Reply – Re: 50-50% or 67-33% or 90%-10% EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC HIRING HALL
Your Name
Subject
Message
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: 50-50% or 67-33% or 90%-10% EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC HIRING HALL
— by Ted Ted
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
………………………………………………………X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

        PLAINTIFF
                                                                                                   90 Civ. #5722 (RMB)
                  -against-

DISTRICT COUNCIL of NEW YORK CITY
and VICINITY of THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD
of CARPENTERS and JOINERS of AMERICA, et al,

        DEFENDANT
………………………………………………………..X

PROPOSED ORDER on JOB REFERRAL RULES UNDER ALL CONTRACTOR ASSOCIATION COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS MODIFYING:  
Final Order & Judgment of Contempt and Remedy” (Order) Document #961, dated May 26, 2009 by Judge Charles Haight


1) WHEREAS, This Court entered a Consent Decree on March 4, 1994 brought by the United States of America under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (R.I.C.O.) against & amongst other defendants and The District Council of New York City & Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (the “District Council”);

2) WHEREAS, The CONSENT DECREE required the District Council and all Multi-Employer Contractor Associations and their respective Signatory Contractors to Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA’s) to comply with Job Referral Rules as mandated and ordered by the Court;


3) WHEREAS, This COURT entered a Final Order & Judgment of Contempt and Remedy” (Order) Document #961, dated May 26, 2009 by Judge Charles Haight mandating specific hiring/referral ratios be followed by the parties to CBA’s, providing no more than 67% of the Union Carpenters on the Project could be hired by the Employer; and, that a minimum of 33% percent of the Union Carpenters shall be referred directly from the UBCJA-District Council Ultra-Out of Work List (OWL);

4) WHEREAS, the New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters and the Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc., one of the multiple Multi-Employer Contractor Associations bound to the Consent Decree’s mandatory Job Hiring/Referral procedures ordered by this honorable Court have failed to abide by the Court approved August 5, 2011 By-laws, Section 5, 12 & 20 and the Past Practice of Contract Ratification, as approved by the Council Delegate Body (CDB), and, as voted upon by the rank & file Union Carpenter on March 27, 2012 wherein a reversion of control of all Hiring/Referral Ratio’s of 100% Full Mobility (Mobility) was soundly rejected at the ballot box, as certified by the American Arbitration Association (AAA);

5) WHEREAS, the New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters and the Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc., have put forth a fraudulent vote of the Council Delegate Body, dated August 12, 2012, with 52-blank pages of a proposed contract not shown or disclosed; and, which contract proposal was not put to a contract ratification vote of the rank & file Union Carpenter as duly established by the past practice under the new August 5, 2011 By-laws, as the condition precedent required to sustain same;


6) WHEREAS, the New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters and the Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc., have failed to negotiate the contract for a new successor Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in good faith; and, rather, have proceeded to violate the many statute’s, settled law & binding precedents of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the nations Appellate Courts and the United States Supreme Court as noted within the Table of Cases, Table of Statutes/Authorities and Argument presented herein;

7) WHEREAS, the prior 50% - 50% Contractor Hiring/Referral Ratio’s increased Contractor corruption; and, whereas the Final Order & Judgment of Contempt and Remedy” (Order) Document #961, dated May 26, 2009 mandating an increase of 17% changed the Contractor Hiring/Referral Ratios to 67% Contractor hires and 33% District Council hires and said increase favoring signatory Multi-Employer Contractor Associations also allowed said associations to increase their workforce percentages to near 100%; and, said increase favoring Contractors created a vacuum of rank & file eyes and ears on District Council projects and led directly to increased fraud, corruption, extortion, bribery, kick-backs and fraud upon the Benefit Trust Funds;


8) WHEREAS, the UBCJA International, the District Council have willfully & wantonly failed to expunge illegal provisions within the UBCJA Constitution and District Council By-laws which fail to comply with Federal law, settled NLRB, Appellate Court & U.S. Supreme Court precedent Decisions & Orders, and whereas, the District Councils in-house legal counsel has failed to vet same and strike illegal provisions under the existing severability clause;

9) WHEREAS; the New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters and the Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc., have presented a DRAFT CBA which had 52-blank pages; and, whereas, the Electronic Reporting and Verification System Vendor presentation can and should be incorporated into the Benefit Trust Fund By-laws in the first instance and does not directly or expressly effect Contractor Hiring or the District Council Referral procedures;


