Reply – Re: 50-50% or 67-33% or 90%-10% EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC HIRING HALL
Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: 50-50% or 67-33% or 90%-10% EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC HIRING HALL
— by Ted Ted
EST Bilello & Executive Committe members - Where is the Referral Preference based upon Area Residency (Home Local) for members of the NYCDCC?

New York City Residents who are also members of the D.C. & a home/Local Union within the Distirct Councils structure have a statutory right to be put to work over and above any & all traveling UBCJA members per long settled Board Law, which remains "good law" to this day. 

This is contrary to the UBCJA International's and/or Contractor Association false claims which seek to turn New York into a "Right to Work" (RTW) state contrary to NLRA Section 14(b) and contrary to New York State Law which has not declared New York a Right to Work (RTW) state.

Why is this provision not being required to be put into all contracts (CBA's) to protect the 3-Million plus Man-Hours per year lost to Travelers? Where's the leadership EST Bilello? Why is your in-house legal counsel (Murphy, McGuire) not aware of this "good law" and failing to advise you to apply it to help assist the Benefit Trust Funds return to solvency past the 65% endangered status & 80% critical funding status as defined under ERISA?

Not for nothing, you don't need an attorney to advise you of something which you should have committed to rote memorization, given you've been a member since 1975. A 38-year member and you don't know the basics which is truly sad for a labor leader.

It is not unlawful to base a referral preference on the objective criteria of area residence. In J. Willis & Son Masonry, 191NLRB 872, 874 and fn. 6 (1971), the Board found lawful contractual language that could be construed to give preference to area residents. In Metropolitan District Council, 194 NLRB 159 (1971) (MDC), the Board found no violation where a Carpenters local caused the discharge of three carpenters who had been hired from another geographical area.