UBC International Refuses right Under 25 b to create local bylaws

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

UBC International Refuses right Under 25 b to create local bylaws

Richard Dorrough
We have received a letter today from our newly elected local President that he was rolling over and playing dead for some rat bastard at the UBC International.
 On Monday we voted to strike wording from proposed Local bylaws giving control of our local to the Empire Council rats. The motions were made,seconded and voted on. Now the President is telling us he is ignoring all that and at the direction of the UBC International (Yes.Doug McCarron and his rat bastards.) is forcing us to vote only on the bylaws in their original form giving control of our local to the Empire Council. .
    By doing this the UBC International has declared that all locals must accept these bylaws written by Mccarron as their own and cannot write and be governed by our own bylaws as listed in Section 25b of the UBC Constitution. These bylaws as written are in violation of the UBC Constitution in themselves as they force Council bylaws and other rules on a local in violation of the Constitution. They prevent locals from exercising their rights guaranteed in sections of the UBC Constitution.
 We had high hopes for pour newly elected President and understand his situation. BUT. At the end of the letter he write Please come out and support the acceptance of these ByLaws to preserve the integrity of Local 370. Are you f.... joking me.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UBC International Refuses right Under 25 b to create local bylaws

anon
Banned User
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UBC International Refuses right Under 25 b to create local bylaws

ziggie
In reply to this post by Richard Dorrough
Not for nothing, but something that is important to most organizations that proport to use "Robert's Rules" is that By-Laws are supposed to be cumbersome to change. Most organizations require at the very least, advance written notice of each change to every member eligible to vote. Generally no amendments to the written notice allowed, and a supermajority (2/3 or 3/4) usually is required. No one wants a group of activists of any persuasion to take over one meeting and thus change a 100 year old By-Law. Make sure they go by all of (your) rules.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UBC International Refuses right Under 25 b to create local bylaws

Richard Dorrough
"No one wants a group of activists of any persuasion to take over one meeting and thus change a 100 year old By-Law. Make sure they go by all of (your) rules." Can you elaborate on what you mean by this.

Council bylaws are NOT our bylaws. Who is "no one"?? The International or the Council which does not want the Local to exist?If a bylaw is BS what difference does it make if a group of members, activists or not, come to a meeting and legally changes a bylaw 100 years old or not?

 In our case there are not rules that the Council rats or our Local Council employees feel they need to follow. They do not go by "any" rules.This call to work on the bylaws by by a special cal mailing. Three days before the meeting. So much for the proper notice rule. We were given two hours to hammer out bylaws to govern our locals future. Which rule shall we quote for that one which we should have followed. What was expected was for us to approve bylaws giving the council complete control over our local.That did not happen so now they want to null and avoid the meeting and the actions/motions and votes that took place. What rule of thiers /yours/ ours should we have followed.


First. We have not had local by laws in place since 1995. When we tried to make motions to write our OWN "consistent" bylaws we were refused and told we would be in violation of Council bylaws.Suddenly in 2010 the International told our Local that we HAD TO HAVE local by laws. The reason for this is that the Internationals Thomas "Hatchet Jack" Garrison is going to take over our Locals,our jobs and our job dispatching. He needs to have a voter approved document from our local members that states we agree to be bound by Council bylaws and agree that the council owns us. He does not have that now. He can then impose the same corrupt dispatch system which the NYC District Council crooks have been abusing for years.
 
