3-18-13 rmb order document 1276

7/29/2019 3-18-13 RMB Order Document 1276

1/8

Demian D. Schroeder14 Meadow StreetBrooklyn, NY 11206March 15,2013Honorable Richard M. BermaUnited States District JudgeDaniel Patrick MoynihanUnited States Courthouse500 Pearl StreetNew York, NY 10007-1312Subject: US. v. District Cou ood ofCarpenters & Joiners ofAmerica, et al., Index No. 90 Civ. 5722 (RMB)Reference: February 13, 2013 Order, Doc. No. 1255

Responsive Filings, Status ofUnion approval and ratification of the DistrictCouncillWall-Ceiling CBA dated March 12, 2013Dear Judge Bennan:We are in receipt of the Wall-Ceiling and Carpentry Industries ofNew York, Inc. (WC&C) collective bargaining agreement (CBA) dated/executed on March 12,2012. As Your Honor is aware, the contracts are complex legal documents effecting members rights.The executed contract (CBA) was not properly or timely submitted to the Council Delegate Body(CDB) nor Executive Committee nor rank-and-file member, for proper dissemination, review,debate or contract ratification, per the past practice under the new by-laws as established by theCouncil Delegate Body (CDB) and the follow-through March 27,2012, vote by the rank & file,on 5-CBA's which were supervised & counted by the American Arbitration Association (AAA.)We respectfully request 20-days of additional time through Thursday April 4, 2013, for properreview and vetting of this contract and to relay our concerns to the Court. In the interveningperiod, we have Sf. Patrick's Day & Eastern Orthodox Lent occurring on the 181h of this monthand Palm Sunday, Passover, Good Friday and Easter occurring on the 241h, 251h, 29th and 31 strespectively. The next regularly scheduled Council Delegate Meeting will be on WednesdayApril 3, 2013.We remind this Honorable Court that the International (UBCJA) and the District Council andWall-Ceiling (WC&C) have tried to force the contracts through without proper time for anycompetent review once before, immediately prior to the ending of the UBCJA's Trusteeship onJanuary 12,2012, and we have enclosed pages 44-51 of the December 20, 2011. court transcriptsfor Your Honor's consideration in this matter.

CHAMBERS OFHARD M. BERMANU.S.D.J.

Respectfully submitted,j J ~ ~ 6emian D. Schroeder

USDCSDNYDOCUMENTELECTRONITCALLYFILEDDOC#:_-----DATE FILED: 0'; {\ 6 f ' 2 . . 0 l ~

Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1276 Filed 03/18/13 Page 1 of 8


2/8

cc: BY E-MAILRobert F. Makowski21-32 Crescent Street, Apt. C6Astoria, NY 11105Sterling Dadone39-19 167th Street, Apt. 5CFlushing, NY 11358-2103Nonnan Saul1637 Saint Peters AvenueBronx, NY 10461-3008Raynier Gamboa 4308 Smith Ave. North Bergen, NJ 07047 Veronica Session 123 E39th Street PVT House Brooklyn, NY 11203 Dennis M. Walsh, Esq., Review Officer The Law Office ofDennis M. Walsh 415 Madison Avenue, 11TH Floor NewYork, NY 10017 Bridget M. Rhode Counsel to the Review Officer Mintz, Levitz, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C. 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Benjamin H. Torrance Assistant United States Attorney, Civil Division Office of the United States Attorney, SDNY 86 Chamber Street New York, NY 10007 MarkA. Rosen, Esq.Counsel for the Association of Wall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries of New York Inc.McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney, & Carpenter, LLP1300 Mount Kemble AvenueMorristown,NJ 07962-2075John DeLollis Executive Director Association ofWall-Ceiling & Carpentry Industries ofNew York, Inc. 125 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 301 Jericho, NY 11753-1022



3/8

James M. MurphySpivak-Lipton, LLP1700 BroadwayNewYork, NY 10019NewYork City & Vicinity District Council ofCarpentersExecutive Secretary-Treasurer Michael Bilello395 Hudson StreetNew York, NY 10014



