Reply – Re: Out of Towners?
Your Name
Subject
Message
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: Out of Towners?
— by Ted Ted
procity - FYI (permit, blue card authorization/operative langauge giving the DC the right to tap your vacation pay to pay the permit fee, non-exclusive & exclusive hiring hall - illegal in either instance)

The Decision & Order (D & O) by ALJ Bogas was upheld by the Board. The DC has amended, but refuses to strike the langauge or the policies as it uses thes funds for Organizing & to supplement the Welfare Funds. Under ERISA, excess monies are allowed to be transferred from one account to another at years end, UBC Benefit Funds play this game all the time and regularly move the money around in a game of hide & seek or catch me if you can.

All the parties involved (International, DC, RO, USAO etc.) know the policy is illegal, the but for being the poor condition of the Welfare Fund which is at 45.23%, or nearly 20% below endangered status of 65% Funding per ERISA std's. Paul Tyzner admitted to a $58 Million dollar excess at the Javits debate for the DC election. The fact is, the amounts moved around like play money far exceed that; and, it will take a forsensic accounting to properly analyze the exact total. All funds which are below 80% critical status or 65% endangered status, by an Act of Congress have been allowed to undergo a 10-year Funding Improvement Plan (FIP).

While the money is due and payable as a refund to those whose rights were trampled, the fact is the funds and their attorneys are betting that not one of you will sue them to recover what is rightfully owed. You have Fiduciary Liability coverage for each & every year from 2006-2012 available, each with a 6-year statute of limitations.

The Blue Card Boy Lives topic & Out of Towners are inextricably tied together and are the two topics with the most hits on this site, totaling 11,300 +. You have until October 17, 2012 to file suit on the first Fiduciary Liability Policy, so it would be advisable to get moving before the statute of limitation on it runs.
_______________________________________

excerpt Paul Bogas ALJ D & O 12-27-07

III. Analysis and Discussion
The Board has held that a union violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act in the operation of a nonexclusive hiring hall when it discriminatorily denies referrals to members because those members have engaged in activities protected by Section 7 of the Act. Carpenters Local 370 (Eastern Contractors Assn.), 332 NLRB 174 (2000); Newspaper & Mail Deliverers (City & Suburban Delivery), 332 NLRB 870, 870 fn.1 (2000); Carpenters Local 626 (Strawbridge & Clothier), 310 NLRB 500, 500 fn. 2 (1993), enfd. 16 F.3d 404 (3d Cir. 1993) (Table); Laborers Local 135 (Bechtel Corp.), 271 NLRB 777, 780 (1984), enfd. 782 F.2d 1030 (3d Cir. 1986) (Table). Such discrimination is unlawfully coercive in the context of nonexclusive hiring halls, despite the fact that the coercion is greater when the discriminating union is party to an exclusive hiring arrangement. Chauffeur’s Union Local 923, Teamsters (Yellow Cab Co.), 172 NLRB 2137, 2138 (1968). 5 The protections provided by Section 7 extend not only to a member’s decision to participate in union activities, but also to a member’s decision to refrain from union activities, including union-sponsored picketing. Service Employees District 1199 (Staten Island University Hospital), 339 NLRB 1059, 1060-61 (2003); District 65, Distributive Workers (Blume Associates, Inc.) 214 NLRB 1059 (1974); see also Service Employees Local 87 (Able Building Maintenance Co.), 349 NLRB No. 40, slip op. at 5 (2007) (“An essential element of any violation of Section 8(b)(1) is restraint or coercion in the exercise of a Section 7 right; i.e., the right to form, join, or assist a labor organization, or to refrain from such activity.”).