Sunday, January 29, 2012

Review Officer to Delegates: You're Vetoed!

Click to enlarge.
Vindicated, Review Officer Dennis Walsh vetoed a motion made at last Wednesday meeting of the Delegate Body to bar rank and file members from attending meetings of the Delegates.

In an article Delegates to Membership: Drop Dead, we reported that a majority of the 100-member delegate body voted to bar the rank and file as new council leadership stood silent and did not argued for or defend the rights of the rank-and-file to attend delegate meetings.

In a letter written today Walsh said, "I find that the motion and its adoption violate the Stipulation and Order and the Bylaws of the District Council."

"As the motion to henceforth bar members from attending delegate body meetings was ultra vires and would function as a de facto amendment of the Bylaws, pursuant to Paragraph 5.b.iii [c and e] of the Stipulation and Order."

Walsh also noted for the record that "rank and file members were in attendance during the entire meeting of January 25, 20l2, without any delegate objecting, and that no harm to the District Council or its affairs ensued."

"The new administration is off to a rocky start, first over 80 elected delegates oppose transparency measures, violate the Bylaws and act undemocratically, then elected council leadership threatens to file charges against John Musumeci, because they are uncomfortable with free speech and the speed of information posted on this blog."

"If this is a prelude of things to come, we were better off under UBC supervision," a rank and filer who wishes to remain anonymous said.

8 comments:

  1. DROP DEAD UNITY TEAM !

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ty mr Walsh for your looking out for the members no the members better fill that gallery Ty again mr Walsh for fighting the hijacking of the delegate body I'll be in the gallery for sure and I hope my brothers and sisters will too

    ReplyDelete
  3. While RO has properly enforced the NYCDCC Bylaws, the Bylaws are against the members because by default there is no gallery. Until and unless a delegate moves to have a member gallery, it is seconded, and approved by a majority of delegates in attendance there will not be a gallery.

    ReplyDelete
  4. See Carp. Local 43 (McDowell Building & Foundation) and Kevin Lebovitz (2009) wherein the Board citing the ALJ stated “5. Is the union-security clause facially unlawful? Finally, the union-security clause in article V is facially unlawful. The union-security clause explicitly requires compliance with the Union’s constitution and bylaws, a requirement which violates Section 8(b)(1)(A). See Stackhouse Oldsmobile, Inc. v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 559, 560 (6th Cir. 1964) (finding that employer did not violate the Act by refusing to sign a collective-bargaining agreement in which the union-security clause unlawfully required compliance with the union’s constitution and bylaws); Electrical Workers Local 3 (White Plains), 331NLRB 1498, 1500 (2000) (finding facially unlawful a union rule requiring hiring hall users to comply with internal rules to maintain their position on the referral list).

    While unions are free to enforce properly adopted rules against their members, Section 8(b)(1)(A) prohibits unions from restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, including the right to refrain from joining a union. See Scofield v. NLRB, 34 U.S. 423, 430(1969) (unions are “free to enforce a properly adopted rule which reflects a legitimate union interest, impairs no policy Congress has imbedded in the labor laws, and is reasonably enforce[d] sic, against union members who are free to leave the union to escape the rule”).

    Thus, employees must be free to resign their union membership and escape the rule. The rule here, however, requires employees to comply with the Union’s constitution and bylaws as a condition of employment. Such a requirement violates the Act”.


    See Andrew Kevin Price v. Carpenters District Council, U.S.D.C. SD Illinois (2011), case no.10-cv-0741 MJR-PMF granting both a temporary Injunction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(3); and vacating same and issuing a permanent Injunction for free speech & other issues under LMRDA Sec. 411-415, dated 3-17-11. Movants note, the UBC Obligation prohibits free speech under the aforementioned requirements and also as a direct violation of NLRA Sec. 7 rights to refrain from any 7 all such activity – and thus should be similarly enjoined.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Obligation is contained within the UBCJA's By-Laws. The NYCDCC By-Laws require that a member comply with a maintenance of membership obligation, per the UBC Constitution to access the Union Meetings and to seek, run & hold office and to attend/view gallery sessions of the allegedly Democratic Council Delegate Body meetings wherein a rank & file member, properly recognized by the chair can exercise his First Amendment right to Free Speech.

