«
. The Union of Federated Correction Officers Associatign B2
WHO ARE WE AND WHAT ARE WE DOING [ FEB2 71984
iSswmemiovt
. : AFSCME AFL-CIO
TUFCO Union, (The Union of Federated Correction Officers) is an independent
association formed for the purpose of unseating Council 82 as the bargaining agent for
the New York State Securities Services Bargaining Unit including State Correction
Officers.
The reason we have formed a new union to challenge Council 82 is because
Council 82 cannot be challenged from within. It is ruled by an elite, and controlled by
a relatively small group of people. The average member does not have a direct vote
as to who runs Council 82, This decision is made by a select few. The challenge is
being made through TUFCO Union, an independent union, because that is the only way
that a member can effectuate meaningful change.
And let us speak for a moment about union solidarity and loyalty. Ask yourself
this question "should you be loyal to a union that has been disloyal to you?" Lets not
put the cart before the horse. A union is established for the benefit of its members,
Members do not exist for the benefit of the union. If a union cannot serve its
members, then it has been disloyal to them, Council 82 has broken its covenant with
its membership. And now those who would seek meaningful change are characterized
as "a misguided clique of malcontents".
By supporting TUFCO Union, you are not being disloyal to Council 82, You are
being loyal to yourself.
This challenge is being made for the following reasons:
1 Council 82 has lost touch with its members.
2. Council 82 dues, are excessive, $224.00 a year, what do you really get
for your money?
3. Council 82 is controlled by a chosen few, thus excluding the rank and
file from meaningful input into the workings of the Union,
YIWVGV C4 p=
4, Council 82 has proven itself to be a passive Union which has nét
delivered the specialized representation that is required for the
specialized needs of the correction officers and Securities Personnel.
De The representation provided by Council 82 on the local level has been
inconsistent and passive.
6. Council 82 has failed to deliver the best possible package of benefits for
its members,
Te Council 82 has failed to provide adequate wages and benefits for those
correction officers with less service.
WHY DO WE KNOW WE CAN DO A BETTER JOB?
Just consider the following facts:
1. TUFCO Union is led by a dedicated group of correction officers with
many years of union service.
2 TUFCO Union can serve you better within its dues structure because it
is an independent union which does not have to send vast sums of money
to a national of international union,
3. TUFCO Union has established a streamlined legal structure which will
improve the quality service on the local level, and will guarantee a
democratic one man - one vote system of union government, The system
will be an open system controlled by the members themselves, not a
chosen elite.
4, TUFCO Union is structured as 4 specialized union, a union which can
provide for the specialized needs of a specialized group such as security
and correction personnel. It is not controlled by a distant bureaucracy
which must consider the interest of many other unions all over the
country.
5. TUFCO Union provides (in its union charter) a comprehensive system of
local representation to be staffed by professional business agents. In
addition, TUFCO's union format is such that there will be frequent
access and communication between the locals and Union Headquarter a
Albany.
6. TUFCO Union can provide, thanks to its professional staff of mx
attorneys, certified public accountants, and pension consultants, @
comprehensive program of insurance coverage and other benefits at great
savings to the membership.
re TUFCO Union's will be sensitive to the needs of all of its membe'ss
regardless of length of service or rank,
hese
In this publication, and in other publications to follow, we will explore 1
facts in detail. Council 82 obviously is uncomfortable as this challenge period
approaches. You can tell by the savage nature in which our organization, and those
- t}
dedicated people who serve it were attacked in the November issue of Council 82's
and
newspaper, The Review. This will not stop us from making our position known,
setting the record straight. We are up to the challenge.
ADDITIONAL BENEFITS TO BE PROVIDED BY TUFCO UNION
F " . “Te
A union has a duty to negotiate the best possible contract with the emp!y°
However, the union's responsibility does not stop there. Much more can be don, and
it can be done independently from any restrictions imposed by an employer.
TUFCO Union has developed a detailed program of benefits which wil! a
provided in addition to those benefits provided by the State contract. Specifical!/» wily
+44VC
will establish the following programs independent of the contract once we
unseated Council 82:
le TUFCO Union will provide you with an attorney to represent you
major disciplinary proceedings. In the past, it has been the correction <7’
tee al
who has been at a disadvantage. It seems there is no limit to
=
representation that the State can provide itself, nor is there a shortage of
attorneys to represent inmates. By providing you legal counsel, we will even
the odds, and we will get the word out that we are not to be taken lightly.
2 TUFCO Union will provide a professional outside negotiator at contract
time in order to present the most comprehensive negotiating package possible,
All too often in the past Council 82 has been outgunned and outmanned by
experts who have provided service to the State, It is time that professional
expertise is provided on our side for a change. A professional negotiator cannot
only offer a strong proposal for negotiations but he can formulate a specific
and constructive plan as to where the State can find the money to fund our
contract.
ss TUFCO Union will establish a statewide "disaster fund" in order to assist
correction officers and their families who are in need, It is high time that your
Union stand behind its members in the event of medical emergency, financial
stress and personal tragedy. A committee will be established to review
potential recipients and it will be their job to see to it that you and your
families will never stand alone in your hour of need.
4, TUFCO Union will establish a system of Educational Scholarships so as to
assist your children in gaining a college education, Several annual scholarships
will be made available on both a need basis and achievement basis all over the
state. A committee will be formed in order to evaluate applicants and to
supervise the scholarship procedure.
5. TUFCO Union will provide its members with a statewide prepaid legal
program, This program will provide group rates for legal representation on a
wide range of legal services. Such a program will guarantee you legal
representation by a competent attorney practicing in your area at reasonable
rates. This representation will include real estate transactions, family law
issues, traffic law, civil matters, etc. All attorneys participating in the
program will be answerable to TUFCO Union so as to assure first rate
representation and good service for members.
6. TUFCO Union will provide a comprehensive program of tax and
retirement planning services. This service will provide you with information
regarding your employee benefits, income tax reduction through careful
planning, insurance, wills and trusts, inheritances, investments, and retirement
planning. This confidential service will help you keep more of your hard earned
money now and will help you plan for your future retirement by utilizing
legitimate tax planning techniques. It will also help to guarantee your family's
financial security.
7. TUFCO Union will provide lower rates for life insurance and disability
insurance. This will be accomplished by constantly monitoring the ever changing
insurance market, and by providing the best coverage possible at any given
point in time.
8 TUFCO Union will undertake a comprehensive public relations campaign
designed to enhance the status of correction officers and security personnel.
This will be done not only through the media, but our locals will be active in
community programs as well. Such Union public relations campaigns have been
successful for other professions (most notably school teachers in 1983). It is
time your Union took an active role in broadcasting your dedicated work and
achievements to the community.
95 Our Computer System
The grievance system with Council 82 is a complete disaster. The same
grievances at two different facilities are given opposite answers, and the same
grievance at still another facility is given still another answer.
Labor Management agreements that are agreed to at one facility are
refused at another.
Examples such as these are widespread throughout the State. Under our
system everything will be computerized, This will allow for uniform application
of the contract and all agreements.
Our system will also allow us a vast bank of information to be used
during negotiations.
Computerizing will allow your local union representative all and any
pertinent information needed in grievances, discipline, and local labor-
management meetings,
10. Elections
Over the last 14 years, the membership of Council 82 has had very little control
over who runs their union, With The Union Of Federated Correction Officers,
you the member will determine who will run your Union. There will be no doubt
who controls your Union under The Union Of Federated Correction Officers,
because our by-laws call for a one man one vote State-wide election for our
State-wide leadership.
You may well say that these programs sound good, but where will the money
come from to pay for them? The answer is simple. Because TUFCO Union is an
independent union, it does not have to charge its members high fees which are destine
for the AFL-CIO or any other national organization. Almost $500,000.00 of your
dollars are spent in this fashion every year. This $500,000.00 can be utilized for the
programs which we propose, and there will be money to spare,
During the next severa! months, representatives from the Union Of Federated
Correction Officers, will be visiting your facility holding informational meetings, and
asking you to sign petition cards,
We urge you to talk with our representatives and attend our informational
meetings to satisfy any of the questions you may have.
You can also write:
The Union of Federated Correction Officers
Box 310
Hudson Falls, NY 12839
The petition cards will be used to secure an election to determine who will be
your bargaining agent.
All the Union Of Federated Correction Officers representatives will have
petition cards, just ask them for one!
TUFCO MEETING
es
Howard Johnson, Syracuse, N.Y.
FEBRUARY 20, 1984
PM-10:45PM
INFORMATIONAL MEETING:
An informational flier was passed out and then an open
discussion took place.
1. Council 82 has kicked back $5.5 million to AFSCME over
15 years and the return has been zero.
2. Presently TUFCO would gain $500,000 a year not being a
member of AFSCME. Money to invest and grow into Union benefits
for the members.
3. Major discipline is a Notice of Discipline requesting
dismissal. Then an attorney will be available.
4. Contract stays in tact and in force 100%. Then after April
‘st, the Triborough Bridge doctrine keeps the contract in force
until a new agreement is reached.
5. TUFCO has 30% of the required number of signatures for a
challenge. But we want 70% to guarantee a vote because Council
82 will try anything to stop us. The signature card must be
signed and collected immediately. No one is allowed to keep a
card. Council 82 must not know who signed a card. The cards
have a printer's mark so Council 82 can not make counterfeits
and if they do we can sue.
6. By October lst the challenge will be over and then if Council
82 wins then we go back into the brotherhood and wait until
next time.
