Thursday, June 28, 2012

Local 157 Officers Vetoed

Yesterday, Review Officer, (RO) Dennis Walsh vetoed Local 157 President Patrick Nee as president and delegate; Peter Corrigan as financial secretary and delegate; Levy Messinetti as recording secretary and delegate; Gauntlett Holness as trustee.

The conduct relates to the move of the local union to the first floor at 395 Hudson; attempts of fiduciaries to get paid for their involvement in the move without disclosure of (1) the job opportunity and (2) planned remuneration of fiduciaries to the membership (violating 29 USC Section 501) and failure to cooperate with the RO (Holness was not cited for failure to cooperate). The amount of time claimed in service on moving day (April 28th) was also found to be inaccurate. See Notice of Veto below.

Nee along with the other officers were elected last June running on the Workers Rights Slate, and sources say Nee will appeal the decision.

According to the UBC Constitution, Vice President Tommy McGonigle will assume the duties of President until an election is scheduled.

With over 10,000 members, Local 157 is the largest of 8 locals in the New York City District Council of Carpenters and the UBC, the local controls virtually all high-rise construction in Manhattan and in the Bronx.
Veto Notice Local 157 06 26 2012



  2. Richard DorroughJune 29, 2012 at 7:30 AM

    In regards to Walshs removal of duly elected officers who would not play ball,challenged the little wizard behind the screen in oz and asked way to many questions as delegates. I am curious. How many members were notified of the secretarial job opening that Biello gave to Lebo at $185,000. I am sure this action is the exact same as Nee not notifying the members of the moving job. So why not a peep out of the Great Wizard of Oz then???

    I know I am "on the Pot" according to Davenport but it does not affect my ability to read. So could someone point to me exactly in the Stipulation and Order where it gives Walsh the power to veto any duly elected officers of a local affiliated with the NYC District Council. I say affiliated because despite Walshs BS he does not supersede the Secretary of labor who has declared you are NOT members of the District Council.

    The section quoted 5.b.111(c,d and e) and Section 7 is BS and does NOT give Walsh the power to veto officers but to veto or require the council to rescind ACTIONS. So I must be missing something. Further does not 5 A clearly say the RO can bring "disciplinary charges" after investigation . I guess the Great Wizard can just bypass all those things like charges and fair trials and go right to removing people at his whim. Isn't this what Judge Haight was worried about when he did not want to give so much power to one little man??

    I am curious why, if the RO at his whim can just remove officers/delegates who wont play ball and ask to many questions of his chosen regime,did they bother to put the Section 25 in the new bylaws on charges and trials and exclusive disciplinary procedures. What about the section of the order that says the RO Office must give the council a chance to act on it own first.Screw all those nasty fair trials and people able to defend themselves.Screw all those overpaid positions created to go after corruption and council employees who break the rules. If the great Oz says your out your out. But I have to ask you. At least the UBC pretended to take you to trial before they railroaded you and expelled you. So somebody help me out and show me the Section of the stipulation that allows the RO to veto somebody out of office. I knew he could veto them from running for Office for such important things like they wore a red shirt to their pre election review meeting or because the stupid moronic 500 page essay in crayon and in triplicate was not up to snuff...But to remove officers from office with no charges or trials. With no rights to let the membership decide so that one little man or one small group of of little men cannot exercise their whims. Christ this makes the UBC look like boy scouts.Does nobody else see the absurdity of this. So somebody help me out and show me where in the stipulation and order it allows Walsh to veto them.

  3. Richard DorroughJune 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM

    This is almost as funny as Biello saying .Yes it was illegal for the assessments to be collected from the vacation checks and the members were defrauded BUT the assessments were legal and we want that money. Well whats funny is that any assessment increased or imposed MUST by FEDERAL LAW (and not the Land of Oz or the great Wizards law) be approved by a vote of the rank and file or the delegates who represent the members. I am curious how those assessments can be legal when Mr Walsh and the US Attorney told everybody in the world that the previous delegates were corrupt.Were being controlled by crooked and corrupt council officers.In some cases directly controlled by organized crime AND WERE NYC Council Officers some of who were now in prison. How about a head count on how many of the previous delegates have been removed and prevented from ever being delegates again for corruption . SO WHATS FUNNY is how Mr Biello can declare that "anything they voted on" was or is legal.Wouldn't that be an interesting question to ask the DOL using Mr Walsh and the US Attorneys own written statements and vetos so the DOL can decide if those assessments were legal???

    What is really a slap in the fac is that the illegal removal was topped not because the members were being defrauded but because the trustees were warned it was illegal and they were liable. As soon as they were in legal danger this illegal act was stopped. Nobody gave a rats ass if the member were defrauded. But the fact is when this was imposed many people were screaming to the roof tops this was illegal and the trustees ignored it. So did they not already violated their fiduciary duty and due diligence by allowing this illegal removal should they be allowed to walk away. Each one is bonded. Each one IS liable and each one can be sued for their bond which is I believe 2 million each.Times how many trustees. Why isnt Biello or the great wizard suing them for their actions. Why is Walsh not vetoing them for allowing the member to be defrauded. I guess millions is ok but for $484 your out.

    What an insult for Walsh to quote Section 501 or any other State or Federal law. This is from a guy who has declared himself and his office above any state or federal law and above the UBC Constitution. Of course when Biello was trying to scare the delegates into approving the CBA and to recover this assessment money he told them he feared the UBC would take the over and put you into a Regional council. Not a word from Walsh to chastise Biello for this BS and to tell the members and delegates how Walsh and the NYC Council was outside the power of the UBC which he has already declared when the mighty Oz was challenged

  4. They should all be thrown out of the union but that wont happen. It is the dc's policy to blame everything on the owl members. These guys will all be working for cash + fully employed in very short order. Everthing bad about this union always falls on the backs of the owl. Same old pattern + same old story. Walsh should also send this to IG for review. OWL guys were brought up on charges for far less + were sent to the bottom of the list. Where's the justice ?

  5. They broke the rules and had broken other rules before this it all has todo with clearing expenses thru Walsh and these wise asses thought they could continue this numerous times with disregard of the OVERSITE we are urrently under if they did it the right way and submitted to the operating rules then there would have not been a problem they showed their true colors and can't be defended anymore after all the mistakes they made and tried to slip past walsh. Née is gonna appeal lol give me break that " I didn't know ididwrong forgive me it's my first time " is not gonna work anymore stupid your cooked take like a man you coward !

    1. I am the first one to trash Nee. This is the guy who wants all the locals abolished. However this is also one of the only people standing up as a delegate to any of the Biello and Lebo BS. This is bigger than Nee.This is about you letting Walsh remove duly elected officers by veto. Show me where in the Stipulation and Order his office is allowed to do so. Why bother to bylaws at all.Nee must appeal this to Berman and accuse Walsh of abusing his office which is what Haight was afraid of. Show us the notice to all members when Lebos $185,000 Secretary job was available. Why no veto of services then??? What do you think is worse. These actions by Nee or Lebo tabling motions and threatening and abusing delegates who try to do their job. Didnt Walsh promise(The Court)they would be free of this type of Intimidation. What about Cavanagh saying I am not aware of Roberts rules which are the very basis that allow members to stop the type of Tyranny that has existed at meetings. Now Walsh sits there and allows these clowns to make Forde look like a boyscout and no veto of their services

  6. is the sky falling??????????????? dorrough almost praising nee, or at least nor insulting him???????????????????????


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.