    So much for the BS premise that the UBC Constitution in any way gives the Councils legal control over the Locals.To further put this  BS puppy to rest McCarron in Federal has declared that the Council has "no legal binding authority over the Locals or outside its own subordinate body" While 26F gives the council the right to bring to trial members who violate council bylaws this refers only to the council bylaws that can be applied to local member as per the UBC Constitution which are very few. The section DOES NOT mean the local member has to be bound and obey any bylaws some council douche bag wants to write. Those who want the Locals to be controlled by the Councils point to every ambiguous section of the UBC Constitution and say see the council can control you and hope the members are to stupid to see through the BS. They also choose to ignore the plan fact that the Councils may write bylaws for their own MEMBERS which we are not and never will be. Regardless of the BS the US Attorneys Office has declared so Walshs Office could control them we are "affiliated with" the Councils and not "members of". We will be controlled by OUR rules but they can stick the council bylaws in their ass. Also for the record. Even though multiple areas of the UBC Constitution says that the Locals affiliated with a district council must have their members tried by the council unless they have special dispensation from McCarron our local refuses to do it. Our members are brought before the Local executive board and tried by a local trial committee. Such is the corruption of the UBC at local 370. Our members are also tried ,fined and expelled with out the protections of 3/4 of the trial procedures listed in the UBC Constitution. These rules and procedures have never been followed at all and the majority of our members have been brought to trial in direct violation of the UBC Constitution. The International has refused to remedy this or protect our members despite repeated cries for help by certified letter. Such is the corruption of the UBC and Local 370.
   
     You indicated that changes are supposed to be cumbersome to change. We are not changing any bylaws. Again it is assumed that WE HAVE to accept any old bylaw or set of bylaws the UBC or some Council douche bag sends down the pike just because the International or Council says so. WRONG AGAIN!! We will create and be governed by bylaws we create as dictated by the UBC Constitution and not dictated by somebody's whim. We were taking a set of bylaws for a base and deleting or adding to satisfy the will of Local 370 members to be submitted for vote and then approval by the International. If they do not approve them they will do so in writing and with a statement of reason so we have legal recourse in court. What do you think we should do?Whatever the International or Council tells us? If they call us up and they say we are not approving your bylaws because Rocky and Bullwinkle do not like them and you wrote them in blue ink are we to say yes mistress may I have another. We are going to demand an refusal in writing. We are going to demand a statements of reasons for the refusal and those reasons are going to be backed up by the UBC Constitution and not because some jack ass like Brian Quinn says so. If the refusal is not legit we are going to take their ass to court until the voice of the Local members are heard.
   
   It would be nice if somebody followed the rules bit it seems the Council and International are above them. we held our meeting according to the rules. We created our bylaws according to the rules. We are preparing them for a final vote according to the rules. Suddenly Hatchet Jack does not like the fact that he was not given the power to control our local as he wanted. Now there are no rules. We are told to act as if the meeting, motions and votes never happened. We are told we MUST vote on and accept bylaws that give control of our local to the council. We are told that we can have local bylaws but they have to be neutered first. BS. The International and council can kiss our ass.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UBC International Refuses right Under 25 b to create local bylaws

iamlistman@yahoo.com
Here in NYC we will ditto your effort of challenging the laws by which we are governed. Solidarity as to our empoire Bros. mandates we claim the same. If you'all want resuts I suggest you do the same nationwide
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UBC International Refuses right Under 25 b to create local bylaws

Richard Dorrough
For the record. The UBC International threatened the New President of Local 370 with being fired and dismissed  if he did not send out the letter mentioned above. They have also threatened to pull our charter if we do not vote for the bylaws giving control of Local 370 to the Council. This is direct violation of the UBC Constitution and called extortion.
  Word up here is your Apprenticeship school is moving towards Westchester County. Yonkers??It was said there will be only three apprenticeship schools in NY when they are done
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UBC International Refuses right Under 25 b to create local bylaws

ziggie
In reply to this post by Richard Dorrough
Sorry for misunderstanding... I'll be more direct.