7. Dues will remain the same, the By-laws allow dues increases
based on contract % increases.
8. Can I get a copy of the By-laws and constitution? No.
You're not a member. Second, Constitution and By-laws are 89
pages long and printing costs are too much at this time for the
Union to pay out. Do you have a copy of Council 82's By-laws
and Constitution? Yes. You're lucky. We have to be very careful
to show what is concrete and what our goals are.
9. Organization breakdown:
1. Divide the state into 4 regions.
2. Open regional offices.
3. Regional Executive Boards os, will meet once a month.
Each region will have a budget. Per capita payments will be made
to the regional office. Regional offices will make payments to
locals to operate and will make investments. All trips to Albany
will be paid by the regional office on a voucher system. Someone
from Albany will be at regional meetings to inform and hear complaints.
A monthly paper will let the members know who was there and what
information was presented, making everyone accountable.
4. Chief Steward will be elected on a facility wide basis.
He will be the Union's business agent. The Union will pay the
state his salary so he will be excused to do Union work 8 hours
a day.
5. Regional offices will have staff, and members can go
directly to regional office for information on benefits, grievances,
etc.
Li]
6. A computer system will tie all grievances and labor/
managements together statewide. The system will show presidents
and chief stewards how to write grievances up.
10. One-man, one-vote puts the members in control. Members
will also have a say when it comes to issues dealing with the
Director and Associate Director. Like in the case with Burke
taking over Council 82 and installing Chase after he was dismissed.
What say did the members have?
11. If you have any questions, write us. You have our address.
Meeting conducted by Fitzpatrick, Morrissey and Farrell were
present. Total number of people present was ll. Facilities
present were Pharsalia, Georgetown, Auburn, and Watertown.
Security and Law Enforcement Employees Council 82
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO
63 COLVIN AVENUE, ALBANY, N.Y. 12206 PHONE 518/489-8424
March 8, 1984
Ms. Georgie T. Rucker
Elmira Postmaster
Industrial Park Boulevard
Elmira, New York 14901
Dear Ms. Rucker:
I recently spoke on the phone with your post office
concerning the Bulk Rate Permit No. 13, registered in
Elmira, New York and it came to my attention that this
permit was registered to the American Agriculturist
Foundation.
However, recently, this permit was used for a mailing
by:
"TUFCO Inc.
N. Country Ins. Agency
9 Pearl Street
Glens Falls, N.Y. 12801"
Nowhere, on the envelope or in the five page letter mailed
by TUFCO Inc., was the American Agriculturist Foundation
mentioned. Under these circumstances, TUFCO Inc.'s use of
the bulk mail permit in order to obtain a preferential
mailing rate was highly improper and a clear violation of
postal law and regulations. Accordingly, I am filing this
complaint.
I have enclosed both a copy of the envelope and the
literature which was mailed by TUFCO Inc. On behalf of
Council 82, AFSCME, I request that you institute an investi-
gation concerning TUFCO Inc.'s use of this bulk mail permit,
and take appropriate legal action.
I look forward to discussing this issue with you
further, and I would be glad to provide you with further
background information.
Very truly yours,
be j
(Bestel. Xabur
Christopher H. Gardner
Associate Counsel
CHG/dmf
cc: John W. Burke
Richard Bischert
Joseph Puma
LU ee he ee J
4
ut bana pe kata deal
pty
3
N.Y. 1
3535
— Ameri cars Ae rice/ type
(chars Ps 4eze)
VaeelDaberMabeaMasestordestell
The United Gederation of Correction Officers, Ine.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS P.O. BOX 72
Sie ee HUDSON FALLS, NEW YORK
DENNIS J. FITZPATRICK 12839
JAMES P. MORRISEY (518) 792-3535
KEVIN W. CASEY
BRUCE J. FARRELL
MARION L. DANTZLER
TUFCO: "WORKING FOR YOU - - ITS MEMBER"
Disability and loss of time from the job is usually
unforseen. Still the costs: for.living go on and -these
costs go up each year.
A strong DISABILITY INCOME PLAN, to meet these living
expenses, is essential.
We have endorsed a DISABILITY product that covers both
ACCIDENT AND SICKNESS LOST TIME TO AGE 65. NOT for one year;
NOT with a decreasing percentage of benefit BUT 100% OF WHAT
YOU SELECT PAYABLE TO AGE 65 IF YOUR DISABILITY CONTINUES
TO THAT TIME.
NOW THAT'S THE KIND OF PROTECTION YOU NEED AND DESERVE.
For more information call our HOT LINE collect (518)792-3535
right now.
PROTECT YOUR FUTURE. Call today or drop us a note and
ask for all the facts. There's no obligation.
TUFCO: “WORKING FOR YOU - - ITS MEMBER".
Fraternally Yours,
Dennis F
President-TUFCO
P.S. We also endorsed a $1,000,000 medical program with a
$25,000 deductible to go with your GHI program for
maximum protection and savings for you.
‘THE UNITED FEDERATION OF CORRECTION OFFICERS INC.
Setting The Kecord Straight: As you all snow, TUFCO,Inc. has come under
attack in the "Review". council 82's official publication. Everyone recognizes
that there are political reasons tor this attack. However, we would like to
respond so as to set the record straight. Tne United Federation of Correction
O:ficers, Inc. (TUFCO, Inc.) was incorporated under New York State Law as a
Not-ror-Proiit Fraternal Benerit Corporation. The purposes of the organization,
as stated in the by-laws, is to provide for the mutual fraternal, social, cultural,
and moral advancement of any correction oificer who wishes to join. We have
also worked to provide iife insurance and disability benefits for our members at
a cost which was substantially lower than that offered by Council 82. Our efforts
have been warmly received by the rank and iile, and we currently can boast of
over 150 new members, Joining our ranks ( Monthly ) . Council 82 hes attempted
"bo blur tne separate existence of TUFCO, Inc. in an effort to create confusion
among correction officers, -This is because of the pending union representation
challange being mounted by the Union of Federated Correction Officers Association.
Dennis Fitzpatrick, James Morrissey, Kevin Casey, Bruce Farrell and Marion Dantzler
have established a new union in order to mount the representation fight against
Council 82. They have done this at the request of correction officers all over
the state who believe strongly that Council 82 has lost touch with it's members
and that a new independent union can provide better representation at substantially
less cost to the Correction Officer. TUFCO, Inc. has been and always will bea
fraternal, nonpolitical organization. It has seperate books, accounts, legal
identity and accounting records. Your TUFCO, Inc. dues will not_ be utilized
by any other organization. TUFCO, Inc. is not empowered to become a union, nor
will it ever become one. TUFCO, Inc. will continue to provide service to it's
members regardless of the outcome of any union representation challenge conducted
by any organization. Council 82 has made a host of personal attacks against the
TUFCO, Inc. directors. In the November issue of the"Review" they implied that
the founders of TUFCO, Inc. have personal gain as their motive. This is totally
untrue as anyone who has worked with us can attest. Council 82 has attacked our
VEBA Trust Fund ( Voluntary Employee Benefit Association ) on the basis that one
can do better in any IRA or retirement plan. They are not comparing apples to
apples. A VEBA can provide life insurance and other benefits, and the earnings
in the trust are tax deferred. Section 501ic (9) of the Internal Revenue Code
allows such a trust fund so that everyday people like you and me can pool our
purchasing power and obtain group rates on a wide range of benefits that we don't
have to wait until retirement to enjoy. A VEBA is not even designated to provide
retirement benefits as a review of the Tax Law reveals. Council 82 has also
attacked the vacation package we have given to our members," That vacation package
was the subject of litigation by the New York State Attorney General". It seems
that someone at Council 82 goofed. The pending lawsuit is against a totally
unrelated organization! Mr. Joseph DeFalco, President of V.I.P. Vacations of
New York has demanded a retraction from Council 82, or he will institute a legal
action for liable! On another topic, any TUFCO, Inc. member can arrange to see
a copy of our by-laws with Dennis Fitzpatrick or James: Morrissey. We are proud
of our organization. We have nothing to hide. We also wish to point out that
our accountants, Arthur Place & Co., CPA, and our tax Attorney, Jeffrey H. Brozyna,
have seen to it that all necessary reports and filings heve or are being made
with the appropriate agencies and taxing authorities. In the months ahead, TUFCO, Inc.
will no doubt be unfairly attacked by Council 82. Despite the non-political
nature of TUFCO, Inc., we will respond in writing to any distortions or attacks
and we will continue to set the record straight.
MARCH OF DIMES WALKATHON A EIG SUCCESS: In April of this year the Board of
Directors were asxed to help in the March of Dimes Walkathon. Our members
responded with enthusiam and generosity, pledging money and working on check
points during the walx. TUCO, Inc. publicly challanged any team of runners
to a contest on what team could raise the most money based on pledges for
their runners. TUFCO, Inc. supplied the Trophy to the winners. Our team
fell short of winning the Trophy but the challenge proved to be profitable
for the March of Dimes. TUFCO, Inc. runners ran the entire 15 miles. They
were: John LaValley, Neal Sokol, Harold Austin, Jeffrey Corbin and Jerry Buell.
The March of Dimes raised over $70,000.00 in the Capital District and we are
pleased we had a part in making the fund raiser for the March of Dimes a success.
Doug Williams, Wayne LaFrance, Don Hall, William Gosline, Richard Rodriguez,
Larry Ginter, Robert Lennox deserve a big thanks.
