Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
5-8-13 RMB Decision & Order Doc. 1315

5-8-13 RMB Decision & Order Doc. 1315

Ratings: (0)|Views: 573 |Likes:
Published by Latisha Walker
5-8-13 RMB Decision & Order Doc. 1315
5-8-13 RMB Decision & Order Doc. 1315

More info:

Published by: Latisha Walker on May 08, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/24/2014

pdf

text

original

 
-------
NITED STATES
DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF
NEW
YORK
------------------------------------------------------------){
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRO~ICALLY
fiLED
DOC#: 
DATE FILED:
S"/~
/13 
Plaintiff,90 Civ. 5722 (RMB)-against-
DECISION
&
ORDER
DISTRICT COUNCIL OF NEW YORK CITYand VICINITY OF THE UNITEDBROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS andJOINERS OF AMERICA, et al.,Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------){
Having reviewed the record herein, including, without limitation,
(i)
the Consent Decree,entered into by the Government and the District Council
of
New York City and Vicinity
of
theUnited Brotherhood
of
Carpenters and Joiners
of
America ("District Council" or the "Union"),and approved by United States District Judge Charles
S.
Haight Jr.
on
March 4, 1994, (ConsentDecree
§§
2(a), (b), 5);
(ii)
the May
26,2009
Order in which Judge Haight determined that "[t]hepercentage
of
the total carpenter workforce on
ajob
site selected by a contractor shall not exceed67%" with "[t]he remaining 33%
of
the total carpenter workforce
on ajobsite
...
assigned by theDistrict Council from the Out
of
Work List," (Final Order and Judgment
of
Contempt andRemedy, filed May 27, 2009 ("2009 Order"), at 3(b)(iv),
(v»;
(iii)
the Fourth Interim Report
of
Review Officer Dennis M. Walsh, Esq. ("Review Officer," "RO,"
or
"Walsh"), dated June 4,2012, stating, among other things, that "[ ]he employers and the District Council members need[collective bargaining] agreements to be settled as soon as possible" and that "[s]tability in theindustry and comity in the relations between the Union and the employers must be restored tobest serve the urgent need to increase Union market share and man hours, bringing much neededincome to the Benefit Funds," (Fourth Interim Report, dated June 4, 2012 ("Fourth Interim
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1315 Filed 05/08/13 Page 1 of 11
 
2Report”), at 10);
(iv)
the (undated) agreement between the New York City District Council of Carpenters and the Association of Wall-Ceiling and Carpentry Industries of New York, Inc.(“WC&C” or “Employers”) and the Addendum with Respect to Compliance Issues (hereinafter “MOU”) which was approved by the District Council’s Executive Committee and its DelegateBody on August 22, 2012 and which eliminated hiring ratios to achieve what is referred to as“Full Mobility.” “The remainder of the carpenters shall be selected by the Employer.” (MOU at2, MOU Addendum at 1);
(v)
the September 12, 2012 Opinion & Order of the Court dismissingthe April 28, 2012 application of Veronica Sessions for, among other things, “‘intervention’ as to. . . a proposed ‘full mobility’ amendment to the collective bargaining agreement entered into onJuly 1, 2006 between the District Council and the [WC&C].” Sessions “made no showing thatshe has standing to litigate under the Consent Decree.” (Opinion & Order, dated September 12,2012 (September 12, 2012 Opinion) at 3);
(vi)
the Fifth Interim Report of the Review Officer (“Fifth Interim Report”), dated December 3, 2012, stating, among other things, that “in exchangefor significant wage increases, the employers and the District Council must develop anappropriate compliance program and obtain an order from the Court to alter the current hiringratio (‘67-33’) to allow employers to select [all of] the District Council members who will work for them” and that in accordance with the terms of the MOU “[t]he District Council has retained a vendor . . . to develop an electronic time entry program” which will represent “a great leapforward in the fight against fraud and will render the flawed paper steward report systemobsolete,” (Fifth Interim Report, dated December 3, 2012, at 8, 9);
(vii)
the hearing held onDecember 19, 2012 at which the RO stated, among other things, that “[t]he benchmark agreement [referring to the MOU] between the district council and the wall-ceiling association is,I believe, very close to implementation,” (Hr’g Tr., dated December 19, 2012 (“12/19/12 Tr.”),
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1315 Filed 05/08/13 Page 2 of 11
 
3at 2:12–15);
(viii)
the District Council’s February 13, 2013 letter to the Court stating that “[t]heDistrict Council is seeking the Court’s approval of [a] new arrangement . . . referred to by theDistrict Council and the WC&C as ‘full mobility’[which] will allow WC&C contractors toemploy all of their carpenters . . . by hiring them directly without having to use the DistrictCouncil’s job referral rules through the out of work list (the ‘OWL’),” and set forth “four quitedifferent yet complimentary methods that will be utilized to insure compliance with the[collective bargaining agreement (‘CBA’)]” and “prevent corruption,” (Letter from James M.Murphy, Esq. to Hon. Richard M. Berman, dated Feb. 13, 2013 (“DC Feb. 13 Let.”), at 1, 2);
(ix)
the District Council’s February 26, 2013 letter enclosing “a copy of the [draft] collective bargaining agreement (‘CBA’) between the District Council and the [WC&C] with a term of July1, 2011 through June 30, 2016,” including “full mobility in hiring and . . . compliance . . . and anti-corruption provisions,” (Letter from James M. Murphy, Esq. to Hon. Richard M. Berman,filed Feb. 27, 2013 (“DC Feb. 26 Let.”), at 1, 2);
(x)
the hearing held on February 27, 2013 atwhich the Court reviewed full mobility issues and the technological implementation of the anti-corruption procedures in the MOU. “It strikes me that with respect to the implementation of thisnew collective bargaining agreement, what you all are proposing is a companion technology thatgoes towards implementation. And I think that’s pretty much up to you.” (Hr’g Tr., dated Feb.27, 2013 (“2/2/13 Tr.”), at 3:6–9);
1
 
1
The Court heard from the District Council, the RO, and rank and file members of theUnion and invited further written comment on the draft CBA provisions for “full mobility” and corruption prevention. Id. at 106:23
(xi)
the March 12, 2013 CBA (which incorporated and superseded the MOU, which had been ratified by the Delegate Body on August 22, 2012), between the District Council and the WC&C, with a term of July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2016,which replaced the collective bargaining agreement which had expired by its terms on June 30,
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1315 Filed 05/08/13 Page 3 of 11

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->