is this you? Claim your profile.
is this you? Claim your profile.
Local Union 237
+ Get 10 Free Contacts a Month
It's free and takes 30 seconds
Protest Decision 2011 ESD 347 - Jakwan Rivers
IN RE: JAKWAN RIVERS , ) Protest Decision 2011 ESD 347
Jakwan Rivers, member of Local Union 237, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2010-2011 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (" Rules"). he protest alleged improprieties with respect to the mailing list used to send ballot packages to local union members.  Rivers filed a protest during the delegates election challenging the integrity of Local Union 237's mailing list. Jakwan Rivers 9810 Avenue K, Apt. 2 Brooklyn, NY 11236 email@example.com
Protest Decision 2011 ESD 64 - JAKWAN RIVERS
IN RE: ELIGIBILITY OF JAKWAN RIVERS, Local Union 237.
Jakwan Rivers, member and shop steward of Local Union 237, filed an eligibility protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2010-2011 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (" Rules"). The protest contested the preliminary determination by our office that Rivers was not eligible for nomination as delegate because he suffered a break in the required 24 consecutive months of good standing. Rivers was injured on July 16, 2010 and did not resume work until mid-October. The July 16 injury fell in the middle of the July 11 - 24 pay period, Rivers had sufficient earnings in that period to fund his bi-weekly dues obligation, and check-off was made. Rivers received his regular pay for the July 25 - August 7 bi-weekly period; inexplicably, no check-off was made. When the local union received the dues remittance from the city and Rivers' name did not appear on it, the local union states that it mailed Rivers a #99 notice advising that no dues were received and instructing him to remit dues. The local union did not retain a copy of the letter it claims to have sent Rivers, and Rivers denied receiving it. Rivers received no pay for the August 8 - 21 period; no dues were deducted or remitted for him for this period. Rivers received his regular pay for the August 22 - September 4 period, but no dues were deducted or remitted. He received no pay for the September 5 - 18 or September 19 - October 2 periods and no dues were deducted or remitted on his behalf. He returned to work during the next period, on October 13, had sufficient earnings to fund his bi-weekly dues obligation, and dues were deducted and remitted on his behalf. Meanwhile, the local union notified Rivers by letter dated October 8 of a November 1 hearing on assault charges filed against Rivers by another member. Rivers received this letter and replied on October 26, denying all charges and claiming they were filed to retaliate against him and to intimidate him because he ran against the current local union executive board in the 2009 local union officer elections. Rivers also claimed that the charges were an attempt to disqualify him in the upcoming delegate elections. Lastly, Rivers stated that he would be unavailable for the hearing on November 1 since he had surgery scheduled for that day. The local union responded by letter dated November 3, sent to Rivers' Brooklyn address via express mail, granting Rivers' request to postpone the hearing until November 29 and stating that he was $27.14 in arrears as of the date of the November 3 letter. Rivers responded to the notice of dues arrearage on November 17 by sending the local union a check for $54.28, twice the amount of the stated arrearage. Rivers sent this amount because he had surgery on November 1, expected to be off work until November 28, and knew he would have no earnings or check-off deduction for the November 14 - 27 pay period. The local union received the payment on November 19, posted $27.14 to Rivers' dues account and issued a refund of the remaining $27.14 as overpayment because its dues accounting personnel were unaware that Rivers would have no dues remittance in the November 14 - 27 pay period. The refund was sent to Rivers' former address in Wyandanch, not the Brooklyn address, and the post office eventually returned it to the local union. On December 15, the local union wrote Rivers explaining that the refund check had been returned and directing him to contact the local union to arrange for receipt of it. Rivers received this letter and stated that he wished to apply the check to the outstanding dues of $27.14 for the November 14 - 27 pay period. In analyzing these facts, we start with the firmly established principle that a member on dues check-off retains his good standing even if his dues were remitted late or not at all by the employer, provided he had signed a check-off authorization and had sufficient earnings or paid leave in the month from which dues could have been deducted. Rivers was on check-off and was entitled to rely on the check-off authorization directing the employer to remit dues from his pay in a timely manner. Accordingly, we examine whether Rivers as a check-off member had sufficient earnings in each month to fund his dues. The evidence demonstrates that Rivers received his regular pay in pay periods that touched on or fell completely within each of the four months at issue in this matter. Thus, he received full pay for all of July. Excepting the August 8 - 21 pay period, he received his regular compensation for August. In September, he received his regular pay during September 1 through 4, an amount sufficient to fund his dues obligation for September. In October, he returned from his July injury on October 13 and had sufficient earnings in the balance of the month to fund his October dues requirement. In November, he was in an active work status beginning November 28 and had sufficient earnings in the last days of the month to fund his November dues payment. Accordingly, the check-off authorization Rivers executed gave him the protection accorded by the IBT Constitution to preserve his eligibility. Of course, that constitutional protection did not excuse Rivers from paying the required dues once the local union gave notice that the dues were delinquent. The local union asserts that it gave such notice by mail on August 10. The notice did not advise Rivers of the amount due or the deadline for submitting it. Rivers denied receiving the notice. Nonetheless, he remitted dues on September 15 covering 4 bi-weekly pay periods, bringing him current in his dues. Under Article X, Section 5(c) of the IBT Constitution, "where the Local Union notifies the member of his employer's failure to make check-off deductions, then payment must be made by the member within thirty (30) days of said notice in order to retain good standing status. On the disputed issue of whether the notice was sent and received, we find insufficient evidence to establish that Rivers was placed on notice of his delinquency. Accordingly, we will not apply the 30 day time limit to disqualify him from eligibility. With respect to the dues arrearage he suffered for the September 18 - October 2 period, receipt of notice of the arrearage again is disputed. It is not disputed that Rivers received the local union's November 3 letter advising of the arrearage, among other things. Rivers satisfied the arrearage on November 17. Accordingly, we find that Rivers has maintained his good standing with the local union continuously for the 24 month eligibility period and is ELIGIBLE to be nominated for delegate or alternate delegate. Jakwan Rivers 9810 Avenue K, Apt. 2 Brooklyn, NY 11236 firstname.lastname@example.org  Rivers stated that he moved on October 1, 2010, from a residence in Wyandanch to his current address in Brooklyn and filed a change of address with the post office. Rivers acknowledged receiving other correspondence from the union (its newspaper and a letter on benefits are examples) that were sent to him at his former address and were forwarded to the Brooklyn address, but denied receiving the #99 or #89 notices.
