 3 to Mr. Torrance, that these are only, although I do respect 4 that there are some technological problems, I don't think 5 that's the whole story.
6 MR. MURPHY: Again, your Honor, I share your concern. 7 The representations that have been made to the Court were based 8 upon the information that we had at the time, going back I 9 believe my first letter to the Court as sort of a preview was 10 filed back in February of this year based upon information 11 received from the IG's office, received from the representation 12 center, from the union itself. And as this has unfolded, I 13 believe the first contract was implemented in, was actually 14 starting to go online in May and June of this year. 15 THE COURT: But this process went way before that. 16 MR. MURPHY: I understand that.
17 THE COURT: There was a whole series of negotiations 18 where, by the way, the rank and file rejected the collective 19 bargaining agreements, so, and that discussion was happening 20 months and months before. 21 MR. MURPHY: Rank and file voted in February/March of 22 2012 to reject all but one of the collective bargaining 23 agreements that had been negotiated by the international union 24 during the trusteeship that provided for full mobility. So the 25 union went back into negotiations and concluded at least SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

12 DC4LCARC 1 tentatively the first agreement on August 22, 2012. That 2 agreement frankly had, as far as I can tell, really nothing 3 about the anticorruption compliance. 4 And literally on August 22, 2012, I met with the 5 review officer. We discussed what would be necessary and I 6 typed that up, reviewed it with him, he agreed, the union 7 leadership agreed. They sent it to the first association with 8 whom we had the deal which was the largest one, the wall 9 ceiling association, and they were on board.
 And then from 10 that time we went through in the fall and winter 2012/2013 to 11 testing -- initially I guess alpha testing and beta testing in 12 the field -- the reporting system.
_____________

The UBCJA Internationals 100% FULL MOBILITY is both a power grab from District Council Local control as well as Local Union control for 

**   Electing their bargaining representative in the first instance;

**   Negotiating the CBA's in the second instance;

**   Restoring Democracy under the two pronged Consent Decree in the third;

**   The corrupt UBCJA Internationals directly subsuming the role of the Congress in re-writing/altering the NLRA in the fourth instance and;

**   The corrupt UBCJA Internationals back-door attempt to re-write longstanding Appellate court & U.S. Supreme Court precedent in the fith instance - all of it being illegal under the law which every party and all of the non-scholar, non labor law attorneys readily admit (Jones, Torrance and Murphy, the alleged 40-year expert in labor law).

Instead of competence - the members got Operation Woofy-Woof (WatchDog) with a very pissed off looking big meanie Bull Dog, and 1st grade level Stickers & Pins
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 .
THE COURT: And so why doesn't it? 9 MR. MURPHY: Why doesn't it? 10

THE COURT: Yeah. It's got a billion six or more in 11 one benefit fund. This is not a mom-and-pop operation. So why 12 doesn't it? And why doesn't, for example, one issue that has 13 concerned me since these discussion began, why doesn't it have 14 an in-house person that has IT capability and who can supervise 15 even the contractors who are working on this project? Why in 16 your opinion is that not already in place? We've got -- and I 17 don't mean to be critical -- we've got enough lawyers here, you 18 know, to fill the hiring hall at the district council. So why 19 don't you have the staff to be able to administer these 20 programs? 21 MR. MURPHY: My personal opinion, based upon 40 plus 22 years? 23 THE COURT: Yeah, you're the counsel, your opinion. 24
MR. MURPHY: I think there's an inertia that's hard to 25 overcome.
_______________________
Meet Mr. Inertia:

Sunday, December 8, 2013
Quote of the Day
"I don't get it. You're either at 95 percent compliance or you're in unchartered territory. You can't be in both places at the same time."–– Judge Richard M. Berman

Below is an excerpt from the Court Conference on December 4, 2013 between EST Pro Tem Steve McInnis and Judge Berman. {source: Mobilized Membership}

THE COURT: Do we have present today anybody from the district council, the EST, for example, the interim EST or somebody else who could address that?

MS. JONES: Yes, your Honor.
MR. MURPHY: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Could he address this issue? Nice to meet you. Wherever you're comfortable. At the podium if you like or there.
MS. JONES: Your Honor, I should also tell you that vice president Mike Cavanaugh is here and a number of other representatives from the district council. {Judge Jones trying to keep Buckethead from running up to the podium}
THE COURT: Thank you. If you could state your name for the record.

MR. McINNIS: Steven McInnis. How you doing, your Honor.
Currently we have a process for hiring that's required by the bylaws. We have six names that have been sent to the review officer for review to put six more representatives in the field. When it comes to administrative staff, we've actually added four additional admin staffs temporarily to deal with this issue.

THE COURT: Do you have an IT person?
MR. McINNIS: We use Red Eye to handle the basic IT stuff. that the
THE COURT: That's a contractor?
MR. McINNIS: Correct.

THE COURT: I'm talking about in-house.
MR. McINNIS: Red Eye is in-house four days a week. {dumb ass}
THE COURT: You don't have anybody on your staff? {Judge Berman dumbing it down}
MR. McINNIS: Right. We began the process and I think delegate body wanted to take on the process to bring in a consultant in IT and we want to do it ourselves. If we're going to be a democratic organization and stand on our own two feet, we need to take on the responsibility of doing it right the way. So we actually have interviews with five different firms this week, and we hope to have a recommendation to the delegate body next Wednesday. It's a process. The review officer mentioned what the funds have done. That's been a two-year process. I don't think it's going to take us two years to get where we need to go. I think we have a very expedited process and we're addressing a lot of different issues.

