In the court papers filed last Friday in federal court in Manhattan, rank-and-file carpenters request Court intervention on the new three dispatch rule and the MWA Arbitration crisis.
Attorney Joshua Douglas, writing on behalf of the rank and file says,
"members request your intervention over two matters of concern to them, (1) The announcement by the District
Council that it will be executing changes to the Out-of-Work list
commencing on August 13, 2012 (2) The finding of an Arbitrator that the "Most Favored
Nation" clause was triggered by a contract signed days after the
indictments of union officials in 2009 by an individual whom Review
Officer Walsh has determined lacked authority to bind the District
Council.
Judge Berman ordered "that the RO and District
Council comment in writing on the enclosed letter on or before August
15, 2012."
Below is their response to that letter.
20120814131621_20120814_141630
below then
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
RO & DC Response to Court Intervention
11 comments:
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
DROP DEAD UNITY TEAM !
ReplyDeleteOrganized crime = McCarron.
ReplyDeleteMcCarron look no further.
ReplyDeleteThat lawyer states to the judge he's omitted the names of the members from notification to the parties involved, to protect their identities, not to pull a fast one. Judge Berman will know the difference.
ReplyDeleteMurphy states sect. 38 of the by laws as what gives the EST the power to change the work rules. Where in that section does it state that?
ReplyDeleteMurphy calls the membership not those belonging to the UBC but an organized crime family.
ReplyDeletethey really did us raw this time
ReplyDeleteRaw them back !
ReplyDeleteEverything Murphy states is a fallacy & spin of the truth. There are no by law sect's that give the EST such power to unilaterally implement the work rule change. If the DC were to act on the RO's recommendation" they'd have to petition the court for the change and have the subcommittee to the delegate body, which pklaces the executive committee below those that have "unlimited power", the delegate body vote on it so it could be brought before them. He lies when saying more delegates supported it, and the only "engaged" discussion was member driven delegates being shut down when they attempted to address the severity of such a change. Typical DC lawyereze.
ReplyDeleteGiven the opportunity I shall Raw Back I wont accept this laying down without questioning its validity in meetings and on the job a fire has been lit and it was lit under the membership . What an insulting letter to the members who are in opposition comparing our membership with thugs and felons. This despicable Attorney Bridget Rohde being paid with my dues is comparable to paying child suppport and having "weekday dad" a nex X-box with it
ReplyDeleteBerman: Full docket text for document 1183: DECISION AND ORDER: Having reviewed the record herein, including (i) the Consent Decree; (ii) the letter, dated August 7, 2012; (iii) the District Council's opposition letter, dated August 14, 2012; and (iv) the RO's letter, dated August 14, 2012, the Court hereby denies Mr. Douglass's application as follows: 1) Mr. Douglass's application is dismissed. Mr. Douglass is not a party to this case and appears to have no standing under the Consent Decree. With respect to the anonymous Union members Mr. Douglass purports to represent, Mr. Douglass has not shown that any "interest in anonymity" outweighs the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendant. 2) Even assuming arguendo, that Mr. Douglass's application were properly before the Court, it would likely be rejected because Mr Douglass does not cite to any federal law or provision in the Consent Decree that suggests there has been any propriety in implementing the three-dispatch rule. 3) And, assuming, argue
ReplyDelete