Saturday, December 17, 2011

Review Officer Opposes Amalgamated Union

Click to enlarge.
On December 13, 2011 Review Officer Dennis Walsh wrote to Judge Berman requesting the Court hold a hearing and also direct Mr. Bisceglie (Counsel to Amalgamated Carpenters and Joiners Union) to appear, to address the question of "whether the purpose and methods employed by the Amalgamated Union and its intended business interferes with the implementation of the Consent Decree and the Stipulation and Order."

Judge Berman requested Bisceglie to respond to Walsh's letter and has put the matter on the agenda for the scheduled December 20th conference with the Court.

The Dockbuilders are seeking to break away from the UBC and form a new carpenter union affiliate with the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT) and has filed the necessary petitions with the NLRB to conduct a representation election.

In his response, Bisceglie among other things wrote, "the Court should not interfere in any way with the proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board, which is the body with jurisdiction to resolve representation proceedings."
RO Judge Berman Memo Endorsed Order Re Amalgamated Carpenters Bisceglie Berman Ltr 12-16-11 w Attach



  2. "Review Officer Opposes Amalgamated Union"
    Who gives a rats ass what Walsh thinks

  3. DEC 20th COURT CONFERENCE - watch & learn as Walsh disposes of this matter.

    The district court has concurrent jurisdiction to resolve NLRA issues where they arise as collateral issues in lawsuits brought under other federal legislation.13

    (exclusive jurisdiction was retained by the Court against NYCDCC)

    Thus, deferral to the Board's resolution of NLRA charges is not mandatory where a Section 301 suit and pending charges before the Board present common issues.14

    (the common issue here being Bisceglie's interference with the Election Process under the direct control of the RO, as approved by Judge Haight, without exception by either side.)

    Moreover, the NLRA does not preclude judical enforcement of a federal criminal statute that independently prohibits conduct that is arguably prohibited by the NLRB.15

    (ongoing Mob influence, unabated etc.)

    In U.S. v. IBT, the court held that the NLRB did not have exclusive jurisdiction over claims of nonemployee candidates for union office that their exclusion from the employer’s premises violated union election rules promulgated pursuant to a RICO consent decree.16

    (and who was the Judge on this case...none other than Kenneth Conboy)

    The Board ordinarily does not relitigate facts that have already been found by a court of concurrent jurisdiction.17

    Although the Board has decided unfair labor practice issues in matters that involved RICO consent decrees, those rulings have neither conflicted with, nor interfered with, the court proceedings in the RICO case.18

    (whereas, Bisceglie is and Amalgamted is directly interfering)

    Here, the court-appointed Election Officer has already ruled on the issue presented by the charge, and the sole basis for issuing complaint would be our contrary factual finding that Noviello's role as supervisor made him ineligible to serve as Union president because it created an
    16 948 F.2d 98, 105-106 (2nd Cir. 1992). The court reasoned that it had enjoined all members and affiliates of the IBT from initiating any legal proceeding relating to the Consent Decree "in any court or forum in any jurisdiction (emphasis supplied) other than the district court from which this appeal was taken" in order to avoid inconsistent judgments regarding the Consent Decree.

    See also U.S. v. IBT, Local 707, 907 F.2d 277 (2nd Cir. 1990) (collateral lawsuits filed by union affiliates in other states created significant risk of subjecting consent decree to inconsistent interpretations and court officers to inconsistent judgments).

    GAMES, SET, MATCH......see ya Amalgamated, see ya Bisceglie!

  4. Turning now to the content of the Employers’ statements, the first meeting was conducted by McEnery on September 21 at the Company’s Frankfort headquarters. Attendees included a group of 10 Conner drivers selected by management, as well as, Christopher. I have already noted my finding that the testimony of two of the drivers who attended the meeting was credible and was supported to a significant degree by Christopher’s own account.

    Thus, I credit Pippin’s report that McEnery told the assembled bargaining unit members that, “he wasn’t paying the Union anymore fucking money. And if we wanted to keep working that we would have to decertify from the Union and go
    to work for him for less money.” (Tr. 167.)

    He added that the drivers were given a written proposal for wage reductions and were told that this document reflected “what we would have to work for if we were going to stay there once we got rid of the Union.” (Tr. 167–168.)

    McEnery concluded his presentation
    by warning that, if the drivers refused to eliminate the Union, “[h]e was going to shut the doors.” (Tr. 168.) In order to avert this fate, he advised the group of drivers to “talk to everybody and decertify and let the Union know that we didn’t want to be unionized anymore.”34 (Tr. 169.)

    It does not require any extended discussion to conclude that McEnery’s statements at this meeting constituted direct and obvious threats to shutdown Conner and terminate its workforce if the employees decided to maintain their membership in the Union.