If something is very important to an organization (like a By-Law change) it is handled differently and with more gravity. The old (95?) By-Law is still in effect until it is changed by the old rules that are part of it, not by the new rules that part of the new By-Law. Part of every By-Law is a section on how to it is to be amended. Parties that want to change your By-Law usually have to give elaborate written notice to the entire membership in advance of a vote. Then it is usually a 2/3 vote. This is so members who do not ordinarily attend meetings also have a say on the important issues. For instance, retirees would be interested in By-Law changes but might not attend regular monthly meetings. Keep up the good fight, but remember to only agree to a By-Law that your membership controls the next changes with at least a 2/3 vote so changes don't come to quickly.  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UBC International Refuses right Under 25 b to create local bylaws

iamlistman@yahoo.com
In reply to this post by Richard Dorrough
Is your New local Pres. willing to take it to the mat. Would be an inspiration ?
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UBC International Refuses right Under 25 b to create local bylaws

Ted
In reply to this post by anon
anon - NLRB 354-12 (12-31-09)
"Finally, the Union Security clause in Article V is facially unlawful. The union-security clause explicitly requires compliance with the Union's Constitution and Bylaws, a requirement which violates Section 8(b)(1)(A)...see Stackhouse Oldsmobile, Inc. v. NLRB, 330 F2d. 559 (6th Cir. 1964); and....

Electrical Workers Local 3 (White Plains), 331 NLRB 1498 (2000) (finding Facially Unlawful a Union Rule requiring hiring hall users to comply with internal rules to maintain their position on the referral list.....The rule here, however, requires employees to comply with the Unions Constitution and Bylaws as a condition of Employment. Such a requirement violates the Act."

Stackhouse cite Scofield witrh the U.S. Supreme Court (1969). However, since the ruling issued, both Supreme Court precedent has changed as has NLRB Board precedent, not in terms of being able to resign to escape the rule - but in terms of what the Union, in this case, the UBC is allowed & not allowed to do to its members.

Currently, NLRB Board precedent which has been upheld at the Appellate Level & Sup. Ct. allows Unions to suspend, fine and/or expel members for but one thing - the failure to maintain and pay dues to keep his/her good standing under a lawful union security clause.

All other items are off the table Mr. Anon. Both the International and Council Bylaws are facially unlawful & have been upheld, without change, by the NLRB Board, duly quoromed and decided - hence no further appeals are allowed.

Moreover, under the NLRA when the NLRB Board issues a final decision & order, said ruling becomes "Federal Labor Law". Unless and until appealed, overturned etc. said ruling becomes the law of the Land. That means the UBC & each & every Council and Local nationwide shall abide by said D & O, which is embedded into Labor Law. This also includes any other Labor Union and/or Labor Organization.

Mr. Dorrough is again correct in his reading of the Internationals decision & his new Local 370 Presidents failure to stand for the men & woman in said Local.

Should the Local, Council or International attempt to bring up members on trumped up charges, fine, suspend or expel members so involved as retaliation and/or retribution for doing the right thing, and thus effect their "employent", said actions would provide those so charged, tried, convicted, thrown out....unemployed a prima-facie case in District Court or Federal Court for wrongful termination, discrimination, willful, wanton & reckless behavior, gross negligence, fraud, perjury etc & subject the Local, Council & International to punitive damages, pain & suffering and on and on.

KEEP UP THE GOOD FIGHT RICHARD...YOU CAN WIN THIS
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UBC International Refuses right Under 25 b to create local bylaws

anon
Banned User
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UBC International Refuses right Under 25 b to create local bylaws

Ted
How stupid can one get anon - the UBC Constitution & Bylaws, Council Bylaws are moot, done, wipe your ass with them & facially unlawful...Federal Law.

All the UBC International can do is re-write them to conform to the judges ruling & the NLRA. To date, none of that has occurred.

McCARRON will of course move to seize Local 370 & execute an affiliation or forced merger into another Local, but that too shall fail. He hasn't a leg to stand on legally speaking - with the limited exception that he is Gambling that the International & Council have more money then the Local 370 members do to fight it, so he will try via a War of Attrition, because that is all he's got.

Local 370 survives the initial assault & start moving it through the Courts, before a judge not bought off....Douggie loses.

