Why is Local 94 President, Dirty Danny-boy Miranda, so upset about PMA filing grievances against longshoremen who were involved in the Port Medical benefits fraud?
Why did Dirty Danny-boy Miranda, and the Officers at Local 63, and the Officers at Local 13, all signed a letter saying they will not process any Section 17 Complaints against any of their members, involving Port Medical?
Here is why. Check out this Employer Complaint that PMA filed against past Local 13 President, Chris Viramontes.
This is a BIG deal. This could, and should, get Chris Viramontes deregistered!
Not to mention, this exonerates Eric from Chris’ Section 13.2 conviction based on the “unsubstantiated rumor” that Chris was involved with the Port Medical fraud. Eric got 2 years off work for telling the truth and exposing the fraud.
This is the first of many Employer Complaints related to the Port Medical fraud.
In addition to Chris, 3 other Local 13 members, 1 Local 63 member, and 2 Local 94 members have received PMA Complaints.
Here is the letter Eric sent to the JPLRC upon receiving a copy of EC-0781-2016.
If you were involved in the Port Medical fraud, you had better come clean because if you don’t you will be getting an Employer Complaint just like Chris Viramontes did.
You know who you are, and so will PMA because they have all the court documents from the indictment and pleas of the 2 guys who went down first.
Ever wonder why Danny-boy’s member Chris Rice was not named in any of the paperwork, even though it is common knowledge he was involved?
Because he rolled. How do you think they got the first 2 guys?
Either you come clean or PMA will use the court records to come and get you, and if that happens it will not bode well for you.
Come clean and make restitution now, and you stand a chance of keeping your job.
If you wait till they come for you, you will get the Chris treatment. And that silly letter the 3 Locals signed will not protect you.
Here is a copy of 1 of the court documents PMA will be using. Check out the pages listing check numbers and initials.
According to the DOJ Press release re Port Medical fraud, Crisanta Johnson, Regional Director for the Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits and Security Administration; “It’s unconscionable that the defendants would game such a sacred program to line their own pockets.”
An x-Cop, Mark Jursic, is running for Local 13 President?
Mark has been heard talking about introducing random drug testing, as a way to get a raise in pay for operators in the future.
How is that possible given the language in Article X, Section 2, of Local 13’s Constitution?
“Any Officer or agent, or former officer or agent of a Corporation or Association of Employers, or a deputized city, county, or special police, or men proven to be members of, or former members of vigilante groups, shall be prohibited to membership in this Union.”
Eric got kicked off the Executive Board because he allegedly broke “the oath,” contained in the Constitution, but Jursic is an x-Cop and he is going to get elected President, never mind the Constitution.
Local 13 Officers just use the Constitution to do whatever they feel like, never mind what it actually says.
Kind of like with voting.
The Constitution says you have to be a member in good standing, with all your fines and dues paid, if you want to vote.
But Local 13 Officers say, never mind the fines, let them vote if their dues are paid.
Local 13’s Constitution is as worthless as the paper it is written on.
All I can say is, 5-O must be some ball washer.
And now for something from the WTF department:
Current Local 13 President, Bobby Olvera Jr., informed his members last week that he and the rest of the Local 13 Officers, along with the Officers of the Clerks Local and the Walking Bosses Local, drafted a letter to PMA stating that they are not going to process the Section 17 Complaints filed against members involved with promoting Port Medical in the Dispatch Hall.
Could it be because Bobby’s baby-momma worked at Port Medical?
Or, could it be because Port Medical sponsored Bobby’s boy’s Boy Scout Troop?
Or, could it be because Port Medical sponsored Mondo’s softball team?
Eric did 1 year off work for slander because he said past Local 13 President, Chris Viramontes, was a part owner of Port Medical.
PMA and Local 13 have refused to process Eric’s Section 13.3 discrimination grievance claiming discriminatory application of contract language for over 2 years, but now PMA has filed a grievance of their own claiming that Chris Viramontes used his position to promote Port Medical in the Dispatch Hall.
What do you think they will say when Eric asks for a copy of the PMA Complaint for his case?
This is great. Now Frank Ponce de Leon and Cam Williams might learn how to process Eric’s Section 13.3 grievances.
Dumb ass Rich Austin might learn that longshoremen can represent other longshoremen at all Section 13 grievance proceedings, including the one he stopped in Seattle back in September 2016.
Go get all smart boys, then come out and play.
