I have a few statements and questions .
It is my understanding that when the last Executive board first took office the Dock Builders had $600,00 in the local. Since then they built it up to $3,000,000, is this true and if so shouldn't that be considered an exceptional job?
Also isn't it true the Dock Builders have a unemployment fund for members who are out of work or are injured, as well as insurance policies for members and isn't that taking care of the membership?
Why if the trustees were doing something under handed were all the expenditures documented with reciepts and turned in to the DOL in the LM-2 Reports?
It is my understanding that the membership approved the questioned expenditures at LU meetings and that minutes show this , the problem seems to be that the expenditures were not itemized in the minutes but that not required by the UBC Corruptstitution, is this true?
Isn't it true the Dock Builders Reps policed their jurisdictions and protected their work like pitbulls ?
I'm sure I missed a few points but I'd like to hear from members of local 1456. Am I mistaken about these things, and are there any other points of intrest you can add?
Check with your Attorneys - Follow up on this:
DUES CHECKOFF DO NOT SURVIVE EXPIRATION OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CONTRACT)!
YOUR CONTRACT EXPIRED JUNE 30, 2011 - THE UBCJA SCREWED UP BY WAITING TILL JULY 21 & 22, 2011 TO FORMALLY MERGE THESE TWO LOCALS. TAKE AWAY THEIR SOURCE OF FUNDING.
DO NOT SUBMIT THE DUES CHECKOFF TO THE NEW LOCAL!!~
I______________(print your name) hereby revoke any/all Dues Checkoff to UBCJA to Local Union No. 1456, 1536 and/or 1556.
MEMORANDUM OM 11-40 March 18, 2011
TO: All Regional Directors, Officers-in-Charge,
and Resident Officers
FROM: Richard A. Siegel, Associate General Counsel
SUBJECT: Unilateral Cessation of Dues-Checkoff Following Expiration of Collective-Bargaining Agreement
In Bethlehem Steel,1 the Board held that union-security and dues-checkoff arrangements, unlike most terms and conditions of employment, do not survive expiration of a collective-bargaining agreement. The Board reasoned that unilateral cessation of union security after contract expiration was not only lawful, but mandatory, because union membership cannot be made a condition of employment except under a “contract which conforms to the proviso to Section 8(a)(3).”2 The Board found that “similar considerations” applied to dues-checkoff provisions, because they “implemented the union-security provisions.”3 In a later decision, the Board also based the checkoff exception from the unilateral change doctrine upon Section 302(c)(4), which permits checkoff only if “the employer has received from each employee, onwhose account such deductions are made, a written assignment which shall not be irrevocable for a period of more than one year, or beyond the termination date of the applicable collective agreement, whichever occurs sooner[.]”4
The Ninth Circuit has twice vacated and remanded Board decisions in Hacienda Resort Hotel & Casino (Hacienda I and Hacienda II) on the ground that the Board had not articulated a comprehensible rationale for excluding dues-checkoff from the
1 Bethlehem Steel Co. (Shipbuilding Div.), 136 NLRB 1500 (1962), enf. denied on other grounds 320 F.2d 615 (3d. Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 984 (1964).
2 Id. at 1502. (Emphasis added.)
3 Id. The Board also relied upon a subsidiary rationale for exempting checkoff from the unilateral change doctrine in the absence of an agreement: that the language of the contract (“so long as this Agreement remains in effect”) linked the checkoff obligation with the duration of the contract. Id.
4 See Hudson Chemical Co., 258 NLRB 152, 157 (1981) (adopting ALJ decision without
comment). See also Litton Financial Printing Div. v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190, 199 (1991),
(“[I]t is the Board’s view” that checkoff does not survive contract expiration “because of
statutory provisions which permit these obligations only when specified by the express
terms of a collective-bargaining agreement,” including Section 302(c)(4)).
unilateral change doctrine in a right-to-work state.5 On remand in Hacienda III,6 the four members of the Board eligible to participate deadlocked, reaching different conclusions
reflected in their separate opinions. Chairman Liebman and Member Pearce in their opinion observed that “the Board has never provided an adequate statutory or policy justification for the holding in Bethlehem Steel excluding dues-checkoff from the unilateral change doctrine articulated in NLRB v. Katz.”7
In order to ensure a uniform approach regarding allegations involving the unilateral cessation of dues-checkoff arrangements following contract expiration, in both right-to-work and non-right-to-work states, Regional Offices should contact the Division of Advice if they receive charges that contain such allegations.
