Reply – Re: MOBILITY & the Right of Exclusion
Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: MOBILITY & the Right of Exclusion
— by Ted Ted
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which decision issued February 20, 2007 made it amply clear at 9, pg. 7  “The Consent Decree is clear and unambiguous. King, 65 F. 3d. at 1058. The Consent Decree addresses CBA’s in two places: Paragraph 4(f)(1)(b) and Job Referral Rule 5(B). However, neither empowers the Union to circumvent the Consent Decree through a CBA.”

At 14, pg 8, the Court of Appeals stated “Rule 5(B) does not permit the Union to make unlimited changes to the Job Referral Rules in a CBA. This is particularly true when Job Referral Rule 5(B) is read in conjunction with Consent Decree Paragraph 11, which again, provide that “[t]o the extent that this Consent Decree conflicts with any current or future rights, privileges or rules applicable to the District Council or its membership, the District Council…hereby waives compliance with any such right, privilege or rule an agrees that it and its membership will act in accordance with this Consent Decree.”

At 21, pg. 8, the Court of Appeals stated “Paragraph 11 further requires the Union to make the Job Referral Rules part of the District Council By-Laws.”