OFFICE ESTABLISHED: TUFCO, Inc. has established an office at 9 Pearl St.
Glens Falls, N.Y. 12801. Our members can now call collect 518-792-3535 for
inguires for any or all insurance needs. Homeowners, Car Ins., Disability Ins.,
Hospital Indemnity, Veba Trust, etc.. Hours of operation are 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m,
Monday. thru Friday.
MEMBERSHIPS DUES DUE IN-JANUARY: -All members whe joined TUFCO, Inc. before
Oct. 1, 1963, will be required to pay their membership dues in January 1984.
We will be sending you notice along with your new membership card. Your dues
are only £10.00 annually and we are working on a very tight budget, your coop-
eration in this matter will be appreciated.
TRIEUTE TO ANTON "BUTCH" GEERTS: One ot our Brother members was recently killed
in a tragic car accident . Butch was ea family man, a 16 year Veteran in the
U.S.N.R. SeaBees and an excellent Correction Officer. Our Hearts and Prayers
are out to his family in this time of sadness. God Bless You.
NEWS WANTED: Items of interest, notible events, individual accomplishments,
want to sell something, services offered.— Mail them to TUFCO, Inc. P.O. Box 72,
Hudson Falls, N.Y. 12829. we will publish in our next issue.
VACATION PACKAGES ARE A BIG HIT: Many ot our members utilized the V.I.P. Vacation
packages we sent out, just for being a member of TUFCO, Inc.. we have received
many compliments on the accomodations and treatment they received during their
stay at the resort of their choice. We intend to expand this program next year
for our members. The cost of providing this benefit is expensive but it is well
worth the cost. when our members can take a mimi-vacation where accomodations
are paid in full and in some cases meals are provided free. We all need to get
away from the daily routine and what better way to go, on someone else.
SOLID GOLD VOLUME II CONCERT HELD: TUFCO, Inc. entered into the world of Show
Business when we sponsored an evening of Solid Gold Volume II at the Colonie
Coliseum, Oct. ist, 1983. Groups trom the fifties and sixties entertained to
the delight of 1700 in the audience. The groups who performed were; Street
Corner Séciety, an Acappella group, willie winfield and the Harptones, who got
the crowd reminiscing when they sang one of their hits: ( Gee whiz ). The
Mystics stole the show. They were scheduled to be on stage for only 30 minutes,
but the crowd went wild and would not let them leave. They ended up performing
for over an hour. Larry Chance and The Earls got the crowd going again when
he went into the audience looking for singers, The song was appropriate: "
Charlie Brown " ( why is everybody always picking on me ). We were surprised
on how many talented Correction Officers there are. Herbie Cox and The Cleftones
finished up a most successfull show. A good time was had by all. Our hats are
oF: to Robert Doll a Correction Officer at Mt. McGregor, who promoted the show.
He cid an excelient job. w«e are planning to sponsor another show in May or June,
possibly featuring Eobby Rydell, Leslie Gore and The Shirrels. We will keep
you ported.
LOCAL LODGES BEING FORMED: Local Lodges have been formed at Great Meadow,
"yt. McGregor and Auburn. Zlections have been held and Lodge Officers have been
seated. Local Lodges will be established at Downstate, Green Haven, Mid-Orange,
Adirondack, Long Island, Bedford Hills, Taconic, Hudson and Fishkill in the
very near future. Lodge # 1 consisting of Great Meadow and Mt. McGregor's
number one priorty is to build a Lodge centrally located between the two
facilities. They are putting together a package necessary to be presented to
a Financial backer. The building proposed is a steel building 80 X 100 with
a full cellar. The contents will consist of a lounge, banquet hall, complete
nautilis. sauna, racket ball court, etc.. shen completed it will be used exclus-
ively by it's members and their families. Lodge #1 had a Christmas Dance at
the Ramada Inn, Lake George, N.Y. featuring Bobby Dick and The Sundowners.
Free Beer and a hot Hors D;eouvres buffet. The proceeds went directly to Lodge
#1 to be used as a down payment for the property needed for their future building.
Local Lodge # 2 - Auburn, recently held their first lodge meeting and there
were over 100 members in attendance. President Minehold gave a brief summary
of what was being proposed at Lodge #1, The membership voted to follow suit.
NEW BENEFIT ESTABLISHED: TUTF'CO, Inc. has been working very hard to secure
meaningful benefits for i1t"s members. The cost of retaining an Attorney can
be devastating. ith that in mind, we ‘sought out understandings with many
Law Firms throughout the State. We are pleased to announce that we can now
direct you to Law Firms who will offer concessions on legal Fees, on specified
common legal problems. This would include consultations, House Closing, Civil
Suites, Motor Veichle infractions, Wills, etc.. We will be sending you a complete
list of the Firms along with their address and phone numbers. All you are
required to do is show your TUFCO, Inc. membership card to be eligable for the
concessions being offered. Please retain the listings when sent, it could be
quite valuable to you. :
DISABILITY INSURANCE WELL RECEIVED: It took TUFCO, Inc. about 6 months to find
an Insurance Company that would write the in depth Disability Insurance coverage
we wanted for our members. Fortunately we were able to find a company who
could offer the comprehensive coverage needed particular in our line of work.
Our members can now receive 1st day coverage for an accident both on and off
the job. This benefit is payable to age 65, it does not have a one year
limitation. Sickness coverage requires a 14 day waiting period but it also is
payable to age 65. The cost is competitive to other programs being offered,
but in our opinion there is no comparison to the coverage.
VEBA TRUST REACHES 6 MILLION: The death benefit of the Veba Trust has reached
the 6 million plateau. Many oi our members have enrolicd in the Veba Trust
and enrollment continues to grow at a rapid rate. We anticipate the death
benefit to reach 10 million in our first year. Many members who are drawing
near to retirement have looked into the advantages of the Veba Trust and have
saved a considerable amount of money. Money becomes precious when you are on
a fixed income and the more you can tree up to use now the better off you are
in the future. Our younger members have certainly taken advantage of the Veba
Trust. If you haven't looked into it, taxe the time to do so. Call collect
tor an appointment: 516-792-3535.
QUOTA PHONE SAVES MONEY: TUFCO, Inc. is an independent agent of Sentinel Motor
Club. One of the advantages of belonging to Sentinel is Quota Phone, a buying
service that definately saves you money. Mery members have used Quota Phone
and have saved many dollars on various merchandise. What they have saved in
buying through Quota Phone, more than paid ior their membership in Sentinel.
Membership in Sentinel is £45.00 a year. You really can't €o0 wrong.
IHAT'S IN A NAME?: WIN A $100.00 SAVINGS BOND: You tell us, our paper must
have a name. ne are offering a £100.00 Savings Bond to the member who's name
submitted is selected. Send your suggestion to TUFCO, Inc., P.O. Box 72
Hudson Falls, N.Y. 12839. (Members only are eligable). Diréctors and their
families are not eligable.
SPONSOR A BROTHER OFFICER: Have him fill in the application below today to
become a member of TUrCO, Inc.. Mail it to TUFCO, Inc. P.O. Box 72, Hudson
Falis, N.Y. 12839.
e 4 e ° e 4 .
JUST JOIN T.U.F.C.O. INC.
for the Unbelievable price of $10.00
r ') i r ‘Te @ 4 4 6 ew}, ‘
THE UNITED FEDERATION
I HEREBY APPLY FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED FEDERATION OF CORRECTION OFFICERS INC., AND
AGREE TO CONFORM TO THE BYLAWS OR ANY AMENDMENTS THEREOF IN THE UNITED FEDERATION OF
CORRECTION OFFICERS INC. I AGREE TO PAY AN ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEE OF $10.00.
Last Name First Name. M. I.
Street Address, City State Zip
Place of Employment Home Phone
Signature, Date
Yes I Would Like To Hear More About The Veba Trust. Age
Please Send Me More Details On The Motor Club.
OF CORRECTION OFFICERS INC.
IMPROVEMENTS BY COUNCIL 82
brief look at the positive improvements by Council 82 in the past year:
Health insurance for our members was finalized with small cost
increases for our members.
Optical plan a first to all our members.
Training seminars for Union leaders were conducted state-wide.
O.S.H.A. upheld Council 82 position on outdated tear gas in many
correction facilities.
Council 82 was the first Union to protest the actions of the State
concerning A.I.D.S. inmates.
Council 82 filed O.S.H.A. complaints on A.I.D.S.
Strike fines returned to 278 of our members.
More field staff hired to lessen the work load and expand Council
services (total of eight).
Legislation assistant hired on a full time basis.
Public relations specialist hired on a full time basis whose duties
also include the full responsibility for the Council 82 Review.
Legal assistants hired to assist our three full time attorneys.
As a result of Council 82 actions on "overcrowding", the State
continues to expand and has increased the funding by the legislature.
On the legislative side, the Council did support Cuomo for Governor.
The fruits of this was shown when we needed a message of necessity
by the Governor, otherwise correction officers would have been
left out completely by the legislature for Tier III retirement
improvements.
Legislation by the Council on Long Island Correctional Facility was
not passed, but with lobbying efforts and continued pressure, the
deadline has been extended to October 1, 1984. (Court action possi-
ble.)
Council 82 will be expanding the Legislative Action Committee's
concept state-wide to all locals.
Council 82, through negotiations with The Governor's Office of
Employee Relations, reduced the impact of lay-offs within our units.
