Thursday, September 8, 2011

Notice to Local 157 Members

Dear Member,

Click to enlarge.
There will be a Special Called Meeting to be held in conjunction with our regular meeting on Wednesday September 29, 2011 at 4:30p.m at Saint Cyrios 502 W 40th Street, New York, N.Y. 10018 (between 10th and 11th Avenues), for the purpose of nominating forty eight (48) Delegates and one (1) Executive Delegate to the NYC District Council of Carpenters.

Elections for these positions will be held at the New York City District Council of Carpenters Labor Technical College 395 Hudson Street New York, N.Y. 10014 (Clarkson Street Entrance) on Monday October 24, 2011 from 6:00a.m through 7:00p.m, regular scheduled meeting will follow.

Please note future meetings will be held at Saint Cyrios 502 West 40th Street New York, N.Y. 10018 (between 10th and 11th Avenues) on November 21, 2011 and December 19, 2011 at 4:30p.m.

Fraternally yours,
Patrick Nee

Levi Messinetti
Recording Secretary

(John's note: 100 Delegates to the District Council)
Per Section 16.(A) of the District Council Bylaws there shall be a total of One Hundred (100) Delegates to the District Council from the Local Unions, such Delegates to comprise the Council Delegate Body.

Each Local Union shall elect a Delegate or Delegates to the Council Delegate Body in accordance with the Constitution and Laws of the United Brotherhood governing nomination and elections in subordinate bodies. The ratio of representation from each Local Union to the Council Delegate Body shall be as follows.

Each Local Union shall have at least one Delegate to the District Council, with the remaining Delegates allocated proportionally amongst the Local Unions based upon the total membership of each Local Union as a percentage of the aggregate membership of all Local Unions of the District Council.

No more than Fifty Percent (50%) of the Delegates representing any Local Union may be employees of the District Council. No individual employed by the District Council on the day these Bylaws go into effect shall be included in the calculation of the Fifty Percent (50%) limit referred to in the prior sentence, unless the individual’s employment by District Council is terminated.

As of September 7, 2011 the ratio of representation from each Local Union to the Council Delegate Body shall be as follows:

Local 20   -   3 Delegates
Local 45 -     8 Delegates
Local 157 -   48 Delegates
Local 740 -   2 Delegates
Local 926 -   9 Delegates
Local 1556 - 14 Delegates
Local 2287 - 5 Delegates
Local 2790 - 11 Delegates

Total 100 Delegates


  1. Redefining the rights of union organizers and responsibilities of employers in union organizing drives - by Jeffrey A. Mello

    The Court's decision against Town & Country has further implications for employers. Paid union organizers are "employees" under the NLRA and as employees (which includes job applicants) are protected by the antidiscrimination provisions of the NLRA. It is important to remember that the Court did not rule on whether Town & Country's conduct in refusing to interview or retain the said "employees" who were on the union's payroll constituted an unfair labor practice. In fact, it stated that it was not expressing any view on this issue.

    Nonetheless, the Court's ruling for practical purposes rejected the notion that an employer may rely on the common law agency construction of master and servant to reject an applicant on the ground that the individual will simultaneously perform the roles of both employee and union organizer.

    Clearly, job applicants who are also union organizers enjoy the protections of the NLRA as "employees."

  2. CONT. -

    The Court's decision in Town & Country may likely result in the continuance of what has become a kind of chess game between union organizers and employers. While union organizers were dealt a setback in Lechmere, they effectively found a more direct and efficient way to solicit support for union organizing through salting in Town & Country. Employers now must be careful not to run afoul of the terms of the NLRA in how they treat any "salts" in the workplace.

    In the short term, employers are likely to perceive such salts as adversaries and monitor and scrutinize their actions and job performance closely. If salting does become an increasingly effective union organizing strategy, employers are likely to make the next move in the game and creatively search for a lawful means of limiting the ability of union organizers to organize workplaces via salting.


    1. National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sect. 151 et. seq.

    2. NLRB v. Babcock and Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105 (1955).

    3. Lechmere, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 112 S.Ct. 841 (1992).

    4. See supra note 2 at 112.

    5. N.L.R.B. v. Town & Country Electric, Inc., 116 S.Ct. 450 (1995).

    6. See National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sect. 158(a)(1) and (3) (1988 ed.), 49 Stat 452 as amended. Unfair labor practices against an employer include interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organize and discriminating in regard to hire, term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization.

    7. Town & Country Electric, Inc., 309 N.L.R.B. 1250, 1258 (1992).

    8. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. N.L.R.B, 313 U.S. 177, 61 S.Ct. 845, 85 L.Ed.2d 1271 (1941).

    9. Town & Country Electric, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 34 F.3d 625,629 (8th Cir. 1994).

    10. Willmar Elec. Service, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 968 F.2d 1327 (C.A.D.C. 1992), cert denied, 507 U.S. 909, 113 S.Ct. 1252, 122 L.Ed.2d 651 (1993). In this case a journeyman electrician began working as a union field organizer and contacted Willmar about the possibility of utilizing unionized labor in positions for which Willmar was seeking applicants. When Willmar management made it clear that it did not want to deal with the union, the organizer applied for a job, making it clear that he intended to use his free time at lunch and after work to try to organize Willmar's employees. A Willmar foreman then told the organizer that while the company was hiring, the latter's application would not be considered because "it's kind of hard to hire you when you're out there on the other side, picketing."

    11. N.L.R.B. v. Henlopen Mfg. Co., 599 F.2d 26 (C.A.2 1979). In this case the employee who, prior to applying for employment, had agreed to become a "student" organizer for a union, being paid $50/week by the union in addition to the salary she was receiving from Henlopen for work performed for the company, was an "employee" under the NLRA.

    12. In this specific case the original charge against the employer was that it had committed an unfair labor practice, which the NLRA prohibits and defines as "interfering with employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in the Act."

    13. 29 U.S.C. Sect. 152 (3).

    14. Sure-Tan, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 467 U.S. 883, 104 S.Ct. 2803, 81 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984).

    15. N.L.R.B.v. Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc., 494 U.S. 775, 110 S.Ct. 1542, 108 L.Ed.2d 801 (1990).

    16. ABF Freight System v. N.L.R.B., 510 U.S. 317, 114 S.Ct. 835, 127 L.Ed.2d 152 (1994).

    17. The dictionary defines "employee" as "any person who works for another in return for financial or other compensation." American Heritage Dictionary 604 (3d. ed. 1992).


  4. Very nice post, I like your blogging techniques and have bookmarked this blog as found it very informative. Keep it up. Local Electrician


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.