As expected UBC VP and Trusteeship supervisor Frank Spencer refused to answer any questions from the membership regarding the Trusteeship of Local 157 at the July 21st nomination meeting.
Below are six questions posted on this blog by the membership of Local 157 and sent to VP Spencer on March 4th, which he has refused to answer...1. General President McCarron's letter to local 157 members dated December 3 cites section 10H of the constitution that granted full supervisory authority. Specifically where in section 10H does it state that the General President has the "authority to remove elected officers" of a local? This would seem to bypass Section 52, which guaranties the right to a fair and impartial trial.
2. Where in section 10H does it give the General President the authority to appoint officers to fill the vacated positions in a local? Section 10M gives the General President the right to appoint interim officers in NEWLY, CONSOLIDATED and MERGED Locals, which does not apply to local 157.
3. Why is Section 32D being bypassed, which gives the recording Secretary of the Local the right and duty to call a meeting to order and in the absence of a President and Vice President those Present shall elect a "President Pro Tem"
4.Why is the District Council involved in the supervision by appointing business reps, business manager and involved with the locals finances and books? This right, under supervision is the Internationals not the District Council.
5. Why is the District Council paying the bills when the only thing the LMRDA limits is the ability of the Councils or International to move money out of the Local to either one of them? It does not require the International to freeze the local’s accounts and stop them from paying their own bills.
6. What is the reason for the continued supervision? If Hanley and Kennedy resigned on November 21 and the District Council fired Dilacio and no accusation of financial impropriety or other fraud was found isn't the problem solved?
Brothers. It is time to bitch slap Frank Spencer and his cronies including Forde. You can make a choice. You can fight back and put these arrogant asswipes on notice or you can lay down and let them walk on your backs to cross the puddles. You can be a UBC Carpenter or somebody's bitch. Its your choice. How can you live with yourself if you pay homage to some one like Mike Forde. How can you be UBC members when you let some arrogant prick like Frank Spencer tell you NO. Whats next. You all going to take a collection and buy Pee Wee McCarron a new caddy. Wake up. Put up or shut up. The time is now.
ReplyDelete1. Why in gods name has no member filed a complaint with the DOL over the trusteeship. The only reason this continues is because NOTHING has been filed.I dont care what the moron at the Local DOL Office tells you. FILE THE COMPLAINT. If the local DOL moron refuses than get his boss. He WILL comply. You will find that the DOL and the NLRB are worthless unless you force them to act. If the Local boy will not cooperate then go around him.If you do Franky Spencer wont say NO anymore. FILE THE CHARGES. This is the only way you will get them to comply. A federal Judge will step in and take control of the Trusteeship and Local and HE WILL bring Franky Spencer up on charges and will protect the rights of the membership. You wont have Spencer,Forde or Derricio controlling your Local. YOU will control it through the Federal Judge
2. The International has 3 months to respond to and resolve any complaint put to it by the membership. If they do not or refuse as is the case with Spencer then you have exhausted you internal remedy requirement and may file a civil suit in Federal District Court. DO IT!!! As it was noted Franky and his cronies including the lawyer dick at the International were asked to resolve this issue is March. Time is up. Three months is over. The members have a right to now file a civil suit. Now is the time. The UBC has established a pattern of ignoring the UBC Constitution,the CBAs and in your case the Consent Decree. Right now the District Council, Forde and et all, McCarron and NYC Locals 608,157 and others are named in a Federal Lawsuit filed by Bob Makowski alleging the that McCarron, Spencer,Forde and Local Officers routinely violate the UBC Constitution the CBAs and the job referral system. Right now the recent election at Local 370 in Albany has been challenged and will result in a civil suit for the same reasons. The Council President and the Local incumbent officers conspired to violate the UBC Constitution and the LMRDA . Frank Spencer was named in the complaint for refusing to aid the membership and respond to written complaints before the election was even held. This is business as usual in the UBC. A local 157 complaint filed with the DOL and a civil suit filed in Federal District Court at this time will support those allegations and serve the membership in there conclusions.
3. Protest the election NOW before a lever is even pulled. The Council and the so called Business manager and Reps have already violated the LMRDA. Send out a protest letter to the International NOW and file a complaint with the DOL NOW.
(g) No moneys received by any labor organization by way of dues, assessment, or similar levy, and no moneys of an employer shall be contributed or applied to promote the candidacy of any person in an election subject to the provisions of this title. Such moneys of a labor organization may be utilized for notices, factual statements of issues not involving candidates, and other expenses necessary for the holding of an election.