THE COURT: What's your take about why it hasn't since August of 2012? That's when the issue was first put on the table or maybe even before that.

MR. McINNIS: Which particular issue? {follow the bouncing ball Buckethead}
THE COURT: Technology.
MR. McINNIS: Technology? {talk about being a moron}

THE COURT: Yeah. {Judge Berman getting down to his Gump I.Q.}

MR. McINNIS: You know, we've used contractors. Down the road, I don't know if we're going to use contractors. We're going to see what the consultant has to say.
It's very difficult to move things at the district council. We deal with a lot of different issues. This is, as Jim Murphy would state, this is a large organization. I think when it comes down to it, and Judge Jones will go into it, when it comes to the rolling out of the compliance piece regarding full mobility, our intention was to incrementally roll it out. In discussions with the bureau office, we didn't wanted to jump in the pool the same day.
I think our numbers are above 95 percent of our people are doing this the right way. You know, it's something that our goal and the vision here is to get it to a hundred percent.

THE COURT: You think you're at 95 percent compliance, as it were, with the electronic anticorruption measures at this point?

MS. JONES: Judge, in terms of actually reporting hours worked, we think we are somewhere between 90 and 95 percent. {trying to get the Save here}
In terms of the accuracy of the underreported jobs because shop stewards -- that's only one reason -- are not calling in a job when it's closed, we carry all of these open jobs where there really is no reporting that could be done. There are no hours being worked. I know you understand that --

THE COURT: I do.
MS. JONES: -- from my letter.
THE COURT: I do.

MR. McINNIS: So we've taken the measures to drill down and identify these false negatives and to implement different pieces. {someone needs to drill down - he's called a brain surgeon} Whenever you're going to roll out something -- and this is a fundamental change institutionally and organizationally and culturally about how we report hours -- and it's something that takes a little bit of time. We've seen a lot of technological rollouts with their issues out there, and I don't think we're anywhere near some of the CityTime for New York City or the Affordable Care Act website. I think we're doing a good job.
{Lost in Space or what; Doing a Good Job - seriously? }

THE COURT: I don't think these things are comparable to that. I don't think this is in any way comparable to Affordable Care Act issues and problems. I don't think it's anywhere comparable to the CityTime, which is the subject of a criminal court proceeding as we sit here right now. I think this is far more finite. And it didn't take any, it didn't take any time to implement full mobility, right? That was a fundamental change that a lot of the people who are in your union were not happy about. That you did overnight. That was also a big change. So this, you know, I'm just.

MR. McINNIS: Your Honor, I can tell you that there is on the union side, you know, we are in unchartered territory, this new technology. We do believe we need assistance. {No shit - it's called 'Assisted Living' Stevie wonder-boy; as in your need to become a ward of the State (for your own protection of course)}

THE COURT: I don't get it. You're either at 95 percent compliance or you're in unchartered territory. You can't be in both places at the same time.

{YOU CAN IF YOUR IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE!}

MR. McINNIS: I do believe you can be in both places at the same time. This is a new system and a new system that is working at 95 percent, with the goal to get it to a hundred; and we're committed to put the additional resources to get it to a hundred percent, to be at full compliance.

THE COURT: And what's your view about having a technology person on staff?

MR. McINNIS: I believe that, you know, it's something that's not my expertise and that's why we're going to bring somebody in. We feel the consultant is an architect and if we're going to build something, we need an architect who's going to come in. And if they say we need two in-house people and that's the recommendation, I think that's the direction we should head into.

THE COURT: You don't have an opinion as to whether you need anybody in-house?

MR. McINNIS: I'd like to have an educated opinion.....
{and so, unliking pulling teeth; this was an exercise in futility and a mild form of mental torture for Judge Berman & Jones and the rest of us! Exactly how much is McCarron paying Mr. Special Dispensation boy? Anything more than minimum wage is really pushing it}......We had the first interview. I think it was very informative. I'd like to make educated opinions in regard to that, and it's not something that's common nature and knowledge to me. But I'm looking to educate myself and the executive committee and the delegate body so that when these decisions are represented, it's transparent, people understand what we're spending money on, and it's something that the members can buy into. And that's the process we've signed on for and that's the process we hope to follow.

Posted by John Musumeci at 8:32 AM  
Labels: District Council, Judge Berman, Review Officer
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

Ethics
Fat Man at Bench: It was a bullet, wasn't it?
Forrest Gump: A bullet?
Fat Man at Bench: That jumped up and bit you.
Forrest Gump: Oh, yes sir. Bit me right in the buttocks. They said it was a million dollar wound, but the army must keep that money 'cause I still haven't seen a nickel of that million dollars.
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
1 MR. WALSH: Thank you, your Honor. Dennis Walsh, the 2 review officer.

3 The frustrating thing about the District Council of 4 Carpenters is that it only responds to negative inducement. 5 One would have thought that after all these years of oversight, 6 the pendency of a consent decree since 1994, and the 7 stipulation and order since June of 2010 that the leadership at 8 the union would have decided, finally, we must engage in 9 rigorous self-analysis. We must figure out how to improve this 10 institution so that it is perfected, so that not only is 11 corruption eradicated, but that it functions as the modern, 12 efficient, compliant business that it must be to benefit its 13 20,000 members and their families.

