Thursday, July 14, 2011

Message from the District Council - 2011 Contract Update


NYC District Council of Carpenters 2011 Contract Update

**As reported at the July 13, 2011 District Council Delegate Meeting**

While significant progress has been made regarding contract negotiations we have yet to reach a final agreement. Therefore the District Council and our contractor associations have agreed to a second extension of the terms and conditions of our previous contracts until July 28, 2011. Barring unforeseen circumstances, we anticipate settling these negotiations by then if not before.

Please be advised that for all work performed under the jurisdiction of the New York City District Council of Carpenters the terms, conditions, wage and benefit rates will continue as is pending these negotiations.


  1. TED

    FORD MOTOR CO. v. HOOFMAN 345 US 330 (1953)...EXCERPT:


    The authority of every bargaining representative under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, is stated in broad terms:

    "SEC. 7. Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, [345 U.S. 330, 337] to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection . . . .

    . . . . .

    "SEC. 9. (a) Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment: . . . ." (Emphasis supplied.) 61 Stat. 140, 143, 29 U.S.C. (Supp. V) 157, 159 (a).

    In the absence of limiting factors, the above purposes, including "mutual aid or protection" and "other conditions of employment," are broad enough to cover terms of seniority.

    The National Labor Relations Act, as passed in 1935 and as amended in 1947, exemplifies the faith of Congress in free collective bargaining between employers and their employees when conducted by freely and fairly chosen representatives of appropriate units of employees.

    That the authority of bargaining representatives, however, is not absolute is recognized in Steele v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 323 U.S. 192, 198 -199, in connection with comparable provisions of the Railway Labor Act.

    Their statutory obligation to represent all members of an appropriate unit requires them to make an honest effort to serve the interests of all of those members, without hostility to any. Id., at 198, 202-204; Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, 323 U.S. 210, 211 ; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Howard, 343 U.S. 768 .

    Any authority to negotiate derives its principal strength from a delegation to the negotiators of a discretion [345 U.S. 330, 338] to make such concessions and accept such advantages as, in the light of all relevant considerations, they believe will best serve the interests of the parties represented.

    A major responsibility of negotiators is to weigh the relative advantages and disadvantages of differing proposals.

    A bargaining representative, under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, often is a labor organization but it is not essential that it be such. The employees represented often are members of the labor organization which represents them at the bargaining table, but it is not essential that they be such.

    The bargaining representative, whoever it may be, is responsible to, and owes complete loyalty to, the interests of all whom it represents. In the instant controversy, International represented, with certain exceptions not material here, all employees at the Louisville works, including both the veterans with, and those without, prior employment by Ford, as well as the employees having no military service.

    Inevitably differences arise in the manner and degree to which the terms of any negotiated agreement affect individual employees and classes of employees. The mere existence of such differences does not make them invalid.

    The complete satisfaction of all who are represented is hardly to be expected. A wide range of reasonableness must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents, subject always to complete good faith and honesty of purpose in the exercise of its discretion.


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.