Monday, December 15, 2008

Haight Throws Out Dilacio's Lawsuit Against Council

Update 12-15-08--Judge Haight grants District Councils motion to dismiss Dilacio complaint stating the "complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

Click here to read judge Haights December 15, order.


Former Local 157 Veep Files Lawsuit Against Council

Originally posted on October 1, 2008--George Dilacio the former Local 157 Vice President and Business Agent has filed a lawsuit against the District Council of Carpenters claiming among other things, his termination as Business Representative and the attempt to expel him from membership is part of an overall scheme by the District Council to suppress opposition to and dissent from the membership of the District Council leadership and to prevent him challenging the District Council leadership in the upcoming December 2008 election.

In court papers filed on August 24, 2008, Dilacio charges that his termination by EST Forde was in direct retaliation for his stated and vocal interest to run against Forde. Dilacio also charges that the Independent Investigator Bill Callahan assisted Forde in this scheme to discredit and eliminate him.

In the lawsuit Dilacio is seeking eligibility to run in the district council election, reinstatement as a business agent and compensatory and punitive damages.

Click here to read the full lawsuit.

Also, for the complete, currently up to date docket for 1:08-cv-06959-CSH, Dilacio v. NYCDC of the UBCJA et al. click here.

Related Articles


  1. I'm telling you the shit is going to blow right back in the NYCDC's face.

    Not gonna take it from failed Clinton Bush deregulation and oversight. The massive fat cat bonus's and salary because they, the elite think they can socio-organize the masses and reap unheard of profit and worry free existence. No'p not going to stay silent any longer ACT people ACT NOW.

    The nycdc manipulates the list - They cover for the criminals right down to the local level - they're stealing from our vacation fund.

    Ah - I remember a day some years ago when member X went to the mike at a 157 meeting. First words as they were regarding the first Vaca assesment from most in the dais was SIT THE FUCK DOWN! I haven't forgotten. The nycdc has soured me because they were in charge while being overlooked by the Feds.????????????????????????????


  2. Also, for the complete, currently up to date docket for 1:08-cv-06959-CSH, Dilacio v. NYCDC of the UBCJA et al. go to

  3. As I have said the most important part of this and the other cases is the information they will contain . It will prove the actions (as it has) of Spencer and the rest were in violation of the UBC Constitution and the LMRDA. It will also prove(as it has) that while good members are struggling to feed their family's and are without health care Council Business Reps believe it is in their Job description to attend Golf outings with pay as part of their job. How many times were Mikey Forde and the rest playing golf with Dilacio and putting themselves in for a days pay. Mr. Callahan if your not the stooge these members are making you out to be than please pull these records and make this information public and charge these others as well with not making Phone calls through a Manhattan Cell Tower.
    I am going to use this space for some observations.

    In regards to the lawsuit itself Dilacio would have been a fool not to file it. However. If his lawyers do not wise up and force this Judge to actually read the constitution Dilacio is going to lose. The Judge is making rulings not on the actual content of the Constitution but on the BS version the Council has fooled him with. Dear Judge .Wake the ...up!!!! He does not realize that the International and Spencer are conspiring to let the Council violate the Constitution.

    Dear Brother Dilacios Attorneys. Please ask the Judge to clarify his interpretation of the UBC Constitution. Since the Constitution is ambiguous in its wording the RIGHT of the Council to bring a Local member to trial is seriously in question. Although Section 52 B appears to give them that right the rest of the Constitution wording proves they do not have the right and members MUST BE tried at the Local level. The Judge is making decisions based on Statements such as in MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER #96555 where he offers the opinion that Dilacio is "confused" He asks the Judge to issue a retraining order preventing Local 157 from holding a trial to remove him from office and the Local taking action to terminate his membership. The judge calls Dilaico and his attorneys confused and states"Local 157 does not engage in any conduct sought to temporally restrained" It is not Dilaio that is confused it is the Judge who has been BSd by the Council to believe it is the Council who brings local members to trial. Diliaco is presenting the argument based on the correct interpretation of the Constitution that the Locals are to bring LOCAL members to trial.

    Remember. Douglas McCarron has stated for the record that we are NOT members of the councils but Affiliated with them. He has also stated through his attorneys that the Councils have "No legal binding authority over the Locals"(Link-v-Rhodes. California District Court)This clarification must be made not only for Diliacos case but for ALL UBC members who could and it appears will be victims of the Councils. If the Councils and Judge Haights interpretation is correct than the International must rule that all the trials held at the Local level be null and void and all members fines be returned and members expelled must be reinstated.If the NYCDCC is allowed to use Section 52B in this case and is holding trials based on this wording"Where a District Council,Regional Council or Industrial exists than ALL CHARGES shall be filed and TRIED by the District Council,Regional Council or Industrial Council. If this wording is allowed to stand in this case and the NYDCC is allowed to continue to bring Local members to trial under this wording than ANY TRAIL HELD IN THE UBC BY A LOCAL UNIONS TRIAL COMMITTEE IS ILLEGAL AND IN VIOLATION OF THE UBC CONSTITUTION . If the UBC International validates Sections 52 B-M than the Judges has(and will continue to) ruled erroneously in this case and the NYCDCC has been bringing Local members to trial Illegally and they must be stopped and brought up on charges for violation of the UBC Constitution. Which is it Judge. You cant have it both ways to suit the whim of the NYDCCC.

    Much like you not understanding that the job referral rules in NYC are not the norm in the UBC but ONLY EXIST because of the consent decree in NYCDCC you dont seem to have a clue. The NLRB has ruled in case after case that UBC members have no recourse or protection from scum bag local officers in regards to Job Referral list abuse because the UBC runs Non exclusive hiring halls. It is only in NYC due to the consent decree that the UBC has created SPECIAL and unique to NYC job referral rules. These do not apply to other UBC members as ruled by the NLRB.So Judge Haight what do you think will happen to the SPECIAL rules if you take away the consent decree in NYC.

    The point of this is that Judge Haight appears to have no clue as to the reality of UBC membership or the underhanded application of the UBC Constitution AGAINST the very members it was supposed to protect. He has no clue that the Spencers and Fordes of the UBC ignore the UBC Constitution and the LMRDA when it suits their purpose,fabricate rules to suit their purpose, illegally remove money from members payroll checks, such as the so called Vacation Assessment in the NYCDCouncil jurisdiction without the required( by law) signed legal documentation ,Deny members and American citizens due process and rights to legal Representation guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and line their pockets with the wages of hard working brothers and sisters in the UBC while playing golf as part of their job description. When we as rank and file members turn to YOU the DOL,EBSA,NLRB and district courts you do not have a clue and in many cases are not interested in ruining you day by doing the job you are paid for.


I would ask that if you would like to leave a comment that you think of Local 157 Blogspot as your online meeting hall and that you wouldn’t say anything on this site that you wouldn’t, say at a union meeting. Constructive criticism is welcome, as we all benefit from such advice. Obnoxious comments are not welcome.