14 We had here this morning because the Sword of Damocles 15 is palpable on the head of this union. Nothing has changed in 16 terms of the quintessential horse who not only will not be led 17 to sweet water, but falls down and says drag me to that sweet 18 water, to valleys of green grass that will make him strong, 19 like a child who won't eat his spinach, and that's all crazy.  

{So, Yo 100% Full Mobility is Sweet Water Yo? -then why be it that everyone in NYC is rotting on the make pretend OWL while the Jersey Mob across the River (RICO #2, time to seat a Grand Jury) & every swinging dick around the country, the cash workers & the illegals are busy working & the NYCDCC boys are starving Dennis? I mean, you were so smart & all quoting Shakespeare & doing the Latin jive talking shit all da time man so why ain't it be that your Master Plan and the Woof Dog Bad Ass bulldog got his ass kicked by Dougs poodle? Yo?}

20 When is it going to end? When is the district council going to 21 step up and say we understand these problems and, with 22 alacrity, we are going to solve them? 23 I think that among the options that the Court has is 24 to set a rigorous deadline for perfection of this system, no 25 matter how many human beings they have to throw at it, so that

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

32 DC4LCARC 1 they can come back to this Court and say we have 100 percent of 2 the information in this system that the members will need to 3 use Operation {WOOFY-WOOF} Watchdog. And if that is not achieved quickly, I 4 think it's fair to abolish the contracts, to set the parties 5 back to the table, but to hold on to the imperative of -

- 6 THE COURT: So abolish -- 7 MR. WALSH: -- electronic reporting. 8 THE COURT: -- which contracts?
9 MR. WALSH: All of the contracts previously approved 10 by the Court on the promise that this compliance program would 11 work. 

12 THE COURT: You mean the collective bargaining 13 agreements. 14 MR. WALSH: Yes, the collective bargaining agreements 15 is what I mean by the contracts. 16 I think that it would be entirely fair for the Court 17 to request that the district council affirm within 30 days that 18 they are at least at 90 percent accuracy and without too much 19 advocacy, relying exclusively on facts, be able to demonstrate 20 to the Court, to the government, and to my office that this is 21 a reliable representation.

{McCarron is dumber than Buckethead, he just has better handlers & criminal co-conspirators & they all took you & the rank & file on a ride - the 100% Full Mobility ride Dennis. You got scammed brother} 

ok Yo, So who is gonna fall on the Sword? I nominate Buckethead - Can I get a second on that motion-yo?
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
15 MR. FORREST: Your Honor, if I may be heard, Loren 16 Forrest from Holland Knight for the Building Contractors 17 Association.

18 I've just heard some discussion today and your Honor 19 has also intimated discussion, the negotiations between the 20 parties whereby full mobility was gained by the contractors in 21 exchange for anticorruption measures. I would just want to 22 state and I think I'm not going too far afield here to say that 23 for the Building Contractors Association and as far as the 24 other contractors association, I don't think abolishing the 25 CBAs or unwinding them would help all the parties. I think all SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

40 DC4LCARC 1 possible other options should be explored. As your Honor 2 probably knows, that previously happened in 2007 and 2008 and 3 that resulted in two years of litigation including a Second 4 Circuit appeal, motion practice. 5 THE COURT: I frankly don't care about that. 6 What do you think is needed to get these 7 anticorruption technology measures implemented ASAP, and do you 8 think the contractors have a role in doing that? The 9 contractors got full mobility. And so what's your specific 10 position about implementing these technology changes, why 11 hasn't it happened? 12 MR. FORREST: Your Honor, I read the seventh interim 13 report by Mr. Walsh, I read the letters by Judge Jones and the 14 parties here. I believe that most of this from everything that 15 I've read and I've seen are internal workings with the union. 16 There's obviously updates and things that need to be 17 implemented better. The parties I think have obviously all got 18 to speak and communicate better. But I think the contractors 19 really don't have a say in a lot of the internal workings of 20 the union and that would be unfair to unwind the agreements 21 that were negotiated, as you know, and it took a long time, 22 over two years. 23 So I think most of it is internal. The contractors 24 are willing, if there's anything we need to come to the table 25 and talk to the parties about, if it affects the CBA in any SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

41 DC4LCARC 1 way, I think all the contractors associations would be willing 2 to discuss that with Judge Jones, U.S. Attorney's Office, the 3 Review Officer Walsh, and obviously Mr. Murphy. 4 So I think right now the contractors are on the 5 outside, I think as you can see from Mr. Walsh's report, on the 6 outside of all this. They're not being implicated that they've 7 done anything wrong.

{Wrong - the rank & file members are on the outside and their voices & their guaranteed right of due process and one man, one vote for their bargaining representative is not being heard; all the while the International, the D.C., the Court, Review Officer & U.S. Attorneys Office subsumed it and met in closed chambers & concocted this back room deal which has now blown up in every parties face. We'll have to add you to the list of criminal RICO conspirators}

So we stand ready to do whatever is 8 necessary to help the process along. 9 I just wanted to state for the record that I don't 10 think unwinding the CBA would help the process because, as 11 you've probably already heard, it would actually hurt the 12 contractors in terms of time and expense. {BOO-HOO} 13 THE COURT: I get it. 14 MR. FORREST: Thank you.
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 .
13 MR. CLARKE: I don't have to tell you my name, Gene 14 Clarke.