Council 82's negotiations with The Governor's Office of Employee
Relations also upgraded the starting salary and six month salary
for trainees in the Department of Correctional Services from
$12,580 to $14,200, 6 months $15,000.
Many more improvements are forthcoming in the future. The Council
has expanded their office space, will be putting in a computer
operation April of 1984, starting a retiree chapter for former
employees, and several other concepts are being discussed for
further improvements to our members (i.e., Scholarship Fund,
Death Benefit Insurance, Awards Program, Phone Bank System for
Legislative Committees) .
Deferred pay arbitration continues and will probably be finalized
this summer.
A consulting firm, Arthur Young Associates, was selected for our
reclassification study.
Legal action continues on the Military Leave issue.
The E.A.P. Program and Q.W.L. continue to grow and improve.
Establishment of a Camps Training Advisory Committee.
Establishment of Labor/Management Committees for the Department of
Correctional Services Training Academy.
Establishment of E.A.P. Advisor for new hires of the Department
of Correction Services.
Another request for 1984 to upgrade correction officer trainees
to GR 14 hiring rate.
New N.O.D. Procedure for disciplines.
Professor Peter Wickham's survey of correction officers' attitudes.
Training tape on A.I.D.S. with a doctor from Alanta Disease Control
Center.
Worker's compensation day 1 coverage.
Seniority and job bidding provisions intact.
Five personal leave days for new hires.
Thirteen sick leave days for new hires.
Time and attendance cases are still processed under Article 8 of
the Contract.
New York State/Council 82 Quality of Work Life has funded the
following improvements to the members of Council 82:
1. Employee Activity Centers
2. Weight lifting equipment
3. Officers mess equipment and furnishings
4. Air conditioning and ventilation
5. Officer locker rooms
6. Showers for officers
7. Athletic equipment (teams and individuals)
8. Health and stress programs
9. Police Olympus (correction officer participation)
10. Kitchen equipment
ll. Microwave ovens and refrigerators for hot meals
12. Driver training (reduces insurance rates and removes marks
on license)
13. Pavilions
14. Picnic areas
15. Athletic ball fields
16. Employee recreation areas
17. Employee housing
18. Hostage Survival Training
19. Hazardous Device Training
20. Labor Management Seminars
21. Health Risk Appraisal
22. Slide presentation to improve the correction officers' image
23. Exercise programs
24. Food coops
25. E.A.P. assistance
26. Ongoing programs to inhance the working conditions and
image of all employees
This list is a random sampling of funded projects.
|
COMPARE THESE BENEFITS WITH TUFCO
|
|
Security and Law Enforcement Employees Council 82
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO
63 COLVIN AVENUE, ALBANY, N.Y. 12206 PHONE 518/489-8424
March 15, 1984
Mr. Thomas Hartnett
Director
Governor's Office of
Employee Relations
Agency Building #2
Empire State Plaza
Albany, New York 12223
Dear Tom:
Enclosed please find information pertaining to
T.U.F.C.0O. activities at Fishkill Correctional Facility.
The documentation is self-explanatory and as you
can see the activities of the named individuals are in
violation of the Taylor Law. This type of activity is
going on at other facilities and it should be immediately
stopped.
By way of this letter I am demanding that the Governor's
Office of Employee Relations stop this violation of law
immediately.
Sincerely,
Ui) bherhe—
ohn W. Burke
Executive Director
JWB/dmf
Encs.
cc: Commissioner Thomas A. Coughlin, III
COUNCIL 82
| | os |
Ce
AFSCME AFL-CIO - —
Dyck : :
eee dot A QUST ON fA b0at The CONTRACT
Thar Would Ke Cleaned op Gefoa. 7.
Comes Up. .Ir /Nuolves SEsT/0n [1.7 olangevitg
(agmen®) _L Assume Thar S'euniry CRs €
Cinit to A TERM Cohiek CovERS ALzZ Job Trrleo |
title Ca eberce 2 Fz ber “Te Term /5 Alar defined |
As ke CONTRACT~ 600k, Lf ASSume TAarT OoRr
|
|
|
Payee! OFFICE Ldili_ CLaim Thar 77 ONL Yeliea
70 Jobs Covered Fy Coenecrion.
TO ~SrmeTet tyr7k NY Se on JAW. 16, 197S~ V3)
A Salers OFFICER , ZOCAL 7790. T- Worked Fok
Sarery UNTiS Flug C3 (RS - The Nexr Pag.
Semrrel FoR Coreecrios. —L° Liu Aave 70 Jaw
ON Yann 16 (78S And beliue ZL Should Kee1ie
A fougesiry PAgnEnT E CAUS ¢ SAgeeTy /5 Cavered _
64 Councet 2, Cute JOH Pease Snawt me A |
erter. Thar DL Coule Gui To Ag Rell (aR.
“This GEAR Lee An £20GkT |
ST Assure peu know Fhere Aas been A
/ o> OF Aerteti CON CERN AS OE. C0. AT
Ab ih on Once, De, LAD Eve Kas bough TKem Yo
A Cipriow (MEET LHF, fag Ther (it Cuz DIC(ULER ~
Sky CARds Cre. ase (week ke And? SCyqea/
GY20/F¥ Oe fe&e Dace <€ 46 2) BtocKhee
GTkees _ eRe JASSI® 4 Our CALMS CAMIAS
For A. Clecriin beTwees acy FS te
Ti@.F-C6. DL Was Fld That TE bins =
One oF only A feu Thar Refased Te gn
A C4. have Seens 7 be 4 Gkear aay
OF (NTRESTH /R 0 7U- F220 hen. And =
belise 4r Would Be Grse For Coumeis §2 7
Py Ano Ba Sore he25 TO Counter _ sT.. (har
CAN OR Coed Aagves, Lotw There Ce Aw
C/EETION , s£So_ Uskes. IP Tke_/w7REIT_AT
AO iRonD acK 7S Ty fecal ihexs Chomez/ Fel
Aiiel Gberter Ger PLL» 9 AT TRy ig. 70
[MP 20ve Tens /Mase, Th Avs eeren WAI
held At Ad irnonORK FD Ollie Ture o-
Csdocld Cyn 20 7 2. Ar X07 OF OUR OFFiceso
Are Goons And There OfiRi0n% Coulee Ge CHAKGEé, |
bur Cuueit $2 tooues fave ro be fewk pike |
wittn ket fase oe Wold AfSo shink Vi
wuld 66 Ouse eo. Remove her eDokre Wt
Replace Dts coil reve CAg sew Oxe 75 More
Sepeative df OC dierets F2, TF Assume Geox Altendy
Know Zeng Thirs =X hax Tove on bur /F
CARE Oew Ad NOT, You Now 4
LL Abo tool Re 72 QUE ou Stunrat
STEMS Coheed =z belie Should x CrtAng ec
Cm OUR Nex7r-_ Conner. Stern's [LF (é)
(N CONU CN ENCE = /ps__plor CAANS CTI An
a (ene /O Gefne.. : Not? Orker
JOSS 4G Uy. Fe 40h Pore, Z belive The
Fehersr L508 SOSTE JS 6Ne OF aie. lay iss
Pore kovutlee Ce One CiAg oF Keering OF Fccho
LJorKe ie Y-12 NO SLosing Coun Tke RAP OO
VaR OOCR ONE 7ke AFTER KOS SHEA,
’ Also A Sten Frrre flow Ke Tke_ Sire lc
bao isdold be Gee 2 lincee soe +r kas
foonkel Cuell asd “tien Ano Ll Corer NkKe 7
Vee Vo GT zke Same Thies. : .
The Thiel Thing swortved TK Tien 2
PIAW + Miz THe J QMCERERTA Aave been AVA ESD
Towards Tie 3. TT Would liKe m See.
Reviitemer( pred COM eet OF Keseees) [Oss ble
FrTER AS Genna oF Sthwee, 2égyrcles oF Age.
Ak /r CQoulel Seem Vogel Kye 25 GeAe
te, Comet’ €2. Srroucg be Hcagh Kegand leo
OP Megantmess Tree Z Cougd Ub ail, Ge CommsedD
b6 Cenuse or /h0 1l0edo And Smart ~SupCER OF
AN Ployers AQ Coton DQ Tie FZ. eDuseit
ORGeT US.
Va
= See Har Salery OF free (deecyed An
, " a es
(42 Girlie » TRY Bree fam Ting CF FRe SrFirme
4 . /
/ A
Y
Srries: Thar Co.'s j22efown. ise CO's
AVE Replaced) Shfery OF/ceM Ar Chee. Facinrya_
_ Dr Would Seen 7 me rhe TE They —
2) Cf? GIRO (se. Stata Geajve The Seine Thi , -
ae Aame You & Qey KW (Reside and
Thearites oa ww Tile
Cie fen ed
VP AmpersanD Ave. -
SRA A thes Hea 1298 2
SHf- PH~ O106
Security and Law Enforcement Employees Council 82
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO
63 COLVIN AVENUE, ALBANY, N.Y. 12206 PHONE 518/489-8424
TO : Frank Benedetto
FROM: Chris Gardner
DATE: March 23, 1984
RE : TUFCO Right to Facility Access Prior to Challenge
Period; Issues and Approaches
Section 208 (subd. 2) of the Civil Service Law pro-
vides that a certified bargaining representative is entitled
to unchallenged representation status until 7 months prior
to the expiration of its written contract with the employer
(September 1, 1984).
