Please Note:

Before submitting commentary, to ensure readability and maintain credibility, please do your best to:
*Check spelling and grammar.
*Verify authenticity of information and its sources. If possible, include links to supporting information/evidence.
*Do not repost an entire article published elsewhere by another author. Include a link to the original article when possible. Post a few lines, or at most a paragraph or two. Otherwise, you are most likely infringing upon that author’s copyright.
*If you would like to disseminate information posted at this blog, I ask that you give credit where credit is due -please back-link when possible or at least cite these pages as the source when copying.

Thank you.
Showing posts with label Union Carpenter Officers and Employees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Union Carpenter Officers and Employees. Show all posts

2012-03-18

I voted NO to the Contracts

And I encourage you to vote NO too.

Many members know I have been and am against 'Full-Mobility', that last year I spoke against it in court and that I collected signatures to petition the Hon. Richard M. Berman, United States District Judge, to deny 'Full Mobility'. That Petition stated:

Whereas, we understand 'Full Mobility' to be somewhat or specifically defined as: the permitting of a contractor to select the entirety of its workforce, less the steward.

Whereas, it is evident with experience and information that 'Full Mobility' will further embolden and allow contractors additional opportunities to:
  • circumvent Out-of-Work Lists (OWLs).
  • force acceptance of cash payments and forgoing of benefit payments in exchange for current and future work, thereby committing tax evasion, benefits fraud and extortion;
  • ignore OSHA and other health and safety laws, thereby increasing the likeliness for health and safety violations and incidences;
  • enforce work production quotas, which are expressly forbidden in our CBA's;
  • commit age, sex, and race discrimination;
  • increase the hiding of faulty materials and poor and incomplete workmanship;
Whereas, 'Full Mobility' will eliminate for many members job opportunities and opportunities to up-keep and increase one's skills and knowledge;

Whereas, for the reasons above 'Full Mobility' is anti-union; it unequivocally circumvents social justice, one the founding principles of labor unions;

Therefore, we, the members of the NYC carpenters' local unions, affiliated to the New York City and Vicinity District Council of Carpenters (NYCDCC), petition the Hon. Richard M. Berman, United States District Judge, to deny the acceptance and implementation of 'Full Mobility' in any agreement with the NYCDCC and/or affiliated organizations until at least December 30, 2014.


At least for the reasons stated in the petition "Full-Mobility" should not be accepted by the membership. However, even if you are in favor of "Full-Mobility" you should still VOTE NO TO ALL THE CONTRACTS. While I am quite pleased that the Executive Committee decided to bring a motion before the Delegate Body for the members to ratify the CBA's and that the Delegate Body approved the motion, I am quite displeased that the members will be voting on the contracts in their current form. The contracts in their current form should not have been presented to the members for ratification because either a majority voting members will vote no, and the vote will effectively be nullified (thereby having wasted our money on ballots and the AAA; expenditures that have not yet even been approved by the Delegate Body, which is a violation of the NYCDCC Bylaws by Bilello and everyone else involved in the expenditures), or a majority of voting members will vote yes, and we will collectively undo years of union advancement. The incomplete contracts will lead to further labor unrest and litigation, to and from both the union and the contractors.

If you vote "yes" to the contracts, you will be voting for additional operating costs to the Council and additional/increased assessments to the members and further litigation related to the Labor Management Corporation (LMC). The Anti-Corruption Measures (ACM) via the LMC will be a huge expense that will ultimately be paid for by the members because the LMC ACM document does not state who will be paying for it. Ultimately, it will be the members that will bear the full cost of the LMC, which is likely to be tens of millions of dollars a year.

If the LMC ACM are to cost us $10 million, which has been stated as the anticipated approximate initial yearly cost, and the Council takes-in 18 million man-hours, this will mean an additional assessment of $0.56 per hour to the members on top of the $0.05 already collected. Over the five year life of the contracts I anticipate the LMC ACM costs to multiply as additional LMC employees (approximately five (5) out of eight (8) employees will be former police officers and investigators) are hired and more contractors sign-up for the "Full-Mobility" program. So, if near the end of the five years of the contract that "Full-Mobility" somehow has something to do with bringing in substantially more man-hours, for example, 28 million man-hours in year five, but the cost of the LMC goes up to $50 million, the cost per hour to the members will then be $1.79 per hour, over three time the initial assessment. Will the LMC cost actually be $50 million in five years? At the very least, the cost is not likely to go down.

Personally, I prefer to hold the line than to move backwards. If we cannot advance, we must at least stand our ground. The acceptance of these contracts will be a retreat. And this retreat will mean subjugation.