We are waiting……
ps: Back in the day, when I worked at PMA, we gave monthly classes on grievance and arbitration procedures. We called them JPLRC meetings, and anyone could attend, for free.
If the ILWU was really serious about educating members, they would give them access to the database of all CLRC meetings and Arbitrations that their members paid for.
Have fun.
We are waiting…..
Two final thoughts: Are those attending GAP training going to be Certified (or at least get a pretty participation ribbon), and do the hours count toward Walking Boss/Formen’s registration?
Come on boys, schedule some grievances. Show us your stuff.
When Scott Mason decided to put himself back into the crane to finish the ship, after picking up a semi and dropping it to the dock and knocking the driver unconscious, he broke the law.
In Washington State, when a machine operator has an accident or even a near miss they are required to receive re-training before they are allowed to go back to operating equipment.
Because there is no Terminal Manager at the Matson terminal that outranks past Local 23 President, Scott Mason, he decided to put himself back in the crane after knocking out member Dave Glen.
For that the Employer received the following Safety violation complaint.
In the Ports of Tacoma & Seattle the fate of longshoremen is determined by who they are, not what they do, as evidenced by what happened to Scott Mason.
If the same thing had happened to a regular longshoreman, i.e. not an officer or a friend or relative of an officer, he or she would have been removed from the crane and a complaint filed, depending on whether or not they are liked by the current Local Officers.
Robert Wilson has been denied crane training for 4 years because he broke a dog off a hatch cover, while being watched by his trainer, but other past Presidents have dropped cans in the water or ripped off radar antenas and nothing at all happened.
Wonder what the Northwest Seaport Alliance crane productivity agreement will do about this?
NOTHING because Local 23 President, Dean McGrath, is not stupid and he did not sign the Agreement with Local 19’s Chief Ball Washer, Rich Austin.
Local 23 “took it to the outside” on inauguration day, January 20, 2017, when Business Agent, Dave Basher, lied to Eric saying he was on “no dispatch to the SIM,” and that there was a “letter from the Coast.”
Here is the letter Basher claims is form the “Coast” and says Eric is on no-dispatch to the SIM.
The Letter is NOT from the Coast, says nothing about the SIM, and cannot be enforced according to the Settlement Agreement reached the last time Local 23 tried to refuse to dispatch Eric in 2015.
How anyone at Local 23 could read that, they say they have the right to deny him employment at the SIM while on no-dispatch over his Walking Boss Shape-Up cartoon?
Nubie PMA employee, Bill Nelson got used by someone at Local 23 to put this letter out, just so they could use it to refuse to dispatch Eric.
Local 23 “took it to the outside” when they used a PMA Arbitration to try and stop Eric from working at a non-PMA job.
NLRB charges have been filed against Local 23 and PMA for refusing to dispatch Eric to the SIM.
Did he read the article on Page 3 of Local 23’s webpage newspaper?
According to the article on page 3:
“AN INJURY TO ALL
An injury to one is an injury to all. We can put that principle to work by defending the people Trump is attacking, starting with our own members.”
Why is Local 23 attacking one of their “own members” instead of defending him?
Is this another case of; do as I say, not as I do?
As soon as the NLRB starts doing affidavits the gloves will come all the way off, and you will be able to read the 19 page appeal PMA filed trying to protect Eric from his own union.
Unfortunately all the appeals were unsuccessful and Eric had to go back to the SIM to work to support his family, while he decides what to do.
Now Dave Basher and Local 23 have taken that away from Eric by refusing to dispatch him to the SIM.
Did they forget that 2 years ago they allowed one of their members to work at the SIM while he was on no-dispatch to all PMA companies for assault?
We are doing what we need to do.
You can help by visiting Eric’s GoFundMe page and making a donation.
That was until I read the following Agreement between Local 19 and the Northwest Seaport Alliance.
According to the Presidents Report from the May 12, 2016, Local 19 Membership Meeting Minutes, the Northwest Seaport Alliance Agreement is the result of a meeting held on May 11, 2016, with the Northwest Seaport Alliance who was seeking to increase crane productivity.
Who would have thought that the key to increased crane productivity would be a NON-PMA member group seeking to “increase Port marketability by driving production to world class levels.”
I hope the NON-PMA agriculture group and/or the NON-PMA retailers group are paying attention, they might learn something.
Never mind that the Agreement is a hip-pocket agreement in violation of Section 24.2 of the PCLCD.
What kind behavior would “demonstrate the need for further instruction/coaching?”