4. I dont care what Spencer,Forde or the lawyer dick at the International tells you you are out of trusteeship and the actions they are taking are all illegal. They cannot control(in compliance with the LMRDA and the UBC Constitution) Local 157 unless you are in Trusteeship and that Trusteeship ended the day you had your first meeting. You just had a meeting to nominate Delegates and Officers. I dont care if Franky Spencer calls them informal or not just like the LMRDA does not care if he calls the trusteeship a supervision. You have had two Local 157 monthly meetings one which included nominations for elections. Ask the moron at the local DOL Office how nominations were made or monthly meetings were held in a local under trusteeship. Stop asking Franky squat. Send your questions again by certified mail to Dougy McCarron. Ask Pee Wee McCarron to show you were in the UBC Constitution it allows a Local to hold nominations or elections while under trusteeship.Also send a copy to any newspaper who will listen.
More to Come
subnote:Are the NYC locals aware that their job referral system is the only one of its kind in the UBC that is enforceable in court. it is thge only system enforceable by the NLRB. Why? Because it was created and exists because if the consent decree. All other locals have the same system of out of work sign up lists and job referral rules . However none are enforceable because the UBC halls are non exclusive hiring halls and the NLRB WILL NOT protect us. Only in the NYC locals is their that power. Why. Because of the consent decree. if you do away with it you can join the rest of us and become victims of some scum bag local Officer who puts his buddy's to work while you sit home.If asswipe Forde pulled his crap with the decree can you imagine what he will do without it.
Just to clarify. There is no "Exhaust internal remedy restrictions for Trusteeship violations meaning members do not have to file complaints with the International Union first and wait 3 months for them to jerk you off and answer. Any member can file a complaint with the DOL Office at any time for alleged Title 3 Trusteeship Violations AND REQUEST AN INJUNCTION . This includes the nominations and upcoming elections. Since Franky is still insisting Local 157 is still under Trusteeship than any election violations are governed by Title 3 Section 304 Enforcement and a member can file a complaint NOW AND REQUEST AN INJUNCTION NOW for this:
ReplyDelete(g) No moneys received by any labor organization by way of dues, assessment, or similar levy, and no moneys of an employer shall be contributed or applied to promote the candidacy of any person in an election subject to the provisions of this title. Such moneys of a labor organization may be utilized for notices, factual statements of issues not involving candidates, and other expenses necessary for the holding of an election.
This election violation enforcement now comes under Title 3 Section 304 Enforcement as per :
Violation of Title III-Trusteeship Standards
When a violation of the provision for election of delegates in unions under trusteeship is alleged, the procedure for complaint is governed by sec. 304 of the act. In some cases the complaint procedures under title IV of the act may also apply-for example, when a trusteeship has been imposed over part of the local union's functions, but an election of voting delegates to the parent union's convention is held in the local union. Sec. 304 directs the Secretary, upon the filing of a written complaint by any union member or subordinate union under trusteeship, to investigate alleged violations. If he finds probable cause to believe a violation has occurred and has not been remedied, he shall bring a civil action in a U.S. district court for appropriate relief (including injunctions). Any such union member or subordinate union may also bring a civil action in a U.S. district court for appropriate relief (including injunctions).
What was Spencer "Explaining" The rules and Details for Nominations and Elections is in the UBC Constituion and the LMRDA. There is no need to explain anything. Did Spencer offer any guidelines or directions that varied from the Constitution or LMRDA. Nominations and Elections MUST BE HELD ACCORDING TO THE UBC CONSTITUTION AND THE LMRDA there are no Trusteeship Election Rules. ALL SECTION 31 UBC Election Rules must be followed. All LMRDA TITLE 4 Election Rules must be followed. If not the Election has violated the Constituion,the LMRDA and the Title 3 Trusteeship Section of the LMRDA and a complaint may be filed on the spot with the DOL Office. Spencer MAY NOT make up Election Riles to satisfy his or Fordes whims. How can the Delegates and Union Officers be installed on on Different Dates. Any Officer who becomes a Delegate by his election as Officer cannot be sworn in as a delegate or attend a "District Council Delegate meeting" until he or she has been installed as an Officer. Who is picking the election Committee?? Read Section 31 and pay attention
on the subject of forde and his cronies,theres a certain 608 bus/rep who spends more time at home or at the bar when he,s on the clock to work for you union bros. you should throw this litte s.o.b. out on his ears......