2010-11-30

'Blue Card'

To "Frank G. Spencer" via email
CC "John Ballantyne" via email
CC "Dennis M. Walsh" via email


Dear Supervisor Spencer:


With this letter I am requesting that a list of all the NYCDCC, NYCDCC
Benefit Funds, NYCDCC Technical Labor College, NYC Carpenter Labor
Management Trust Fund and NYC carpenter local union current and former
officers, directors, business managers, business agents, organizers
and all other employees that are or were members of the affiliated NYC
local unions since the issuance of the September 2008 Vacation
Assessment Authorization Card, aka "Blue Card", be compiled and send
to me and the many other NYC carpenter local union members that have
also requested such information.

Specifically, did the following persons sign the 'Blue Card'? If so,
were any assessments ever levied upon and collected from the following
persons?
Michael J. Forde, former NYCDCC EST
Peter Thomassen, former NYCDCC President
Denis Sheil, former NYCDCC Vice President
Maurice Leary, former Director of Operations, NYCDCC
Edward McWilliams, Director of Organizing, NYCDCC
Steve McInnis, Political Director, NYCDCC
Audra O'Donovan, Director of Communications, NYCDCC
Martin Daly, Director of the NYCDCC TLC
Scott Danielson, Inspector General/Director of the OWL, NYCDCC
Dan Mazziotta, Director of the NYCCLM
Stuart GraBois, Director of NYCDCC Benefit Funds
Anthony Agridiano
Paul Capurso, Regional Manager
George DiLacio
Danny DeMorato
Lawrence D'Errico, BM, LU157
Ramadan Ibric
Fred Kennedy
Joseph Lauer
Anthony Pugliese
Byron Schuler
Richard Tuccillo
Joe DiNapoli, BM, LU926
Danny Dunbar
John Holt
Sal Zarzana
Chris Wallace, BM, LU20
Eric Anderson
William O'Neill, Jr.
Anthony Rugolo
Sam Bailey, BM, LU1536
John Cavelli
John Greaney, former BM, LU608
Joseph Calciano
John Daly
Martin Devereaux
Joe Firth
Brian Hayes
William Lacey, Civil Service Director
Martin Lydon
Ed Maudsley
Maurice McGrath
Thomas McKeon
Mike Murphy
Jame O'Reilly
Ron Rawald
Frank Schiavone
Elly Spicer
Vincent Taddeo
Joseph Wing
Robert Seeger, BM, LU740
Michael Cavanaugh
John Lesica
Dan Walcott
Charles Harkin, BM, LU1456
Richard Dwyer
John A. Harkin
Michael V. Koballa
Olaf J. Olsen
Gary Shelton
John Thomassen
Louis Rioux
John Early, BM, LU45
Sal Antonucci
James Brennan
Steve Kizis
Carlisle Paul
Paul Pietropaolo
Martin Szabunio
Paul Tyznar, Regional Manager
Joe Ventura, former BM, LU 2090
Walter Clayton
Hermann Foullois
Michael Zemski, former BM, LU2287
Scott Bedford
Jeffery Passante
Tommy Costello
Aaron Gholston
Joseph Geiger
Frank Marino
John Olsen
William Peters
Andres Puerta
Tamara Rivera
Maria Sabater
Maryann June
John Sheehy
Marina Vranich
Bodhwattie Bodha

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.


Sincerely,
Daniel J. Franco
LU157, UBCJA

2010-11-17

1:08-cr-00828 (USA v. Forde et al)

U.S. District Court
Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cr-00828-VM All Defendants


Case title: USA v. Forde et al

Date Filed: 09/03/2008

For docket and entries go to http://franco1.info/1-08-cr-00828/1-08-cr-00828.html.
For a list of downloadable entries go to http://franco1.info/1-08-cr-00828/.

2009-09-16

Retirement, Pension Benefits, and Union Carpenter Officers and Employees

September 9, 2009


Mr. John Lund, Deputy Assistant Secretary
Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary
Tel: (202) 693-0122

U.S. Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
Office of Labor-Management Standards
200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N-1519
Washington, DC 20210
General Tel: (202) 693-0125
Fax: (202) 693-1344
LMRDA assistance: (202) 693-0123
olms-public@dol.gov
http://www.dol.gov/esa/olms/


RE: Retirement, Pension Benefits, and Union Carpenter Officers and Employees


Dear Mr. Lund:


On November 8, 2008, I began to protest to the New York City District Council of Carpenters (NYCDCC) Election Committee, and thereafter to the Election Monitor Steven Bennett and the UBC General President Douglas McCarron, that the incumbents Executive Secretary-Treasurer (EST) Michael J. Forde, President Peter Thomassen and Vice President Denis Sheil whom are receiving carpenters’ union pension plan benefits, and therefore are retired, were ineligible as candidates in the NYCDCC 2008 Election. Additionally, several other local union officers and NYCDCC employees are receiving pension plan benefits. Furthermore, since they and I are members of the same union I, as do many other union carpenters, insist that all carpenters’ union pension plans within the UBC are the equivalent of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters Pension Plan (aka International Plan) with respect to eligibility for office.