    Free Speech is part & parcel to the alleged "Restoration of Democracy" under prong 2 of the Consent Decree, a private contract between the Federal Government and the private non-profit UBCJA Corporation, a right which cannot be trampled upon.

    In Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp., 475 US 211 (1986), Justice White in delivering the opinion of the Court stated “Contracts, however express, cannot fetter the constitutional authority of Congress. Contracts may create rights of property, but when contracts deal with a subject [475 US 211, 224] matter which lies within the control of Congress, they have a congenital infirmity. Parties cannot remove their transactions from the reach of dominant constitutional power by making contracts about them.” Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co, 294 US, 240, 307-308 (1935).

    Both the Consent Decree & the All Writs Act have such a congental infirmity, as both lie within the domain of Congress, the Legislative Branch of our Governemnt - and both remain outside the control of the USAO & RO and the UBCJA Corporation to alter, amend or modify via Private Contract.

    The UBCJA Corp. & the RO's Office made a contract, in the newly executed By-Laws with such congenital infirmity in that they trample upon Rank & File member basic NLRA, LMRA & LMRDA right's and sweep the First Amendment under the rug in the process. The facial invalidity of said by-laws is obvious and cannot thus not stand.

    The USAO & RO are parties with direct standing to represent the Rank & File members interest's, support and uphold laws already on the books, the purpose of which was not to join the same team with the UBC and Doug McCarron and by direct collusion with him and Judge Conboy subvert their mandated duties.

    Both the USAO and the RO, in enforcing the law are not duly authorized to substitute their desire's on Contract (CBA) negotiations for that of the rank & file, under the free association decision of the Supreme Court; and as per the Policy of the United States for negotiating wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment. That duty fall upon the rank & file members duly elected as the representatives and does not by default, coercion, intimidation or direct collusion - default to the USAO & RO to decide any of it & the Lechmere Doctrine of the Sup. Ct. proibits it as being far outside their duties and it is not supported by law.

    No application for All Writs Act protections were applied for and none were granted by the Court, so every MOU is off the table.

    Any Delegate or Officer duly elected who simply "rubber stamps" any prior action is derelict in their sworn duties to the Rank & File members. Contract Negotiations must start over, from scratch with people competent in such affairs. The current contract remain in full force and effect as a matter of Law, per the NLRB

    ReplyDelete
  6. Participating Memebers Tell Hijacking Delegates Tough, - We Won't go down that easy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That has to be Dennis's stupidest letter to date and he has posted some doozeys. The gallery is not allowed at the delegate meetings unless the delegates pass a motion to allow them to be there. So our $1.4 million a year hack vetoes a motion which was already in the Bylaws. He has to be brain damaged, WTF DOES HIS PRISSY SELF SERVING LETTER DO EXCEPT TRY AND MAKE WALSH OUT TO BE SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT HE IS WHICH IS A UNION HATING HACK WHO CAME TO US IN A THRIFT STORE SUIT. Dennis is as about as open and transparent as the KGB.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So our $1.4 million a year hack vetoes a motion which was already in the Bylaws.-AND YOU RATHER HE IGNORE THE EXTORTING DELEGATES AND ALLOWN THEM TO RAMROD THE UBC THROUGH. HE IS GUARANTEEING TRASNSPARENCY, AS IT APPEARS,FROM THE LIKES OF YOU TO MANIPULATE THE PROCESS. HE'S GOT GOVERNING CONTROL IN THE NAME OF CORRUPTION. THE SAME CORRUPTION THATS TAKING PLACE RIGHT NOW.

    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.