15 I'd like to say, first of all, everything that's said 16 is wonderful. Only one thing. The membership has no dental 17 and it has no eyeglass prescription. They're paying all these 18 bills. These people get salaries that are outrageous. They 19 just keep on dumping on the membership. The membership is 20 getting nothing. They're getting not a dime out of this. They 21 just keep on losing benefits. All right. Kind of dirty. 22 I'd like to talk to you about the trusteeship of the 23 New York City district council, how it was about. 24 Fred Devine and myself had breakfast one morning and 25 we talked about how McCarron called him up and asked him to

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

45 DC4LCARC 1 give six cents an hour to him from the labor management fund. 2 Fred Devine said to him 6 cents today, 25 cents tomorrow. So 3 he got a stonewall, McCarron was out. He knew he couldn't get 4 into New York to get out our money and he figured another way. 5 So he went and got ahold of his old friend Paschal 6 McGuinness, who is an associate of the Gambino crime family, 7 and he got Doug McCarron the deal he wanted. They sat down and 8 they brokered a deal, okay. That deal was a nightmare. The 9 school funds were taken for about six to $12 million. If 10 McCarron got the 6 cents, I don't know. I brought it to the 11 attention of Dennis Walsh and also I brought it to the 12 attention of our U.S. attorney, but that's another story in 13 itself. 14 Also, McCarron took $2 million from 608 treasury. 15 That's why it doesn't shock me to see the treasury of 608 and 16 all the books gone, the charter thrown away. I wonder why. Is 17 it because of all the money that went south? I'd like to know 18 myself. 19 Now, the statute of limitations limits us in the 20 discovery of what went on with all this money, but we'll never 21 find out unless we get into a RICO criminal again. That's the 22 only way we're going to find out how this money disappeared. 23 All right. 24 Now, Hunter College, who was in charge of giving money 25 to the school, they turned down the school for funding because

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300


46 DC4LCARC 1 of the money that left the school and went out to Washington, 2 D.C. to Bob Georgine. What happened? Who knows. 3 Now, we have other problems. Now they get Harvey 4 Torrack in the late nineties. He comes in to clean up the 5 mess. He's doing a great job. Harvey is doing good. He's out 6 of the labor department. He's doing the job. You know what 7 happened to Harvey? They got rid of him. They gave him a 8 pension, a car, and some money and sent him on his way. 9 Then in 2005 we have Mike Forde in the hotel out in 10 the international convention. He's walking around. He has -- 11 who goes down and gets him out of it? Our friend Brian 12 O'Dwyer. Brian O'Dwyer with his associate, they tell the 13 international he's coming back to New York with us. We take 14 care of New York. You have nothing to say. He's not going in 15 rehab. He's got his problems, but he's got other problems. 16 And this goes on and on and on. 17 THE COURT: I get it. 18 MR. CLARKE: We are owned and still are part of 19 organized crime. And we're never going to get rid of it unless 20 we get rid of the international and keep them out of all of the 21 affairs of this union. Then maybe we'll have a shot at 22 cleaning the mess up. Until then, nothing. 23 THE COURT: I got it. Thanks, Mr. Clarke.
______________________________

Classic & spot on. Gene had a way with words & he called this Dog & Pony show correctly.

The UBCJA International and Douglas J. McCarron and his criminal RICO puppetmasters & handlers (Tutor-Blum-Senator Feinstein) are the source of the problem - the never ending criminal racketeering and theft, fraud and conversion of funds; notwithstanding untold hundreds of millions, perhaps a billion or more in cleverly embezzled Trust Fund monies diverted offshore.

Yet, given the money trail which is very easy for the government to follow via the DOL,, DOJ, IG's & EBSA or SEC investigators - the Fed's & U.S. Attorenys Office S.D.N.Y. still got their head up their asses and refuse to act, refuse to conven a grand jury and refuse to prefer charges against the UBCJA International.
____________________

All criminal RICO suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a corruption free court of law; or are they?


What was the quid pro quo for that exchange?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GazE8PAL-DE

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
 excerpt form: 4-10-13 Letter (submission) to Judge Berman

At page 7, the Review Officer stated:

 “ I have always felt the great scope of authority granted to the EST as conceived by the UBC Constitution presents a risk in the New York District Council. That is one of the reasons that the office is different here, for instance, arguably fettered by the unique hiring process for business representatives required by the District Council Bylaws. The Bylaws endeavored to strike a proper balance between the authority of the EST, the Delegate Body and mandatory process – all with oversight of an Inspector General and a compliance overlay4. I would not presently recommend that any offices be eliminated or created. In my view, the governance is still a fledgling. Despite some growing pains, I think the system will not only work, but serve the District Council well. Much will depend on the commitment of all to take it seriously, master the Bylaws, study issues and engage in collegial debate.”

The obvious should not escape this honorable Court – that being, The District Councils EST usurped his proper balance and authority by facilitating Executive control of the Agenda in continuance of racketeering throughout the course of the alleged contract negotiations, presentation of the MOU and the alleged vote on what was, is and remain nothing more than notes kept relative to basic discussions during a period where the racketeering continued unabated in direct violation of Prong 1 of the Consent Decree (Elimination of Racketeering).