    It is equally clear that McEnery made an overt and explicit solicitation to those employees to initiate the process of decertifying their bargaining representative.

    Both the threats and the solicitations constituted violations of Section 8(a)(1) of
    the Act.

    Gee Wally....yeah Beav? This sorta sounds like what Amalgamated is doing. Well Beav, he's not too bright ya know. He couldn't even cite one case to the Judge, kinda lame for a guy trying to get his hands on all that dough.

  5. I do not speak for Amalgamated and I am not part of Amalgamated . I do however support the rank and file of Amalgamated in their efforts to break free of,in my opinion, the most corrupt labor organization of this century. The UBC. I am responding to this BS propaganda campaign of lies and pure BS being put out daily by a desperate UBC and their cronies. That being said this is:”Complete and absolute lies and bullshit on your part” This case has nothing to do with Amalgmated and is a trucking Company in Illinois..Case No:11-cv-2255 Northern Illonois A.D. Conner and Heidenreich Trucking Company. This is pure desperation on your part. This is a company owner trying to pressure his workers to dump the Union and go non Union.Could you not at least make an attempt to have your propaganda BS be even use able in your attempt to discourage members from going over to Amalgatmated and to influence the upcoming NLRB election Your insinuation that Amalgmated is trying to intimidate and threaten itself is absurd and ridiculous to say the least Despite your and the UBC bullshit Amalgamated is a group of rank and file carpenters who have created a Union to free themselves of the yoke of UBC corruption and the McCarron scum bags. This latest new campaign of lies to allege that the rank and file create Amalgamated to avoid the consent decree is pure and absurd bullshit. I like how your boy Walsh was called a liar on Decmeber 20,2011 and It was stated before the Judge that the Harkins,Arzana and Ficorotta are not part of Amalgamated despite the Bullshit in Walshs December 5, 2001 letter to Judge Berman. Despite the Bullshit spread by the UBC in a blatant attempt to sway the upcoming NLRB election with lies and misleading information.Despite a blatant attempt to interfere with a persons legal right to choose what Union it wants to represent them free of harassment and intimidation. If you have proof these people are involved then post it or shut up. Also for the record Amalgamated has not ever offered a 20-30-% wage give back to the employers If you have proof otherwise post it or shut up. The 20% savings they indicated on their website was savings they hoped to achieve through the funds by removing incompetent UBC clowns from running the fund and other cost saving measures.IT NEVER had anything to do with wages.

  6. He couldn't even cite one case to the Judge..No shit and why would he or should he. Amalganated was vindicated at the December 20,2011 court appearance. He had nothing to argue or discuss. Wlash wtoe a letter to Berman on December 5,2011 that was border line absurd in its content.. Accusing Amalgamated of starting a Union to avoid the consent decree. Accusing them of starting a Union to engage in illegal acts and racketeering. “Walsh demanded that on December 20,2011 the court require Amalgmated to appear and answer wether the purpose and methods employed by the Amalgmated Union and its intended business interferes with the implementation of the consent Decree and Stipulation and Order” Well they appeared as required. And what happened to Wlash who DEMANDED they appear. Not a dam thing. There was no battle, All Walsh did was pound his chest a few more times and insisted he was correct and walked away. There was no determination by Berman or his court that the methods and practices or its attended business interferes with the consent decree.They were vindicated and had no need to quote Berman a single case and as smart attorneys why would they. If the day occurs that Walsh has to prove his assertion that the consent decree follows the individual or finds some proof of racketeering as he/Walsh insinuated. You know innocent until proven guilty. I am sure Judge Berman,or what ever judge it goes before who might no be so predisposed to issue those court orders Mr.Wlash alluded to, will then get all the case citations he needs..As attorney Kolick Stated:“Premature” Because there is no allegation that anyone in the dockbuilders has done anything inconsistent with the consent decree. On December 20,2011 Amalgamated walked away vindicated. There was no determination by Bermans court despite Walshs DEMAND they appear to answer. Perhaps after all the motive was already achieved. Perhaps the attempt to frighten those that might leave the UBC for Amalgamated was successful. Perhaps the message was sent that anybody who exercises their legal right to discuss their options in Union representation would be outed by the RO Officer Walsh as he did with Brothers Holt and Ostrander. One has to wonder how Mr. Walsh knows what was discussed as he claims “have meet to discuss the establishment and business of the Amalgamated Union” How does Mr. Walsh know the content of the conversations. Does he have ESP?? Absurd conclusion indeed..Give your propaganda BS a rest. Isn’t hiring a motivational speaker desperate enough. Sounds like he will be giving more Amalgamated BS stories as new EST Biello did at the Forum. I heard one will be .”If you don’t pas the CBA members and contractors will leave and join Amalgamated..Mike Bieilo: That Amalgamated.. Uhh.Uhh you don’t want to go there,…


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.