Reply – Re: The white card
Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: The white card
— by Ted Ted
A year ago, the contract ratification procedure swayed many to sign this card. Time has shown that the AAA contract Ratification process won't be honored- even as the man-hours steadily improve & eclipse 18+-million worked last year.

Sign the White Card if you will, but know when you sign it or whether you resign, you have made a "legally binding assignment" with the D.C. and it applies even after you cease empoyment or Resign from the UBCJA under Const. Sec. 47. This is a legally binding and enforceable contract from which you will have no escape. Once you make said "assignment" you will have no say on the D.C.'s ability to increase it at will w/o your direct input, vote or go right ahead, sign away knowing what you know now about what Bilello truly believes as to your respective rights for full mobility & contractor control of your union, your right to ratify a contract you work under etc..


This NLRB board case below is settled law, as was the precedent cited in 1997 and applies equally with respect to Union & Contractor Association attempt to bury their illegal langauge within a CBA.

The D.C.'s in house counsel Murphy should have caught this during contract negotiations and followed through by severing it from the contract (CBA) langauge. The D.C.'s ongoing efforts to induce rank and file members to sign a card obligating them to pay dues to the D.C. is clearly illegal and coercive.

Past the obvious here, is the fact that they are also using this White Card to convert the 8(f) Pre-Hire arrangement to a 9(a) Exclusive Representation requirement w/o submitting the definitive proof to the NLRB that a majorityof its members (51%) have signed the White Card and w/o submitting to the NLRA mandated Representation Election which would be conducted by the NLRB via Secret Ballot of all eligible rank & file members.

We all know McCarron won't have any of that, not in New York City, so they concoct yet another scheme wherein they try to circumvent Federal law and backdoor it via a contract and false claim saying they have the majority but never having proved it.

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)


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

90-Civ. #5722