Reply – Re: THE CEMENT (CONCRETE) LEAGUE & ALJ Greens 5-21-15 Decision & the...
Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: THE CEMENT (CONCRETE) LEAGUE & ALJ Greens 5-21-15 Decision & the NLRB Boards 2-16-16 Decision & Order; EXCLUSIVE NYCDCC Hiring Hall, the HARTE, McMURRAY & CLARKE legacy vs. 50-50%, 67-33% & 90%-10% vs. the McCarron, Walsh, Berman & Torrance Conversion of the BLUE CARD to the WHITE CARD 8(f) to illegal 9(a) Agreement w/o Proof or the req'd. NLRB Board Election
— by Ted Ted
Independent Monitor First Interim Report at pg. 38

The Cement League and Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters
, NLRB Case No. 3-CA-126938. The District Council is the Party in Interest in this case which challenges the 1:1 matching provision in its CBA with the multiemployer association, The Cement League. The National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) December 31, 2014 complaint issued by its Office of General Counsel alleged that the 1:1 matching provision, which requires any hires who are not members of the District Council to be matched 1:1 by referrals from the District Council’s OWL, on its face violates the NLRA. 1:1 matching provisions are in all of the District Council’s agreements with multiemployer associations by which the employers were granted so-called full mobility to hire anyone they wanted (except for the District Council Certified Shop Steward who must lawfully be referred by the District Council’s OWL). The Court approved all of those agreements during 2013. The District Council’s and The Cement League’s position is that the 1:1 matching provisions have an anti-corruption benefit because they ensure that there will be employees, other than the Shop Steward, who are District Council members with stakes in protecting the CBAs and the employers’ required contributions to the District Council’s Benefit Funds. A trial before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) was held on March 25, 2015. The Cement League and the District Council presented evidence and argument that the anti-corruption benefits of the matching provisions in the Court-approved multi-employer agreements favored deferring to the Consent Decree and the Court’s May 8, 2013 Decision & Order and subsequent Orders. In his May 21, 2015 Decision, the ALJ agreed with the charging party that the 1:1 matching provision is on its face unlawful under the NLRA because it favors hiring District Council members as opposed to members of the Northeast Regional Council of

Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB Document 1628 Filed 07/01/15 Page 41 of 57 


Carpenters. The District Council will be filing exceptions and supporting briefs with the NLRB in Washington, D.C. by the July 2, 2015 due date.


"In his May 21, 2015 Decision, the ALJ agreed with the charging party that the 1:1 matching provision is on its face unlawful under the NLRA..."

*   The "charging party" in the instant matter is not the North East Regional Council of Carpenters (NERC); rather and contrary to I.M. McGorty's report to Judge Berman, the "charging party" is the UBCJA International and its General President Douglas J. McCarron and his outside corporate interests (handlers) and developers and contractor associations.

*   Said case is a a set up or test case for McCarron & his co-conspirators to violate anti-trust laws and cement 100% Full Mobility into NLRA Board precedent and serves as a re-write/alteration of the NLRA as currently written.

Given the re-write/alteration of the NLRA was not initiated in the U.S. House of Representatives by the Congress, it is facially unlawful and evinces how far McCarron and corrupt contractor employer associations and developers will go to aovid compliance with known labor law, anti-trust law etc. McCarron is not King and the Dictator in Cheif cannot subsume the role of Congress and claim it unto himself.

*   The NYCDCC's Trusteeship has not been extended and has long expired, thus McCarrons continued interference and that of his agents under their apparent authority provides a cause of action for their jointly conspired illegal activities to effect and control intra-state and interstate commerce in direct contravention to known federal law and therin establish the anti-trust cause(s) of action.

*   The USAO's and IM's defaulting on their obligation to adequately and purposefully defend rank & file member interests in the Federal District Court as the parties with 'standing' sworn to defend same both inexcusable and negligent and both parties should be replaced with competent attorneys well versed in labor law, racketeering, anti-trust law etc.

All racketeering suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a corruption free court of law where standing & due process are not denied to the victims of the crimes as if this were a third world dictatorship run amock; or are they?