Many of you also expressed concern as to why the Department of Transportation and the City of New York are allowing a private corporation to hold anti union meetings using City resources. Chapter 68 of the New York City Charter states that you can not use City resources for any non-city purpose. A meeting to discourage unionization of a private corporation is definitely a non-city purpose. We've contacted the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation and the Department of Investigation for answers as to why these meetings were permitted and if the City was even aware of their occurrence.
We have also received many reports that Mike Mallon and Rob Martino have allegedly been informing handlers that if a union is voted in they will be losing their steady spots, extra pay, and that our pay will go down. This is a violation of Federal law. The National Labor Relations Board published the following on their website. Click here to read from the NLRB website.
The National Labor Relations Act forbids employers from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights relating to organizing, forming, joining or assisting a labor organization for collective bargaining purposes, or from working together to improve terms and conditions of employment, or refraining from any such activity. Similarly, labor organizations may not restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of these rights.
Examples of employer conduct that violates the law:
- Threatening employees with loss of jobs or benefits if they join or vote for a union or engage in protected concerted activity.
- Threatening to close the plant if employees select a union to represent them.
- Questioning employees about their union sympathies or activities in circumstances that tend to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act.
- Promising benefits to employees to discourage their union support.
- Transferring, laying off, terminating, assigning employees more difficult work tasks, or otherwise punishing employees because they engaged in union or protected concerted activity.
- Transferring, laying off, terminating, assigning employees more difficult work tasks, or otherwise punishing employees because they filed unfair labor practice charges or participated in an investigation conducted by NLRB.
We sincerely hope that Mike and Rob were not instructed by management to say these things to handlers. If an investigation occurs, I doubt MSA will stand up for either of these gentlemen, choosing instead to allow them to fend for themselves.
If you feel any of the above violations have happened to you, please email info@nopaymsa.com
In regards to this line from the NLRA: Questioning employees about their union sympathies or activities in circumstances that tend to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act.
ReplyDeleteWhy in the meeting at the Staten Island Ferry today were the Handlers asked by the unidentified suit (Laywer? Consultant?) Hypothetically, Would you strike if the union called for it?
Riddle me that?
Excellent question and thank you for the heads up! MSA has most likely continued their investment in hiring professional union busters.
DeleteNot all strikes are the same. There are two types of lawful strikes. Strikes for economic reasons and strikes for unfair labor practices. The NLRB defines the two as follows:
If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concession such as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. If the employer has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling the jobs of the economic strikers when the strikers apply unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement.
Employees who strike to protest an unfair labor practice committed by their employer are called unfair labor practice strikers. Such strikers can be neither discharged nor permanently replaced. When the strike ends, unfair labor practice strikers, absent serious misconduct on their part, are entitled to have their jobs back even if employees hired to do their work have to be discharged.
If we were to strike for compensation for the take home care of our K9s, we would be considered unfair labor practice strikers. This means MSA could not fire us or permanently replace us. When we decide to come back to work, MSA would have to immediately discharge anyone hired to replace us. If they do not, we are entitled to reimbursement of pay after an investigation by the federal Government.
The home maintenance of our K9s has been determined to be compensable work by the US Department of Labor. Several MSA executives gave testimony affirming this when they were K9 handlers in their respective police departments. This makes MSA Security a willful violator of the Fair Labor Standards Act. We hope a strike is not necessary for MSA to obey the law but it is a possibility if they continue to refuse to obey it.
Was anyone from MSA even present in the meetings?
Delete