ReplyDeleteTo the last post Let me quote Mr. silence dogood;
ReplyDelete"Brothers. It is time to bitch slap Frank Spencer and his cronies including Forde. You can make a choice. You can fight back and put these arrogant asswipes on notice or you can lay down and let them walk on your backs to cross the puddles. You can be a UBC Carpenter or somebody's bitch. Its your choice. How can you live with yourself if you pay homage to some one like Mike Forde. How can you be UBC members when you let some arrogant prick like Frank Spencer tell you NO. Whats next. You all going to take a collection and buy Pee Wee McCarron a new caddy. Wake up. Put up or shut up. The time is now."
NOW GENTLEMEN CONTINUE STRIKING WHILE THE IRON IS HOTTEST - THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO HIT AS HARD.
.
Find something you can prove. Short memory digital cameras can be had for less than 30.00 if he's lunching and drinking. Step up and make a difference. File grievances, NLRB, DOL, complaints File those formal union charges and get in the DC's face when justified in doing so. Challenge the local go over them and when you have to go over the NYCDCC go anywhere but don't let them know they can stop the train.
You know that gut feeling you get when your silenced wrongfully /or witness same. I've seen so many stewards and journeymen fired like that and they remain silent for the most part and say I'm still on the list and'll go back out tommorrow.
Or as stewards say they don't really lie high on the list for long and don't want to jeopardize my carrer I'll be sent out again so I'll say nothing.
Do something to make a difference. I believe brother Makowski has every honest union mans interest at heart not to mention the enduring pricipals of right and wrong.
I nor anyone else except maybe for Mr. E. Clarke and others like these guys can put themselves in this category but that doesn't mean we can't be part of the FINAL SOLUTION.
Callahan wake up you're part of this mess and hope you are shown as the true innefficient you are at some point through all this
, Remenber rico's a pretty wide net.
Bud Abbot used to say to Lou when ignorantly confronting Mr. fields about the rent or something " Are you a man or are you a mouse".
What is Lawrence D’Errico thinking? He must be out of his mind having the likes of Paul Willoughby and Danny Demorato running on his Members Choice Ticket. Does D’Errico think we are all fools! This just illustrates how corrupt Lawrence D’Errico really is.
ReplyDeleteDemorato AKA “The Forger”, "The Slug", "Danny Bag of Donuts" falsified time records and activity sheets to cover-up corruption in local 157 then pleaded with council leaders for his job saying he will "never do it again." Demorato was also the business agent on the corrupt L&D Job which brought down Annucci and Procia and sent them both to prision
Paul Willoughby is another example of a shop steward whose persistent conduct disgraces union Carpenters and illustrates how weak the District Council's Anti-Corruption Program is. Mr. Willoughby was the subject of ten Hot Line complaints concerning his job site conduct. We were told that on a number of job sites he left early and omitted names from the shop steward reports. He was charged by the District Council with riding the list but he claims that the District Council took no action against him after he appeared before them.
Mr. Willoughby testified that his practice is to fill out shop steward reports only once a week. He does this so that he can use the foreman's payroll list as the basis for his shop steward reports. I suggest that this conduct alone subjects Mr. Willoughby's fitness to serve as a shop steward to serious question
If the union's representative is relying on management's data to create shop steward reports, the purpose of which is to serve as a check on management's data, the shop steward reports are simply not reliable. It is the shop steward's job to be a bulwark against corruption. He cannot perform this role is he is not using first-hand observations to obtain the information required in the shop steward reports.
Mr. Willoughby justified failing to keep daily attendance records with the excuse that stewards get only an hour a day to do paperwork. This was an obvious untruth (the CBA provides that shop stewards be given adequate time to work on the shop steward reports and adequacy, of course, will depend upon the size of the job) and was in fact contradicted by Mr. Willoughby, himself, later in his testimony.
It turns out that Mr. Willoughby is implicated in the activities of one John Mingione, the former Benefit Funds employee who was allegedly paid by the owners of Tri-Built Construction, Inc. to remove shop steward reports from the District Council's offices. Mr. Willoughby engaged in this activity on company time, saying that "I can come and go as I please. There is no one to check my time. The company doesn't check your time. Nobody is checking my time. . . . From my understanding, on big job sites, the shop steward had carte blanche." Presumably carte blanche would have included adequate time to maintain shop steward reports on a daily basis.
Time limitations and the Benefit Funds' refusal to provide me with access to documents prevented me from fully investigating the John Mingione situation, so I do not know how many other contractors retained Mingione's (and others') services. However, after much equivocation, Mr. Willoughby admitted to me that he accompanied Mr. Mingione on one occasion when a cash pick-up was made from an undercover officer with the New York State Organized Crime Task Force. In fact, it was Mr. Willoughby who picked up the cash. (Mr. Willoughby initially lied and told me that he went into the building to pick up blueprints.
