Re: Questions about IATSE
While they may be on the
line of relating to me or not, the listed "types" of individual grievances that come out of the discussed "non-exclusive" hiring
hall, are not meant to be a specific "veiled" "bash" at Local 16 specifically (they are
identified because they are the one I know for a fact that classify themselves this way). The grievances come from the collective recent NLRB and Court cases over the last few years that relate to the Duty of Fair Representation, the NLRA and the LMRDA. These are what people should be aware of and look out for when thinking of an
IATSE career (I did not include the death threats, physical, verbal and mental abuse, sexual harassment and discrimination and other nastier stuff in order to make it less inflammatory...oh well).
If you want to talk specifics vs opinions, I could say that the detailed evidence in my cases would have proceeded to harmful and costly charges against the Local in question if they were an "Exclusive Hiring
Hall" like many many other
IATSE ones. Being Non_Exclusive doesn't change the facts that the NLRB has accepted and agreed with the information/evidence presented already, it just changes whether or not they can act under the NLRA on it. This has no
effect on the harmful actions taken and whether the Courts would have a very different result based on the same strong evidence. The
point is that by making the "Hiring
Hall" Non-Exclusive under the NLRA (and LMRDA), this gives the BA a "get out of jail free card" they can
play over an over at the NLRB, when that would not work in many other Locals under the same IASTE International name, following the same C&B and not very different collective bargaining agreements nationwide that each Local themselves make up. This is not a problem to be openly discussed (to organize to improve conditions)?
The important matter is the Exclusive vs Non-Exclusive issue in all legal realms (which are too many and confusing and that does not benefit employees). Those are specific grievance examples and are from numerous NLRB and Superior/Federal Court Cases available online to the public. My intent was to
point out the problems with there being two very different types of hiring halls that seem to be contradictory. If someone was signing up I would hope they knew what TYPE they were signing up for because it could make a HUGE difference down the
road (even though it may or may not ever affect them directly). The problem that I see, is that the only good reason that any Hiring
Hall would decide to steer away from the National Labor Relations Act, would be to get out of or keep out of trouble. I have yet to figure out any other advantage. If there is some way that Local 16 operates any differently than Local 720 or Local 7 or Local 46 then I have missed it (day to day practice and results). The only difference seems to be whether or not and how much rights the "employee" has when something goes wrong with either the union, the employer or both.
This is when the employee gets told they are not a member of the union and gets
throw under the bus absent any grievance being heard nor anything in writing. That speaks to a harmful advantage in the BA/Hiring
Hall court over the employee (member of the union or not as apprentice, journeyman, aux, whatever), when they would not have this problem if they just happened to be working in a different
IATSE Local that was an Exclusive Classification (or they could and the BA is abusing that too). The legal community is buzzing around the LMRDA and NLRA and unions these days because the grey area needs to be cleared up and probably will in this decade or the next via legislation or court decisions. Legal reviews have specifically pointed out the LOW case success rate that employees have at the NLRB under the NLRA. This is because the lawyers are good at getting around things that are weak or written poorly. In this case employees have overlapping issues that involve their unions C&B, CBA and the NLRA and the LMRDA but several different legal venues and agencies that oversee each in different in sometimes contradictory ways.
Until new unifying court decisions or State/Federal Legislations,
IATSE seems to be happy existing in the "grey", BUT employees/members have a right to know because they are not making it
clear (they should). I just don't think it means that you don't have ANY rights. Employees have basic rights under the union collective bargaining agreements. It may not be rights to vote in union elections, nor attend meetings, nor other C&B UNION MEMBER specific things like this, but I think it is safe to say that this does not mean that they are some kind of indentured servant, who are lucky to be freed after working several years and after paying several thousand dollars to pass an open
book test just to
gain these "rights".
Props for going to the government "
manual", the Code of Federal Regulations. Everyone should learn how to read this so they can check up on our government. I know it very well. Your quote of the LMRDA is correct, and specific to the LMRDA and in "member of the union classification" realm. The
point for all "members of a labor organization" to realize is that this is the same type of argument used by the Local in question, to deny hard working and work fee paying "employees" their rights under the Collective
Bargaining Agreement:
From
IATSE:
Bargaining
Unit
"The group of employees in jobs constituting the appropriate
unit for representation by a union. In a sense, the employees in the bargaining
unit are the electorate that determines which representative is to be chosen for collective bargaining. Historically, prior to the NLRA and the majority rule in determining the bargaining agent, the
unit for collective bargaining was whatever the union was able to make it by exerting economic pressure on the employer. As provided by law, the bargaining
unit is "the employer
unit, craft
unit, plant
unit, or subdivision thereof," and essentially it consists of those employees who share a "community of interest." The employee bargaining
unit embraces all employees, whether or not they are members of the union, and is basically of two types, namely, craft and industrial. The bargaining
unit is separate and distinct from the union, and it is incorrect to refer to the union as the bargaining
unit."
This is what I was referring to specifically. You don't have to be an Apprentice, nor Journeyman nor any other "Union" classification for these basic written rights found in your Collective
Bargaining Agreement. In most Collective Bargaining Agreements (I hope!), there are written specific procedures for Grievances (involving the employee, employer and union) and basic rights for ALL EMPLOYEES:
And the same section you quote from the CFR:
"§ 401.6 Employee.
Employee means any individual employed by an employer, and includes any individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, any
current labor dispute or because of any unfair labor practice or because of exclusion or expulsion from a labor organization in any manner or for any reason inconsistent with the requirements of this Act.
