Reply – Re: MOBILITY & the Right of Exclusion
Your Name
Subject
Message
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: MOBILITY & the Right of Exclusion
— by Ted Ted
 - CONT. -

 The loss of the property right via mobility rules enacted by the UBCJA and the hiring and employment of illegal aliens are the primary magnet which has led to these direct losses and is the source of the continued fraud, manipulation, malfeasance and longstanding LCN involvement which necessitated the RICO charges in the first instance in 1990.


 It is also a deprivation of the member rights to secure work through his/her own Local Union, for projects in their Local Unions Defined Geographical Jurisdiction within the Geograhpical Jurisdiction of the NYCDCC, above and before all others.

The United States Supreme Court made this point amply clear , stating: “because of this close relationship between § 14(b) and job situs, § 14(b) does not allow enforcement of right-to-work laws with regard to an employment relationship whose principal job-situs is outside of a State having such laws. Pp. 426 U. S. 416-418.”

Carpenters Local 43 (McDowell Building & Foundation) and Kevin Lebovitz No. 354-122, is one such individual case warranting the Constitutional questions presented by Movants, as noted within the June 1, 2011 letter to the Court. Mobility is the UBC's imposition of a RTW law in the Non-Right to Work State (one of 28 total) of New York.

The Mobility issue at bar here is one of Federal Pre-emption, as New York is not bound by Right to Work State laws which the UBC seeks to impose via fraud & artifice upon the Court.

New York is a Non-Right to Work State, and once the proviso to Section 8(a) (3) of the NLRA is adhered to, the intangible Property Right of Exclusion is thus enacted and operative. Federal pre-emption defeats the UBC International's "position" relative to its Mobility Scheme as does the Federal Constitution and the case law cited herein.

The Benefit Trust Fund reports will confirm that they have in fact violated the 67/33% Ruling by Judge Haight and that the UBCJA should be held in contempt of Court. Moreover, far past showing that the 67/33% Ruling should never have issued - the statistical analysis of the Trust Fund man-hours combined with the express requirements of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) & the Lechmere Doctrine require the Court to rule opposite of the UBCJA International & Contractor Association demands for 100% full control of all hiring and thus control of the Union. Reversion of control of the NYCDCC to contractor associations must fail as a matter of law and right as their position cannot stand upon the rule of fact or law.

In Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, 502 U.S. 527 (1992), Justice Thomas at II A stated “Section 7 of the NLRA provides in relevant part that "[e]mployees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations." 29 U.S.C. 157. Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, in turn, makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer "to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in [502 U.S. 527, 532]   [ 7]." 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1). By its plain terms, thus, the NLRA confers rights only on employees, not on unions or their nonemployee organizers.”

Given the above and prong 2 of the Consent Decree, the Court in the interest of Restoring Democracy should go in the opposite direction of the UBC International & Contractor Associations and issue a ruling wherein the New York City District Council of Carpenters regains the control of its Hiring Halls and allow the District Council to assign 90% of the workers & employees and in turn - allow the Contractors to assign the remaining 10%.

This ratio more than accounts for the "Company Man", their Foreman and General Foreman and those with UBCJA Books working as Project Superintendents & provides a complement of steady company men for them.

All others (90%) should come directly from the NYCDCC's Local Union Hiring Hall as that is the very minimum of what the Act requires.

The Lechmere Doctrine clearly shows that the Act affords rights to the worker and employee only. Non-Employee Union Orgnaizers are not afforded any rights under Lechmere, accordingly - the District Court for SDNY cannot therefore award or prescribe rights to the Contractor Associations which Federal Law and the U.S. Constitution do not allow.