The site also says "Being Updated Please Check Back Tomorrow", that was 3 days ago.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Tentative, Breaking News?
Weird things going on at Local 157. The Official Local 157 website says "Breaking News Next Local 157 Union Meeting Schedule For June 2008". Officials at the local would only confirm that "a meeting is tentatively planed but the details have not been worked out".
The site also says "Being Updated Please Check Back Tomorrow", that was 3 days ago.
The site also says "Being Updated Please Check Back Tomorrow", that was 3 days ago.
18 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.
Why would they post notice of a meeting the is not confirmed?
ReplyDeleteFrom The Free Dictionary: ten·ta·tive
1. Not fully worked out, concluded, or agreed on; provisional: tentative plans.
2. Uncertain; hesitant.
Who's running this circus? We went from an absentee business manager and a local that is in disarray, to an incompetent local where the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. You call this PROGRESS! I guess we are “BACK TO BUSINESS AS USUAL"
ReplyDeleteFirst of All there is no such position as Business Manager in Local 157. There is a President.Only in the clearly distinct and Separate world of the NYCDCC are there Business Managers. The Office you refer to is President of Local 157. The NYDCC has spent a lot of time and effort to blur these two positions. For the future autonomy of the Local the members must ALWAYS make a clear distinction between the two. This is how the Council has succeeded in fleecing Local 157 and the other NYC Locals of their rights and Autonomy which is guaranteed the Locals under the LMRDA.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the meeting some questions need to be asked for the RECORD concerning this meeting.1.Who is calling the meeting. If an Official 157 meeting is scheduled than it signals the end of the Trusteeship on that date. A meeting could not be held otherwise. Brother Dilacio since he was never brought to trial and convicted by the Trial Committee as outlined in Section 14D or Section 52 IS STILL VP OF 157. Since it appears there is NO INDICATION that the International Executive Board exercised its rights under 14 D than Delacio must be given due process under Section 52. Never did The International Executive board designate Western District VP Michael Draper, EST William Halbert, and UBC Representative John Simmons a standing Trail Committee and they did not conduct a Trial of any of the Officers in Question as required by 14D. Further more they admit that they violated the UBC Constitution by allowing the NYCDCC to fire and accept resignations when the Council is only allowed to suspend pending trial.By Frank Spencers own written statement "obligated Council leaders to respond. They met with each of the accused during the week of November 13, and offered each one a chance to challenge the facts; no decision or action occurred at that point. Officials convened on the 17th, and—given such long-running serious offenses—reached a strong consensus to end the men’s employment and have them leave office. On Monday the 19th, each man was given an option to resign within two days. On November 21, Business Manager/President Hanley and Representative/Financial Secretary Kennedy came in to Council offices and signed resignation papers. Representative/Vice President Dilacio did not appear and was dismissed."
Since Spencer acted illegally under 14D Dilacio is to be brought to trial under Section 52 and he was not. The decision of any Trial Committee must be approved by the membership at a meeting as dictated under Section 52 and the membership at said meeting was not given the opportunity to reduce or overturn the findings of the Trial Committee. None of these obligations and due process were followed or allowed. So who is calling the meting. Dilacio as VP is the only one according to the UBC Constitution who has the right to do so.
Now we can leave the argument on
Dilacio for another day and assume that the next in line has the right to call the meeting. That would be Brother Derrico but only in his capacity as Recording Secretary as outlined under 32D which dictates that he may call a meeting to order so that the members Present may elect a Pro Tem President. This Pro Tem President will then appoint Pro Tem Officers pending an election. Regardless of the nonsense and BS that Forde is filling his head with. Brother Derrico is NOT the President of Local 157 and cannot act as such.The purpose and intent of this called meeting needs to be made clear for the record by Spencer as the Local comes out of Truteeship.Also remember, and this is not a slight to Brother Derrico, that the appointment of Derrico as Pro Tem President by the membership at this meeting would probably guarantee that all of Mike Fordes implants to 157 will most likely roll over into Officer appointments. Nothing personal but Derrico does not owe his present position of importance to the membership of 157 but he OWES Forde and the Council. Keep that in mind.
2. Timing of the meeting. This is where my question of time requirements to hold elections of Pro Tem officers must be answered. Section 31E dictates that Nominations will be held in May and Elections in June. Is the meeting being called in June so that Nominations and therefore Elections cannot be held until next year in 2009. Will Frank Spencer and the International guarantee that as 157 comes out of trusteeship a special Election and Nomination process will be held to fill the vacated Positions in 157?. Is the meeting being held in June so that Fordes implants came sit out a year in control of 157. Will the filing on April 21st at the DOL indicate that there is justification for the Trusteeship to continue until June.
