Reply – Re: AMALGAMATED & the ALL WRITS ACT
Your Name
Subject
Message
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: AMALGAMATED & the ALL WRITS ACT
— by Ted Ted
The newly elected team of Bilello, Lebo & Cavanaugh, Executive Delegates & Council Delegate Body addressed that - mooting your argument.

Read this case as to how that right functions under a multi-employer union such as the NYCDCC.
_______________________________

FORD MOTOR CO. v. HOFFMAN 345 US 330 (1953)...EXCERPT:

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

The authority of every bargaining representative under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, is stated in broad terms:


"SEC. 7. Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, [345 U.S. 330, 337] to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection . . . .

. . . . .

"SEC. 9. (a) Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment: . . . ." (Emphasis supplied.) 61 Stat. 140, 143, 29 U.S.C. (Supp. V) 157, 159 (a).

In the absence of limiting factors, the above purposes, including "mutual aid or protection" and "other conditions of employment," are broad enough to cover terms of seniority.

The National Labor Relations Act, as passed in 1935 and as amended in 1947, exemplifies the faith of Congress in free collective bargaining between employers and their employees when conducted by freely and fairly chosen representatives of appropriate units of employees.

That the authority of bargaining representatives, however, is not absolute is recognized in Steele v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 323 U.S. 192, 198 -199, in connection with comparable provisions of the Railway Labor Act.

Their statutory obligation to represent all members of an appropriate unit requires them to make an honest effort to serve the interests of all of those members, without hostility to any. Id., at 198, 202-204; Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, 323 U.S. 210, 211 ; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Howard, 343 U.S. 768 .

Any authority to negotiate derives its principal strength from a delegation to the negotiators of a discretion [345 U.S. 330, 338] to make such concessions and accept such advantages as, in the light of all relevant considerations, they believe will best serve the interests of the parties represented.

A major responsibility of negotiators is to weigh the relative advantages and disadvantages of differing proposals.

A bargaining representative, under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, often is a labor organization but it is not essential that it be such. The employees represented often are members of the labor organization which represents them at the bargaining table, but it is not essential that they be such.

The bargaining representative, whoever it may be, is responsible to, and owes complete loyalty to, the interests of all whom it represents. In the instant controversy, International represented, with certain exceptions not material here, all employees at the Louisville works, including both the veterans with, and those without, prior employment by Ford, as well as the employees having no military service.

Inevitably differences arise in the manner and degree to which the terms of any negotiated agreement affect individual employees and classes of employees. The mere existence of such differences does not make them invalid.

The complete satisfaction of all who are represented is hardly to be expected. A wide range of reasonableness must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents, subject always to complete good faith and honesty of purpose in the exercise of its discretion.
__________________________________

Current membership of the NYCDCC per 2011 LM's filed are: 21,798 members, with 14,504 active. Dockbuilders and Timberman represent 1,300 or 5.96% of the total membership base. In terms of wages, pension, annuity and welfare funds, both trades have benefitted immensely.

Fiduciaries, Trustees and DC management are bound to protect the majority interests, which in this situation are the rights of the clear majority totaling 20,498 members and their families.

It appears the majority of the issues present concern 10(k) Jurisdicitonal Disputes (Green Book) both within the UBC and via trade raiding by other Unions seeking to obtain and perform your work. Instead of running away like a petulant child, one would think that you would have allowed the new team to be properly seated and that you would utilize the dispute resolution, grievance and arbitration procedures or board processes against the rival unions who are attempting to claim your work.

The Second Interim Report of the Review Officer made it quite clear that your rep's failed miserably at performing their duties as alleged business managers, trustees or fiduciairies. All of them should have been summarily fired, for cause.

Instead of acknowledging the obvious, you seek to repeat it by aligning with the same characters who caused the merger to occur. This is not an issue centering on democracy, rather, it is one centering on the foundation of Fiduciary & Trustee accountability and lack thereof.

The DC team barely were sworn in and immediately addressed concerns and began screening and interviewing potential candidates with specific experience of each sub-trade
and you have to give that time to play out. Running away never solves a thing and it seems out of character for guys who claim they fight for their rights, yet who readily jump into the arms of Painters???