The 2006 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (UBC) Constitution, Section 31D, at pg 33-34, states:
A member cannot hold office or the position of Delegate or a Committee position, or be nominated for office, Delegate or a Committee position, if receiving a pension under the United Brotherhood of Carpenters Pension Plan, or unless present at the time of nomination, except that the member is in the anteroom on authorized business or out on official business, or prevented by accident, sickness, or other substantial reason accepted by the Local Union or Council from being present; nor shall the member be eligible unless working for a livelihood in a classification within the trade autonomy of the United Brotherhood as defined in Section 7 or in employment which qualifies him or her for membership, or is depending on the trade for a livelihood, or is employed by the organization as a full-time officer or representative; provided, further, that members who are life members, apprentices, trainees or probationary employees shall not be eligible. A member must have been twelve (12) consecutive months a member in good standing immediately prior to nomination in the Local Union and a member of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America for two consecutive years immediately prior to nomination, unless the Local Union has not been in existence the time herein required, and must remain a member in good standing at all times in order to remain in the position to which he is elected or appointed. A member who retires after being elected may complete the term for which elected unless receiving a pension under the United Brotherhood of Carpenters Pension Plan. Contracting members are not eligible to hold office, nor shall a member who has been a contracting member until six months have elapsed following notification by the member to his or her Local Union in writing that he or she has ceased contracting.” [Underline and emphasis mine]
[http://franco1.info/UBCJA/UBC_Con_2006.pdf]


Title 29, Chapter 18 (ERISA), Subchapter I, Subtitle A, § 1002. Definitions, Paragraph (2) (A) states:
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the terms “employee pension benefit plan” and “pension plan” mean any plan, fund, or program which was heretofore or is hereafter established or maintained by an employer or by an employee organization, or by both, to the extent that by its express terms or as a result of surrounding circumstances such plan, fund, or program—
(i) provides retirement income to employees, or
(ii) results in a deferral of income by employees for periods extending to the termination of covered employment or beyond,
regardless of the method of calculating the contributions made to the plan, the method of calculating the benefits under the plan or the method of distributing benefits from the plan. A distribution from a plan, fund, or program shall not be treated as made in a form other than retirement income or as a distribution prior to termination of covered employment solely because such distribution is made to an employee who has attained age 62 and who is not separated from employment at the time of such distribution. [Underline and emphasis mine]
[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/29/usc_sec_29_00001002----000-.htm]


The April 1, 2004, NYCDCC Pension Fund (aka “On-the-Tools” Pension) Summary Plan Description (SPD) at page 31 states:

Reemployment after Retirement:
If you return to Covered Employment following retirement and before age 70, pension payments may be suspended. This will happen for each month in which you work 40 or more hours in “disqualifying employment.”

“Disqualifying” employment means Covered Employment or any employment or self-employment within the collective bargaining jurisdiction of the Union (including work for the City of New York).

You must notify the Trustees in writing if you perform 40 hours or more of “disqualifying employment” in any month. If you fail to notify, and your benefit is paid for a month for which it is later determined you were ineligible because of disqualifying employment, the overpayment will be deducted from future pension payments until the full amount has been repaid to the Plan.

You should also notify the Trustees when your disqualifying employment ends. Benefit payments will resume starting with the month following the last month for which benefits were suspended, with payments starting no later than the third month following the last month of suspension, as long as you gave the Trustees timely notice of the end of your disqualifying employment.

The way the benefit earned during your reemployment is calculated is determined by the rules described in the next section. [Underline and emphasis mine]
[http://www.nycdistrictcouncil.com/PensionSPD.pdf, page 31]

The “Reemployment after Retirement” section of the 2004 NYCDCC Pension Fund SPD shows that a NYCDCC Pension Plan recipient is considered to be retired. If the recipient of pension benefits works 40 or more hours in “disqualifying employment” in a month that recipient must notify the Trustees in writing. If that recipient fails to notify the Trustees in writing, and the benefit is paid for a month for which it is later determined the recipient was ineligible because of “disqualifying employment”, the overpayment will be deducted from future pension payments until the full amount has been repaid to the Plan.