PERB Rule 201.3(d) provides for a thirty day challenge
period immediately before the statutory 7 month period, during
which a challenge petition may be filed (August 1 through
August 31, 1984).
PERB requires that the signatures on any showing of
interest filed by a challenging organization be signed and
dated within 6 months of the filing of the petition. (No
sooner than February 1, 1984 through February 29, 1984, de-
pending on date of filing during August.)
The courts have stated:
"Implicit in these rules is the fact that
challenging organizations must begin their
organizational efforts prior to the end of
the statutory period of unchallenged re-
presentation. PERB has recognized this
and has held that an outside union does
waive the right to equal access privileges
during a period of time which is reasonably
proximate to that in which the incumbent
union's representation status can be
challenged. (Emphasis added.) Maryvale
Educators Association v. Newman, 70 AD 2d
758 416 NYS 2d 876.
The $100,000 question is: what does "reasonably
proximate" mean?
It has been held that when the challenge period is
November, September 30 is a "reasonable proximate" time to
grant equal access. In our case, the challenge period is
August. Therefore, clearly June 30th is a date by which TUFCO
should have equal access. (See Great Neck Union Free School
District, 11 PERB, paragraph 3079.)
It has also been held that 14 months prior to the statu-
tory challenge period is not "reasonably proximate", Maryvale
Educators v. Newman (supra), so as to require equal access for
the challenging organization.
The current State policy is to grant equal access to
TUFCO for a 3 month period prior to the date for filing the
petitions (August). Under.this time schedule, TUFCO would
gain equal access on May 1, 1984.
This is 2 months longer than the 1 month period which
the courts have upheld. Although a 3 month time limit would
probably be considered "reasonably proximate", it may be
worth a shot to persuade 0.E.R. to adopt the 1 month rule.
If persuasion fails, an improper practice charge could
be filed against both 0.E.R. and TUFCO, although the chances
of success on such a charge would be small. It could, how-
ever, serve a useful purpose - putting the Department and
TUFCO on the same side of the fence.
A thornier issue is: what is the nature of the "equal
access" to which TUFCO is entitled? The rules surrounding
"equal access" were not made with a maximum security correc-
tional facility in mind,
O0.E.R. guidelines are stringent limiting soliciation
to non-working hours and non-working areas.
O.E.R. guidelines also state that an employee organiza-
tion may not use State property for a campaign purpose except
under the following conditions:
(a) suitable space is not reasonably available
elsewhere in the area;
(b) the employee organization reimburses the
State for any costs which the State incurs
as a result of making such space available;
and
(c) the organization requests the use of such space
in advance,
It is difficult to imagine instances when "Suitable space
is not reasonably available elsewhere". Therefore, we should
get an informal commitment from Coughlin to not permit TUFCO
to use State grounds for their meetings.
Section 5.1(c) of our contract deals with bulletin boards.
It states, in part, - "During the period which the union has the
exclusive right to bulletin boards, no other employee organiza-
tion, except employee organizations which have been certified
or recognized as the representative or recognized as the re-
presentative for collecting negotiations of other State employees
employed at such location, shall have the right to put material
on State bulletin boards."
The issue is: what does "the period which the union has
exclusive right to bulletin boards" mean? I would argue that the
exclusive right to the bulletin boards is coterminous with the
terms of the contract based on the "exclusivity" language in
the recognition clause.
This interpretation would conflict, however, with O.E.R.
guideline #7 which gives TUFCO equal bulletin board access
on May 1. It also conflicts with Charles Devane's March 8th
memorandum. It may be worthwhile to get Devane to back off and
accept our contract interpretation.
CHG:ss
cc: Jack Burke
Dp Lin ii « @
rAd . Fe KEE)
7. pheieal
F aw hh arkey
dD. Geuze Fe
Tack se?
by,
D a au dele
BW bape
One Commerce Plaza, Suite 1012, Albany, New York 12210 Telephone: (518) 465-4585
March 21, 1984
hae A AE
Mr. John Burke oS sf WF (dawn
Director ra
AFSCME COUNCIL 82 ad BerncAct Co
63 Colvin Avenue Te Biwckert
Albany, New York 12206 Zp 1
x “Puta
Dear Jack: EN: Bu /ee Wy
This letter is in response to your and President Bischert's request
for information on services rendered from the International Union out
of Washington, D.C.
In anticipation of increased TUFCO activity, I have asked each
department to fully explain their area of expertise and to research
their files. Hopefully, the research will provide actual examples of
support provided to Council 82 from AFSCME International. This is a
time consuming activity, as the information is not computerized and
requires manual effort. In the meantime, I have prepared a brief
summary of activities for use by your staff.
The issues of AFL-CIO "Article XX" protection and AFSCME'S
committee structure are two areas which do not appear in the Appendix
I Departmental Summary but should certainly be discussed. As an
AFSCME council, all members of Council 82 are also members of AFL-CIO.
This affiliation is paid for out of the regular Council 82 dues and
results in no additional cost to your members. Article XX of the
AFL-CIO constitution concerns raids by other unions and jurisdictional
boundaries. In short, this article guarantees that no other AFL-CIO
affiliates can ever attempt to represent workers now represented by
Council 82. Further, should a group of employees decide to decertify,
Council 82 would retain organizing rights to those workers and they
would be barred from joining another AFL-CIO affiliate, even if they
were no longer members of Council 82. Article XX prevents any union
except the Teamsters or an independent union from representing your
members. We should also stress that should New York State Correctional
Officers choose to ever leave Council 82, they would be barred from
later changing their minds and going with another union. They will be
barred from the "House of Labor" unless they stay or go back with
Council 82.
As you know, by virtue of your membership on the committee,
AFSCME International is also the only international union with a
ss Pics
itt tire public service
RP
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-ClIO -“**
Mr.+John Burke -2- March 21, 1984
corrections policy committee. The committee allows state/local members
to have direct imput into forming national policy on issues which
directly affect them. Through the committee, correction officers are
able to determine the union's position and lobbying direction in
Congress and the White House. Further, the committee meeting regularly,
offers correction officers from around the country the opportunity to
exchange information, ideas and experiences. The ability to know how
other correctional systems operate, nationwide, has proved invaluable
in preparing for negotiations or presenting solutions to difficult
problems during labor/management meetings. I should also point out that
it was this committee which recommended and pushed for AFSCME'S study
on stress and correction officers. To my knowledge, this is the most
comprehensive study of its kind and has proved extremely useful in
lobbying around the country for better pensions and/or correctional
officer heart bills.
The theory behind any federation, such as AFSCME, is that by many
groups standing together, the individual groups can offer services for
their members which would otherwise be too costly. This year's
operational budget for the International Union is about $50 million,
which does not include major equipment investments such as the
television studio. Council 82 is able to access the varied services
which these millions provide by virtue of their $1/2 million annual
per capita. Appendix I entitled "Summary of Departmental Services-
AFSCME International," briefly describes these services and is attached
to this letter. Of course, all services are available without additional
charge to Council 82 and your members.
I hope the information proves useful in further acquainting
Council 82's members with services as well as helping to point out
the "hidden benefits" which TUFCO cannot provide at any cost. If you
need additional information please feel free to contact me.
Fraternally,
Vie Fantasy Ge)
Stephan Fantauzzo
International Union Area Director
SF3lg
cc: Harold Teague
Elizabeth Brickman
LL
APPENDIX I
SUMMARY OF DEPARTMENTAL SERVICES - AFSCME INTERNATIONAL
BUSINESS OFFICE
This department coordinates all dollar-related activities.
Local treasurer training is conducted from the Business Office
and Council 82 received such training during the fall of 1983.
Training classes cover -all aspects of IRS law, form filing,
and proper expenditure/accounting. The U.S. Department of
Treasury mandates locals to file extensive reports and a
large portion of training is designed to prevent later problems
with the IRS.
The Business Office also provides field auditors to
councils and locals when there is a suspicion of misappro-
priations. As in the case of AFSCME Local 1255, an auditor
will be assigned to investigate the financial records and
determine if union dues have been properly spent. The Inter-
national Union also maintains bonds for all locals. If money
appears to have been misappropriated, the International Union
will act on behalf of the local's members and file a bonding
claim with the insurance agent. Recently, the members of
AFSCME Local 826 in Binghamton, New York, received over $11,000
based on an Internationally filed bonding claim against former
officers. In addition to demonstrating that the process works,
it also shows that our procedures are strict enough to detect
and correct problems, internally.
The new computer system which Council 82 is in the process
of installing also comes from our Business Office. When
a council is determining its computer needs, a computer expert
is sent in to assist with planning and design. Through the
International, a council can purchase new, advanced quality
computers at about 60% retail cost. More importantly, the
International Union has developed all the necessary software
programs and this technology is available to your members free
of charge. Typically, the software will run as much as the
hardware; in the case of Council 82 - $75,000. Additionally,
when the equipment is installed, training of office staff is
also provided free of charge.
The Business Department is also responsible for review
of constitutions and helping the president establish juris-
dictions as well as issuing membership cards. The juris-
dictions issued make that local the sole and exclusive agent
for workers covered.
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND WOMEN'S ACTIVITIES
While not a critical department to the membership of
Council 82, even this department is relevant. Community
Services and Women's Activities (CSWA) assist councils and
locals in developing or strengthening existing EAP programs.
Individuals who specialize in EAP programs are available to
assist your members during negotiations and labor/management
meetings. This department is also concerned with increasing
a=
Il.
