Reply – Re: THE CEMENT (CONCRETE) LEAGUE & ALJ Greens 5-21-15 Decision & the...
Your Name
Subject
Message
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
excerpt: court submission

March 2, 2013                                                

Honorable Richard M. Berman              
U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court (SDNY)                                                                                                
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 12                                                                                                        
New York, NY 10007                

Subject: United States v. District Council of New York and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of  Carpenters & Joiners of America, et al; (Index No. 90 Civ. 5722) (RMB)

Dear Judge Berman,

This letter concerns the UBCJA International and New York & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters (NYCDCC) collusive efforts with the Wall & Ceiling Contractor Association, BCA and all other contractor associations to escape the May 26, 2009 Order by Judge Haight under the Consent Decree mandating a minimum 67% - 33% hiring ratio out of work members.

Within the 23-year docket of this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision on February 20, 2007 at 9, pg. 7 which stated:
 
“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.”