 |
| Click to enlarge. |
Breaking News...The New York City District Council of Carpenters is once again rocked by scandal as Executive Secretary-Treasurer Michael Bilello illegally diverted millions of dollars of a contractual raise into the welfare fund and now may face a possible veto by Review Officer (RO) Dennis Walsh.
Though not vested by the District Council Bylaws with authority to do so, we just learned that on July 1, 2012 Bilello failed to seek delegate body approval and diverted a $2.59 per hour contract raise with the Hoist Trade Association, increasing the Welfare Fund contribution from $11.25 to $13.84 (the highest member contribution).
The Hoist Trade Association Agreement was passed in the direct membership vote in March last year. It is one of five agreements sent out by the delegates for a direct vote and the only one that passed (see letter). The Hoist agreement covers approximately 600 to 800 members who work over one million man-hours a year. It is estimated that at least $1.5 million has been illegally diverted out of the pockets of hard working hod hoist carpenters.
Hod Hoist Carpenters are members of Local 1556, they erect and maintain the material and personnel hoist on new construction sites. They also work on scaffolding and sidewalk bridges across the city. In July 2011, UBC General President Douglass McCarron dissolved Local 1456 (former Timbermen/Hod Hoist) and Local 1536, (former Dockbuilders) the memberships of both local unions were merged into the new Local 1556, which has approximately 3300 members.
Roto Born, a hod hoist shop steward working at St Patrick’s Cathedral was unaware he even received a raise.
“I am working on one of the largest scaffolding jobs in the city and the men and I didn’t even know we received a raise, why was the entire raise put into the welfare fund and why weren’t we even notified about this," Born stated.
In an email to the RO requesting comment on the illegal allocation, the RO stated, “if that was done it was without notice to me.”
I contacted several district council delegates and they all stated that they have “no recollection of the hoist raise ever being mentioned or debated” nor is there any reference to the raise recorded in the delegate meeting minutes.
In a March 21, 2013 letter to Judge Berman, the RO stated among other things, “there is no question that pursuant to Section 21 of the District Council Bylaws, the delegate body decides all questions of allocation of trust fund monies."
Bilello was elected in December 2011 running on a platform of members rights, since being sworn in he has become a hypocrite, giving lip service to his campaign promises and has shown a pattern of violating the Bylaws and the trust of the membership.
"Membership rights must be given back, plain and simple. Members have the right to full transparency of the Council’s actions. This requires real communication between the officers of the council and the membership. Members have the right to full information before crucial decisions are made so that they can voice their concerns and wishes to their delegates before the final decisions are made. Members have the right to know how their delegates vote for them."
 |
| Hypocrite Bilello |
In a March 21, 2013 letter to judge Berman, counsel for the District Council, James Murphy among other things stated, that the “WC&C CBA was properly ratified by the District Council.
“Petitions or letters to the Court challenging the procedure adopted by the Delegate Body to ratify the WC&C CBA are attempts to subvert democracy and the representational governance of the District Council.”
“Those efforts should not be undermined by those who would undermine democratic procedures by employing a quasi heckler’s veto.”
On March 21, 2013 Judge Berman issued an Order to Mr. Walsh and Mr. Murphy, both “are requested to supply authorities for the proposition that this Court can approve a collective bargaining agreement where only an MOU has been approved by a delegate body."
In a letter to Judge Berman, newly elected Local 157 President Mitchell Sonntag among other things described the delegate body as a “dysfunctional mess.”
“It is a Soviet-style democracy, with the outward appearance of a functioning democracy when in reality it is staged show that benefits the oligarchy of the District Council. We have experienced By-Law violations by the leadership, selective dissemination of information, omission of information, seemingly purposefully abridged minutes that clearly do not accurately reflect the proceedings. District Council employee/delegates have a super-majority in the delegate body and they appear to be utilizing parliamentary tactics that tend to put a damper on true exchange and meaningful debate at delegate meetings to the detriment of the membership.”
Will a notice of possible veto be forthcoming to our hypocritical EST...Stay tuned.
DROP DEAD UNITY TEAM !
ReplyDelete“When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.” ― Thomas Jefferson
ReplyDelete“Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and opressions of the body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.” ― Thomas Jefferson
“Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” ― Thomas Jefferson
“It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape.” ― Thomas Jefferson
Is this not the same behavior that landed Fred Devine in jail,by "diverting funds" . And Walsh has the gaul to say he has no knowlege of these actions , ha , he is too busy trying to rig trials of members who were found not guilty to get a guilty verdict . Double jepardy verdict are not going to help us get back on our feet . Stop wasting the members money and focus on the real thefts the are right in front of you Walsh
ReplyDeleteAnonymousMarch 23, 2013 at 1:12 PM
ReplyDelete"Subverting Democracy" via a "Quasi-Hecklers Veto" and (X + Y)= 67% and (Z) = 33% and theissue is not Full Mobility but a Compliance procedure....