3.The actions of the International in calling this meeting(which of course the council is not behind it because that would be illegal) and the perceived rights given to the present 157 MIke Forde Hierarchy by the International(because again the Councils involvement would be a violation of the Constitution and LMRDA) should give the 157 membership a clear indication of the answers that are coming from Brian Quinn. Before the membership accepts any such meeting the International and NOT Fordes Business Managers/Business Reps/Paid Council Employees/Yay!! Mike Forde Cheerleaders must give a statement for the record explaining the Intent of the meeting and who is arranging and authorizing it.A statement Officially announcing the end of the Trusteeship.An announcement of an election to replace the vacated positions of 157 Officers and a statement settling the constitutional and LMRDA issues raised for the last 3 months.
By allowing this meeting to move forward in this manner called by the people Mike Forde and the Council have illegally given control of 157 the International is indicating that the actions they and the NYCDCC have taken in this Trusteeship have been legal when it is clear that they have violated the LMRDA and the UBC Constitution.The membership should raise issue with this meeting but not boycott it. If the members do not attend in protest you can be assured you will have given the NYCDCC total control over 157 and lost the chance to restore the autonomy of 157 and get back a local run by Officers of the memberships choice at the discretion of the membership.
A local 157 ba came to my job on Monday and I asked him if he was going to the April 21, meeting. He told me that he didn’t hear about it and said it’s an unauthorized meeting by some dissidents and I should not attend.
ReplyDeleteTo Anonymous, The DOL has a limited 18-month presumption of validity for trusteeships, (you could basically put any reason you want and there is no enforcement) there is no filing required on April 21 to justify the Trusteeship. After 18-months they would have to file to justify the continue trusteeship.
ReplyDeleteFrom the DOL - Supervision of a Local: “A parent union's appointment of a supervisor over a local union may constitute a trusteeship; depending on the kinds of duties the supervisor performs. If the supervisor merely attends meetings, listens to discussions, and offers advice, no suspension of autonomy normally occurs. If the supervisor exercises a degree of control over the local, however, by taking such action as directing that the local cancel a scheduled meeting or discharge one of its employees, then the autonomy of the local is suspended and a trusteeship exists.”
From the DOL site “A trusteeship is unlawful if it is not established in accordance with the constitution and bylaws of the parent union or if it is not imposed for one of the specified purposes listed in section 302 of the LMRDA”.
In calling the DOL they said once a local is suspended all “Autonomy of the local is halted”. The local looses its autonomy and as a result all officers and meetings can be suspended. The trusteeship supervisor can hold meetings while under suspension and if it decides can appoint a “temporary” executive board to run the affairs of the local. When the trusteeship is lifted they would have to have nominations and elections of officers.
Now there seems to be clear violation of the rules regarding the district council paying the bills and freezing the locals books and maybe appointing ba’s. But the DOL says they can suspend officers as a result of being under trusteeship, so Dilacio is and is not the VP.
Technically he still is but he is also technically powerless to perform his duties because its like he has been erased because of the trusteeship.
All this becomes very technical; lets see what the UBC lawyer has to say.
Source http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/trustreq.htm#tdr
What is interesting in this scandle is how Brother Derrico has not been held accountable for his role in it.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Frank Spencer’s own written statement “Business Manager (Hanley) and two Representatives (Dilacio and Kennedy) in Local 157 had not completed their activity sheets as required; had not conducted regular jobsite visits during that time; and were not even at work in their jurisdiction when they reported themselves as working a regular day. A fourth man (that would be BA Danny Demorta was suspended for 2 weeks and sent to another local because he forged time and activity sheets, Oops somehow Spencer forgot to mention that in his statement) had discrepancies, but not beyond his allotted leave”.
Questions that were never posed to Brother Derrico:
Did Derrico have knowledge that Hanley, Dilacio, Kennedy and Danny were not at work, engaged in illegal conduct and forging time and activity records?
If he did, what did he do about it?
Did Derrico assist Hanley, Dilacio, Kennedy and Danny in any cover up or enable Hanley, Dilacio, Kennedy and Danny in their illegal conduct?
