Don’t know what Bobby O Jr. was thinking when he decided to take the microphone at last nights Union Meeting to tell lies and talk trash about members who were not there, including the daughter of a deceased member who has been trying to get registered as a Child of Deceased for the last 7 years.
Read her statement and decide for yourself who is telling the truth:
“My name is Jennifer Risler, daughter of deceased member Thomas Risler #34072.
After my father’s death I submitted a timely request for registration under the permissive rule in September 2008, within 30 days of my father’s death.
The paperwork I submitted included my father’s death certificate, my birth certificate, and an affidavit of sole support, which I had filled out.
For the last 7 years, I have been working as casual and trying to find out why I was denied.
Harry Dong provided me redacted set of CLRC minutes from CLRC meeting #1-09, showing my request was denied, but the CLRC minutes do not say why I was denied.
I entitled to know why my request was denied. For the last 7 years, every Local 13 Official I spoke with gave me the run around and refused to tell me why my request had been denied.
Recently, a friend of my father’s told me I should contact Jim Tessier, the guy who runs the longshore-labor-relations.com website.
It was immediately obvious to him, when he saw that the affidavit of sole support had filled out by me, instead of my mother, that I had a problem and needed an affidavit of sole support from my mother.
He said he did not understand why the PMA and/or Local 13 did not point that out to me at the time.
He asked me to get a notarized affidavit of sole support from my mother, which I did within a couple of hours.
He then introduced me to Eric Aldape who took me to meet with Luke Hollingsworth, Local 13 LRC representative, and we gave him all my documents, including the proper affidavit of sole support from my mother, and asked him to help me correct the error and get me registered, or give me an answer for my denial, in writing.
Luke was in San Francisco last week and said he looked into my case.
On August 25, 2015, Luke Hollingsworth told Eric that he had taken the information to San Francisco, and that the reason I was denied had something to do with my mother being divorced from my father at the time of his death.
Luke also said, he was not going to give me anything in writing.
Luke said the best he could do would be to give me Ray’s phone number, and I could talk to him.
Attached are CLRC minutes showing a man who was denied in 1973, and again in 1979, because his claim was untimely, but he was registered in 1986.
Attached are 2 sets of CLRC minutes showing the “stepson” of a deceased longshoreman being registered under the permissive rule.
Attached is a recent set of CLRC minutes showing an error made in processing a Southern California son’s application for permissive registration, but it was corrected and he was registered.
Women (daughters) are not treated the same as the sons, including stepsons.
The Union wants to question my father’s marital status, which is not mentioned anywhere in item 7 Permissive Rule Application to Children of Deceased, and ignore the fact I provided a corrected affidavit from my mother stating that I am the sole support of my deceased father’s family; because I am a woman.
Men, including stepsons, are given every consideration under the sun, while women are denied and not even given a reason for the denial.
I am claiming the union’s actions are discriminatory based on gender.
I demand the error made related to my mother’s affidavit of sole support be corrected, in light of the affidavit of sole support from my mother dated July 27, 2015, in the same manor that has been be afforded to sons.
I have been told there are at least 10 cases where the son’s of longshoremen who were divorced at the time of their deaths, have been registered under the permissive rule.
The union made an error. They and/or the JPLRC need to to correct it, just like they would if I was one of their sons.
To not do so, is discrimination based on gender.
To not do so is also a violation of Section 13.3, as discriminatory application of a rule.
The clear and unambiguous language of Rule 7 Permissive Rule Application to Children of Deceased, says nothing about marital status; it only addresses the need for a notarized document of sole support, which I have provided.”
ILWU/PMA Arbitrator Jan Holmes denied Jennifer’s Section 13.2 claim and said that her grievance should be processed under Section 13.3.
Jennifer filed her Section 13.3 grievance yesterday.
Is the Union really going to fight this and open the Child of Deceased closet for everyone to see all the skeletons?
Ask Bobby O Jr., he is the one shooting his mouth off about Jennifer, and claiming Eric is trying to get rid of the Child of Deceased rule.
Chug, chug, chug…….
Just so you know, the PMA can step up any time they want and fix this themselves, if they want to.
It is sad that the companies that Jennifer’s dad used to work for just sat on their thumbs, while Local 13’s Union Men beat down one of their Foreman’s (Rapid Fire’s) daughter.
The guys that ran PMA when I worked their, including me, would never have let this happen. But that is why I am not there.
Kind of funny that 30 years after Linda came to me and said Local 23 told her the permissive rule only applied to sons, Jennifer contacted me with a nearly identical situation. Linda got registered, and so will Jennifer.
At this point, the PMA, Local 13, and Big Bob just need to decide whether they want to do it the easy way, or the hard way. Their choice.