IIt.
Iv.
APPENDIX I (CONTINUED)
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND WOMEN'S ACTIVITIES (CONTINUED)
the union's visibility and promoting its image in the community.
For example, the AFSCME/COUNCIL 82 booth at the State Fair
results from this department. As we move more and more into
legislative lobbying and press relations, the union's image
becomes increasingly important and CSWA has been created
(in 1983) to meet that need.
EDUCATION
The function of the Education Department is critical if
we are to have a strong and effective union. It is this
department's responsibility to ensure that training is
received at the local union level. Because the responsibility
is so important, especially in New York, a full time Education
Coordinator (Shirley Reeder) has been assigned by the
International to New York and Council 82. Beyond Sister
Reeder, additional trainers and resources are available from
Washington, D.C. Educational classes can be tailored to meet
the specific needs of a local union or council. However,
programs in the following areas are always available--Steward
Training, Officer Training, How to Write a Newsletter, Grass
Roots Lobbying, Safety and Health, Union History, and Grievance
Handling. During 1983, the International Union, with Council
82, conducted a series of education classes statewide for
both corrections and law enforcement. Every local within
Council 82 was notified and most chose to take advantage.
Through the Education Department, the Union also main-
tains a film library, boasting over 100 different Educational
Union films. The films are available for local union meetings
upon request. Also, the International Union publishes on a
monthly basis the Steward's Magazine which is sent to every
registered steward in the country. This magazine further
fine tunes the skills learned through the educational classes.
Council 82 regularly sends its staff to the George
Meany Labor Studies Center for additional training in areas
such as arbitration preparation and video-techniques. The
college is open to Council 82 staff and members by virtue of
their affiliation with AFSCME.
FIELD SERVICES
Field Services is responsible for overall direction of
all International staff operated in an area and for any new
organized activity. In New York, thirteen (13) International
staff presently service the five AFSCME councils (at a payroll
cost of about $1/2 million). At present, most organizing is
taking place in California, Illinois, and Ohio, where AFSCME
is organizing the correctional unit, among others.
In addition to overall direction and organizing, the
Field Services Department acts as a funnel for all requests
and services between Council 82 and the International Union.
ai
Iv.
VI.
APPENDIX I (CONTINUED)
FIELD SERVICES (CONTINUED)
Department personnel are also responsible for resolving internal
problems brought forth by members and for combatting decerti-
fication attempts.
JUDICIAL PANEL
The Judicial Panet is the internal dispute resolution
procedure for the entire Union. Its impartial makeup and
procedural requirements have been upheld, thus preventing
the various courts from intervening in Union affairs. At
present, eight rank and file AFSCME members are selected to
sit on the Judicial Panel, hearing cases around the country.
The Judicial Panel rules on the validity of elections,
making sure that the procedure is fair and democratic.
Recently, the panel was called upon to hear an election
protest filed by Brother Hickey in Local 1790. This panel
also presides over all charges filed by AFSCME members
against other members, staff, or officers. The AFSCME con-
stitution is the only major constitution containing a bill of
rights for union members. That bill allows members to file
charges and eventually have those charges heard and ruled on
by this independent body. In this manner, the rights of the
individual are protected against abuse of power by union
officials.
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
As you know, the International Union maintains two full
time lobbyists on staff to assist Council 82 in Albany, New
York. Additionally, as many as five temporary staff are now
assigned to New York, working on the Presidential and Congress-
ional races. The in-state staff works very closely with Council
82 and in the last five years, has achieved major legislative
advances on behalf of public employees in general and correc-
tion officer's in specific. These include reform of the Tier
3 pension system, early retirement for correction officers,
and binding arbitration for law enforcement. Presently, the
staff is acting to keep Brentwood open. The International
Union annually sponsors one or two lobbying days for Council
82, with the 1983 lobbying session being the most successful
in the Council's history. With the assistance of International
staff, Council 82 has become one of the most respected lobbying
forces on Capitol Hill--a respect which far exceeds the Council's
actual members.
In addition to the state staff, twenty lobbyists work in
Washington, D.C. making sure that Congressional legislation and
programs favorably affect our members around the country and
in Council 82. Those lobbyists have been instrumental in
passing LEAA and general revenue sharing funds which are directly
used by the state and the provision of correctional services.
In addition to the actual lobbying effort, the Legislative
Affairs Department also maintains voting records on all New
York congressmen and has the computerized ability to tell
Council 82 or its members how an individual congressman voted
==
APPENDIX I’ (CONTINUED)
Vi« LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)
on a specific issue of concern.
The Legislative Department also serves as Council 82's
representative on New York's public employee conference.
The Public Employee Conference is the major lobbying effort
of public service unions in New York State and serves to
further the programs put forth by Council 82. PEC, as well
as AFSCME and Council 82 wére the moving force behind the
election of Governor Cuomo, which has proved generally
beneficial to the Council.
VII. PEOPLE/POLITICAL ACTION
This department is responsible for determining actual
dollar contributions to be made to Congressional candidates.
In additional to Congressional contributions, the Political
Action Department was also responsible for a major funding
effort on behalf of Governor Cuomo. As you know, federal
restrictions prohibit the use of general dues money for polit-
ical contributions for candidates at the federal level.
Therefore, the collection of people money to a voluntary
mechanism is the only system which allows Council 82 to con-
tribute to Congressional/Presidential candidates.
In addition to determining and funding political can-
didates the People/Political Action Department is also respon-
sible for field workshops throughout the nation. These work-
shops focus on how to prepare and run an effective political
campaign and include such specifics as phone banking, prepara-
tion of leaflets and palm cards, how to write a letter to your
representative, and how to lobby.
VIII. PUBLIC AFFAIRS/PUBLIC EMPLOYEE
The Public Affairs/Public Employee Department is the
International Union's major communications department. The
monthly newspaper, which is received by every member of
Council 82, is produced from this department. In addition to
the Public Employee which is produced in Washington, two -public
affairs associates are assigned specifically to New York to meet
with the needs of our councils and John Funicello was previously
responsible for the production of Council 82's newsletter.
Brother Funicello, as well as the other members of the Public
Affairs Department, are available and have, conducted all
aspects of communication from leaflet and letter writing pro-
ducing to public speaking.
One of the International Union's most recent focuses has
been to thrust the Union into the age of communications. This
has been done in a number of significant ways, foremost with
the actual production in Washington, D.C. of a television
studio. The studio has been used not only by AFSCME but by
other unions (we are the only union with a television studio
facility) as well as councils to produce tapes dealing with
specific problems that can be tailored specifically to your
members. Several councils have already taken advantage of
the International Union's television studio aS a means of
pee eo
VIII.
IX.
APPENDIX I (CONTINUED)
PUBLIC AFFAIRS/PUBLIC EMPLOYEE (CONTINUED)
communicating more effectively with their members on issues of
general concern. The Public Affairs Department has also been
responsible for the production of the various AFSCME commer-
cials which have been running on and off in New York for the
past two years. The purpose of those commercials is to in~
crease the Union's visibility to the general public who pay
the taxes which produce our salaries. Overall, reaction to
the commercials has been:.very favorable and has been benefi-
cial. Through the studio facilities, the International Union
also retains the capabilities to produce radio actualities
for use by Council 82, your locals, and members. Radio
actualities are produced in Washington by use of tapings which
then can be relayed to all the major radio stations in a
given area (i.e. upstate New York, Albany, Buffalo, éte.).
The radio actualities have been used to address specific
issues, such as the closing of Brentwood on Long Island, and
to present the Union's views instantaneously to the public.
PUBLIC POLICY
The Public Policy Department is one of two major resource
arms of the Union. Public Policy concentrates its efforts on
researching various tax efforts/incentives and institutional
problems. For the first time in the history of any union,
the Public Policy Department recently produced a county by
county analysis of the impact of Reaganomics in New York. This
analysis details on a county by county basis every federal
source of revenue which the state's (corrections) or local
government may receive, describing the cuts which have taken
place since 1980 in that specific program and county.
Through the Public Policy Department, the International
Union has access to economic forecasting data which is essential
during negotiations. The Public Policy Department is capable
and has been used to forecast what state revenues will be over
the next three years, the increase in the consumer price index,
the impact of proposed tax cuts, and, the local impact of an
institutional closing (such as Brentwood).
RESEARCH DEPARTMENT
The Research Department is responsible for providing a
number of skilled technicians in specialized fields. For
example, the correction officer stress study was conducted
through the Research Department by Francis Cheeks. In addition
to technicians versed in the area of stress, the Research Depart-
ment maintains two professional staff whose sole and exclusive
function is the analysis of pension and health care programs.
Typically, these individuals are called into bargaining to ana-
lyze pension proposals or health care proposals submitted across
the table by the employer.
The computer system has allowed the Research Department to
dramatically update and improve its wage and benefit information.
APPENDIX I (CONTINUED)
RESEARCH DEPARTMENT (CONTINUED)
At present, the Department is capable of providing information to
Council 82 and your members on wages received by correctional
officers or other classifications around the country. The
computer is also capable of providing contractual language,
(i.e. sick leave, vacation, holidays) from other contracts
around the country which should prove invaluable in your up-
coming negotiations. As with the pension and health benefits
specialists, this information and technicians are available to
assist Council 82 with onsite contract negotiations.
The Research Department also maintains information on a
number of other subjects including, contracting out, safety
and health, recent settlements, and new technological advances.