4/8

DECEMBER 20, 2011 COURT TRANSCRIPTS, page 44-51441CK5usaC conference1 still have my three blue cards that I was sent and I refuse to2 sign these because I knew right away they were a form of3 extortion and they could take whatever they wanted from us at4 any time.5 So, I just wanted to update you on that. Thank you.6 TIlE COURT: Thanks.7 Before we hear from the next speaker, why does this8 January 5 date need to be set in stone? If I remember9 correctly, Judge Conboy, originally you had thought that the10 agreements were going to be posted earlier than they in fact11 were. I think you had originally thought around November 18.12 So, that would have given people more time to review and study13 them and so -- and it is also true that there can, at the14 earliest, be a town hall discussion and meeting about these15 agreements, those three or however many have been signed so16 far, until at the earliest next week. And then you have17 Christmas holidays are coming up and then you have the New Year18 holidays. It does seem that January 5 is awfully close in19 terms of what, I imagine, is the complexity of these agreements20 to review them.21 MR.. CONBOY: Judge, I just want to make two points.22 First of all, the trustee who negotiated these contracts has 23 now a legal obligation with these contractor associations to 24 carry through and seek approval on what has been an 25 extraordinarily challenging and difficult process. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.(212) 805-0300451CK5usaC conference 1 TIlE COURT: Nobody is suggesting anything contrary to 2 that. 3 MR.. CONBOY: Well, let me just try to speak further to 4 it. 5 TIlE COURT: Right. 6 MR.. CONBOY: The second point is that the 7 international president made the initial proposal to the United 8 States Attorney, to Mr. Walsh, and ultimately to you that these 9 collective bargaining agreements should focus on and achieve a 10 radical and crucial reform in terms of any corruption problems. 11 We have heard a great deal on the consent decree this morning 12 and what these years of oversight have meant and the key 13 language in the undertaking to bring full mobility to a 14 successful conclusion was the phrase good faith negotiations. 15 Judge Haight made it very clear in terms of his order that all 16 he was expecting was a good faith effort to achieve the reforms 17 that, in our view, are the single most important issue to the 18 rank and file and that issue is that these benefit funds be 19 protected going forward against disaster that occurred under



5/8

20 Michael Ford.21 Now, these delegates are elected delegates. Whether22 or not they have an obligation to respond to their constituents23 and have their constituents rigidly control their vote, that's24 an issue that will be resolved by the delegates themselves.25 These contracts are finished, we have full expectation thatSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.(212) 805-0300461CK5usaC conference1 there are going to be three additional contracts posted by the2 end of the week, there is going to be a comprehensive effort3 made that everybody should understand the substance of these4 agreements. If there is an inadequate basis of knowledge those5 delegates for whom the District Council and the trustee have6 immense respect, they can decide completed CBAs whether or not7 they should be ratified now and not punted into some kind of8 amorphous political process. None of us can see the end of9 that.10 THE COURT: Well, that's not what I had in mind. I'm11 just thinking that you are talking about a vote on January 5 12 just as an observer -- on agreements some of which are not13 ratified or concluded at this point and you're talking about14 two holidays in between. It is kind of hard to imagine doing15 anything in that short time frame. I'm just not hearing from16 you -- I agree with everything you said philosophically, but I17 don't know why January 5th, in and of itself, must be the date.18 MR. CONBOY: Well, Judge-19 THE COURT: Hold on a second. That you have been at20 these agreements now as long as I have been here and they keep21 taking longer and longer because they're complex and important22 documents so one would be hard pressed, if you were a stranger23 to this proceeding and you were just called in today and I said24 to you, Mr. Conboy, would you, by January 5th, give me your25 opinion as to these agreements, just wondering why it has to beSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.(212) 805-0300471CK5usaC conference1 January 5, and particularly since the majority of these2 agreements are not yet executed.3 MR. CONBOY: Well-4 THE COURT: As opposed to January 25 or 15 or some5 other time that people might have more opportunity to study6 them.7 MR. CONBOY: Your Honor, I firmly believe that i f8 there is an inadequate basis on which to vote on the 5th of9 January these delegates will express their view. I will point10 out that the delegates have been consistently part of the11 process in negotiating these agreements. If the Court would12 intervene

