Thursday, October 13, 2011

Update: Council Election Turned Upside Down

This is what I have learned. Review Officer Dennis Walsh, used his authority and vetoed 16 of the 34 candidates who were expecting to be nominated. The candidates were vetoed for various reasons and each candidate did received a letter Wedensday night explaining the reason for the action. The RO's authority over a candidate for Council Officer is very broad and final. 

The Stipulation and Order paragraph 5.k (page 13) states:

"Any candidate seeking to run for a position as an Officer of the District Council during the Review's Officer's tenure must first be approved by the Review Officer, who will determine whether in light of the terms and objectives of the Consent Decree the candidate is qualified to run for office and represent the union membership. Any such decision by the Review Officer will be final and non-reviewable." 

I spoke with several candidates and they will be attending a meeting tonight in the office of Cary Kane LLP.  Walter Kane and Larry Cary, are the attorneys representing the Carpenters Committee for Democracy and they are willing to help all vetoed candidates make an appeal. This story is still developing so stay tuned for the latest news.

9 comments:

  1. Love it:

    Post their legal Brief & tell C/K to consider it a 500+ word Essay Requirement, as a primer for the RO's preliminary approval of their qualification to run the Trust Funds for NYCDCC.

    Open Book, Open Notes

    ReplyDelete
  2. conan the carpenterOctober 13, 2011 at 8:41 PM

    Any candidate seeking to run for a position as an Officer of the District Council during the Review's Officer's tenure must first be approved by the Review Officer, who will determine whether in light of the terms and objectives of the Consent Decree the candidate is qualified to run for office and represent the union membership. Any such decision by the Review Officer will be final and non-reviewable.
    Enough said gentlemen, enough said.One man,one vote.....and we will tell you who is going to get that vote. That sounds pretty democratic to me. A lawyer, not a carpenter, a scummy lawyer who is no better than Ford or Daley or anyone else, imposes his will on this union. Some of you embrace him? Why? Is he Godsent and working for free? Trying to set the table for the honest working man. Think of the motivation. Why would a lawyer who more than likely could have a reasonable practice without throwing in with us, be so interested in our lowly labor union? Really,a canidate should be decided by members, No? Right, not anymore,

    ReplyDelete
  3. why not a lawyer? did you see what "carpenters" did to this union. carpenters snorting coke, smoking weed, fucking secretaries, taking bribes, bought $500 wines and 10lb lobsters, gave friends jobs, rigged elections, allowed non-union work. Do you really want me to continue? As i recall democracy wasn't their forte.

    Dennis Walsh is the real deal, not Godsent, just fucking real.

    remember how Walter Mack was sent packing? remember the reasons?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The First Fundraising Report will provide a fair indication of rank & file support for the candidates.

    ReplyDelete
  5. DROP DEAD UNITY TEAM !

    ReplyDelete
  6. Fundraising Reports do not indicate support. Votes indicate support.

    Let the record show that we have supported thieves, rats, drug addicts, and mobsters.

    See that how that turned out.

    Walsh did the right thing, i have no doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Walsh is scum. I read many of Walshs reasons for Vetoing guys. Walsh is an egotistical prick who should be thrown out. He did not veto a single person for committing a crime or for defrauding the members. He vetoed guys for telling him the truth, he vetoed guys because they were not lawyers and because the small little arrogant prick likes to believe that he is smarter than everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  8. walsh is great because he's got DALY'S number.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Title 29: Labor
    PART 452—GENERAL STATEMENT CONCERNING THE ELECTION PROVISIONS OF THE LABOR-MANAGEMENT REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1959
    Subpart E—Candidacy for Office; Reasonable Qualifications


    Browse Previous | Browse Next


    § 452.47 Employer or supervisor members.
    Inasmuch as it is an unfair labor practice under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) for any employer (including persons acting in that capacity) to dominate or interfere with the administration of any labor organization, it follows that:

    employers, while they may be members, may not be candidates for office or serve as officers.

    Thus, while it is recognized that in some industries, particularly construction, members who become supervisors, or contractors traditionally keep their union membership as a form of job security or as a means of retaining union benefits, such persons may not be candidates for or hold office.29

    FOREMAN & SUPERINTENDENTS, PM'S WHO HIRE & FIRE CANNPT RUN FOR OFFICE - END OF STORY!!!!!!!
    _______________________________

    Whether a restriction on officeholding by members who are group leaders or others performing some supervisory duties is reasonable depends on the particular circumstances. For instance, if such persons might be considered “supervisors”30 under the LMRA, their right to be candidates under the Act may be limited. Another factor in determining the reasonableness of a ban on such persons is the position (if any) of the NLRB on the status of the particular employees involved. If, for example, the NLRB has determined that certain group leaders are part of the bargaining unit, it might be unreasonable for the union to prohibit them from running for office. An overall consideration in determining whether a member may fairly be denied the right to be a candidate for union office as an employer or supervisor is whether there is a reasonable basis for assuming that the person involved would be subject to a conflict of interest in carrying out his representative duties for employees and rank and file union members.

    29 See Nassau and Suffolk Contractors' Association, 118 NLRB No. 19 (1957). See also Local 636, Plumbers v. NLRB, 287 F.2d 354 (C.A. D.C. 1961).

    30 Under section 2(11) of the Labor Management Relations Act, supervisors include individuals “having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.”

    [38 FR 18324, July 3, 1973, as amended at 39 FR 37360, Oct. 21, 1974]

    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.