He also initially denied that he had known what was in the envelope. He had just decided to take a ride with his friend John Mingione during a work day despite his shop steward duties at another job site.
After prodding from me and conferencing with his attorney, Mr. Willoughby admitted that he had known, when he got into Mingione's waiting car, that there was cash in the envelope, since in the car, Mingione had an angry telephone conversation (with the undercover agent while under surveillance by other law enforcement officers), about the cash being short.
Mr. Willoughby told the truth about his encounter with the undercover officer only after several lies and after I (and presumably his attorney) had made it clear to him that I was in possession of the facts. Therefore, while I have been denied the opportunity to investigate the Mingione issues, and can only speculate regarding the extent of Mr. Willoughby's involvement with Mingione, I cannot unquestioningly accept his testimony that the occasion of his encounter with the undercover agent was the only time he had accompanied Mingione on such an errand. In fact, his further denials of such conduct were couched in such an equivocal manner that they appear to be dissembling. ("I don't know. I don't remember. No."
Mr. Willoughby was arrested after his encounter with the undercover agent, but not indicted. It is still startling to me that although the District Council eventually questioned an uncooperative John Mingione – well after his arrest – they never questioned Mr. Willoughby.
The District Council never undertook any other investigative action with respect to Mr. Willoughby who continued, and may still continue, to serve as a Carpenter shop steward. This inattention by the District Council is discussed further in Section VI, below.
Perhaps the most striking investigative omission that I reviewed is the District Council's failure to even question Paul Willoughby, the shop steward who left his post to accompany John Mingione on an "errand" and ended up picking up a cash payoff from an undercover agent. I submit that even though it was only Mingione, and not Willoughby, who was indicted in this corrupt venture, there certainly was abundant evidence warranting a union investigation of Mr. Willoughby.
In my view, the District Council should have questioned Messrs. Mingione and Willoughby immediately after their arrest and if they had refused to answer questions, they should have been expelled from the union. This is the type of action that is expected in today's corporate and law enforcement worlds.
As I have repeatedly said, it is my view that once the existence of any troubling conduct emerges, the District Council must immediately seize the initiative to discover the facts and promptly initiate meaningful union disciplinary action. I do not believe that corrupt conduct must rise to the level of prosecutorial interest for union disciplinary action to be appropriate.
October 26, 2005 Walter Mack
http://www.thelaborers.net/carpenters/shop_steward_report/shop_steward_report.htm
D’Errico and Willoughby perfect together, more to come
ReplyDeletePaul Willoughby, who was demonstrated to have been at least somewhat involved in the corrupt activities of John Mingione, was evasive when I asked him if he had had discussions with anyone before listing skills which led to certain of his shop steward assignments.
When asked this question with respect to one job, he replied: "I don't remember, no" and repeated this self-contradictory answer when I probed about one skill in particular. He was also evasive when I asked if Local 157 business agent Lawrence D’Errico had told him about another job.
As was true of other shop stewards who engaged in OWL manipulation, once skills could not be changed within a thirty-day period, Mr. Willoughby appears to have relied more on freezing and unfreezing his name on the OWL, so that he could be available when the call he expected arrived.
He directed that calls be held on June 15, 2004 for a period of six days. However, he unfroze his name before the six days elapsed and was dispatched to a Century Maxim job lasting four months; he denied that he had any advance information about that job.
Similarly, Mr. Willoughby froze his name on June 15, 2005 until June 20, was unreachable on June 21, and froze his name again June 22. He removed the hold calls directive on June 27, changed his contact telephone number and was immediately dispatched the following morning.
October 26, 2005 Walter Mack
But where is Billy Hanley in all this? Isn't he the one who should be pressing charges that he is the rightful President?
ReplyDeleteWhere was he when Willighby and Demorato were playing games?
This whole thing, from 101 Constitution Ave down is a sewer - there is no way to clean it up = not when you keep electing the same round robin set of people - from Gene's father in law, to Gene, to Billy, to Brother in Law.
From McGuiness to Forde Sr, to Forde.
Teddy, Paschal, Freddy, Forde, and on.
A Sewer.
Billy's busy waiting on his indictments.
ReplyDeleteWith his hands caught so far in the racketts cookie jar !!!
ReplyDeleteRE; ANONYMOUS JULY 24TH. 6;15
ReplyDeleteYES THERE IS PROOF...
REALTIME LIVE VIDEO ,A DALY LOG W/DATES&TIMES THE ICE IS GETTING THIN....SOON WILL BE THE SOUND OF THE SNAP OF HANDCUFFS THEN THE PERP WALK........