Reply – Re: MOBILITY & the Right of Exclusion
Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: MOBILITY & the Right of Exclusion
— by Ted Ted
from: The One Reason to Vote No on the Proposed Contract August 24, 2012
This post was updated on Dec 30, 2012; 2:13pm.

Full Mobility negates the 67% - 33% Standing Order of Judge Haight dated May 26, 2009 and it cannot be negotiated away via an alleged Contract Negotiation btwn. the D.C. & the Wall & Ceiling Contractor Association - period.

The D.C. Executives and their in house and outside counsel have failed the class on lessons learned ala Forde & Thomassen as directly related to the OWL & Referral List.

The Standing Order of a sitting Federal Judge cannot be negotiated away via a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for a new Contract. Moreover, the D.C., its Attorneys of record & Contractor Associations and their Attorneys of Record and the UBCJA International and their Attorneys of Record cannot do this without filing a formal legal motion & challenge to same and without having the current sitting Judge, Richard M. Berman issue a ruling from the bench and in writing and on the record for all to hear & see. To date, this has not been done.

This mindset, that the District Council & Contractor Associations can end run, negate, alter and amend a Federal Court Standing Order via a Restructuring Plan and/or letter writing campaign or via a CBA negotiation w/o filing the proper Motions before the Court undermines the inherent authority of the Court itself as well as that assumed under the Courts monitoring of the 1994 Consent Decree.

In the interim, there is a deafening silence on this subject matter from the United States Attorney's Office.

Every Delegate has a duty to bring this issue to light and to make the proper Motions at tomorrows meeting to table the Vote until the Wall & Ceiling and the UBCJA International (the two chief proponents) and their respective legal counsel submit this properly before Judge Berman. Without said submission's any & all votes cast are illegal!

This is a classic case of the inmates running the asylum; and, it would be akin to an inmate (Forde) and a Probation Officer negotiating a new sentence for a convicted felon among themselves w/o the direct involvement of the court. It would be like Forde taking a vote at his lunch table to reduce his sentence to time served...all those in favor say aay?

Now how far do you think he would get with a move like that? Time to use the bean....ole Douggie boy & Judge Conboy are using the new exec's to get to try & pass what they could not get over on Judge Berman. This is round 2.

It is not the purview of the U.S.A.O or R.O. to inject themselves directly into contract negotiations for any new CBA and/or insist that terms & conditions which they desire or which the UBCJA International desired but failed to achieve through their Restructuring Plan and which terms & conditions were voted down by the rank & file (Full Mobility, Magic Stewie Wand (scanners) by 2 to 1 margins on 4 of 5 Contracts) be inserted into any new contract and to then deny the members the right to read, review, discuss & debate the "entire contract & all its language" and; to ratify or reject it via a Secret Ballot  up or down vote. The USAO & RO are there to prevent & detect corruption, not to further it or to ignore the law in whole or in part.

When the standing order for the 67% - 33% OWL-Referral procedure dated May 26, 2009 is ignored by the two parties with standing (U.S.A.O. & R.O.) that were installed by the Federal Court to protect rank & file member rights; who are also members of the State Bar, and who fail to file formal submissions & briefs to the Court on this very matter; well, Houston, we got a problem.

Where is the Motion before Judge Berman? When was it filed by the DC, or by the Wall & Ceiling Contractor Association?

What are the exact terms and conditions of said proposal?

When did Mike Bilello & the Executive Committee publish it for review? Is it available for all DC members online?

How much time shall be given by Judge Berman to both elected Delegates & Rank & File members given prior to the new vote?

Anyone who comprehends NLRB Sec. 14(b) and property rights in the labor law context as noted above will clearly see that the NYCDCC has the unequivocal right to "exclude" any/all UBC members outside of the NYCDCC, thus allowing the EST, the Executive Committee & Delegates to craft a By-Law revision which can put all of it's members, including those utilizing the Hall and the Out of Work List (OWL) to work before anyone not a member of the DC. It must of necessity be done in concert with the current standing order of Federal Judge Haight's May 26, 2009 67% - 33% ratio.

You have a property right in the entire geographical jurisdiction of the DC, chief of which is the right of exclusion as this jurisdiction which you call home is your source or element of wealth.

The only ratio that counts is the amount of yearly man-hours going to out of council, out of state carpenters and the Bilello administrations refusal to publish it.