Reply – Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!
Your Name
Subject
Message
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: NO MORE FINES in NLRB Ruling Mandatory Union Participation!
— by RichardDorrough RichardDorrough
Actually they are playing on words and the NLRB is absolutely a Union bought and paid for agency. They cannot create bylaws that conflict with the UBC constitution.Show me where in the UBC Constitution that allows them to screw with your membership or internal union activity especially voting. You have another charge there for LMRDA violations.File a charge with the OLMS. I can give you proof that not only have they removed a members name from the master membership list for refusing to pay or picket but they also called his employer and demanded he be fired because he is no longer in the Union.
 
    Point one. Who ever told you at the NLRB that they can fine you is full of shit. If they use the word fine or admit the money is to try to force you to picket or pay then their case is over. To cover for their Union benefactors the NLRB is using a 50 year old case where the judges ruled the Union could increase dues by 6 dollars and give it back if a member attended a Union meeting.It was labeled an incentive but that is not the case here. However they could do nothing to you if you refused to pay the 6 dollars.The case hinged on the Judges claim that a worker could leave the Union and become an agency fee payer and still (1) work on all Union jobs for Union contractors(2)still use all Union functions such as the Out of work list and etc and (3) exercise all rights THE LAW allows as an agency fee payer to avoid the rule. However that is a lie and you can prove it. The Northeast Council before it was seized by McCarron had NO agency fee payers. Check their LM2. There is a line for it.Further the person who they told was off the master membership list for not paying, which is a violation of the UBC Constitution and as such the LMRDA,and also they tried to have fired is right now filing charges as well.

Here is the UBC argument..Following the issuance of ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN PULP AND PAPER WORKERS
LOCAL 171(Boise cascade), 165 NLRB 941 (1967), for the past 50 years, the Board has uniformly
recognized the right of unions to prescribe dues rebates and other financial incentives intended to
attract attendance at union meetings and participation in union activities and reward employees,
giving of time to union functions.


It appears the UBC scum bags have an English comprehension problem. I know many council Officers and reps are picked for their stupidity and willingness to drop to their knees on command but this will be  no excuse in front of a Judge. Despite the NLRB warning that the UBC will NOT try to coerce or force UBC members to picket or take action against them if they refuse the UBC punks have and are still violating the law. The Northeast Council recently raped and given to Tommy “the ass clown” Flynn and the New England Council are still threatening members, still demanding the Picket extortion money and are now threatening to try and ruin a members credit. Despite the clear notice from the NLRB stating they will not coerce members.


"Brother Newell's case applies to ALL union Locals within the United Brotherhood of Carpenters.  And it applies to all UNIONS. Anyone who says otherwise is full of shit." That is correct but they will still force you to file another NLRB case to stop them because they are arrogant punks. Look at the NYC Council punks lawyer Murphy who advised the Council to ignore the NLRB because they have no enforcement power when the Northeast Council attacked NYC jobs.The NLRB does have enforcement power. If you keep filing these cases this will stop completely. Had others joined Newell as requested in his case this would have gone different. If you join together now you efforts will stop this extortion BS.. As each member files a charge you need to include the information of previous and existing charges with your charge.

      As we advised you the NLRB is clearly bought and paid for and goes out of its way to screw Union members trying to protect themselves from the rats at their own Union. This fact is documented in many places.  The region 3 office as expected tried to screw the case. The appeal was already decided and prepared for before the region 3 office even acted.
     The Union, the NLRB Regional Office and newly appointed appeals office Director Mark Arbesfeld did everything in their power to see that this matter did not go before the Administrative Law Judge. Newells appeal was approved and scheduled to go before a law Judge but suddenly newly appointed Director Mark Arbesfeld, who was appointed in December 5, 2017, reversed his fellow NLRB lawyer and  stopped the appeal. He canceled the ALJ court appearance. Its funny how a newly appointed director was aware of the Newell appeal and with all his new duties made time to take over Newells case himself. Despite this Newell did not fold and give up despite once again in violation of the NLRA the UBC lawyers threatened Newell for pursuing the charges. Perhaps it was because of Arbsfelds personal connection to the Region 3 Office and or because he is yet another Union bought and paid for NLRB employee.
     Either way the result of the Newell decisions is that despite them insisting you picket “or else” they now have no “or else” so you can tell them to go f themselves. They can tell you that you owe them $500 or $250 and you can tell them to kiss your ass. DO NOT PAY IT. DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO TAKE IT. They can tell you must picket and you can tell them to kiss your ass. If you do not pay them the extortion they cannot do a f….ing thing. If you do not picket they cannot do a f….ing thing. That is not to imply they will not try. The question is will you let some UBC punk and loud mouth pussie rob your paycheck, threaten your membership and try to force you to do something the law says they cannot or will you tell them to kiss your ass and fight back.



"The procedure is discriminatory and falls outside a union’s prerogatives in the operation of a nonexclusive hiring hall regardless of whether one casts the Respondent’s subjective motivation as rewarding picketers or as punishing non-picketers."
by NLRB - board decision & order, excerpt:

Obviously a referral procedure that has the effect of reserving the first 80 to 85 percent of job referrals for picketers will tend to coerce members’ decisions about whether to engage in picketing.

The procedure is discriminatory and falls outside a union’s prerogatives in the operation of a nonexclusive hiring hall regardless of whether one casts the Respondent’s subjective motivation as rewarding picketers or as punishing non-picketers. See Service Employees Local 1107 (Sunrise Hospital), 347 NLRB 63, 65 (2006), citing Boilermakers Local 686 (Boiler Tube), 267 NLRB 1056, 1057 (1983) (Where a union interferes with a member’s Section 7 right to refrain from union activity, Section 8(b)(1)(A) does not require a showing of motivation or intent to establish a violation.)....

      -AND-

Such coercion is unlawful regardless of whether the provision also has lawful applications. The Respondent’s defense that it did not enforce paragraph 4(c), is also not viable. The mere existence of a rule that improperly discriminates on the basis of a member’s protected activity has a chilling effect on the exercise of Section 7 rights, and violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) regardless of whether the provision has ever been enforced. Awrey Bakeries, 335 NLRB 138, 139–140 (2001), enfd. 59 Fed. Appx. 690 (6th Cir. 2003); Engineers & Scientists Guild (Lockheed-California), 268 NLRB 311 (1983).