This department of the International Union was responsible for
producing the Oren's Safety and Health booklet as well as books
on Passing the Buck (contracting out), and Facing the Future
(new technology).
One of the most widely requested services provided by the
International Union a provision of budget analysis. These
analyses are performed by experts in the Research Department
and typically the provision of this single service by an
outside consultant may run anywhere from $3000 to $20,000.
The budget experts have the ability to analyze the state's
budget as well as the Department of Corrections budget to deter-
mine where expenditures have been overestimated and, revenues
underestimated or potential surpluses. The budget analysis
in many cases proves the most valuable tool during contract
negotiations. As with the other experts in the Research Depart-
ment, the budget experts are available to assist Council 82
in negotiations and have been called in the past.
March 30, 1984
Mr. Dick Faulkner
28 Ampersand Avenue
Saranac Lake, New York 12983
Dear Dick:
Enclosed please find a letter supporting our position
on Longevity Payments. I am in full agreement with you.
I am not surprised about Dobie. Do you know any one
who would sign a statement about his activities? Has he
used Local Union funds for T.U.F.C.0.? Is he taking Union
funds for his expenses concerning T.U.F.C.0.? We are getting
past the point of being nice about this. Any help or in-
formation you could supply would be greatly appreciated and
would be kept confidential. Feel free to call me any time
(toll free) - 1-800-342-4321.
Briefly, the following events could take place:
May 1, 1984 - 90 day open period - T.U.F.C.O. has
access to public areas of facilities to conduct
challenge and sign cards. ey
August, 1984 - submit to P.E.R.B., requesting an
election for representation of all Council 82
Locals. Must have at least 30% of total
Council 82 members.
October, 1984 - P.E.R.B. would run an election.
If T.U.F.C.O. were to win, they would have to
assume all of Council 82's present responsibilities.
All assets of Council 82 would be retained by
Council 82, not given to T.U.F.C.0O. Where would
their money come from to operate their union?
They would have to service the present contract
until it expires and also negotiate a new one.
The losses that could come about are scary.
I will see to it that you receive more detailed informa-
tion at a later date.
Mr. Dick Faulkner
March 30,
Page 2
1984
Some other questions you asked concern our Contract:
1.
Night Pay. Each time we negotiate a new
contract, we attempt to obtain more, but
at some point we must decide what our
priorities are. We usually settle for
money issues for all members. Naturally
this is a Committee decision.
Sick Time. In the last set of negotia-
tions, we submitted sick leave proposals,
but the State refused to discuss giving
us any sell back. We did discuss the
possibility that if things worked out for
the State Police, maybe something could
be tried in Correction.
Tier 2 Retirement. These issues are dis-
cussed by the Legislative Committees. As
you know, the Local Union Chairman has input
and voice. I don't recall much ever being
said by these people concerning Tier 2.
We have the P.A.C.C.-82 Committee now in
an effort to upgrade our whole Legislative
Program. Members in Tier 2 should voice
their concerns to their P.A.C.C.-82 Chair-
man.
Just for your information, Dobie was the only
Local President to vote against the P.A.C.C.-82
Legislative concept at the 1983 Council Con-
vention. He comes to Albany for lobbying days
but never meets with any legislators. I urge
you to go to a membership meeting and tell
him about it.
Upgrading of Correction Officers. As you
know, we had submitted documentation fora
3 grade reallocation, but our case was killed
by Classification and Compensation.
Arthur Young Associates are now surveying the
whole Classification and Compensation System.
I have met with them several times and have
given them our justification for upgrading.
Mr. Dick Faulkner
March 30, 1984
Page 3
I am somewhat optimistic about the out-
come. I hope they put a dollar value
on job stress and burn-out. If they do,
we should get something.
It was good to hear from you. I hope everything is
going well for you. If I can ever be of any help to you,
please don't hesitate to contact me.
Keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Le
Richard J. Bischert
RJB:ss
Enclosure
State of New York
Department of State A030-750 (5/75) ROUTE SLIP
Meson N Oita) in A] ( S| re Y
1
2
3
4
C.APPROVAL (COMMENT payour INFORMATION
(NECESSARY ACTION DSIGNATURE CQNOTE AND RETURN
COCONTACT ME es REQUESTED (CO PREPARE REPLY
(COPLEASE PREPARE DRAFT OF REPLY FOR MY CONSIDERATION
mm Oobontr C. Bat som/w
830477
—t+. Great Seal of the State of N
2-5 (BR
3. Chron.
September 27, 1983
The United Federation of
Correction Officers
P.O. Box 72
Hudson Falls, HY 12839
Sirs:
The Secretary of State is the custodian of the Great Seal
of the State of New York which bears the coat of arms of the
State of New York. For this reason we frequently receive
inquiries about the use or misuse of the coat of arms.
Tt has come to our attention that your organization is
making use of the State's coat of arms on various printed mat-
ter. This may be in violation of § 136 of the General Business
Law, end possibly in violation of § 133 of such law, violations
of which are misdemeanors. I enclose a copy of § 13 of suck
law for your information.
Very truly yours,
Edward Rook
Senior Attorney
ER: mma
Enc. :
ce: Robert J. Buchner county =
Asst. Attorney General
L pe’ = «
LOCAL PRESIDENTS INFORMATIONAL MEETING
APRIL 23, 1984
D. Bischert copy of Executive Board activities and hand as
to Executive Board members and presidents
responsibility to each local present also
AFSCME manuel on what it does for members.
Explanation of how local Unions should
structure activity on TUFCO and who to
contact by area of state to report to
Council to Frank Benedetto.
presidents and local presidents to the
local members. If there is anyone present
advocating TUFCO get out of Council 82.
Cc. Abraham
Long Island C.F. Requested regional presidents meeting as
per handout breakdown.
D. Bischert If there is a meeting a person should be
there from Council. If a meeting is scheduled
to notify Council 82.
F. Benedetto Explanation as to his area of responsibility
as special staff. Double agents must go.
Entering period of open access where locals
are open to be addressed by unions.
|
Council 82’s responsibility to local
Daily business will be conducted as usual
Council 82 will still be responsive to the
needs of its members. Look to local leaders
| to keep Council 82 informed on TUFCO
activity. To report grievances and problems
| within Council 82.
|
What we need is a small test for each local
as to services and problems.
LOCAL PROBLEMS
LOCAL 1240 No L/M problems. No TUFCO activity.
Elmira
Local 152 George Schneider - more notice as to this
Green Haven process of problems address to J. Burke as
per Review article. What are we going to
do exactly when a strong statement is made.
Be more specific.
*keep open communications to Council.
*No response as per cancellation of
meeting or appointments.
*Some TUFCO literature being passed but
members don’t know why.
ooo
Local 2458
R. McCarthy
Building Gds.
Local 1040
J. Mann
Attica
Local 1792
J. Emmett
SUNY
Local 1872
Lynn Day
Forest Rangers
Local 1873
Larry Johnson
Conservation
Local 2655
C. Cambareri
Mid-Hudson Psy
Local 2965
V. Sparace
C.N.Y-P.C
Local 738
J. Halvorsen
Hudson
F. Benedetto
Local 300
Lyon Mt.
LOCAL PRESIDENTS INFORMATIONAL MEETING
APRIL 23, 1984
stated he must give priority to certain
areas be it Albany or work cites. If
staff representatives are not responsive
to inform him and they will be dealt with.
No problems. Atmosphere getting better.
Some will sign cards to break buns.
Problems being dealt with OK. Staff
representative at facility very responsive
to local. TUFCO very small problem.
Good response from Council 82.
No problems. No report of TUFCO
activity.
Members have just rejoined because of
good response.
No problems. No TUFCO activity.
Asshole back on street
Problem of title change
Problem of title change. No TUFCO
activity
TUFCO past president tried to get
them in. Lack of communication
from Council 82 but getting
better.
asked what are needs. Contact Joe
Puma. Past practice was problem
now Council 82 is responding.
Carl Rounds - No problems but is
glad Council 82 Executive Board
has changed. See Council 82
address New recruits. No TUFCO
problems.
Local 1272
T. Rounds
Clinton
Local 1653
C. Abraham
Long Island
Local 1413
W. Jakes
Ossining
Local 1041
Eastern
Karl Simons
Local 1871
Sgt.
Herb Jones
Local 923
Albion
D. Seefeldt
Local 1406
Collins
R. Lomanto
LOCAL PRESIDENTS INFORMATIONAL MEETING
APRIL 23, 1984
Grievance about Masterjoseph
female correction officer who
is screwing who contractually.
Wants to see I.P. on this
problem because agency backs
off but Clinton is not in support
of TUFCO as per mail gram
TUFCO in back yard. Only friends of
TUFCO are signing cards. Some of
these are coming back due to Larry
Germano. Keep facility opened.
Communication problem. Information
not being distributed. No feed back
on contract, if seniority is lost the
members would walk. Having problems.
TUFCO some curiosity about TUFCO
Some people trying to use TUFCO to
make out for personal benefits.
Looking to Council 82 for the outcome
on Time class, Military leave, etc.
Some disappointment with QWL.
First six months of new Board TUFCO
really worked on Council 82. Turned
this around by active assistance.
No major problems. some involvement
due to ignorance. Staff representative
excellent response.
Needs more information as to open
period. Rules to take and show
superintendent as to open period.
