Here it is for your reading pleasure, the Lebo brief that has everyone talking. On April 3, 2011 Brother Bill Lebo submitted a brief to Judge Berman to have the New York City District Council of Carpenters declared, a local labor organization, by virtue of the Secretary of Labors test, of whether an intermediate body has taken on so many of the traditional functions and purposes of the local unions, that the NYCDCC itself has become a local labor organization, and that, because the locals have been stripped of so many of their traditional functions, and therefore are not performing any meaningful functions and do not continue to exist for the purposes associate with local labor organizations that they have become mere administrative arms of the council. Read the brief below.
Memorandum in Support of the Bilello Motion.docx
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Bill Lebo Brief to Judge Berman
2 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)
DROP DEAD UNITY TEAN !
ReplyDeleteNICE CUT & PASTE JOB BILL
ReplyDeleteThis shows that you are incapable of original thought, research and more importantly, that you don't know what the hell you are talking about regarding how NERCC & its Locals function.
There is no secret ballot ratification Vote on CBA's. Fact - NERCC Contracts are signed, sealed, delivered, printed and distributed in Local Union Hiring Halls 8-9 months prior to the subject ever coming up at any Local Union Meeting.
Simply put, it's a done deal, a fait-accompli. Moreover, the NERCC Trust Funds supesede & over-ride any & all Contract Language contained within our (NERCC) Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA's).
Therefore, please explain to Judge Berman and the Court & the rest of us how NERCC when conducting a so-called "ratification poll" some 8-9 months after the Contract is Executed (signed) and Printed & Distributed to the Local Union Hiring Halls, Stewards & rank & file members...please Bill explain where a ratification vote occurred or how the Locals, the NERCC or the UBC International followed the Law.
The fact of the matter is simply this: NERCC conducts an after the fact ratification poll 8-9 months after the Contract is in force, they do it in pencil (not ink or by machines) so they can alter members ratification poll choice and they submit it after the fact for one purpose - to cover their ass (rather lamely) with the DOL after the fact. Nothing about the process is Legal. NERCC always comes up with 95% ratings...on every Contract (CBA) since Chao was decided....Can you say ACORN?
Note: We also regularly have 5k + Dead Voters voting in Local Gubernatorial & State Elections in Massachusetts....
The 27 NERCC Locals could conduct a ratification poll 9 months after tha fact with 100% of the Rank & File voting against signing or accepting the Contract and it would not change a damn thing....because they do as they please! Their methods are Fraudulent, the Contracts are already in place & on the Street and the UBC NERCC Members have absoultely no say in any area of Contract Negotitation.
NERCC executes the language, Mark Erlich, the EST has 100% Dictatorial Control and as of the last Contract (9-1-09 TO 8-31-12), with a on line change to the CBA, his Executive Board cannot over-ride any decision he makes, inclusive of the CBA langauge and it's execution.
All NERCC Council Employees are thus beholden to him as "AT WILL" Employees. Should they refuse to sign the CBA, they are summarily fired....get it!
The fact is, there was no Vote in any form or manner & since you don't know what you are talking about (third party hearsay, does not stand in Court) - you should leave these lame arguments & opinions out of your submissions to the Court as fact.
Also, it is readily apparent that you do not comprehend precedent & landmark Supreme Court rulings which clearly over-rule Elaine Chao's SSR's and actions taken relative to Chao, which issued June 21, 2004.
While it is admirable that you made the attempt, you gave Berman nothing to review from a legal sense other than your opinion. Courts do not rule on opinions - they rule on facts & prior case-law.