Date: Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:01
Subject: NYCDCC By-Laws; UBC Constitution; Union Charges; Fines
To: Walter Mack
It has recently come to my attention that members of the New York City
carpenter local unions are being brought up on charges for allegedly
violating the By-Laws of the New York City and Vicinity District
Council of Carpenters (NYCDCC) and that verdicts of guilt for NYCDCC
By-Law and UBC Constitution violations, in certain instances, are
being issued in excess of $300 per violation.
First, I question the legality of NYCDCC By-Law violation charges
since the By-Laws of an organization pertain only to its own
organization, its organization's members, and possibly to its
employees. Please be aware that the NYCDCC has no members. It only has
employees. The only carpenter union organizations that have persons as
members are the local unions. Though not often truly operated as such,
local unions are in fact distinct, separate organizations from the
councils. Local unions are affiliated to councils and are not
subordinate divisions. Please do not continue to wrongly apply the
By-Laws of the NYCDCC upon the members of its affiliated local unions.
If any of the NYCDCC By-Laws are desired to be applied upon the
members of the local unions then the local unions each must enact them
as their own local union By-Laws.
Second, I question the legality of fines in excess of three hundred
dollars ($300) since the 2006 UBC Constitution, OFFENSES AND
PENALTIES, Section 51 B states, "Any member charged with violating the
Bylaws and Trade Rules of the locality in which he or she is working
may be charged and tried in accordance with Section 52, and if found
guilty may be fined in an amount *NOT IN EXCESS OF THREE HUNDRED
DOLLARS ($300) by the Local Union, District Council, Regional Council,
or Industrial Council having jurisdiction, except that no Industrial
Local Union or Industrial Council may conduct a trial with respect to
charges filed against a member or impose a fine against a member
unless such member is an officer of a Local Union or Council."
[*Emphasis mine.] This also includes fines wrongfully disguised as
"Working Dues Assessments", such as fines imposed for the
non-compliance of NYCDCC By-Law 21G, which being a By-Law [of] the
NYCDCC does not rightfully apply to persons not of the NYCDCC.
Therefore, I insist that all instances of local union members having
been being fined are reviewed to determine whether those fines 1)
imposed per violation were in excess of the amount stated in the UBC
Constitution and if so the excess amounts are refunded, and 2) were
wrongfully applied to persons not of the NYCDCC and if so the charges
and fines wrongfully applied are retracted and entirely refunded.
Daniel J. Franco
From: Dennis Walsh
Date: Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 14:30
Subject: RE: NYCDCC By-Laws; UBC Constitution; Union Charges; Fines
To: "Daniel J. Franco"
Should they desire, any individual who is actually facing charges would be
free to pose any such argument.
Dennis M. Walsh
From: Walter Mack
Date: Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 17:31
Subject: FW: Response to Daniel Franco
To: "Daniel J. Franco"
Hello, Mr. Franco,
For your information from the Inspector General’s Office. Thank you for your interest in the success of the Trial Committee.
Doar Rieck Kaley & Mack
217 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007-2911
From: Scott Danielson [mailto:sdanielson[at]nyccarpenter.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 1:45 PM
To: Walter Mack; 'Walsh, Dennis'
Cc: 'Brian Quinn'; FRANKSPENCER[at]HOTMAIL.COM; 'Frank Spencer'; 'John Ballantyne'; jballantyne[at]nyccarpenter.com
Subject: Response to Daniel Franco
In response to Mr. Franco’s inquiry, the Inspector General’s Office responds as follows:
First, Mr. Franco states that,
“I question the legality of NYCDCC By-Law violation charges since the By-Laws of an organization pertain only to its own organization, its organization’s members, and possibly to its employees. Please be aware that the NYCDCC has no members. …..Please do not continue to wrongly apply the By-Laws of the NYCDCC upon the members of its affiliated local unions.”
It is not improper for the District Council to process charges against members for violating the Bylaws of the District Council.
Members can be charged with violating the Bylaws. For example, the Bylaws of the District Council, by its terms, e.g. Section 3 “Powers”, provides, in part, that, “ (t)hese By-Laws, Trade Rules, and any other rules, resolutions and directives adopted by the Council shall govern and be binding on each Local Union affiliated with the Council.”
Furthermore, for example, the UBC Constitution provides, in the Obligation, at pp. 50-51, that, “I promise to abide by the Constitution and Laws- and the will of the majority- observe the Bylaws and Trade Rules- established by Local Unions and Councils-affiliated with the United Brotherhood-“. Please see also Section 26F of the UBC Constitution, which provides, in part, that, “A District or Regional Council shall have the power to conduct trials of members or Local Unions within its jurisdiction who have been charged with violating the Constitution and Laws, violating the District Council’s or Regional Council’s jurisdiction,…” Thus, the Inspector General believes the District Council can properly process charges against a member for violating the District Council’s Bylaws.
Second, Mr. Franco contends that fines in excess of $300 are being imposed for violations of the District Council’s Bylaws. However, he provides no specific examples. Fines for violation of District Council Bylaws are imposed according to Section 51B of the UBC Constitution.
Any member that believes that they have been fined in violation of the UBC Constitution can file a timely appeal with the UBC in accordance with Section 53 of the UBC Constitution.
Scott C. Danielson, Inspector General
Office of the Inspector General
NYC District Council of Carpenters
395 Hudson St., 9th Fl
From: Daniel J. Franco
Date: Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 00:08
Subject: Re: FW: Response to Daniel Franco
To: Walter Mack
Dear Mr. Mack,
Thank you for forwarding Danielson's response.
Daniel J. Franco
To be continued...