“Disqualifying employment” means “covered employment” or any employment or self-employment within the collective bargaining jurisdiction of the Union (including work for the City of New York). I am quite certain that “collective bargaining jurisdiction” means within, affiliated to, or directly related to the carpentry trade and that “Union” means the Local Unions, the District and Regional Councils, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. If I am mistaken, please provide supporting documentation that explains how I am mistaken and the specific definitions of “collective bargaining jurisdiction” and “Union” and how derived.

Since a person who is a recipient of pension plan benefits is considered to be retired, it follows that a carpenters’ union member who is a recipient of a carpenters’ union pension plan benefits is therefore considered retired from union carpentry.

To receive rightfully NYCDCC Pension Plan benefits a member cannot work 40 hours or more per month.

If a member receives pension benefits, is therefore retired, he/she is restricted to work less than 40 hours per month and therefore cannot be depending on the trade for a livelihood.

If a member is retired and/or is not depending on the trade for a livelihood then he/she “cannot hold office or the position of Delegate or a Committee position, or be nominated for office, Delegate or a Committee position”.

If a member is retired and/or is not depending on the trade for a livelihood and he/she holds an office or the position of Delegate or a Committee position, or is nominated for office, Delegate or a Committee position then this appears to be a violation of the UBC Constitution, Section 31D.

Conversely, if a member is working 40 hours or more per month and is depending on the trade then he/she is working in “covered employment” and consequently ineligible for NYCDCC Pension Plan benefits.

If a member is working 40 hours or more per month in “covered employment” and is receiving NYCDCC Pension Plan benefits then this appears to be a violation of the NYCDCC Pension Plan and therefore may be pension fraud.

None of this escapes the fact that receiving pension benefits constitutes retirement and members who retire “after being elected may complete the term for which elected”, which logically follows that a member cannot be nominated again for office or as a Delegate or for a Committee position when taken in context of Section 31D of the 2006 UBC Constitution.


In essence, I am seeking rulings that concur that:
1. the receipt of pension plan benefits equates retirement,
2. those who are receiving pension plan benefits or any other type of retirement benefit from any source directly associated with or to carpenter local unions, affiliated councils, or the UBCJA cannot hold office or the position of Delegate or a committee position, or be nominated for office, Delegate or a committee position,
3. all carpenters’ union pension/retirement plans within the UBCJA are the equivalent of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters Pension Plan with respect to eligibility for office,
4. those receiving pension plan/retirement benefits, and therefore retired, to have been ineligible as a candidate in the 2008 NYCDCC election, and
5. those receiving pension plan/retirement benefits, and therefore retired, to have been ineligible as a candidate in any election, delegates, or committee member, since at least the implementation of the January 1, 2006 UBC Constitution.


Sincerely,
/s/ Daniel J. Franco /s/
Local Union 157, UBC




cc: Denise Boucher, Director
U.S. Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
Office of Labor-Management Standards
Office of Policy, Reports and Disclosure
Frances Perkins Bldg
200 Constitution Ave NW, Room N-5613
Washington, DC 20210
Tel: (202) 693-1185
boucher.denise(at)dol.gov

cc: Stephen J. Willertz, Director
U.S. Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
Office of Labor-Management Standards
Office of Enforcement and International Union Audits
200 Constitution Ave NW
Washington, DC 20210
Tel: (202) 693-1182
willertz.stephen(at)dol.gov

cc: Ralph Gerchak, District Director
U.S. Department of Labor, OLMS
New York District Office
201 Varick St., Room 878
New York, NY 10014
Tel: (646) 264-3190
gerchak.ralph(at)dol.gov

NYCDCC 2008 Election Protests

Protests and Responses to the eligibility of Forde, Thomassen and Sheil as candidates for the NYCDCC 2008 Election:

2009-09-16 So far, no response from McCarron has been received.
2009-01-09 Franco Letter to McCarron
2008-12-29 Election Monitor Decision to Franco
2008-12-18 Franco Letter to Election Monitor
2008-12-16 NYCDCC Election Committee response to Franco
2008-12-05 Franco Letter to NYCDCC Election Committee
2008-11-14 NYCDCC Election Committee response to Franco
2008-11-03 Franco Letter to the NYCDCC Election Committee
2008-02-01 McCarron response to Forde
2008-01-25 Forde Letter to McCarron


After you read the letters, let us know what you think.


(Originally posted at http://fairdeal2008.blogspot.com/, 2008-12-19)