______:1



6/8

13 TIlE COURT: I'm not intervening. I'm giving you an14 observation which seems -- by the way -- to be common sense.15 MR. CONBOY: Well, Judge-16 TIlE COURT: It doesn't seem to be anything legal. I'm17 thinking today is, you know, the week before the Chrisunas18 holiday and then next week is the week before the New Year's19 holiday and you're telling me that five agreements are not even20 executed and they will be posted when they're executed and then21 they'll be voted on by January 5 and it does seem like a22 stretch, frankly, in a common sense way -- not in a23 philosophical way, not in a legal way, just in a common sense24 way. And I promise you that most lawyers sitting in this room, 25 if they faced a deadline like that, would likely write me a SOUTIfERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.(212) 805-0300481CK5usaC conference 1lener and say: Judge, can we have two more weeks? 2 [Applause] 3 TIlE COURT: Hold it, will you? 4 MR. CONBOY: Judge. may I respectfully remind the 5 Court that everybody at these tables agreed that two weeks to 6 review these documents and consult with the clients was 7 adequate? This is 8 TIlE COURT: Some of the documents are not done yet. 9 MR. CONBOY: Judge, there are not going to be any 10 voting on anything that has not been posted for the two weeks11 that were agreed to by the Court and by everybody else. These12 negotiators have included very difficult negotiations that have13 taken months and I do think that closure on that effort,14 consistent with Judge Haight's order is essential, and that if15 the delegates themselves do not feel suitably infonned, they16 can table it. That's what we understand.17 So, I just want to reiterate that it is the position18 of the trustee that the immensely difficult work of all of the19 these months that it be allowed to come to a conclusion on the20 5th of January with the understanding, obviously, that these21 delegates who are empowered under the constitution and, indeed,22 all of the assumptions that we have made in the course of23 trying to come positively to the end of this trusteeship, that24 they have the chance to vote on the 5th, they will have the25 language in these documents available for two weeks, they willSOUTIfERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.(212) 805-0300491CK5usaC conference1 have had the chance to consult, there will be as, Mr. Walsh2 suggested, a town hall. Let us see what occurs on the 5th of3 January. 4 TIlE COURT: All I would say to you is that I would 5 like you to go back over your notes and the transcripts of



7/8

6 these proceedings as to dates that you indicated earlier when7 all these documents would be -- you didn't know for sure but8 you estimated would be executed and posted and they were long9 before two weeks before January 5. All I'm saying is -- well,10 you get what I'm saying.11 So, the last time I think you said that all the12 agreements would be posted by the 18th of November, today is13 about a month later than that and three have and five haven't.14 So, you know, draw whatever conclusions you want to draw from15 that but it just seems to me that January 5 seems to be a close16 call. 17 Mr. Walsh, do you have any thoughts on that? 18 MR. WALSH: One point that hasn't been mentioned is 19 the expectation of the employers. 20 THE COURT: I'm sure. 21 MR. WALSH: That the a&reements would be considered 22 during the supervisor's tenure. 23 I think Mr. Conboy has frankly made a good point that 24 i f it is the delegates' pleasure the UBC will not object and 25 the supervisor will not object and intercede if the delegatesSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.(212) 805-0300501CK5usaC conference1 vote on the 5th to table this and consider all of the CBAs2 three weeks afterwards or a month afterwards.3 MR. FRANCO: I just want to continue.4 As far as I know, based upon last night's meeting,5 Local 157 meeting, the many delegates did not know that January6 5th they were going to be meeting for the contracts. That was7 my understanding last night. So, as far as I know -- Bill, you8 didn't know until last night and Bill is the recently elected9 president.10 MR. LEBO: Yesterday 11 THE COURT: Let's hear from him and move this along.12 MR. FRANCO: I just want to finish up with the13 contract. Why is the International trying to get these14 contracts done before our new officers and full mobility seem15 to be the big thing or one of the big things for them? That16 violates my sensibility and many members' sensibility because17 full mobility further converts our labor organization into an18 employment agency and I'm absolutely against that.19 Thank you.20 MR. FORREST: Your Honor, Loren Forrest for the21 Building Contractors' Association.22 Just following along on Mr. Walsh's point, he is23 right, the Employers' Association, my client in particular, the24 Building Contractors' Association, expected that the contracts25 would be voted on on January 5th and, as Mr. Conboy said, thoseSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.(212) 805-0300



8/8

511CK5usaC conference1 are expectations are based on good faith negotiations and based2 on agreement.3 THE COURT: Counsel, you know this is a very simple4 issue and I get it and I don't think you are hearing me. I'm5 understanding exactly what you said but I'm saying to you, as a6 lawyer, that the January 5 date is awfully close now for7 anybody to give their full consideration to these contracts8 when you know, as well as everybody else at the table that you9 are sitting at, that five of the eight of them are not even10 executed.11 So, and if you know. also. as an experienced lawyer,12 that if you had a deadline like January 5 and you weren't ready13 or you had another court appearance or you hadn't reviewed the14 documents. you might say to somebody like me, Judge. can we15 have another week or two so that we can study these complex16 documents?17 Nobody is in any way trying to harm the employers or18 the people who negotiated, etc. It took longer than, frankly,19 I was told that it was likely to take. And so, all some people20 are saying, myself included, is that they ought to be reviewed21 and voted on on a date that you can be sure that people have 22 had a chance to study them. 23 That's all I'm saying. 24 MR.. LEBO: Your Honor, in reference to the contracts, 25 it almost seems to me that they're assuming that these SOUI1IERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.(212) 805


3-18-13 rmb order document 1276

Documents