The D.C. & Contractor Associations now wish to insult the rank & file member and the Courts intelligence via the ‘nunc pro tunc’ diversionary argument to dissuade the Court that EST Bilello’s schoolboy type notes now constitute a formal contract which had yet been developed or voted upon; and which contract was first presented to the Court on March 12, 2013 and first received by members and Council Delegate Body members via PACER on March 13, 2013.

EST Bilello and President Lebo were engaged in “Executive control of the agenda in continuance of Racketeering” during the entire period when the MOU was operative. In direct contravention to subsequent/recent submissions of NYCDCC in house counsel Murphy false statements and the Review Officers charges against the NYCDCC EST for a;

NOTICE OF POSSIBLE ACTION: (source, 157blogspot.com)
Breaking News...The New York City District Council of Carpenters  is once again rocked by scandal as Executive Secretary-Treasurer Michael Bilello faces a possible veto for among other things, failing to abide by Section 21 of the District Council Bylaws and caused or attempted to cause employer compensation for members to be directed to the New York City District Council of Carpenters Welfare Fund, according to a notice of possible action letter signed by Review Officer Dennis Walsh.

*   Where the former R.O. Dennis Walsh blew it was when we presented him with incontrovertible proof and the signatures of Bilello, Lebo & Cavanaugh on the Hod Hoist Carriers illegal pay raise diversion (all of the hourly raise) directly to the Welfare Trust Fund in direction violation of 8-5-11 NYCDCC By-Law Sec. 21 to the tune of $38M  ayear at 18M Man-Hours which amounted to racketeering by both D.C. Executives & the Trustees/Fiduciaries at the Welfare Trust Fund raping the members for $166 Million to $200 Million over the remaing 4.33 year life of the contract; pending total man-hours over each successive year.

R.O. Walsh & USAO's Bhararra & Torrance should have convened a grand jury and indicted all the players and he should have immediately vetoed Bilello, Lebo & Cavanuagh at that time.

Instead - he covered for them and apologized for them and jerked us around for another year before he got rid of either of them via the Veto Pen; albeit for reasons other than criminal racketeering. We put it squarely under his nose & he balked. He shouldn't have a bar card at this point in time as these actions and his cover-up expressly violated Prong 1 of the Consent Decree - Elimination of Racketeering. Instead of preventing it and reporting it to the Court, he directly participated in it.

I.M. McGorty isn't bright enough or up to speed on any issue on this 25-1/2 year docket to even remotely begin to follow the bouncing ball. And the new mobbed up Jersey Council known as the NRCC are laughing their ass'es off on the other side of the Hudson. Educated members could do a better job than him in their sleep while on an Irish drunk, even if they ain't Irish; far better in fact than this boob.

How the hell do you hire a candidate for a labor case who has zero credentials or expertise in Labor Law and then expect the dimwitted fool to recognize much less prevent further racketeering (his alleged criminal background aside). How many cases did this guy actually win in 15-years that weren't no brainers spoon fed to him by underlings.

The D.C.'s counter to that was to hire an ex-judge who also readily admits she has no clue about labor law 101.

Talk about an abortion of Justice.

____________________

All criminal suspects are guilty of all charges; damn  it - I meant innocent until proven guilty in a corruption free court of law; or are they?
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
excerpt: court submission

March 2, 2013                                                

Honorable Richard M. Berman              
U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court (SDNY)                                                                                                
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 12                                                                                                        
New York, NY 10007                

Subject: United States v. District Council of New York and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of  Carpenters & Joiners of America, et al; (Index No. 90 Civ. 5722) (RMB)

Dear Judge Berman,

This letter concerns the UBCJA International and New York & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters (NYCDCC) collusive efforts with the Wall & Ceiling Contractor Association, BCA and all other contractor associations to escape the May 26, 2009 Order by Judge Haight under the Consent Decree mandating a minimum 67% - 33% hiring ratio out of work members.

Within the 23-year docket of this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision on February 20, 2007 at 9, pg. 7 which stated:
 
“The Consent Decree is clear and unambiguous. King, 65 F. 3d. at 1058. The Consent Decree addresses CBA’s in two places: Paragraph 4(f) (1) (b) and Job Referral Rule 5(B). However, neither empowers the Union to circumvent the Consent Decree through a CBA.”

At 14, pg 8, the Court of Appeals stated: 

“Rule 5(B) does not permit the Union to make unlimited changes to the Job Referral Rules in a CBA. This is particularly true when Job Referral Rule 5(B) is read in conjunction with Consent Decree Paragraph 11, which again, provide that “[t]o the extent that this Consent Decree conflicts with any current or future rights, privileges or rules applicable to the District Council or its membership, the District Council…hereby waives compliance with any such right, privilege or rule an agrees that it and its membership will act in accordance with this Consent Decree.”

