Brothers and Sisters the popular Jawin discussion forum is back in operation.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
3 comments:
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is so amazing that the piers,pier92 and 94 are still under mob reign!Vinny Gigante and his underboss Anthony Marino,do not issue timecards so they can hide how they rob the men.Chucky another thief,is the mastermind behind these awful ways of cheating members.Anthony Marino receives money per hour per man so you can work down there.One of his foremans Frankie"little frankie"DePietro supplies javitz workers that are paid cash for their work when working for Merchandise Mart shows.This is a terrible way to treat the men in these godforsaken times.MOB MOB MOB !!! How do they get away with these awful crimes ...SOUNDS LIKE SOMEONE IS GETTING KICKBACKS !!!!!!
ReplyDeletenice
DeleteIn his brief, the CGC argues that, based upon Board precedent, I should determine that
ReplyDeleteany union hiring hall rule that suspends users from its referral service to enforce a fine is patently
unlawful.77 I decline to so find. Rather, the Board has consistently held that a union rule
suspending a user from its referral service for failing to pay a fine/assessment is presumptively
unlawful unless the union can show that the rule was necessary to the effective performance of
its representative functions.78 Although the Board has found that a union cannot necessarily tie
an employment-related sanction (i.e., not referring an employee) to the collection of a fine,79 the
Board nevertheless evaluates the reasons behind the union imposing the fine.80
In this case, I find that both Respondent’s rule and how it was applied to Richardson,
violates the Act. Initially, Respondent argues, for the first time at hearing, that it never intended
to collect the $4000 fine from Richardson. Rather, Respondent avers that it only imposed the fine
so Richardson would “chill out” from his threatening behavior. However, the plain reading of
Respondent’s disciplinary letter clearly indicates that it intended to suspend Richardson from its
referral service until he paid the $4000 fine. In fact, I credit Richardson’s unrebutted testimony
that, when he tried to make arrangements with Respondent to pay the fine in installments and
return to work, Cook declined to return him to work until the fine was paid in full. To that end, I
find this case identical to the Board’s decision in Fisher Theatre, where the Board adopted the
judge’s finding that Respondent violated the Act when it unlawfully suspended two employees
from its referral services who violated union work rules and refused to return them to work until
their fines were paid in full.