Reply – Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50
Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: Full Mobility, OWL, Future Contract, 50-50
— by Ted Ted
Richard - John..forgive the length of post, but bare with me here: Nice brief by the AG. I presume he won the argument/case. WHAT EXACTLY IS THE RULE AS OF TODAY? WHAT RULINGS/ADJUSTMENT WERE MADE?

On top of what was going on here, via the Consent Decree mandate(s) for the 50/50 Rule lie cases which have been around forever & which were not cited by the AG or the UBC.

In 125 NLRB 116 Local Union 2058 UBC & Harold & William Stockton (12/23/59) the relevant issues were on Closed Shop Preferential Hiring & Oral Contracts with the BA & Contractors involved for Exclusive & Discriminatory Hiring Hall arrangements without complying to the standards in MOUNTAIN PACIFIC 119 NLRB 126 (12/14/57).

For this blog I will focus on Mountain Pacific as related to the NYCDCC 50/50 Rule, noting that the UBC INT'L is fully versed & aware of these cases & their implications relative to Thomassens false statements...being mindful of their flouting or ignoring caselaw when it suits their 'position' or 'claim'.

Excerpt - Mountain Pacific, pg 894
"The Respondents do not, nor could they,  argue that this contract does not make employment conditional upon union approval, for a more complete and outright surrender of the normal management hiring perogative to a union could hardly be phrased in contract language. The fact that the Agreement limits the unions exclusive control to a 48-hour period after a request for employees is immaterial, for if unqualified exclusive delegation of hiring to a Union is unlawful, the vice is not cured by a reversion back to the employer of the hiring privilege after the union is unable to enjoy the power conferred upon it."2
The 50/50 Rule as used in NYCDCC gave unqualified exclusive delegation of hiring to the Contactor Associations vis a vis the Employer.....& NYCDCC's excuses made through Thomassen via the vice being cured by giving it back to the Contractors was Thomassens & the UBC International's way of reverting back to preferential hiring through exclusive halls - simply through a rules change which they knew all too well to be facially unlawful.
MOUNTAIN PACIFIC - cont. (cruxt of the ruling) pg. 897
"The basis for a Unions referral of one individual and refusal to refer another may be any selective criterion which an employer could lawfully utilize in selecting from among job seekers.
   We believe, however, that the inherent and unlawful encouragement of union membership that stems from unfettered union control over the hiring process would be negated, and we would find an agreement to be nondiscriminatory on its face, only if the agreement explicitly provided that:

(1) Selection of applicants for referral to jobs shall be on a nondiscriminatory basis and shall not be based on, or in any way affected by, union membership, bylaws, rules, regulations, constitutional provisions, or any other aspect or obligation of union membership, policies, or requirements.
(2) The employer retains the right to reject any job applicant referred by the union.
(3) The parties to the agreement post in places where notices to employees and applicants for employment are customarily posted, all provisions related to the functioning of the hiring arrangement, including safeguards that we deem essential to the legality of an exclusive hiring agreement."
3-KEY POINTS HERE: from above

...."for if unqualified exclusive delegation of hiring to a union is unlawful, the vice is not cured by a reversion back to the employer of the hiring privilege"......"after the union is unable to enjoy the power conferred upon it".

Point 1
THE NYCDCC & Thomassen knew full well that they were violating the consent decree & simply passed the magic ball to the employers, and then utilized the false claim or premise that it was on or upon the will of the men and was for their benefit via Greaneys bogus claims. I am amazed that it took the government 4-years to catch on??? That leads to having to ask, who if anyone from the government side of the equation was in bed with them....who sold out?

Point 2:
As far back as December 14, 1957 the UBC's constitution, bylaws, rules, regulations, policies, requirements and the obligation are moot....facially unlawful.....or if you prefer, of no force or effect. This case was reiterated by the Board in UBC Local 43 & Lebovitz, wherein they ruled the UBC Constitution & Bylaws to be facially unlawful, without qualification.

Point 3:
The current BTEA PLA Hiring Language & Referral policies all need to be opened up & examined for compliance to NLRB Board precedent.....are they running an Illegal Exclusive Hiring Hall another words? Who is running it, the employer side, or the union side? Does it comply with Federal Labor law & the Consent Decree or was it another give-away/kiss to the Contractor Associations? Obviously, the $7.54 an hour reduction in the Total Package was, as is the Unilateral Wage Freeze by Spencer to with-hold the $2.13 raise, but are NYCDCC members getting slammed with the trifecta & being deined work on these projects too, in favor of the company men? Another words, the UBC lost in 2005, so are the PLA's simply another means or vehicle for them to end run the Gov't Consent Decree again, and thus hand the hiring back to the employer associations & go back to how it was before the suit in 2005?