Were Hanley, Dilacio, Kennedy or top officials at the council who had knowledge of his involvement and cover up with this scandal blackmailing Derrico?
Was Derrico the anonymous tipster to Callahan in an effort to take control over local 157?
Why weren’t any of these explosive questions asked of Brother Derrico?
Derrico is either the dumbest person on the planet or the smartest person on the planet; he engaged in a massive cover up for years and is now promoted for it, go figure.
Joe,
ReplyDeletePoint 1..."there is no filing required on April 21 to justify the Trusteeship" Actually that is not correct. The Trusteeship began on November 21,2007 .The LMRDA requires a filing every six months during a Trusteeship justifying the continuation of the Trusteeship.You missed "and semiannually thereafter" meaning every six months.From the LMRDA:"Every labor organization which has or assumes trusteeship over any subordinate labor organization shall file with the Secretary within thirty days after the date of the enactment of this Act or the imposition of any such trusteeship, and semiannually thereafter." Now is that April 21st or May 21st depending how you count November. Either way a filing is due every six . The six month filing shall include.....From the LMRDA:Section 31 (3) a detailed statement of the reason or reasons for establishing or "continuing the trusteeship". So a filing IS due either April 21st or May 21st and it MUST include the justification for continuing the trusteeship.
Point 2.... You said.."After 18-months they would have to file to justify the continue trusteeship." After 18 months the trusteeship is over and the subordinate body either goes back ion business or is dissolved. Unlike the initial filing to continue after 18 months the International must provide "Clear and Convincing proof" to continue a Trusteeship.
Point 3...You Said:
From the DOL site “A trusteeship is unlawful if it is not established in accordance with the constitution and bylaws of the parent union or if it is not imposed for one of the specified purposes listed in section 302 of the LMRDA”.SEC. 302. Trusteeships shall be established and administered by a labor organization over a subordinate body only in accordance with the constitution and bylaws of the organization which has assumed trusteeship over the subordinate body. Joe you left out the important part which is :"And Administered in accordance with the bylaws" You give the impression that the Trusteeship must be established only in accordance with the bylaws when in actually the establishment is in accordance with the LMRDA and the Bylaws are secondary in the establishment. In the administration which means running the Trusteeship it must be in accordance with the UBC Constitution which become the PRIMARY factor in Administration.
Point 4...You said..
In calling the DOL they said once a local is suspended all “Autonomy of the local is halted”. The local looses its autonomy and as a result all officers and meetings can be suspended. The trusteeship supervisor can hold meetings while under suspension and if it decides can appoint a “temporary” executive board to run the affairs of the local.
None of this is True. The mention of Autonomy in the LMRDA in relation to Supervision is so that the LMRDA can protect the membership and prevent an International from avoiding the regulations of a Trusteeship by trying to hide it under the guise of a supervision. It is the degree of which the International takes away the Autonomy of a subordinate body that determines the existence of a Trusteeship regardless of what they call it.It was because of these abuses by Internationals that these guidelines were established.
(Part 2)You said "he trusteeship supervisor can hold meetings while under suspension and if it decides can appoint a “temporary” executive board to run the affairs of the local. NOT TRUE. If the Supervisor prevents meetings of a Local and therefore crosses the threshold of loss of Autonomy that establishes a Trusteeship he cannot hold Official meetings of the Local. The very act of holding an Official meeting signals the end of the Trusteeship and reverts back to the Supervisor acting in an advisory capacity and merely attends meetings. This not only ends the Trusteeship but also ends the ability of the Supervisor to do anything other than give his two cents.
(Part3)No place in the LMRDA does it allow the "a “temporary” executive board to run the affairs of the local." That is blatantly false. This is not even remotely permissible under the UBC Constitution. During a Trusteeship a babysitter is assigned to a Local while the appointees of the International work to correct the allegations they gave to the DOL for establishing a Trusteeship.