What kind of measurements are “they” going to use and how is the measuring going to be done?
These questions are usually answered through the collective bargaining process, but that did not happen here.
Do the morons that wrote; “The Parties recognize that this is a unique, non-precedent setting, stand-alone program,” really think they can stop others from demanding the same from other Locals with that language?
What is Rich Austin going to get out of this?
How about an all expense paid vacation to God knows where, to help the Northwest Seaport Alliance increase Port marketability? First Class of course.
Way to go Rich. Ask your Union buddies how they feel about your Local agreeing to set minimum production standards (crane moves per hour) for the first time on the West Coast?
No one is talking about chassis on the West Coast because Big Bob ordered his ILWU mechanics NOT to cause any problems.
ILWU mechanics have been ordered to not question any truck driver who says his chassis is “company” owned, which makes the chassis exempt from the mandatory ILWU roadability inspection.
The chassis issue is like most problems that go away by themselves, they also come back by themselves.
I predict the chassis issue will be back for the 2019 negotiations.
Cute article in the JOC about the ILA’s stance against “fully” automated docks. Sounds like work slowdowns and/or work stoppages are about to start, because of the East Coast’s failure to deal with automation on the docks.
The ILA could take a page from the ILWU play book known as the M&M Agreement.
Harry Bridges had the insight to see what mechanization was going to do to the waterfront and negotiated the M&M agreement which was signed October 18, 1960.
The New York Times would rather write about “On the Waterfront” and the alleged mob connections to the ILA, which is kind of interesting but does nothing to shed light on what is going on today.
There are no mob connections on the West Coast to write about.
The only corruption on the West Coast is the ILWU going after the Union’s premier activist by ordering the Arbitrators to give the man 1 year off-work for a political cartoon.
The flier distributed about the on-the-job “shape-up” being run by Local 94 Walking Boss President, Danny Miranda, and some of his members got Baby Boy Danny so upset he went crying to Big Bob to demand that he do something.
Did Big Bob order his Arbitrators to give the Activist 1 year off-work for the following flier?
Why is it that no “journalists” want to write about the lack of free speech in the ILWU, despite the letter Big Bob wrote to President Obama about supporting civil rights and the Standing Rock protesters?
More do as I say, not as I do Unionism from the ILWU, because PMA had no problem with the cartoon?
I for one can hardly wait for the ILA contract fun and games to start, especially now that Trump is in charge.
Win/Win outcomes are rare in legal disputes, but that’s what Karey got for Christmas from Federal District Court Judge Lasnik.
TTI’s lawyer got what he wanted, Karey’s Small Claims Court claim was dismissed by the Federal District Court, but the way the case was dismissed is beautiful, and gave Karey insight to accessing the grievance procedure in a way that no one that I know of ever has.
TTI opened the door for individual longshoremen to bring grievances under Section 17.124 against their employers.
Pay specific attention to page 3, lines 15 – 26, and say thank you to Bob Frazier and Karey Martinez for standing up for your rights.
It is common knowledge that longshoremen who are “invited” to attend JPLRC Meetings, and/or longshoremen who chose to attend on their own, do not get paid. It is a courtesy extended to the Employers, by the Union. It has been that way since 1934.
Pay for attending JPLRC meetings is not covered by the PCLCD, and neither is what happens when an Employer abuses the courtesy by intentionally keeping a longshoreman waiting, so he misses dispatch, despite his request to attend to his business so he could get to the dispatch hall in time to get a job.
Usually the Union will make sure that their member’s business gets conducted so as to allow them to NOT to miss dispatch. That is unless the Union does not like you, and in this case they do not like Karey.
To rub it in Karey’s face, the Foremen’s LRC (including the Union) granted another longshoreman’s request to have his business conducted so as to allow him to get to night dispatch on time. They did it right in front of Karey so he could see the other longshoreman was going to get taken care of, so he could get to the dispatch hall in time to get a job.
Check out the 8-year-old’s attempt to persuade a Federal Judge that Karey is required to file his “claim” with the Foreman’s LRC, the very people who abused him and caused him to miss dispatch in the first place.
The following document is somehow supposed to support TTI’s claim that they will be stripped of their collective bargaining rights, if Karey’s Small Claims Court case is even allowed to proceed.
Here are the lies and half-truths used in the TTI lawyer’s put on:
#1 Page 1, lines 15-17: “His arguments and authorities, however relate to the union grievance process and have nothing to do with removal or jurisdiction.”
