Monday, May 30, 2011

Order By Judge Berman

U.S.D.J. Judge Richard M. Berman, has issued an order on May 26, and concluded that the more transparency which can be provided to the membership with respect to each of the Benefit Funds, the better.

Accordingly, the Court would like to devote the first hour or so at the June 28, 2011 conference to a report on the status of the Funds,' including the following:

1. Brief description of each of the Funds' (a) purpose,e.g., health benefits, retirement, etc.; (b) current financial status; (c) individuals and/or firms which supervise and manage the Funds' affairs; (d) frequency of financial reporting; etc.;

2. Funds' results for the first quarter of  2011 and historical comparisons;

3. Known "threats to the continued vitality and integrity of the [F]unds" (Tr., dated Apr. 6,2011, at 21 :21-23);

4. What information, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, would be useful in future Funds' written reports and statements, including, for example, income (including contributions), expenses (including payouts to participants and fees to professionals), comparisons to prior reporting periods, distribution by asset class of investments, return on investment for each class of assets in the Funds, and comparison of asset performance to prior reporting periods and to other relevant benchmarks; and

5. Publication of the Funds' reports on a publicly available website (e.g., Review Officer and/or the Court).

(see Court Order below)


Order 5 26

Posted by John Musumeci at 5:28 PM
Labels:

2 comments:

  1. Richard DorroughMay 30, 2011 at 8:34 PM

    3. Known "threats to the continued vitality and integrity of the [F]unds" (Tr., dated Apr. 6,2011, at 21 :21-23);

    I wonder if anyone will list the UBC and Frank Spencer as direct threats to the funds

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousJune 1, 2011 at 2:29 AM

    356 NLRB 121 - FRINGE BENEFIT FUNDS
    Page 6, this blog....the legal theory behind this decision is that it is a Violation of the NLRA to defraud CBA Contractual requirements to PAY BENEFITS, thus precluding corrupt Trust Fund Fiduciaires and Trustees from making concessions to the Fraud.

    De-frauding the Funds by the affixing of the EST, Fund Attorneys, Fiduciaries or Trustees signatures to a facially unlawful and seperate contract does not operate as a "waiver" to the NLRA, ERISA-EBSA etc. It does make a prima-facie case out for the exact date the above officals made the Illegal deal.
    ___________________________________
    356 NLRB 121 IBEW Case 3-31-11
    excerpt:
    ___________________________________

    In addition, the Respondents shall make the unit employees whole by making all fringe benefit payments that have not been made since October 21, 2009, and that would have been made but for the Respondents’ unlawful failure to make them, including any additional amounts applicable to such delinquent payments as set
    forth in Merryweather Optical Co., 240 NLRB 1213, 1216 (1979).4 The Respondents shall also reimburse unit employees for any expenses ensuing from their failure to
    make the required payments to the fringe benefit funds, as set forth in Kraft Plumbing & Heating, 252 NLRB 891, 891 fn. 2 (1980), enfd. mem. 661 F.2d 940 (9th Cir. 1981), such amounts to be computed in the manner set forth in Ogle Protection Service, supra, with interest as prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, supra,
    compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical
    Center, supra.

    ___________________________________
    RO Walsh and/or UBC rank & file members can file NLRB charges against Employers who fail to make contributions to the Benefit Funds, as was done here in this alter-ego (double breasted) IBEW case from March 31, 2011 by the NLRB Board.

    So, who holds the Master list of which NYCDCC Signatory UBCJA GC's & Sub's are delinquent in this regard? How much does each firm owe? Why not get the list & the dollar amounts and file the charges at the NLRB?

    Force the DOL to do their job and to address this issue! RO Walsh should take the lead. Per Sup. Ct. precedent, irrespective of what action the Fund Attorneys are or are not taking - the NLRB charges can proceed concurrent to the Funds.
    ___________________________________

    NOTE: ALL CANDIDATES FOR TRUSTEE POSITIONS SHOULD KNOW THIS & SIMILAR CASES AT THE NLRB.

    Ted

    ReplyDelete

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)