At 21, pg. 8, the Court of Appeals stated:

“Paragraph 11 further requires the Union to make the Job Referral Rules part of the District Council By-Laws.”
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 BREACH OF FIDUCIARIY DUTY  

 ERISA Section 409(a) provides: "Any person who is a fiduciary with respect to a plan who breaches any of the responsibilities, obligations, or duties imposed upon fiduciaries by this title shall be personally liable to make good to such plan any losses to the plan resulting from each such breach, and to restore to such plan any profits of such fiduciary which have been made through use of assets of the plan by the fiduciary, and shall be subject to such other equitable or remedial relief as the court may deem appropriate, including removal of such fiduciary. A fiduciary may also be removed for a violation of section 411 of this Act." 88 Stat. 886, 29 U. S. C. §1109(a).
___________________

How is your coverage Dennis? Hope it's paid in full!
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
John,

Please read & review and add the charges of missappropriation & conversion to the list of offenses committed by EST Bilello. Note: Your baby here John, letter time for Judge Berman......just saying, time for dummy to go, Veto Time..........all those in favor, say what...........bye, bye Bilello!
 
Note: There are quite obviously additional charges to be filed here with respect to ERISA & EBSA violations. Rich is up on these moreso than I after dealing with the Madoff issues upstate. You two can do a killer letter here.
 
Berman's heads gonna explode....he's already going - who are these guys....where are they coming up with all of this, do any of them work etc. And that is the sad part, do your 40 on the tools, come home & do 40 on this garbage. Time for the Court to wake the hell up.
__________________________________
 
29 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
 Title 29 - LABOR
CHAPTER 11 - LABOR-MANAGEMENT REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE PROCEDURE
SUBCHAPTER VI - SAFEGUARDS FOR LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Sec. 501 - Fiduciary responsibility of officers of labor organizations
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov

 
§501. Fiduciary responsibility of officers of labor organizations
 
(a) Duties of officers; exculpatory provisions and resolutions void
 
The officers, agents, shop stewards, and other representatives of a labor organization occupy positions of trust in relation to such organization and its members as a group. It is, therefore, the duty of each such person, taking into account the special problems and functions of a labor organization, to hold its money and property solely for the benefit of the organization and its members and to manage, invest, and expend the same in accordance with its constitution and bylaws and any resolutions of the governing bodies adopted thereunder, to refrain from dealing with such organization as an adverse party or in behalf of an adverse party in any matter connected with his duties and from holding or acquiring any pecuniary or personal interest which conflicts with the interests of such organization, and to account to the organization for any profit received by him in whatever capacity in connection with transactions conducted by him or under his direction on behalf of the organization. A general exculpatory provision in the constitution and bylaws of such a labor organization or a general exculpatory resolution of a governing body purporting to relieve any such person of liability for breach of the duties declared by this section shall be void as against public policy.
 
(b) Violation of duties; action by member after refusal or failure by labor organization to commence proceedings; jurisdiction; leave of court; counsel fees and expenses
 
When any officer, agent, shop steward, or representative of any labor organization is alleged to have violated the duties declared in subsection (a) of this section and the labor organization or its governing board or officers refuse or fail to sue or recover damages or secure an accounting or other appropriate relief within a reasonable time after being requested to do so by any member of the labor organization, such member may sue such officer, agent, shop steward, or representative in any district court of the United States or in any State court of competent jurisdiction to recover damages or secure an accounting or other appropriate relief for the benefit of the labor organization. No such proceeding shall be brought except upon leave of the court obtained upon verified application and for good cause shown, which application may be made ex parte. The trial judge may allot a reasonable part of the recovery in any action under this subsection to pay the fees of counsel prosecuting the suit at the instance of the member of the labor organization and to compensate such member for any expenses necessarily paid or incurred by him in connection with the litigation.
 
(c) Embezzlement of assets; penalty
 
Any person who embezzles, steals, or unlawfully and willfully abstracts or converts to his own use, or the use of another, any of the moneys, funds, securities, property, or other assets of a labor organization of which he is an officer, or by which he is employed, directly or indirectly, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
 
(Pub. L. 86–257, title V, §501, Sept. 14, 1959, 73 Stat. 535.)
 

SECTION 10:   DUTIES OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY-TREASURER
 

 (G) The Executive Secretary-Treasurer is specifically authorized to expend, in accordance with the procedures of these Bylaws and in compliance with 29 U.S.C § 501, funds for any or all of the purposes and objects of the Council, subject to the necessary disclosures and approval by the Delegate Body.

_______________

Where the hell are the indictments Mr. Torrance, Mr. Bharrara - re: Mike Bilello, Bill Lebo & Mike Cavanaugh and why are they still in office; also the former R.O. Dennis Walsh, the UBCJA G.P. Douglas J. McCarron, Frank Spencer, John Ballantyne etc.

re: Misappropriation, Fraud, Conversion of assets; re: to the Welfare Fund. remember ladies?

Where the hell are the Crimnal RICO charges and why have you failed to convene a Grand Jury when the law is plain and clear for all to see?

Sue me - go right ahead! No need for any legal qualifiers here. The truth is a defense to any action - so kiss my ass!!
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 Ethics
About The Cement League
The Cement League was founded in 1905 in conjunction with the growing labor movement in America, and the beginning of skyscraper construction in New York City.

The mission of The Cement League is to be a powerful and collective voice for union workers. The organization operates as the bargaining agent for eight building trade unions and employs a professional engineer to assist members with technical issues. Through its leadership, The Cement League negotiates labor contracts with employers -- including the negotiation of wages, work rules, complaint procedures, rules governing employment and promotion of workers, benefits, workplace safety and policies. Since its inception, The Cement League has been a charter member of The Building Trades Employers’ Association (BTEA).

SOURCE The Cement League
______________________________

A powerful voice my ass, what a crock oF bullshit.