Anon - name one case, post Lebovitz that overturns the NLRB Board Precedent....UBC Constitution & Bylaws Facially Unlawful......go ahead, name one.....you can't, so like the biitch in Porkys - put a sock in it!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UBC International Refuses right Under 25 b to create local bylaws

anon
Banned User
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UBC International Refuses right Under 25 b to create local bylaws

Richard Dorrough
"nothing to stop McCarron from dissolving local 370" Ohh Scary anon . We should not act and let Mccaron do what he wants. Thank you annon for showing us how futile it is to fight back. Go tell your handlers you did your job and get you mouth full of UBC goo.
   Stick your propaganda. If McCarron was going to dissolve 370 he would have done so already. The UBC wants a neon light presence in Albany for some reason which includes a carpenters local. They could pull our charter and give it to a new local put the same trouble will be a member of that local as well and McCarron and his scum hatchet man Tom Garrison will be in Federal court no matter what. There will soon be only 2 locals in upstate New York and only 3 apprenticeship schools one being the NYC school somewhere near Yonkers. One will surely be in Albany. If McCarron and his scum want 370 they are going to fight for it.Not one bit of your propaganda BS will make a bit of difference .

 "I talked to the NLRB" Your a liar.You have not talked to anybody except some council rat who feeds you your  propaganda and goo.  

 For the rest of us. Lets start our national solidarity effort right here. Every time this clown posts refuse to engage him. We respond with a reply. That reads.
"John as blog owner we ask you to ban this clown for the sake of the majority. This coward has nothing constructive to add and posts pure UBC Propaganda and misinformation meant to deter members from fighting back. Since he came to this blog he has done nothing but abuse those who oppose the council and their rats. He has attacked every single anti corruption presence that has come to this site and does nothing for the good of the membership. You have lost many good voices from this blog due tho this cowards BS. I demand the right of Freedom of speech and respect opposing opinions but this cowards record speaks for itself. Since he came here he has routinely abused all other blogger's opposed to McCarons oppressive regime,posted lies and misinformation and tired to disrupt all attempts by other members to join together in the common goal of reclaiming our Union.Enough is enough.Let your bloggers have  vote on the matter. Let the majority decide as is the democratic way.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UBC International Refuses right Under 25 b to create local bylaws

Ted
In reply to this post by anon
Anon - name one case, post Lebovitz that overturns this NLRB Board Precedent....?

The UBC Constitution & Bylaws remain Facially Unlawful....so again, name the case that overturned this Ruling, at the NLRB, any State Court in the Land, or in any Federal Court, Appellate Branch or US Supreme Court.....please, Anon, name & post the case?

When you do I will read it. McCarron's actions as the GP are not Court cases.

And, show me when the UBC re-wrote the UBC Constitution to comply with Lebovitz D & O
as in minutes, dates, times, attendees, no shows & provide the exact text of the change Anon.

That's right, you have nothing, no facts to go on - you just keep spewing out the Council & International Brainwashing Propaganda & make it up as you go.

I want facts Anon, not your empty rhetoric & bold face lies...time to man up - put up or shut up & post them as requested
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UBC International Refuses right Under 25 b to create local bylaws

anon
Banned User
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UBC International Refuses right Under 25 b to create local bylaws

iamlistman@yahoo.com
anon says:
"The conclusion I have reached is that you are a one trick idiot who does not understand what they have read and pull the same case out for every occasion."

YOU MEAN LIKE THAT BROOKLYN JOB & REP FROM 157 THING PUT UP BY YOU LIKE A HUNDRED TIMES !  
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UBC International Refuses right Under 25 b to create local bylaws

Ted
In reply to this post by anon
anon - NLRB 354-12 (12-31-09)
 
"Finally, the Union Security clause in Article V is facially unlawful. The union-security clause explicitly requires compliance with the Union's Constitution and Bylaws, a requirement which violates Section 8(b)(1)(A)"  ...see Stackhouse Oldsmobile, Inc. v. NLRB, 330 F2d. 559 (6th Cir. 1964); and....

