Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Patrick Nee 6818 52nd Drive, Maspeth, New York, New York, 11378 September 11, 2012 VIA

HAND DELIVERY Honorable Richard M. Berman United States District Court Judge United States Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 21B New York, New York, 1007-1312


United States vs. District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, et al., Defendants.(Index No. 90 civ 5722) (RMB)

Dear Judge Berman, I am writing to the court to ask that it deny any decision in relation to the Collective Bargaining Agreement signed between the District Council and the Wall and Ceiling Association until such time as the delegate body fulfill its obligation to the members of the New York District Council of Carpenters. The four page summary which was presented was insufficient to allow that a considered decision was reached by the delegate body. Nor were the delegates allowed sufficient time to cogitate the conceivable consequences in approving this contract. If the Labor Management provisions contained in the prior proposal are no longer to be implemented, then an alternative is surely required. Daily reporting of hours and unique job numbers are all well and good, but cannot be considered to be sufficient. While the summary does indicate that some form of compliance program must be implemented, it does not suggest that this compliance program will require millions of dollars a year to operate, money which the District Council does not have. I believe that at a bare minimum, there needs to be a cost analysis of any proposed compliance program and a determination as to where the funding is to come from before this could be considered as anything more than a broad outline on a possible course of action. There needs to be some consideration for how this program will operate and what authority it will have. The Addendum as written does not require that the Contractors have any obligation to cooperate with an anti-corruption program, nor is there any mention of any system of penalties for those who are found to have failed to fulfill their obligations. The Labor Management provisions contained in the rejected contract included a budget of several million dollars a year. Since this program is no longer being put into effect, where is the funding now coming from?

The District Council simply does not have the funds to finance any meaningful oversight, in fact, there is a very real possibility that the District Council could be bankrupted in the MWA arbitration alone and there are several other issues have occurred which are placing a considerable strain on the financial stability of the District Council independent of that arbitration. There also has been no explanation given as to why the delegates were not given this addendum prior to the delegate meeting, while it have been posted on the Council website the evening prior to the meeting, this cannot not be considered as being reasonably expected to notify even the majority of the delegate body, and in all likelihood many delegates first saw this addendum just prior to being asked to vote upon it. The practice of asking the delegate body to decide on issues which they were unaware of minutes prior to being asked to vote on those issues is so frequent that it can only be considered the policy of the District Council at this point. The Bylaws demand prior notification, the delegates have demanded prior notification and have passed motions requiring five days prior notification and have been ignored. The authority of the delegate body can be subverted it seems simply by ignoring it. This policy also extends to simply not informing the delegate body that there is even an issue to be considered as in the case of the MWA arbitration where the Executive Secretary Treasurer decided to enter into binding arbitration without consulting with the delegate body. In fact it was not until members started complaining that their wages had been suddenly cut and were told by their employers that it was due to the arbitrators decision that the delegates first had an inkling that there had been any arbitration. While the Executive Secretary Treasurer has been asked, he has yet to explain where he received any authority to act unilaterally in this matter. The Delegate body is routinely either bypassed, ignored or subverted by the Officers of the District Council, motions which carry are routinely ignored by the Officers, information is routinely withheld, restricted or given to the delegates without allowing for any opportunity for the delegates to review that information in order to make an informed decision or ask informed questions. I hereby petition the court to amend Section 22(B) of the Bylaws be amended to allow that there must be seven days prior notice given to the delegate body for all items on the agenda which will require a delegate vote and that any item which does not fulfill this stipulation may not be approved by the delegate body. I also petition the court to require that the delegate body be allowed to fulfill its obligation to the members and require that the delegates be provided with a complete Agreement for ratification, complete with a cost analysis, a comprehensive description of any anticorruption program envisioned and any other pertinent information which would allow that informed decision can be made. I ask the courts to refuse to consider any proposal that is brought to the courts without first being reviewed and accepted in its entirety by the delegate body. I ask that this letter be docketed. Yours Sincerely Patrick Nee CC Benjamin Torrance Bridget Rhodes