*   Were it true as they claim; then why is the CEMENT LEAGUE capitulating to the BTEA's Colletti & corporate Developers Tutor-Ross and the corrupt UBCJA INternational to drive down Wages & Benefits by recruiting scabs form the Non-Union, Cash is King sector?

*   Why is the CEMENT LEAGUE in conjunction with Tutor-Perini Corp (TPC), Stephen Ross & the Building Trades Employers Association (BTEA) creating a new, weakened Union of "Provisional Carpenters" with lower Wage & Benefit Rates.

*   Is it so they can all emply their favorite type worker, the Traveling Illegal Alien running from the law to avoid deportation and pay them Cash, off the books - given that Cash is King in NYC and by doing so reduce their costs while screwing the rest of the workers (Americans Citizens, while lining their own pockets with the difference saved? You bet your ass it is!!

Poweful voice my ass, in your dreams. Talk is cheap & actions speak louder than wordss. The CEMENT LEAGUES claim are nothing more than a pack of lies and the men know it.

*   Why is the CEMENT LEAGUE jumpping in bed with Douglas McCarron & has corporate puppet-masters/handlers and filing phony Test Cases with the NLRB in New York City, causing the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to comment on their failure to submit a legal brief to support the false claims and their "agnostic" behavior?

This so called "POWERFUL" Union has capitulated to the corrupt UBCJA International in a multi-state Hobbs Act Racketeering scheme to defraud workers, defraud the NLRB Board and to alter and amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by submitting to a case wherein its attorneys are not in control of the legal action and wherein the UBCJA International & their puppet-masters-handlers are the driving force behind the litigation and are also funding it.

The UBCJA International is not the U.S. Congress, nor is TPC or developer Rossi or the losers at the BTEA; yet all of them by conspiring to re-write an Act of Congress, the NLRA via the filing of a phony test case with the NLRB Board in Washington D.C., which by design was done to cement a precedent into law via the back door (the typical Tutor-McCarron & now Ross-BTEA-Cement League modus-operandi) are guilty of criminal racketeering (because we say you are; see, right back at ya; sounds like Tutor & McCarron -right?)

*  And finally, why did the corrupt UBCJA International and their corporate puppet-masters/handlers file this phony Test Case before the NLRB and use the corrupt Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters (NRCC) across the river in Jersey to act as the lead litigant in the matter? Simple, the NLRB bozo's are your C-D-students in law school who barely passed the bar exam; and, by doing so they avoid real motion practice in the Mnahattan; Judge Bermans Federal District Court which, by design was done to avoid complying with the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree, which the corporate puppet-master/handlers abhore as it inteferes with their master plan to lower all wages and benefits and with a Federal Court monitoring you, you can not get away with all the things you want to pull. The USAO's better wake the hell up, because the UBCJA via the formation of the NRCC has just put corruption front & center and its on steroids.

re:

Within the 25-1/2 year docket of this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision on February 20, 2007 at 9, pg. 7 which stated:
 
“The Consent Decree is clear and unambiguous. King, 65 F. 3d. at 1058. The Consent Decree addresses CBA’s in two places: Paragraph 4(f) (1) (b) and Job Referral Rule 5(B). However, neither empowers the Union to circumvent the Consent Decree through a CBA.”

At 14, pg 8, the Court of Appeals stated: 

“Rule 5(B) does not permit the Union to make unlimited changes to the Job Referral Rules in a CBA. This is particularly true when Job Referral Rule 5(B) is read in conjunction with Consent Decree Paragraph 11, which again, provide that “[t]o the extent that this Consent Decree conflicts with any current or future rights, privileges or rules applicable to the District Council or its membership, the District Council…hereby waives compliance with any such right, privilege or rule an agrees that it and its membership will act in accordance with this Consent Decree.”

The above bolded portion is what irks the handlers the most as they can't off-shore the Trust Fund monies they steal from the members fast enough to loan it to themselves or their buddies in China - who then funnel our money back into the U.S. and finance Non-Union projects with it in NYC, amongst others. Sucks when you can't get the capital you need via conventional means right ladies?

The Jersey Mobsters the UBCJA International set up across the river are laughing their ass'es off at the NYC boys and the Federal Court and U.S. Attorney as well. Guess it's gonna be UBCJA RICO # 2 sooner than you think!

Want my U-Number Doug? Oh that's right, you already got it

At 21, pg. 8, the Court of Appeals stated:
“Paragraph 11 further requires the Union to make the Job Referral Rules part of the District Council By-Laws.”
_____________________

All criminal racketeering suspects are guilty until proven innocent - ahh, shit, I meant innocent until proven guilty in a corruption and bribe free court of law; or are they?


tags; wages, hours terms and conditions of employment, free speech, first amendment God Bless America
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
Voluntary recognition based on support that was induced by either union or employer coercion is unlawful, as is the coercion. See, e.g., Windsor Castle Health Care Facilities, 310 NLRB 579, 580 (1993), enfd. 13 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 1994)

________________

Time for Independent Monitor (I.M.) McGorty & D.C. Counselor Murphy to pony up and prove Majority status or to hold the NLRA 9(a) Election; as both are mandatory under the Act. It's one or the other ladies; legally, and "either" "or" proposition.

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
UBCJA International, the NYCDCC, the Cement League can you all say 'criminal contempt'?

