In A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) at Chief Justice Hughes stated, at Third: CONTINUED………
“If the federal government may determine the wages and hours of employees in the internal commerce of a state, because of their relation to cost and prices and their indirect effect upon interstate commerce, it would seem that a similar control might be exerted over other elements of cost, also affecting prices, such as the number of employees, rents, advertising, methods of doing business, etc. All the processes of production and distribution that enter into cost could likewise be controlled. If the cost of doing an intrastate business is in itself the permitted object of federal control, the extent of the regulation of cost would be a question of discretion and not of power.
The government also makes the point that efforts to enact state legislation establishing high labor standards have been impeded by the belief that, unless similar action is taken generally, commerce will be diverted from the states adopting such standards, and that this fear of diversion has led to demands for federal legislation on the subject of wages and hours. The apparent implication is that the federal authority under the commerce clause should be deemed to extend to the establishment of rules to govern wages and hours in intrastate trade and industry generally throughout the country, thus overriding the authority of the states to deal with domestic problems arising from labor conditions in their internal commerce. It is not the province of the Court to consider the economic advantages or disadvantages of such a centralized system. It is sufficient to say that the Federal Constitution does not provide for it.”
Movants respectfully request the Court issue an Order and Permanent Injunction preventing the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, International and the New York City District Council of Carpenters and its Local Union affiliates from initiating any form of a “centralized governing body or system” within the UBCJA & NYCDCC. We further note that the UBCJA, via and through their proposed Restructuring and By-Law Plan submitted to the Court May 26, 2011 demands that the Court acknowledge and accept their complete control of all executive, legislative functions through the Restructuring Plan and the UBCJA’s & District Councils control of all judicial functions through the UBCJA’s & NYCDCC’s Constitution and By-Laws and the Obligation (UBC Constitution, page 92). Movants, in agreement with the Supreme Court in A.L.A. Schechter, for want of any other way to state it can offer no more and merely remind the Court again of the Supreme Courts admonition with regard to such a centralized system – “It is sufficient to say that the Federal Constitution does not provide for it.” Accordingly, neither should this honorable Court.
In Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp., 475 US 211 (1986), Justice White in delivering the opinion of the Court stated “Contracts, however express, cannot fetter the constitutional authority of Congress. Contracts may create rights of property, but when contracts deal with a subject [475 US 211, 224] matter which lies within the control of Congress, they have a congenital infirmity. Parties cannot remove their transactions from the reach of dominant constitutional power by making contracts about them.” Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co, 294 US, 240, 307-308 (1935).
The UBCJA Constitution, its By-laws and the NYCDCC By-laws, the Collective Bargaining Agreements and the individual Trust Fund Agreements; and, the UBC Obligation, all form a contract. The UBC International and the NYCDCC have now jointly proposed that they be granted the Powers of the 3-branches of Government established by the Federal Constitution – that of the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch, via the Unilateral Implementation of a Centralized Restructuring Plan, wherein the Bylaw changes grant to them all plenary powers. The UBC International and the New York City District Council now pray that this honorable Court allow them such unilateral control as is only present within Dictatorships.
It begs no more, to say that this Restructuring Plan makes a prima-facie case for violation of any & all due process rights, is proffered in bad faith, and that it wholly and completely eviscerates the NLRA, TAFT-HARTLEY & the LMRDA in one fell swoop. Moreover, under the limited controls granted to International Unions in federal LMRDA Trusteeships, those which seek illegitimate ends are expressly prohibited as a matter of law.
Chief Justice Hughes stated, at Third, in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 495 (1935): “It is not the province of the Court to consider the economic advantages or disadvantages of such a centralized system. It is sufficient to say that the Federal Constitution does not provide for it.”
Movants respectfully request the Court with the exact legal precedent established above, with respect to the NYCDCC Proposed Restructuring Plan dated May 26, 2011 – that it is sufficient to say that such a “centralized system” as proposed by the UBCJA & NYCDCC By-Law rules changes for the operation of the District Council could not be allowed under the Federal Constitution – that it not be allowed under the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree here in New York., that it be declared facially unlawful and vetoed in its entirety.
pg 94-95 excerpt
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|