One trick idiot my ars. English comprehension classes - anon - re-read the above QUOTATION from the ALJ who authored it - what part of that do you fail to comprehend?

It does not get any simpler....the ALJ obviously read the NLRA, the facts of this case and he made a blanket statement, which I now simplify for you:

The Union Security Clause is Facially Unlawful & the Unions Constitution & Bylaws violate section 8(b)(1)(A).

This was without Qualification as to the UBC Constitution, the ALJ & the NLRB Board upheld his decision & order. The ALJ & the NLRB Board spoke of the entire document and their effect of not complying with the National Labor Relations Act - period.

Had the ALJ or the NLRB Board wished to qualify this ruling to a specific Article, paragraph, sentence, phrase or group of words within either the UBC Constitution or its Bylaws - they would have qualified it. That means they would have specifically picked out in piecemeal fashion those portions they wished to address in their multiple rulings, however, they did not do so. They said the opposite of what you proffer and they had both Documents available to read, review, decipher, study, tear apart, rip to shreds and in their view, their decision & order, their written words state the obvious - both Documents are facially unlawful, both documents violate NLRA Section 8 (b)(1) (A).

While you may believe that the D&O was only in regard to the mobility issues, it was not. The ALJ & NLRB Board decision reflected that. As of 12-31-09, this has been the case. After NERCC Appeals, consideration of New Process Steel, the NLRB Board on August 26, 2010 upheld the prior ruling of the ALJ.

They tweaked the portion on mobility, but they left alone the portion regarding the UBC Constitution & Bylaws being "facially unlawful & violative of NLRA Section 8(b)(1)(A)".

That your hero's McCarron & his 38 EST's & Council hacks have refused to address or correct the CBA's nationwide on a council by council basis and address the fact that the UBC Constitution & Bylaws are facially unlawful & violate the NLRA from cover to cover, that my friend does not change the facts one iota.

Doug & his hack EST's or the Council lackeys like yourself - instead of following the Boards direction, making the required changes so that the Constitution & Bylaws and the CBA's conform to the ruling and the NLRA, which is now embedded to Federal Labor law as as precedent - HAVE SIMPLY CHOSEN TO IGNORE THE RULING(S), PRETEND THEY DID NOT OCCUR AND CONTINUE TO RUN THEIR DICTATORSHIP PRETENDING THE CASES NEVER OCCURRED.

All of their alleged powers stem from two Documents which are of no legal force and effect upon UBC members, effective 8-26-10.

Again ANON, name the case or case(s) which over-turned the D & O....NLRB or any other Court in the Land??? Come on smart ass - you got all the answers, so name them?

The fact is you cannot, so you again resort to insults & name calling. How many cases have you personally put your name on & won, in any forum, any Court of Law? And how many of them are precedent setting cases?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UBC International Refuses right Under 25 b to create local bylaws

NLRB
You have no idea of what any of what you are posting means, do you?
You keep quoting the same lines from the same case, all that this decision refers to is the fact that a union cannot require membership of a union as a prerequisite for employment.
It does not call the entire constitution or bylaws facially unlawful, it simply addresses the parts of them which are.
In other words, they are telling the union that it cannot have this rule.
All the other parts of the constitution or bylaws remain in effect,  just this one part has been found unlawful.
 
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UBC International Refuses right Under 25 b to create local bylaws

Ted
Hi Anon -

Make pretend friends at the Labor Board....if I am wrong - have the twit post their name & bar card number here online. Anon - You fail to comprehend the Law!.

All it consists of is: Words, Punctuation, Context, Case-law Precedence. Past that come the Lawyering gamesmanship within the state & federal rules of civil procedure, local court rules & playing that game.

FACT: THE LEGAL ISSUE IS....the "CONDITION PRECEDENT". What is the condition precedent addressed in Lebovitz.......?