R. A. S.
Release to the Public MEMORANDUM OM 11-40
5 Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas v. NLRB, 309 F.3d 578, 584-85 (9th Cir. 2002), vacating and remanding 331 NLRB 665 (2000); Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas v. NLRB, 540 F.2d 1072, 1082 (9th Cir. 2008), vacating and remanding 351 NLRB 504 (2007).
6 355 NLRB No. 154 (2000).
7 355 NLRB No. 154, slip op. at 2.
In reply to this post by Bill Lebo
"WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN SKILLS FORM"
excerpt: Response to Restructuring Plan:
PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS
Movants note the following excerpts from the PNWRCC’s newly executed Contract, post dissolution & mergers, wherein the specific goal and aim of the UBCJA International is to grant the Contractor Associations an illegal kickback in wages & benefits, for the newly formed Interior Systems Locals.
• SENIOR DRYWALL UTILITY WORKER (formerly a Journeyman Union Carpenter) $21.40/hr, reduced 40% from Journeyman Rate is: $35.66 and set at $39.23 per hour for Foreman. Effective: 6-1-10 to 5-31-12 (Illegal re-classification of a Journeyman Carpenter, to that of a helper, for 40% of the former wages and benefit rate).
• Mandatory Annual Training, or no Wage Increase per CBA
• OT, M-SAT Double Time After 12, instead of after 10
• Private Jobs $500k or Less = 85% of Journeyman Wage Package
• Eliminate Zone Pay = Full Mobility
• Eliminate Travel Time, Regardless of Distance to Project
• When put up on Company Camps...."Camp or Board Lodging" Paid @ $3.00 /Day.
• Weekend Travel Home...they will pay for Toll or Ferry with documented receipt(s)
• NW WALL & CEILING - UTILITY WORKER Wage Scale (not an apprentice) 1st 6-months, $17.83/hr - 2nd 6-months $19.61/hr
UBCJA Constitution, dated November 11, 2010, page “Standing Decisions of the General Executive Board”, September 17, 1887 – “Grading wages is demoralizing to Union principles and to the welfare of the Trade and no Local Union should adopt the system of grading wages”.
The Proposed NYCDCC Restructuring Plan, with its requisite demand for an Interior systems Local, to be awarded to the corrupt Wall & Ceiling Contractor Association will expressly violate the UBCJA Constitution by the forced impartation of graded wages at 40% below Journeyman Wage & Benefit scale; and, shall thus serve as a form of a kickback to the Contractor Association in direct & flagrant contravention to the requirement that the Consent Decree eliminate any & all forms or racketeering activity and corruption. This is one such instance, wherein the UBCJA and their counsel attempt to play the Court for fools via the “to be determined” (TBD) language within the 5-26-11 restructuring plan.
DO NOT SIGN THE "SKILLS FORM"
MANDATORY SKILLS FORMS & ONE YEAR "IRREVOCABLE ASSIGNMENT" of:
I________________(print name) assign to the __________________(fill in Council) from my earnings, a sum equal to the Unions Membership Dues. Assessments, and Initiation Fee (the Union will notify my Employer of the current amount). I authorize & direct my Employer to deduct such sum and to remit the Money to the Union Monthly.
This Assignment is irrevocable for One (1) Year from this date or until Termination of the Labor Agreement, whichever occurs first. This Assignment shall be renewed Automatically, for successive 12-month periods, unless the Union and my Employer receive my written Notice of Termination of this Assignment not more than twenty (20) days and not less than ten (10) days prior to renewal of the Assignment.
This Authorization is effective regardless of my status as a Member, Non-Member, or "Financial Core" payer and applies regardless of any Future Resignation of Membership on my part.
I hereby authorize the UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA to act as my collective bargaining agent in dealing with my employer in regards to wages, hours, and other conditions of employment. All previous authorizations made by me are revoked.
On March 1, 2011, the attorneys representing the NYCDCC, DeCarlo, Connor & Shanley, via letter, sought an opinion from the Court to allow “interested parties, e.g. parties to the collective bargaining agreement in question, the Consent Decree, and other interested parties, the opportunity to make submissions to the Court regarding their position on this issue, and have the Court issue a ruling that would clarify the matter.”
The reference was made to the “Final Order and Judgment of Contempt and Remedy” (Order) Document #961, dated May 26, 2009 with respect to the 67% - 33% Request System for Hiring Workers and Employees from the NYCDCC Out of Work List (OWL).
On April 1, 2011, via letter, DeCarlo, Connor & Shanley stated “The District Council wishes to explore with the Association of Wall-Ceiling and Carpenter Industries of New York, Inc. (“Association”) a resolution of the issue that is acceptable to all parties and in accordance with the Order. Thus, the District Council does not wish to burden the Court at this time with this issue.” Brian F. Quinn subsequently withdrew the request prior to the April 6th Conferencing session.