Point 5: Delaico is absolutely still the VP of 157. You said...But the DOL says they can suspend officers as a result of being under trusteeship, so Dilacio is and is not the VP. Not true. Nowhere in the LMRDA does it give the International the right to suspend anybody. It most certainly DOES NOT give these rights to the District Council. The LMRDA defers to the Bylaws of the International. The rights to suspend and the procedure followed are dictated in the UBC Constitution. The District Council cannot Fire any duly elected Officer they can suspend pending trial. The Council by its own admission FIRED Delaico.Illegally. Section 14D which the International choose to ignore gives the Internaional the right to SUSPEND pending trial. 14D gives them the right to appoint three UBC members to act as a standing trial committee which they DID NOT DO. The only one able under Section 52 to permanently fire or remove a Duly elected officer of 157 is the membership of Local 157. They did not do so and therefore the VP of 157 is still Delaico. You said"he is also technically powerless to perform his duties because its like he has been erased because of the trusteeship." So in June when by the calling of an official meeting the Trusteeship is over than the VP can resume his powers correct. Not so. Not because he was found guilty by trial and removed by the 157 membership. Not because he was brought to trial and found guilty by the International Executive board because he most certainly was NOT. So why not?? Because the members of 157 have by the shady and illegal conspiring of the NYCDCC has lost the title to its Union hall and all its assets and gives the NYCDCC the ability to lock duly elected Officers out of their own hall once they have been fired as a Council Business Rep. That is why the Council Calls them Business representatives. That is why the Council pays the Local Officers instead of the Local. That is why the Council has denied the Locals rights to its own bylaws and have illegally in direct violation of the UBC Constitution has imposed council bylaws on the Locals. Now the duly elected Officers play ball or they cannot perform their jobs and must act not in the best interest of the Council and not the members of the local. The UBC Constitution allows the Councils to write uniform bylaws to govern "THEIR OWN MEMBERS ONLY" and these bylaws cannot conflict with the UBC Constitution. Not only has President McCarron stated for the record that we are "NOT MEMBERS OF" the Councils but "affiliated with" the councils he has also stated for the record in California District Court that THE COUNCILS HAVE NO LEGAL BINDING AUTHORITY over the Locals. This is why Delaico will not be able to do his job after the supervision.
To Anonymous, Point 4... You said “None of this is True”. I called the DOL and that is what they told me. I really don’t know what to make of this, how can the DOL be wrong?
ReplyDeleteIn calling the DOL they said once a local is suspended all “Autonomy of the local is halted”. The local looses its autonomy and as a result all officers and meetings can be suspended. The trusteeship supervisor can hold meetings while under suspension and if it decides can appoint a “temporary” executive board to run the affairs of the local.
Also the DOL said "the trusteeship supervisor can hold meetings” while under suspension and if it decides can appoint a “temporary” executive board to run the affairs of the local. And you say NOT TRUE. Again I am quoting the DOL, how can they be wrong?
Point 5: Delaico is absolutely still the VP of 157. You said...But the DOL says they can suspend officers as a result of being under trusteeship, so Dilacio is and is not the VP. Again I am quoting the DOL, how can they be wrong and why would they give me such information?
Also you say THE COUNCILS HAVE NO LEGAL BINDING AUTHORITY over the Locals. This is why Delaico will not be able to do his job after the supervision. We had in the past other locals that the officers were not the ba’s and they were able to run the local as far as holding meeting and conducting the business of the local. The elected officers however were not ba’s so they had no power as far as CBA or job site visits.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteThanks for accommodating my critique. I mean you no disrespect but what the DOL is giving you is indeed wrong. I know that is assuming on my part since I am just a Carpenter but you can read the LMRDA for yourself here http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/olms/lmrda.htm and here http://www.uniondemocracy.org/Legal/lmrdatext.htm
As far as them giving you misinformation you will find they do it alot. Innocent lack of knowledge on their part is acceptable but sometimes they just do not want to do their jobs.The real hard part is when they actually try to cover for the Union or the Employer as you will see the NLRB do many times. Read the LMRDA and Judge for your self.
Once Local 157 holds an official meeting than the Trusteeship is over. Thats fact so how could Spencer hold anything other than an informal meeting such as he did to explain the Trusteeship. Did you ask the DOL w got away with not filing the LM15 in 30 days, Watch the misinformation you get if he does not want to go after them for that.
To make things easy. Understand that the DOL cannot make it up as they go along either. You say you are quoting the DOL. Well the DOL must quote the LMRDA because they are the rules even the DOL must follow and enforce. So go have a loo at the LMRDA and try to find the things you say the DOL are quoting. If they are not in tyhe LMRDA would it not be fair to say the DOL you talked to has a credibility problem
Joe,
ReplyDeleteTo help further understand the Trusteeship go to the DOL site here:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/trustreq.htm#tdr
Some Highlights
Existence of a Trusteeship
A trusteeship exists whenever a parent union suspends a subordinate union's constitutional or statutory autonomy; that is, whenever the parent assumes control over affairs that the subordinate would normally handle itself. Thus, an action referred to as an “administratorship,” “stewardship,” or “supervisorship” is a trusteeship if it involves a suspension of autonomy otherwise available, regardless of the word used to describe it. Even when the suspension of autonomy is only partial, a trusteeship exists and is subject to the LMRDA.
