Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Over the last ten years, the F.O.W. has been merging devoted Union Carpenters who hold woodworking in high regard and proven a commitment to the craft. Participate in celebrating ten years of uniting hundreds of dedicated union woodworkers and raising the standard of Architectural Woodworking in New York City.
Our meetings are held on the last Thursday of each month. New meeting location pending. Our next will be on March 27, 2014 at the above address.
We have many exciting things planned for the upcoming New Year. Up-date your membership & inquire information about the F.O.W. Certified Out Of Work list.
Please contribute to our fundraiser by purchasing a F.O.W. 10th Anniversary T-Shirt!!
Click here! Made in the U.S.A.
Monday, March 24, 2014
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Having reviewed the record herein, including, without limitation, (i) the May 26, 2009 Court Order determining that "[t]he percentage of the total carpenter workforce on a job site selected by a contractor shall not exceed 67%" with "[t]he remaining 33% of the total carpenter workforce on a jobsite ... assigned by the District Council from the Out of Work List," (Final Order and Judgment of Contempt and Remedy, filed May 27, 2009 ("2009 Order"), at 3(b)(iv), (v)); (ii) the Court's May 8, 2013 Decision and Order stating that "it is ordered that the Court's May 26, 2009 Order (Haight, J.) is hereby modified and superseded to permit the parties forthwith to implement the full mobility job hiring and compliance procedures specified in the
[collective bargaining agreement ("CBA")] between the District Council and the [Wall-Ceiling and Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc. ("WC&C")] approved on April25, 2013"; (iii) the District Council's February 14, 2014letter which: enclosed a copy of a new CBA between the District Council and the New York Trade Show Contractors Association (the "NYTSCA CBAs" or "Agreements"); noted that "[a]s with the other collective bargaining agreements submitted to Your Honor for review and approval, this CBA provides for full mobility, electronic reporting of jobs and hours, and the anti-corruption compliance features of those earlier agreements;" stated
that the NYTSCA CBA "was ratified by the District Council's Delegate Body at its regularly scheduled meeting on February 12, 2014 by a roll call vote of 85 yes and 1 no;" and requested that the Court issue an order "similar to those earlier Orders with respect to collective bargaining agreements providing for full mobility, electronic reporting of jobs and hours, [and] anti-corruption compliance features."
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Many of you may have noticed ongoing demonstrations on Roosevelt Island and might have wondered about the reasons behind them. Here’s some context: six of Riverwalk’s nine buildings have already been built with few if any affordable housing units available to the general public. Three Riverwalk buildings are remaining to be built which should include the affordable housing mandate of at least 40% required by the Roosevelt Island General Development Plan. After all these years, construction has finally begun on Riverwalk 7, the first of these with the potential for affordable housing. However, protesters are raising concerns that this construction is being completed by workers who are not being paid a living wage, health benefits, disability benefits, or retirement benefits and who may not have the apprenticeship training and years of on the job experience that they need for construction to be safer for both themselves and the residents of Roosevelt Island.
THE COURT: It seems like there are several topics on
the agenda. I had said we have some, and is this overall theme
here somehow which is puzzling to me, which I guess the way to
describe it would be that the parties -- or some are seeking a
substantial modification of the RO's role in this proceeding.
That's one that's -- I don't know if it's surprising is the
term, but I'm not quite understanding the dynamic in particular
between I think the district council and the RO. So, at the
appropriate time if you want to explore that I'd be happy to
hear a little bit more about that. That colors and impacts
several of the items on the agenda.
Response to the Court’s order dated March 4, 2014, to express support for the Review Officer’s proposal to (1) waive enforcement of all prior notice requirements placed upon the District Council and local unions by the Stipulation and Order of June 3, 2010, as set forth in paragraphs 5.b and 5.c of the Stipulation and Order, and (2) to eliminate the veto authority given to the Review Officer by paragraph 5.b.iii of the Stipulation and Order, in favor of enforcement proceedings instituted by the Review Officer in this Court.
I write in regards to the Review Officer’s March 3 2014 letter to the court. On
pg.3 ¶1 of his submission the Review Officer states that in the absence of an agreement from the District Council to extend his term prior to the March 10th Court Conference he will move the Court to extend his tenure at that Conference. Since nothing has ever been presented to the Delegate Body in regards to granting the Review Officer another extension to his tenure, and with no scheduled Delegate Body meeting until March 13th , there is no possibility of any agreement being in place prior to the March 10th Court Conference, which means that what the Review Officer is attempting to do is to bypass the District Councils governing body in his petition to the Court.
I believe that this attempt to invoke the Courts authority without ever making any attempt to bring the matter in front of the Delegate Body is improper and contrary to the Stipulations stated intent of creating a democratic self-governing District Council. I find it difficult to reconcile any attempt to bypass the District Councils governing body with being a purported step towards self-governance.
As part of an initiative to afford the District Council (including its eight affiliated local unions) the opportunity to demonstrate that it can sustain the reform measures that have been implemented and that it can conduct its affairs without prior approvals and the threat of veto, the Review Officer ("RO") seeks the Court's consent (l) to waive enforcement of all prior notice requirements placed upon the District Council and local unions by the Stipulation and Order, as set forth in paragraphs 5.b and 5.c, and (2) to eliminate the veto authority given to the RO by paragraph 5.b.iii of the Stipulation and Order, in favor of the ability of the RO to initiate civil contempt or other enforcement proceedings in this Court.
The proposed changes would build upon the waiver of the prior notice requirement for local union expenditures under paragraph 5.b.i.(l) of the Stipulation and Order, which the Court previously approved. The changes are sought as the first step in developing a means to test the ability of the District Council to conduct its affairs on a permanent basis in a lawful manner and would include the extension of the RO's tenure through 2014. The gradual reduction of oversight by the RO will facilitate an objective assessment of the sustainability of a compliant District Council. The RO requests that this important proposition be placed on the agenda for the conference scheduled to be held on March 10,2014.