10) WHEREAS, the New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters have failed to demonstrate “EXCLUSIVE” or “MAJORITY” status as required by NLRA Sec. 9(a) and have willfully & wantonly refused to turn-over definitive proof of majority status by signed Authorization Cards;

11) WHEREAS, the New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters and the Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc, and District Council in house Legal Counsel have included within the DRAFT CBA an illegal Maintenance of Membership clause via ART. V, Sec. 2, and an “Authorization” demand via ART. V, Sec. 5, page 15 of the contract (CBA) submitted February 27, 2012 section for Dues and Assessments deductions found to be illegal under the Blue Card Vacation Wage extortion which the UBCJA International and District Council kept alive during the UBCJA’s Trusteeship from August 5, 2009 through January 12, 2012 and beyond – through to July 2012 after it was long proven to violate Federal Law and settled precedent of the NLRB Appellate & Supreme Courts; [Exhibit # 1 attached]


12) WHEREAS, Prong 1 of the Consent Decree requires the elimination of Racketeering; and, Prong 2 requires the Restoration of Democracy and the New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters and the Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc., and other Multi-Employer Contractor Associations have failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the Consent Decree for Hiring/Referrals and/or otherwise failed to control Contractor corruption via the fostering of Hiring Ratio’s and Work Force percentage’s they have collectively championed for 19-years, under the former and current U.S.A.O. and I.R.O and R.O. and said corruption has continued unabated, ad-nausea;

NOW THEREFORE, IN DUE CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS NUMBERED 1-12;
 And UNDER THE INHERENT AUTHORITY OF THIS HONORABLE COURT,
 IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:


A) The Final Order & Judgment of Contempt and Remedy” (Order) Document #961, dated May 26, 2009 by Judge Charles Haight, wherein the Contractors were awarded 67% Hiring/Referral and the rank & file Union Carpenter working from the District Council OWL were limited to 33% Hiring/Referral, that said order being in contravention to the Public Policy of the United States of America, as declared by the preamble to the NLRA (1935), The Wagner Act; and, NLRA Section 7 and having failed to control or deter contractor corruption and fraud and, that the 67% - 33% Hiring Ratio be changed or modified as follows:

NYCDCC Union Carpenters working from the list shall be allowed a Hiring/Referral ratio or percentage of 90% with 10% being reserved for direct Company hires for card carrying General Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, General Foreman, Foreman and 2-key traveling non-working members, as is practiced by multiple other trades within New York City and the outer Boroughs; and/or an Order for no less than 70% NYCDCC Union Carpenters working from the District Council OWL, with the 30% balance reserved for the aforementioned Company/Contractor Association permanent employees and supervisors described above.

Respectfully submitted,


Demian Schroeder








358 NLRB No. 73 June 27, 2012 Comeau, Inc and Automated Systems Workers (AWS) Local 1123 affiliated with Carpenters Industrial Council and United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America & Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters (MRCC)

DUES CHECKOFF/AUTHORIZATION FORMS, pg. 4/26

3. We agree with the judge, for the reasons he set forth, that Comau violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening employees Nizar Akkari and Gasper Calandrino with discipline or discharge if they did not execute dues-check off authorization forms for the CEA.

We further agree with the judge, for the reasons he gave and for the additional reasons set forth below, that Comau and the CEA violated Section 8(a) (1) and Section 8(b)(1)(A), respectively, by making statements and engaging in other conduct that had a reasonable tendency to coerce employee Jeffrey T. Brown to execute a dues check off authorization form.

*An employer may not lead employees to believe that the dues-check off authorization method of fulfilling financial obligations to their union is compulsory. Rochester Mfg. Co., 323 NLRB 260 (1997). The Board has repeatedly held that “the Act guarantees to each employee the right to determine for himself, free from coercion, whether he shall sign a check off authorization or not.” Herman Bros., Inc., 264 NLRB 439, 442 (1982).13

“Any conduct, express or implied, which coerces an employee in his attempt to exercise this right clearly violates [the Act].” Electronic Workers IUE Local 601 (Westinghouse Electric Corp.), 180 NLRB 1062 (1970).
_____________________________________

* Neither may a Union

http://www.nlrb.gov/case/07-CA-052614



PROPOSED ORDER
EXHIBIT 1
90-Civ. #5722