As better explained here Joe you can see it is not the establishment of a Trusteeship that suspends the Autonomy of the Local but the degree that the Autonomy of the Local has been suspended by the International that establishes if a Trusteeship exists.
Administration:“Trusteeships shall be established and administered by a labor organization over a subordinate body only in accordance with the constitution and bylaws of the organization.
Legal:A trusteeship is unlawful if it is not established in accordance with the constitution and bylaws of the parent union or if it is not imposed for one of the specified purposes listed in section 302 of the LMRDA.
Oppose the Trusteeship:In addition, courts have held that regardless of whether the parent union's constitution so provides, the subordinate union should ordinarily be given a fair hearing, including notice of the charges and an opportunity to oppose the imposition of the trusteeship.What day did this happen. Since Hanley, Kennedy and Delacio were already gone and there were no allegations of Financial misconduct dont you think an opposition to the Trusteeship had merit?
Every 6 Months:Semiannual Trusteeship Reports - The parent union must file a report covering each 6-month period for the duration of the trusteeship. Reports must be filed semiannually, using Form LM-15 but omitting the Statement of Assets and Liabilities on page 2 of the form. The first semiannual report is due within 30 days after the end of the 6-month period following the establishment of the trusteeship. Thereafter, a report is due within 30 days after the end of each 6-month period following the closing date of the previous semiannual report. Reports must explain in detail the reasons for continuing the trusteeship during the preceding 6 months.
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms/trustreq.htm#rt
ReplyDeleteJoe it keeps cutting off the web address.One last try.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/olms
/trustreq.htm#rt
Georgie DeLacio was in on the whole scheme to put local 157 under trusteeship. So he could assist Lawrence D'Errico assume total power with out having to hold meetings for a period time long enough to campaign without opposition and the backing of Forde and Spencer. Suspend all members rights. Have his golf outing for council employes and contractors building alliances.
ReplyDeleteIt is not possible that Derrico didn’t know what was going on. Local 157 had 5 ba’s and by Spencer own words 4 of them were involved in illegal activities. Hanley was found to be an “absentee” president and ba. Callahan said the other ba’s “come and go as they pleased doing little if any work.”
ReplyDeleteSo how can Derrico claim to have no knowledge that Hanley, Dilacio, Kennedy and Danny were not at work and engaged in illegal conduct.
If Derrico is that incompetent, claiming he had no knowledge of illegal conduct, he is not qualified or fit to lead local 157 or anything else and the district council should have fired him with Dilacio.
Which brings up another question. Why didn’t the District Council know what was going on? If the ba’s are suppose to fill out activity sheets why didn’t the district council collect those sheets, if they would have they would of known the ba’s were not doing their job. Which would mean the district council wasn’t doing its job, which would mean that no employee is this district council is accountable for anything!
Why didn’t the International put the district council under supervision or investigate why they knew nothing about what was going on in local 157 for years.
This really is unbelievable if a shop steward fills out a sheet incorrectly; he is removed or brought up on charges. One set of rules for the rank and file another set of rules for the ruling class of council employees.
Derrico needs to come forward and answer questions about what he knew, until that happens Derrico is just as dirty as the rest of local 157 ba’s.
Taking a step back and looking at this objectively one has to come to the conclusion that either Derrico is being protected (by higher ups) because he knows too much or he cut a deal and turned rat to protect his ass, either way he is not fooling anyone. If they think they can keep us in supervision for 18 months hoping no one will remember what happened on November 21, 2007 they are grossly mistaken.
from mjf i run this place not you you will listen to me
ReplyDeleteCAHALLEN LISTENS TO MIKE AND PETE NOT THE MEMBERS OR THE JUDGE
ReplyDeleteI'm a Lawrence D'errico fan all the way out here in California. I went to core with him and found him to be bright and 100% Union. You guys lay off him!
ReplyDeleteHey there just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The text in your article seem to be running off the screen in Opera. I'm not sure if this is a format issue or something to do with web browser compatibility but I thought I'd post to let you know. The design and style look great though! Hope you get the issue solved soon. Kudos
ReplyDeletefall protection equipment