The answer is, the "condition precedent to employment is....compliance with the UBC's Constitution & Bylaws, which as you know have been ruled "FACIALLY UNLAWFUL" & in Violation of NLRA Section 8(b)(1)(A)

Facially Unlawful means, on its face, no further explanation required, easily discernable to the common everyday man, in plain, clear & unequivocal English. so simple - Forrest Gump would get it - yet you persist with your obfuscation, chicanery & semantics. You continue your lies and the charade, which lead to one conclusion:

You are a HIRED GUN, ANON = UNION BUSTER

This is about educating members, presenting facts, actual cases for them to read & digest so they can stand up for their rights under Federal Labor law. Everyone else on this blog have done just that, everyone but you that is.

When proved wrong, you always resort to personal attacks. However, that does matter, we will not be deterred.



ANON = UNION BUSTER

Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UBC International Refuses right Under 25 b to create local bylaws

Ted
In reply to this post by NLRB
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/330/330.F2d.559.15308.html

re: Stackhouse Oldsmobile

In Lebovitz, the NLRB Board, by it very wording and direction in the D & O, regarding the UBC's Constitution & Bylaws, issued a ruling far beyond that contemplated by the parties in the instant case.

Given the NLRB & the Appellate Courts impose no time limits on Appeals of Board D & O's, said issue is ripe for review in the First Circuit - period.

Anon, this is where you seperate the men from the boys, and you are clearly a girl!

The current NLRB Board & very recent appointees by President Obama are political creatures, professors & staunch liberals as opposed to seasoned trial attorneys. Being that they have not practiced law for quite some time, their recent spate of NLRB Board Decision & Orders are replete with political diatribe & personal opinions vs. absolute rulings on the laws at hand.

The best example is in the NLRB Boards General Counsel arguing the merits of a 2-Member Board Quorum in New Process Steel, which the Supreme Court subsequently shit on - June 17, 2010.

To date, in spite of the Supreme Court having a field day with the NLRB's General Counsels inept presentation & concept of what the law is, the NLRB Board members have at every opportunity continued to try & spin this major precedent their way, for political as opposed to legal rationale.

They still believe that maintaining an argument, clearly put to rest by the Supreme Court, will somehow transpose itself to the idea that if they repeat it enough times through subsequent decision & orders of the Board - eventually they shall be able to cite back, albeit, 3, 5 or 10 years later to some obscure reference in an insignificant case that a decision by a 2-member Board quorum shall be legal & binding.

This is because they are political junkies & liberals first, girls second & lastly lawyers. Read all the D & O's regarding/citing New Process Steel, some 94 of 600 cases & in each & everyone, they're still sore-smarting from the Sup/ Ct. biitch-slapping, making inante references & statements as to how they are right & the Supreme Court is wrong...(akin to Anon's exact behavior on this site)

What Anon & his boyfriend at the NLRB, or his Pee Wee Herman make believe buddy fail to comprehend with respect to the law is simply this....the inept clown at the NLRB Board who authored the D & O relative to the UBC Constitution & Bylaws opened up the door for Appellate review to this issue; with no time limit. The UBC shall lose & appeal to the Sup Ct & that is where the issue shall be settled.

The UBC-NERCC CBA's as written do not have the appropriate savings clause within them. And, legally, clauses for seperability-severability when put in for show & not followed do not negate the fact(s) of non-compliant and Illegal Contract Lanaguage, simply given the fact that the average member not having a law degree.

It is in fact still Illegal under the Law. That NERCC Counsel is still trying to spin the ruling as is the NLRB post New Process Steel, evinces their fear of loss of power & dictatorial control via challenge by informed members on this and other fronts.

The UBC Constitution and its Bylaws, when put beside the NLRA, torn apart on a line by line basis in no way, shape or form conforms to the requirements of the Act as originally passed or as amended and that is why it is "facially unlawful", thus the door has been opened, Anon's girly screams aside!

PATS 34 - JETS 21