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





Case 03-CA-126938

Administrative Law Judges decision 5-21-15


Docket Activity page 4

Date,                Document,                       Issued/Filed By

02/10/2015, RD Order*,                               NLRB - GC

02/02/2015, Answer to Complaint*, Charged Party / Respondent

01/13/2015, RD Order*,                               NLRB - GC

12/31/2014, Complaint and Notice of Hearing*, NLRB - GC

04/21/2014, Initial Letter to Charging Party*, NLRB - GC

04/21/2014, Initial Letter to Charging Party*, NLRB - GC

04/21/2014, Initial Letter to Charged Party*, NLRB - GC

04/21/2014, Signed Charge Against Employer*, Charging Party

02/24/2014, Signed Charge Against Employer*, Charging Party

The Docket Activity list does not reflect all actions in this case.

* This document may require redactions before it can be viewed. To obtain a copy, please file a request through our FOIA Branch. 


8(a)(1) Coercive Rules

8(a)(3) Union Security Related Actions


The UBCJA International has again fabricated a test case which does not comport with Federal law. What it is seeking here is for the Government to approve the UBCJA & their Corporate handlers back-door Amending/Altering of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA); a power reserved wholly to the U.S. Congress, via the Legislative branch - and one which the corrupt UBCJA International & their Corporate handlers (the true plaintiffs in the case) do not possess.

Quite obviously they are redacting documents in order to bury the true identities of the parties controlling the case. The CEMENT LEAGUE is agnositic (ALJ Greens quote) as they never had a direct interest in pursuing any charges in the first instance - as there were none to pursue predicated upon the charges as proffered by the the NLRB. The current charges were made up to fit the facts as the UBCJA International, their Corporate handlers and their attorneys wanted them to read; and all of them controlled the outcome of this case through to the bogus Board D & O issuing February 12, 2016. The real facts would have produced an entirely different set of charges - criminal racketeering under multiple causes of action.

Anyone who has read ALJ Greens many, many D & O's over the years can see right through this particular Decision & Order and realize immediately that he was told what to write and how to write it and what the outcome was to be in advance and over/above his objections to his superiors. I have read a ton of his work product and this case is certainly not in his own words.

Decision - Statement of the Case
RAYMOND P. GREEN, Administrative Law Judge.

I heard this case on March 25, 2015, in New York City. The charge in this proceeding was filed on April 21, 2014, and the complaint was issued on December 31, 2014. It essentially alleges that a collective-bargaining agreement between The Cement League, an employer association, and the New York City and Vicinity District Council of Carpenters contained provisions granting preference in hiring based on union membership.

On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed, 1 I make the following -
Findings of Fact

This case as ALJ was forced to write it can be broken down to 4 basic components, as follows, the rest being superfulous:

1)   pg. 1, Line 42
"In the past, the contract between the NYC Council and The Cement League has permitted employers to select up to one half of their work force for any given project, but required them, after the hiring of a foreman and (line 45) a shop steward, to obtain the other half from the NYC Council out-of-work list; this being a nonexclusive referral system which was not limited to members of the affiliated local unions of the NYC

2)   pg. 3, Line 45

"Among other things, Section 7 of the Act gives employees the right to join a labor organization and the right to refrain from doing so. Section 8(a)(1) of the Act prohibits employers from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. Similarly, Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits a union from restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7."

3)   pg. 4, Line 45-51; pg. 5 Lines 1-4

"Strictly speaking, the contract provisions in the present case do not require any employer to hire all or a part of its work force for any project in New York City because such individuals are already members of the NYC Council. {FALSE}

What they do require is that if an employer chooses to hire persons who are nonmembers, then the employer would be required 50 to hire 50 percent of its work force from the NYC Council’s job referral list that is also called, “the out of work list.” And although it may be fairly assumed that there is strong probability that the people on that list would be members of the NYC Council, there is no showing that the Union prevents or precludes nonmembers from registering for the list. (The record doesn’t disclose the mechanics of how the list is created, maintained or utilized.) In this sense, the use by a union of a job referral list is the equivalent of a hiring hall, whether exclusive or nonexclusive."

4)   pg. 7, Line 10 -18

In light of the above, I am inclined to agree with the theory proposed by the General Counsel and the Charging Party and to conclude that the provisions of The Cement League’s collective-bargaining agreement unduly encourage membership in local unions affiliated with the NYC Council and tend to unduly discourage membership in the locals affiliated with the Northeast Council. (Line 15) I am also going to reject the defense that the Board should defer to the fact that a contract, in the context of the RICO settlement, was approved by Judge Berman. I am doing so despite the fact that that lawsuit was not between private parties and involved a branch of the government other than the NLRB.

All legal commentary shall be reserved for formal submissions, leaving McCarron and his minions guessing. Good morning Doug!.

Judge Greens decision is not based on any direct evidence, fact or most importantly, NLRB, Appellate Court or U.S. Supreme Court precedent. In short, its garbage and w/o a doubt not ALJ Greens choice.