Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Clock Ticking on Bilello

Bilello faces possible veto.  
Informed sources say...THAT a pre-action conference is scheduled for Friday April 26, to discuss the "notice of possible veto" issued to Executive Secretary-Treasurer Michael Bilello.

On March 26, 2013 Review Officer (RO) Dennis Walsh slapped Bilello with an eight-count notice of possible veto, Bilello had until April 9, to answer the complaint and to deliver a written submission to the RO stating any facts, law or arguments which might be relevant to consideration of the possible veto.

We reported that Bilello hired a big gun attorney, Guy Petrillo, (Petrillo Klein & Boxer) who requested an extension to April 22nd, to respond, but "due to his travel schedule" has been briefly extended. The RO is expected to receive the response before the conference on Friday.

Despite transparency claims Bilello has failed to informed or give any update to the delegates or membership regarding the notice of possible of action.

At a delegate body meeting last month Bilello said, "I'm not stepping down," when I asked if he would follow past practice and lead by example and voluntarily take a leave of absence until the matter of this veto is cleared up.

During the two-and-a-half year emergency supervision imposed on the District Council by the UBC procedures were put in place for dealing with actions taken by the RO. Past practice by Supervisor Frank Spencer was to temporary suspend any council employee after receiving a notice of possible action from the RO.

In other news...on April 11, Bilello sent an email to all delegates stating, "per the order and direction" of Judge Berman, "the fully executed Wall & Ceiling agreement will be brought before the Delegate Body for ratification" on April 25, 2013.

Rank and file carpenters plan to protest the vote and rally in support of membership ratification of the agreement.

4 comments:

  1. When the stipulations are not self-executing, they can only be enforced pursuant to legislation to carry them into effect.

    Name the case Murphy........oh that's right, Mr. Nunc-Pro-Tunc, Quasi-Heckler's Veto & Subverter of Democracy himself has no rationale or legal basis to respond to anything submitted to the Court to date.

    Instead, he resorts to childish antics and false claims to avoid the obvious - the rank & file members have a better moral and legal argument supported by the Consent Decree and Stipulation & Order and he does not have a rationale or legally viable counter reply to convince Judge Berman to rule in his favor.

    Don't worry though Murph, compared to what we're called every day, these mild taunts are like a hug from Mom.

    Therein lies the rub, once the screaming is done, all you got left is the work or in your case, the work product and the rank & file members out-flanked you again as their work product outshines yours by leaps & bounds.

    As for the name calling, leave that to the guys who do it best...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Racketeers "R" Us:

    Support:

    * the Clarke Exclusive Hiring Hall,
    * 90% - 10% Referral / Hiring Preference,
    * Area Residence requirement as noted below.

    Send that Carpet bagger McCarron back to the left coast where he belongs.

    Tell him that he nor the Mobbed Up Wall & Ceiling crew are not gonna Extort your Rights & do it brazelny under the Nose of a Federal District Court Judge

    ReplyDelete
  3. Stipulation & Order 5(b)(i)(2) states: The Review Officer must be given prior notice of, and is granted the authority to review, all contracts or proposed contracts on behalf of the District Council (except for Collective Bargaining Agreements)

    Note the "except for" Qualification of the Stip. & Order which the Review Officer is bound to. Now, compare to D.C. in house legal counsel James Murphy's statement at pg. 3/7, item 2 on his April 19, 2013 letter regarding the Musumeci v. Bilello charges wherein he states: "As explained by the R.O.; he negotiated and drafted the Bylaws in conjunction with the UBC's counsel, Brian Quinn."

    Here's the rub ladies, per the Court approved Stipulation & Order which the R.O. agreed with the Federal District Court (Judge Berman) to abide by, here we have the District Councils attorney stating on the open record that the R.O. "negotiated and drafted" By-laws which control the Collective Bargaining Agreements. This is a clear and untenable conflict of interest for the R.I. to "negotiate and draft" by-laws which control the Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA's/contracts) which the Court Ordered Stipulation & Order prohibited the Review Offcier from doing.

    Now we have the corrupt attorney Murphy trying to concoct a back-door illegal rules and procedures game with the Review Officer & EST wherein all three parties ignore the mandatory provisions in Section 35A,B & C and Sec. 37 to amend the By-laws with regard to the Section 20 requirement under the Council Delegate Body's 4(B) full plenary power & authority to "ratify and execute" the contracts (CBA's).

    ReplyDelete
  4. -cont -

    Section 20 states: SECTION 20: COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
    “Following recommendation by the Executive Committee, the Council Delegate Body shall have the exclusive power and authority to ratify and execute Collective Bargaining Agreements for and on behalf of its affiliated Local Unions, except to the extent the International Union exercises its jurisdiction or authority. The District Council Delegate Body shall adopt rules and procedures governing the method of collective bargaining ratification.”

    The 100-member CDB retains the exclusive authority as the legislature with the power to initiate, pass, amend, author, ratify & execute all contract langauge. The last sentence in Sec. 20 is the 'enabling legislation'.

    Given the enabling Legislation was not drafted in accordance with the specific construction of the by-laws via Sections 35 & 37 at the time of the alleged MOU and the subsequent 60-26 sham vote put forth by Bilello, nor from that point forward to the February or April 2013 Court conference, or the belated & rushed submission of the March 12, 2013 WC & C contract which was wrongfully executed by Bilello, in direct contravention to Sec. 20; or, through the fradulent second attemp to rush it through this evening via an alleged 48-34 vote that the EST was not duly authorized to execute - Judge Berman has no choice but to void the contracts allegedly executed (signed) ab-initio (from the beginning).

    The 100-member CDB (the Delegates) is the only body under the By-laws who can initiate the enabling legislation, notwithstanding the Stipulation and Order's prohibition on the RO's participation in anythng to do with the Collective Bargaining agreements.

    This language is very clear, The R.O.'s powers as tied squarely to Section 2 by black letter law clearly indicate that he is limited to "review". The limiting factor prohibits the R.O. in the first instance from authoring the by-laws or negotiaing any portion or aspect of the Contracts (CBA's).

    Having one play off the other in this game of shenanigans wherby they think their fooling everyone including the Judge and is insulting to the rank & file and to the Court

    Judge Berman need to quash all contracts until the CDB amends the by-laws and the rules governing ratification & execution of ech & every individual contract with a Contractor Association.

    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.