On May 26, 2011, 10-days after pro-se Movants filed the motion for relief, the UBCJA International and the NYCDCC published a 138-page Restructuring Plan, wherein their new position to avoid compliance with the Court Order dated May 26, 2009 regarding the 67% - 33% mandate for hiring from the OWL would be replaced by the UBCJA & the Wall & Ceiling Association simply eliminating the 50-50 Rule and the 67%-33% May 26, 2009 Court Order altogether.
This “position” does not make law. Moreover, said position is an express violation of the Consent Decree and the Court Order and is a Unilateral Change to both the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Consent Decree, as per NLRB v. Katz, 369 US 736 (1962); and, as such is a prima-facie violation of NLRA Sec. 8(a)(5).
The UBC statements regarding establishment of a Labor-Management Corporation are patently false, as one already exists, and members are already taxed and assessed for these services.
Moreover, their commentary that “and Wall & Ceiling and other employers’ willingness to participate may well hinge on the elimination of the so-called 50-50 rule” (Latham & Watkins letter at pg. 5) have no basis in fact or law. It is what they stated in their March 16, 2011 letter, nothing more than a “position”.
Painting it as a critical issue with the notation that UBC General President Douglas McCarron will seek a meeting with Review Officer Dennis Walsh and Assistant United States Attorney Benjamin Torrance within the next ten days to do so”, lends no more credence to their position. Ref: UBC at 5, Latham & Watkins 5-26-11 letter.
Movants request the Court issue an Order to Show cause, per standard Court Motion Practice and force the UBCJA International and the NYCDCC and their attorneys to bring the issues they wish to discuss directly to the Court. Movants further request a permanent Injunction restraining the UBCJA International & the NYCDCC from any further attempts to back-door their desire to re-write the Consent Decree terms and conditions to suit their own agenda, and that of what has proved to be a corrupt Contractor association via informal Conferencing procedures and relaxed Court Rules.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which decision issued February 20, 2007 made it amply clear at 9, pg. 7 “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.”
Movants note that the UBCJA International, the District Council and its attorneys of record have failed to abide by this specific requirement and include the Job Referral Rules part of the District Council By-Laws as ordered by the Court. Ref: Exhibit “C”, pg. 94-125 of Latham & Watkins May 26, 2011 138-page Restructuring Plan – Status Update.
Movants respectfully request the Court issue a contempt Order and direct the UBCJA, the District Council, its agents and attorneys of record and the Wall & Ceiling Contractor Associations from making any such changes, and/or issuing any Unilateral Contract changes to the CBA’s; and again respectfully request that the contract be extended for one-year, to preserve and maintain the status-quo until such a time as the Local Union Elections, the District Council Elections are held, all statutory election challenges, if any are heard and resolved per DOL/OLMS requirements of law and the Local Union and District Council limited suspension of their autonomy is restored as required by law.
Movants note that the 18-month statutory period has expired, and has a limited extension which we ask be rescinded by Order of this Court. Movants request that intervening supervision be placed under the control of the United States Attorney’s office, the Independent Review Officer and the District Councils new Director of Operations.
NORTHEAST REGIONAL COUNCIL SKILL FORM – INDIVIDUAL CONTRACT WAIVER
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY! Mark ! below.
I am a:
[ ] Journeyman carpenter
[ ] Apprentice carpenter
UBC ID#_____________________ UBC Local #____________ Date of Birth______________________
City_______________________ State______ Zip__________ Email_____________________________
YOU MUST BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER THIS PHONE NUMBER BETWEEN 2 P.M. AND 6 P.M.
[ ] Asian [ ] Hispanic or Latino [ ] White [ ] Black or African American [ ] Other
YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE TO ACCEPT WORK IN THE FOLLOWING:
(Mark with an ! below.)
THE ABOVE LANGAUGE IS "FACIALLY UNLAWFUL", per LONGSTANDING NLRB BOARD PRECEDENT, APPELLATE COURT DECISIONS AND SUPREME COUR PRECEDENT DECISIONS
Last time - "DO NOT SIGN THE SKILLS FORM"......go to your own attorney if need be, ask a 5th Grader (the UBC is betting we're dumber than Forrest Gump)
DUES CHECKOFF HAS EXPIRED AS A MATTER OF LAW - DO NOT RE-UP
DON'T LET PIGGY BACK TO THE TROUGH!!!
THE GATE TO THE PIG-PEN IS WIDE OPEN, RUN FORREST RUN!
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|