TTI’s lawyer claims Karey is required to use the grievance procedure and when Karey points out that individuals do not have the right to process the kind of grievance that he filed in Small Claims Court, the lawyer claims that his arguments and authorities have nothing to do with removal or jurisdiction. Really? Then what the fuck do they have to do with?
#2 Page 1, lines 20-21: “Mr. Martinez’s assertion that his case will not deprive TTI of its bargained-for rights because it is over a small amount of money misses the point.”
TTI’s lawyer claims Karey made an assertion that he never made, ignoring the fact that Karey cannot file a grievance over something not covered by the Agreement. Also, TTI did not bargain for their rights, their rights come from the Arbitration Award that settled the 1934 Strike, something they had nothing to do with.
#3 Page 1, lines 22-23: “TTI will be deprived of that benefit if its employees may circumvent that process.”
TTI will not be deprived of the benefits of the grievance process if 1 longshoreman is allowed to process his Small Claims Case over a matter not covered by the PCLCD. TTI does not explain how will be deprived, they just make their wild ass claim even though it is completely baseless.
#4 Page 1, line 24: “Mr. Martinez’s arguments present an inaccurate legal theory.”
The legal theory TTI claims is inaccurate comes from a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision, where in the Court agrees with the Union’s conclusion: “There are two kinds of grievances or complaints that an individual longshoreman is explicitly authorized to bring – a discrimination grievance under 17.4, and a grievance regarding job dispatching under 17.17.”
TTI failed to recognize or address the 9th Circuit Court Decision. westlaw-frazier-case
#5 Page 2, lines 7-9: “Indeed, the very authority Mr. Martinez supplied with the Letter recognizes that union-represented employees must take their grievances to the union, which will decide whether to pursue the grievances agains the employer.”
TTI’s lawyer failed to mention that Letter he is referring to is a 19 page Appeal submitted by Pacific Maritime Association, who is his Companies collective bargaining agent as it pertains to both the PCLCD and the PCWB&FA. PMA’s argument pertains to 1 worker filing a grievance against another, and PMA was appealing on behalf of an individual longshoreman.
PMA states only parties to the agreement have access to the grievance procedure, and the parties are the Union and the PMA.
Contrary to what TTI says, PMA stated “Individual workers generally cannot advance a grievance to arbitration.”
Why in the world would someone agree to file a complaint using a procedure where they do not have access to an arbitrator, over something not covered by the Agreement?
#6 Page 2, footnote (2): “TTI’s counsel is unable to locate the entire document from which Mr. Martinez excerpted the page attached to his letter.”
Here is the BIG LIE. TTI and SSA were both given copies of PMA’s Appeal as directed by the Small Claims Court Judge. If TTI lost their copy they could have asked SSA or PMA for a copy. Maybe TTI forgot PMA’s phone number?
#7 Page 3, lines 2-4: “Thus, Mr. Martinez must use the grievance process provided by the collective bargaining agreement that cover him.”
TTI fails to identify exactly what contract language would “cover” this situation, because there is none, because this situation is not “covered” by the collective bargaining agreement.
#8 Page 3, lines 5-7: “The requirement that union-represented employees take their grievances to their unions is not a flaw of collective bargaining, but rather a feature encouraged by Congress through the Labor Management Relations Act: …”
TTI’s quotes half a page of the LMRDA in support of his claim that Karey is required to submit his grievance to the Union, but he failed to notice that he said the feature is “encouraged” by Congress, not “required” by Congress, as he is claiming.
#9 Page 3, footnote (4): “Mr. Martinez’s Letter attaches a copy of his email to my firm and SSA’s counsel. Mr. Martinez, however, omitted the final sentence of his email to my firm and SSA’s counsel. He added: ‘ps Go f[*]ch yourselves.’ (See Email from Mr. Martinez (Declaration of Thomas A Lenz, Exh. 1).)”
TTI’s 8-year-old mentality lawyer submitted this exhibit, even though it has nothing to do with the case because he wanted to include the “final sentence” as he call it, or the “ps” as I wrote it, which was as he claims omitted from the email to his firm and SSA’s counsel, just so he could “tell” the Judge that Karey said go fuck yourselves. Funny thing is, it was me that put it in an email I sent to Karey as a haha moment. Ha ha….
The Judge has yet to rule on the Motions, as far as we know.
Or for those who prefer PDF: EC-0781-2016