Protest Decision 2011 ESD 222 - Jakwan Rivers
IN RE: JAKWAN RIVERS, Protestor.
Jakwan Rivers, member of Local Union 237 and unsuccessful delegate candidate, filed a post-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 3(a) of the Rules for the 2010-2011 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules"). Allegation that ESS provided the Floyd slate periodic reports on the number of returned ballots, but denied Rivers' slate the same information. Rivers' protest that included this allegation was filed March 17, two days after the tally of ballots and too late to address it in a pre-election context. Distilled to its essence, this claim is that the ballots of members who Rivers claimed voted for his slate were not received and therefore were not counted. Rivers supplied a list of 202 members he claimed told him or other members of his slate that they returned ballots; Rivers claimed that these members did not appear on the list of received ballots that ESS provided for viewing by candidates and observers following the eligibility check. Jakwan Rivers 9810 Avenue K, Apt. 2 Brooklyn, NY 11236 email@example.com
Protest Decision 2011 ESD 152 - JAKWAN RIVERS
IN RE: JAKWAN RIVERS, Protestor.
Protest Decision 2011 ESD 152 Issued: March 7, 2011 OES Case Nos. P-143-021611-NE, P-148-021711-NE, P-190-030311-NE & P-194-030411-NE Jakwan Rivers, member of Local Union 237 and candidate for delegate on the We Deserve Better slate, filed four pre-election protests pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2010-2011 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (" Rules"). In Case No. P-143-021611-NE, he alleged that Curtis Scott, Local Union 237 business agent and candidate for delegate on the Greg Floyd slate, improperly used his status as a business agent to gain access to a locked worksite to campaign and there affixed Floyd slate campaign flyers to employees' lockers. In Case No. P-148-021711-NE, Rivers alleged that Scott tore off and discarded the portion of the official notice of nominations meeting results posted at Reid House that listed the candidates on Rivers' slate. The remaining protests dealt with the remedy we ordered in Rivers, 2011 ESD 137 (February 24, 2011) and Rivers, 2011 ESD 142 (February 25, 2011). Thus, in Case No. P-190-030311-NE, Rivers alleged that the notice we ordered posted was not posted effectively. In Case No. P-194-030411-NE, Rivers alleged that the notice was not posted in some locations, the notice we ordered mailed was sent in an envelope that did not identify the Greg Floyd slate as the sender, and business agent Curtis Scott campaigned while posting the notice. Rivers supported the protest allegation with photos showing lcampaign literature and business cards affixed to the lockers, and an additional photo showing a close-up of Curtis Scott's business card. Rivers is employed at the development and was present that weekend as well. In Rivers, 2011 ESD 137 (February 24, 2011), modified, 2011 ESD 142 (February 25, 2011), we ordered the Floyd slate to mail an official notice of the Election Supervisor to the same mailing list to which it had sent a campaign mailing. The mailing improperly indicated that the Civil Service Bar Association endorsed the Floyd slate; the official notice sought to inform CSBA members that the CSBA did not and could not permissibly endorse any candidate. The Floyd slate mailed the required notice in envelopes that bore the Floyd slate campaign's street address but did not list the Floyd slate by name as the sender. The protest in Case No. P-190-030311-NE alleged that the failure to include the Floyd slate name in the return address violated the remedial order and made it more likely that recipients would discard the mailing as "junk mail." We find that the decision not to include the Floyd slate name in the return address did not violate our order in Rivers. We further order him to sign the notice attached to this decision and deliver 50 copies of it to protestor Rivers no later than 5 p.m. on Wednesday, March 9, 2011, for distribution by Rivers to members employed at South Jamaica and Reid Houses. Jakwan Rivers 9810 Avenue K, Apt. 2 Brooklyn, NY firstname.lastname@example.org The Election Supervisor has ordered me to sign this notice and deliver 50 copies of it to Jakwan Rivers by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, March 9, 2011. The Election Supervisor has issued this decision in Rivers, 2011 ESD 152 (March 7, 2011).
Protest Decision 2011 ESD 137 - Jakwan Rivers
IN RE: JAKWAN RIVERS, Protestor.
Protest Decision 2011 ESD 137 Issued: February 24, 2011 OES Case No. P-138-021411-NE Jakwan Rivers, member of Local Union 237 and candidate for delegate, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2010-2011 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (" Rules"). Jakwan Rivers 9810 Avenue K, Apt. 2 Brooklyn, NY email@example.com The Election Supervisor has issued this decision in Rivers, 2011 ESD 137 (February 24, 2011). The Election Supervisor has issued this decision in Rivers, 2011 ESD 137 (February 24, 2011).