That about sums it up Murphy?
You must think that Judge Berman is a complete and utter fool as you are for actually having the nerve to write and submit this piece of garbage to the Court.
Quite readily apparent lies the fact that you have no clue what Labor law is about, that you failed math & that you are incapable of an intelligent response.
On the other hand, the proponent, a hard working Union Carpenter who is not a subversive, made out a prima-facie case to which you as an alleged trained & competent attorney have no legitimate response.
All you have done here is ignore the facts at hand, ignore settled law and now are conducting a smear campaign against Mr. Schreoder's good name. In the process you have also besmirched all other DC Union Carpenter by attempting to portray them as subversives because they do not agree with the fallacy, myth & lies put forth by the International, the Bilello regime, the DC, Wall & Ceiling or the R.O. or by you in this classic non-response response.
Your letter belongs in the trash heap of this 23-1/2 year Criminal RICO action and 19-year Consent Decree as it is obvious by your few appearances in Court (see the Transcripts) that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about and exactly zero comprehension of any prior rulings. When you attempt to explain them, as with the last Court Conference you got it all wrong as the record amply demonstrates.
Accordingly, the court should grant no weight to this lame excuse for an intelligible response as you failed to address any of the core questions of fact or law presented within Mr. Schroeder's argument.
24 THE COURT: So why don't you just spend a minute on
ReplyDelete25 the issue of full mobility, what it was, for the record, and
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.(212) 805-0300
Pg. 15
15D2RTUSAC
1 what it is now in this proposed agreement.
2 MR. MURPHY: Well, what it was under the Court's 2009
3 order is that at least 33 percent of the hires for a job had to
4 come from the district council's out-of-work list, stated
5 clearly. Now with this change, no one will have to come from
6 the out-of-work list except for the certified shop steward, and
7 that's on obvious anti-corruption effort that the union is
8 insisting upon, and the association didn't have a problem with
9 that.
10 THE COURT: And the 33 percent was a negotiated figure
11 as opposed to 40 percent or 60 percent or some other number?
12 MR. MURPHY: It was, as I understand -- it was before
13 my time -- it was semi negotiated, and it was imposed by Judge
14 Haight in his order of May 26, I believe it was, 2009.
15 THE COURT: How did he know to pick 33 percent versus
16 some other percent? It must have been a recommendation.
17 MR. MURPHY: There were negotiations and new contracts
18 entered into in the early 2000s without, as at least as I read
19 the record, the knowledge or the approval of the government,
20 and so the government brought a contempt proceeding because it
21 believed -- as it turned out from the Second Circuit, it was
22 correct -- that it was a violation of consent decree. Judge
23 Haight disagreed, the government appealed to the Second
24 Circuit, the Second Circuit agreed with the government, and it
25 was remanded back to Judge Haight, and he issued a final order
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.(212) 805-0300
Pg. 16
16D2RTUSAC
1 in 2009 of judgment of contempt.
2 THE COURT: Which includes now the 33 percent?
3 MR. TORRANCE: Yes, your Honor, Ben Torrance for the
4 government. It was a litigated matter. As I recall it, Judge
5 Haight essentially reached a compromise as his contempt remedy
6 exercising the equitable power of court instead of 50/50 or
7 100 percent, he came to 67 percent.
2 MR. MURPHY: Well, what it was under the Court's 2009
ReplyDelete3 order is that at least 33 percent of the hires for a job had to
4 come from the district council's out-of-work list, stated
5 clearly. Now with this change, no one will have to come from
6 the out-of-work list except for the certified shop steward, and
7 that's on obvious anti-corruption effort that the union is
8 insisting upon, and the association didn't have a problem with
9 that.
OK Murphy you twit - Explain to us again how not having a Steward on a Job (Project) is an Anti-Corruption effort?
And the Union is insiting upon it ehh?
And who might the Union be numnut?
Stay tuned, we'll be back with that answer. While we're away, you should lawyer up asshole!
Back in the day, it was 50/50 by contract. All that was given away by Mike Forde - and then Judge Haight imposed the 33% - it takes time, but they will whittle away all your rights.
DeleteDennis Walsh theres alot you claim not to know, being that youre in charge of the final say on ALL financial transactions. You are either corrupt or incompetent, im going with both personally we'll see what Ben and Robert say.