Because consent decrees "have attributes both of contracts and judicial decrees," they are treated differently for different purposes. United States v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223, 236, n. 10, 95 S.Ct. 926, 934, n. 10, 43 L.Ed.2d 148 (1975). See also Firefighters v. Cleveland, 478 U.S., at 519, 106 S.Ct., at 3074. For example, because the content of a consent decree is generally a product of negotiations between the parties, decrees are construed for enforcement purposes as contracts. See ITT Continental Baking Co., supra, 420 U.S., at 238, 95 S.Ct., at 935; Stotts v. Memphis Fire Dept., 679 F.2d 541, 557 (CA6 1982), rev'd on other grounds, 467 U.S. 561, 104 S.Ct. 2576, 81 L.Ed.2d 483 (1984). For purposes of determining whether an employer can be held liable for intentional discrimination merely for complying with the terms of a consent decree, however, it is appropriate to treat the consent decree as a judicial order. Unlike the typical contract, a consent decree, such as the ones at issue here, is developed in the context of adversary litigation. Moreover, the court reviews the consent decree to determine whether it is lawful, reasonable, and equitable. In placing the judicial imprimatur on the decree, the court provides the parties with some assurance that the decree is legal and that they may rely on it. Most significantly, violation of a consent decree is punishable as criminal contempt. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 401, 402; Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 42.
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
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
MILLBROOK v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 11–10362. Argued February 19, 2013—Decided March 27, 2013


The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) waives the Government’s sovereign immunity from tort suits, but excepts from that waiver certain intentional torts, 28 U. S. C. §2680(h).

Section §2680(h), in turn, contains a proviso that extends the waiver of immunity to claims for six intentional torts, including assault and battery, that are based on the“acts or omissions” of an “investigative or law enforcement officer” i.e., a federal officer “who is empowered by law to execute searches, toseize evidence, or to make arrests.” Petitioner Millbrook, a federal prisoner, sued the United States under the FTCA, alleging, inter alia, assault and battery by correctional officers. The District Court granted the Government summary judgment, and the Third Circuit affirmed, hewing to its precedent that the “law enforcement proviso” applies only to tortious conduct that occurs during the course of executing a search, seizing evidence, or making an arrest.

Held:

The law enforcement proviso extends to law enforcement officers’acts or omissions that arise within the scope of their employment, regardless of whether the officers are engaged in investigative or law enforcement activity, or are executing a search, seizing evidence, or making an arrest. The proviso’s plain language supports this conclusion.

On its face, the proviso applies where a claim arises out of one of six intentional torts and is related to the “acts or omissions” of an “investigative or law enforcement officer.” §2680(h). And by cross referencing §1346(b), the proviso incorporates an additional requirement that the “acts or omissions” occur while the officer is “acting within the scope of his office or employment.” §1346(b)(1). Nothing in §2680(h)’s text supports further limiting the proviso to conduct arising out of searches, seizures of evidence, or arrests. The FTCA’s only reference to those terms is in §2680(h)’s definition of “investiga2

MILLBROOK v. UNITED STATES

Syllabus

tive or law enforcement officer,” which focuses on the status of persons whose conduct may be actionable, not the types of activities that may give rise to a claim. This confirms that Congress intended immunity determinations to depend on a federal officer’s legal authority, not on a particular exercise of that authority. Nor does the proviso indicate that a waiver of immunity requires the officer to be engaged in investigative or law enforcement activity. The text never uses those terms. Had Congress intended to further narrow thewaiver’s scope, it could have used language to that effect. See Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U. S. 214, 227. Pp. 4−8.

477 Fed. Appx. 4, reversed and remanded.

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
OPINION at PAGE 2.
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
SECTION 38:   HIRING HALL OR JOB REFERRAL SYSTEM
 
The Executive Committee of the Council shall maintain, and all workers shall be governed by, uniform rules and/or procedures consistent with the Consent Decree, and any other Order entered in United States v. District Council, et al., 90 Civ. 5722, for the registration and/or referral to employment of unemployed workers. Workers shall have the right to seek work and be employed throughout the territorial jurisdiction of the Council. The referral of all workers to jobs shall be performed by the Executive Secretary-Treasurer. Representatives, organizers and agents of the District Council may not otherwise refer members to jobs or in any way inform an employer that a member is available for employment. The Executive Secretary-Treasurer shall maintain records of all worker registration and referrals, which shall be reviewed regularly by the Executive Committee and which may be reviewed by any member upon reasonable request.


NYCDCC is not a Non-Exclusive Hiring Hall as feigned to the NLRA by D.C. counsel & the I.M. and the UBCJA International & Contractor Associations claiming 100% Full Mobility via their collective & phony declarations to the NLRA's ALJ Green or the NLRB Board.

NYCDCC by the terms and conditions of the contracts (CBA's) and the rules of the Hiring Hall as established by the Executive Committee, the R.O. and as reviewed & approved by the U.S.A.O. and the Court have revealed two things:

1)   The NYCDCC is the Local; therefore requiring Elections, and;

2)   The NYCDCC is an Exclusive Hiring Hall by its operative By-Law language as authored by the UBCJA international, its corporate counsel Lathim & Watkins & the R.O. and consented to by the U.S.A.O. (government) and approved by Federal District Court Judge Richard M. Berman at their behest.
1234