§ 401.9 Labor organization.
Labor organization means a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce and includes any organization of any kind, any agency, or employee representation committee, group, association, or plan so engaged in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours, or other terms or conditions of employment, and any conference, general committee, joint or
system board, or joint council so engaged which is subordinate to a national or international labor organization, other than a State or local central body."
Back to
IATSE Definitions:
"Grievance
A formal complaint alleging a violation, misapplication, or misinterpretation of the collective
bargaining agreement. Usually a grievance is raised by an individual employee in a bargaining
unit, with the SHOP
STEWARD and various union representatives assisting the employee in carrying the grievance forward. Occasionally, depending on the nature of the grievance and the contractual provisions, the union or even the employer may bring a grievance."
It does not say the Labor Organization is made up of MEMBERS of the Union, it says ANY EMPLOYEE. A Member is a type of Employee who has additional rights based upon this classification. EVERYONE has the same BASIC RIGHTS is the most important
point. ALL EMPLOYEES are protected by the CBA to some extent. After whatever the specific internal remedies are and whatever their results, in the end either the NLRB and/or the Courts will allow the EMPLOYEE and chance to have their rights defended (if the labor organization fails to do so for them as promised in the CBA). It means the "union" is obligated to certain rights based on the collective
bargaining agreement and therefore the LMRDA and the NLRA apply to ALL employees not just "members" of the labor organization. Without the protection of the union and the CBA you have less rights:
IATSE Definitions again:
Employment-at-Will
"A concept which holds that a worker's employment is "at the will of the employer" and that the employer is free to terminate an employee at any time....The managerial right to discharge an employee at will has been largely curtailed through unionization and by the collective
bargaining agreement, which states that the discharge of workers covered by contract must be for just cause."
Without the union and collective bargaining agreements the employee could be fired for no reason with no way to
restore their rights outside of a labor organization (one that represents their rights against the employer). I think the law clearly protects employees who are members of a labor organization, whether or not they are members of the union, under their CBA(s).
You would seem to be suggesting otherwise(or just just talking about layers of member definitions?).
IATSE should not be telling or making employees feel in any way, who are booked by the hiring
hall and who pay the hiring
hall a work fee, while working under the hiring
hall CBA and the C&B with the employers, that they have NO rights under the LMRDA/NLRA because they are not a Member of the Union (again a
level of classification). I do not think you have to be an apprentice, aux or journeyman to have access to the basic rights under the US Constitution/Bill of Rights, State/Federal Labor Laws/Standards and the LMRDA and/or the NLRA. What is harming all members of this labor organization is the use/abuse of the Non-Exclusive Hiring
Hall classification that is taking these away (or at least forcing the employee to the NLRB and or Courts instead of resolving it within the union). That is what all members of all labor organizations should be organizing against. That is another
point to consider especially for those looking to sign up and work through this to make it to the magic membership levels.
You really did not need to say this, but if it makes you feel better, that is your right:
"For the record,
ControlBooth is not the place guaranteed by the union members "bill of rights" to voice a grievance."
Who is really doing the bashing here? (not an invitation...just endless indirect sarcasm with a laugh).
I think
IATSE could be much better and is slipping in the 21st century with outdated thinking. It is still better than freelancing, trust me. But, the way things are now you need to consider which Hiring
Hall type you would want to be involved with (nothing is clearly defined across the whole international organization). This labor organization has a very serious problem, and people should organize to help resolve it. Non-Exclusive Hiring
Hall=no National Labor Relations Act. The NLRA is GOOD for Labor Organizations right? Either way having both Non Exclusive and Exclusive under the same International Union Name and C&B? Is there some sense in this beyond giving the BA(s) freedom to abuse and not have to explain anything to the NLRB under the NLRA? Because it seems specifically "designed" to negotiate that particular hurdle very much to the benefit of the "labor organization" over the "employee member" and even the "union member"?
No disrespect intended, just exercising the discussion muscles.
cheers
References:
IATSE Definitions
http://www.iatse-intl.org/organizing/us_terms.html
NLRB the NLRA
http://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act
The Code of Federal Regulations NLRA
29 CFR PART 104—NOTIFICATION OF EMPLOYEE RIGHTS; OBLIGATIONS OF EMPLOYERS
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...20110830:1.40;idno=29;cc=ecfr;start=1;size=25
The Department of Labor the LMRDA
http://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/statutes/lmrda-act.htm
The Code of Federal Regulations LMRDA
Title 29 PART 451—LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AS DEFINED IN THE LABOR-MANAGEMENT REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1959
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...rgn=div5&view=text&node=29:2.1.4.1.10&idno=29
The Code of Federal Regulations LMRDA
Title 29 PART 401 - MEANING OF TERMS USED IN THIS SUBCHAPTER
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...5;view=text;node=29:2.1.4.1.1;idno=29;cc=ecfr
Labor Union "legal" definition+ History
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Labor+Union
* the union in my case, specifics aside, had multiple four month internal grievance routes, as did the International's West Coast Office and the NYC HQ/President...I have tried and tried again to find remedies and answers from within...hard to talk about types of Hiring Halls with getting myself entangled...I don't need to "use" this excellent forum/site to publicly "try" my grievances...I am using the legal routes left to me and keeping the specific to myself other than informing other members of labor organizations along the way about what
IATSE has specifically said and done that is not in question...since I am excluded from the workplace (for now)...but still in touch with many other members otherwise *