ReplyDeleteSomething is rotten in Denmark! Criminal indictments should be issued forthwith, assuming of course that the USAO is competently following & applying known law - which we all know is not the case.
ReplyDeleteTime for Ben Torrance to be replaced with a competent United States Attorney who is not sleeping on the job.
Union carpenters shuld not have to work their 40-hours a week on the tools & spend another 40-hours a week doing his damn job for him!
The Rubber Stamp USAO has got to Go!
Mack has stated in a private meeting the USAO has other things on his plate besides a 25 yr. consent decree case. It was said in such a manner to understand,- they aren't on top of things anymnore. First get a new USAO, then BRING BACK MACK!
ReplyDeleteBilello pay attention...Any person who embezzles, steals, or unlawfully and willfully abstracts or converts to his own use, or the use of another, any of the moneys, funds, securities, property, or other assets of a labor organization of which he is an officer, or by which he is employed, directly or indirectly, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
ReplyDelete29 U.S.C. §501. Fiduciary responsibility of officers of labor organizations
(a) Duties of officers; exculpatory provisions and resolutions void
The officers, agents, shop stewards, and other representatives of a labor organization occupy positions of trust in relation to such organization and its members as a group. It is, therefore, the duty of each such person, taking into account the special problems and functions of a labor organization, to hold its money and property solely for the benefit of the organization and its members and to manage, invest, and expend the same in accordance with its constitution and bylaws and any resolutions of the governing bodies adopted thereunder, to refrain from dealing with such organization as an adverse party or in behalf of an adverse party in any matter connected with his duties and from holding or acquiring any pecuniary or personal interest which conflicts with the interests of such organization, and to account to the organization for any profit received by him in whatever capacity in connection with transactions conducted by him or under his direction on behalf of the organization. A general exculpatory provision in the constitution and bylaws of such a labor organization or a general exculpatory resolution of a governing body purporting to relieve any such person of liability for breach of the duties declared by this section shall be void as against public policy.
(b) Violation of duties; action by member after refusal or failure by labor organization to commence proceedings; jurisdiction; leave of court; counsel fees and expenses
When any officer, agent, shop steward, or representative of any labor organization is alleged to have violated the duties declared in subsection (a) of this section and the labor organization or its governing board or officers refuse or fail to sue or recover damages or secure an accounting or other appropriate relief within a reasonable time after being requested to do so by any member of the labor organization, such member may sue such officer, agent, shop steward, or representative in any district court of the United States or in any State court of competent jurisdiction to recover damages or secure an accounting or other appropriate relief for the benefit of the labor organization. No such proceeding shall be brought except upon leave of the court obtained upon verified application and for good cause shown, which application may be made ex parte. The trial judge may allot a reasonable part of the recovery in any action under this subsection to pay the fees of counsel prosecuting the suit at the instance of the member of the labor organization and to compensate such member for any expenses necessarily paid or incurred by him in connection with the litigation.
(c) Embezzlement of assets; penalty
Any person who embezzles, steals, or unlawfully and willfully abstracts or converts to his own use, or the use of another, any of the moneys, funds, securities, property, or other assets of a labor organization of which he is an officer, or by which he is employed, directly or indirectly, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
District Council Bylaws SECTION 10: DUTIES OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY-TREASURER
(G) The Executive Secretary-Treasurer is specifically authorized to expend, in accordance with the procedures of these Bylaws and in compliance with 29 U.S.C § 501, funds for any or all of the purposes and objects of the Council, subject to the necessary disclosures and approval by the Delegate Body.
Contact the Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman
ReplyDeleteGeneral Helpline: 1-800-771-7755
hey, it's Time to Play Guess the Case Murphy?
ReplyDeleteThe second question--whether..... deception violated ERISA imposed fiduciary obligations--calls for a brief, affirmative answer. ERISA requires a "fiduciary" to "discharge his duties with respect to a plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries." ERISA §404(a). To participate knowingly and significantly in deceiving a plan's beneficiaries in order to save the employer money at the beneficiaries' expense, is not to act "solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries."
As other courts have held, "[l]ying is inconsistent with the duty of loyalty owed by all fiduciaries and codified in section 404(a)(1) of ERISA," ........ (duty of loyalty requires trustee to deal fairly and honestly with beneficiaries
Because the breach of this duty is sufficient to uphold the decision below, we need not reach the question of whether ERISA fiduciaries have any fiduciary duty to disclose truthful information on their own initiative, or in response to employee inquiries.
[no citations when you play guess the case Murphy]