What kind of assholes mail a 13.3 hearing notification letter the day of the hearing?

Local 19’s Chief Ball Washer Rich Austin and his PMA buddy Doug Stearns.

On September 27, 2016, the original Section 13.3 discrimination complaint against the Local 19 dispatchers, for putting names on dispatch slips prior to the start of dispatch, was stopped by Rich Austin who refused to allow his member to be represented by another American/Mexican member, from Local 13.

On September 27, 2016, 2 letters were given to Doug Stearns; one asking for a copy of the 30-day rule for filing complaints in Seattle and one thanking him for agreeing to research the question of representation at discrimination hearings and providing him with CLRC Minutes from 1963 and 1984 as well as notes from the 1979 Arbitrators Conference.

To-date both Rich and Doug have refused to respond to the member regarding the question of his representation by another A-man during his Section 17.4 hearing, for his Section 13.3 discrimination, despite being assured by PMA that they would be getting back to him with an answer.

If a discrimination complaint filed under Section 13.2 allows a member to be represented by a Class A-man of his choosing, what possible reason could there be for denying members the right to be represented by a Class A-man of their choosing for their discrimination complaints, filed under Section 13.3, other than racism and a desire to frustrate members activity for or against the union?

Rich Austin and Doug Stearns intentionally failed to notify the member regarding the question of representation by another A-man during his Section 17.4 hearing, prior to rescheduling his hearing, and intentionally failed to notify him in a timely manner of his rescheduled hearing, and now they get to explain why to the NLRB.

nlrb-19-cb-189424-local-19

nlrb-19-ca-189562-pma

Or for those who prefer PDF format: nlrb-19-cb-189424-local-19 & nlrb-19-ca-189562-pma.

What the hell do these guys think they are doing?

More to come………

 

0Shares