GIVEN COPY BY WOODBOURNE
Local 2556
Groveland
M. Clark
Local 1447
Auburn
Ed Brewster
Local 866
Adirondack
P. Dobie
Local 1285
Gabriels
C. Hugaboom
Local 1279
Great Meadow
T. Badman
Local 2398
Arthurkill
N. Grinnage
Local 2967
Otisville
D. DiGerlando
LOCAL PRESIDENTS INFORMATIONAL MEETING
APRIL 23, 1984
No TUFCO at all. 7 old members
question on new recruits. Some
questions by new employees as to
benefits pay increases. Staff
representative good response.
New Board coming on soon.
Along with Dave DeChick and Mr. Holmes
alot of turmoil due to boss. Council 82
handled their meeting well. TUFCO very
strong. Possibly under control. Would
like to see more regional activity.
The law firm is the problem as far as
Council 82. TUFCO some movement to get
Council 82 off ass to wakeup.
New board here. Needs to get information
on how union things get done. Some TUFCO
move since the end of March. TUFCO is due
to curiosity. Council 82 is the main stay
as far as members need.
Along with Dennis Fletcher and Nick Catalfamo.
Staff representative good. Stewards on all
shifts. TUFCO very big because of internal
union. End is still Council 82. TUFCO
because of health spa, fraternal order.
This not a part of local business.
TUFCO there on three occasions. Did not
good response. Feeling that TUFCO is only
dealing where people are in need.
Some small groups of problems. Council 82
there at any request.
LOCAL PRESIDENTS INFORMATIONAL MEETING
APRIL 23, 1984
Local 1264
Coxsackie
J. Kraft Few problems on TUFCO, very hazardous to
TUFCO - Pro Council 82
Local 1798
oGSs
G. Floyd no TUFCO Pro Council 82 always and forever.
Some communication problems only on occasion.
Local 1876
Camps
R. Fitch Members undecided. Problem on grievance
length of response.
Local 2825
Bayview
B. Moses TUFCO very quiet
Local 1996
Edgecombe, Lincoln,
Fulton, Parkside
W. Hill TUFCO in Lincoln. Not in Edgecombe or
Fulton
Local 1255
Fishkill
R. Brown No problem with Council 82. TUFCO
intimidating new officers. TUFCO is
now on defense.
Local 1548
Watertown
M. Booth Along with Frank Guerin and Lance Mason.
Beginning to look like Auburn due to the
transfers. Management some problem.
Council 82 has begun to gain the confidence
of members.
Local 1790
Safety Officers
R. Lesniak Not present
Local 781
Ogdensburgh
M. Estes Same as Watertown. Good response from staff
and Clinton. No TUFCO there at all.
Local 1151
Woodbourne
P. Healy TUFCO trying hard with little success. Even
young officers are rejecting. Problems are
from Department not due to union.
Grievance
procedure at agency level. All in support
of Council 82.
5
Local 2197
Queensboro
G. Trammel
Local 399
Downstate
C. Keenan
Local 3023
Mt. McGregor
P. Casola
CLOSING BY
J. BURKE
Cc. Abraham
LOCAL PRESIDENTS INFORMATIONAL MEETING
APRIL 23, 1984
Some TUFCO activity. No TUFCO basketball
team
Problem with administration. Heavy TUFCO
due to a leader living there but very quiet
recently.
Administrative problems. TUFCO alot of
people pushing lodge but not union.
Due to the fact that he is the Executive
Director he must make decisions some of
which everyone will not like. Council 82
has the best representation per member then
anyone. He stated his background in unionism
about his changes from within. Wages almost
at par with New York City and dues are by
far lower. If there is a problem with staff
bring it to Council 82’s attention. If TUFCO
did win they get nothing from International.
All Council 82 properties are locked up they
would get nothing.
support before negotiations.
COUNCIL 82
MORE ON _ T.U.F.C.O. APR8 0 1984
AFSCME AFL-CIO
IT IS FASY FOR SOMEONF TO MAKF FALSE AND UNFOUNDED ST. ITS
ABOUT AN ORGANIZATION WHFN THEY KNOW THEY DON'T HAVE TO PROVE
OR SUBSTANTIATE THOSE STATEMENTS.
IT IS EASY TO CRITICIZE AND TAKE "POT SHOTS" AT AN ORGANIZATION
AND THEN SAY HOW GREAT THE NEW ORGANIZATION IS GOING TO BE.
ONE CAN IGNORE SLANDER AND LIES FOR ONLY SO LONG. HUNDREDS
OF DFDICATED UNION LEADERS OF COUNCIL 82 ARE BEING LIED ABOUT.
TEE PRESENT LEADERS OR DIRFCTORS OF T.U.F.C.0. ALL HAVE, AT ONF
TIMF, HELD OFFICE AT ONE LEVEL OR ANOTHER WITHIN TFF COUNCIL 82
STRUCTURE AND EAD NO OBJECTIONS TO IT. IN FACT, THEY DIDN'T
COMPLAIN UNTIL THEY LOST AN ELECTION OR WERE NOT EVFN NOMINATED
TO FOLD A POSITION.
THE COUNCIL 82 STRUCTURE AND DEMOCRATIC FLECTION PROCESS THEN
BECAME INFERIOR. IT WAS NO GOOD BECAUSE THE PRESENT T.U.F.C.O.
LEADFRS COULDN'T GET FLECTED THROUGH A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, COULDN'T
GET ELRCTFD PY TRF MAJORITY AND COULDN'T GET ELECTED BY THE KUNDRFEDS
NEW YORK.
NOW TEF "MALCONTENTS", TFEIR OWN DEFINITION, FIGURED THEY COULD
HOLD HIGH OFFICE IN ONE WAY AND ORGANIZED THEIR OWN UNION UNDFR
THE GUISE OF AN ASSOCIATION, SFLF-APPOINTENG THEMSELVFS FOR A TERM
@F_FIVE (5) YFARS.
COMPARE OVER TRREF RUNDRFD AND TWENTY SIX (326) FLFCTFD UNION
LFADERS REPRFSFNTING COUNCIL 82 TO FIVF (5S) DIRFCTORS, ALL SELF-
APPOINTED REPRESENTING T.U.F.C.0.
, INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED AS TO THEIR STRUCTURE BECAUSE
THEY DON'T WANT THEIR NEW MEMBERS TO KNOW HOW MANY JOBS AND
DIFFFRFENT POSITIONS FAVE BEFN PROMISED THROUGHOUT THF STATE,
ONE MAY BE SUPRISED TO DISCOVER THE LARGE NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS,
REGIONS, TERRITORIES, SUB-GROUPS, RUSINESS MANAGERS, ASSISTANTS
TO THRE ASSISTANTS, ETC. THERE WOULD BE. MAYRE THIS WILL TELL You
SOMETHING ABOUT TEF NUMRER OF POSITIONS THE PROMISES FAD TO COVER.
ASK SOME OF THE COUNCIL 82 REPRESENTATIVES THAT WERE TOLD THERE
WAS A PLACE FOR THEM IN T.U.F.C.0. AND REFUSED.
IF AND WEFN T.U.F.C.0. RELFASFS THEIR STRUCTURE IN WRITING, YOU
WILL SEE THE ENORMOUS COST FOR STAFFING. AT THE FACILITY ALONE,
THE COST WILL EXCFED $1.4 MILLION FOR SALARIES OF BUSINESS AGENTS,
WITHOUT SIDF BENEFITS. AND REMEMBER, THF AGENTS WILL REPORT TO
FOUR REGIONAL OFFICES THAT WILL HAVE TO BE STAFFED. ‘THFY, IN
TURN, WILL HAVE TO REPORT TO THRE ALBANY HREADQUARTERS, WHERE THE
T.U.F.C.O. PEOPLE WILL RESIDE. THE ALRANY. HEADQUARTERS WILL ALSO
HAVE TO BE STAFFED. SO FIGURE WHAT TEE PAYROLL WILL BE. SALARIES,
EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES, FTC. WHERE IS ALL THAT MONEY COMING FROM?
YOUR DUFS? HOW LONG WILL TNEY STAY AT TFE RATE THEY ARE NOW? COUNCIL
82 ALREADY HAS OFFICES, STAFF, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES RIGHT UP TO
COMPUTERS. ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR ALL OF T.U.F.C.0.'s NEW EQUIPMENT?
IT WON'T BE UNTIL AFTER THEY BECOME YOUR RARGAINING AGENT THAT THEV
WILL HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY MUST RAISE VOUR DUES SO FIGH.
WILL A BUSINESS AGENT WORK TWENTY-FOUR HOURS A DAY?
WHAT SFIFT WILL HE WORK?
THE NEXT TIME YOU ARE APPROACHED BY A T.U.F.C.0. REPRESENTATIVE,
HAVF THEM PROVIDE YOU WITH ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
29.4
al.
Tf T.U.F.C.0. is an association, who are they associated with?
How will this union called T.U.F.C.0. be roverned?
How soon after the challenge can you run for President?
How do vou get nominated?
Fow are T.U.F.C.0. neonle appointed?
What members (direct or otherwise) have imnut to this elite
selection process of T.U.F.C.0.?
When vou sign a T.U.F.C.0. card, how do vou know vour not
Joining their union?
Why are T.U.F.C.0. people SFLI-APPOINTED for a term of FIVF (5)
years?
Whv won't T.U.F.C.0. provide its members with copies of their
bv-laws or constitution?
Why does T.U.F.C.0. want to keen the same dues structure?
Whv does the T.U.F.C.0. information NOT have a union label -
union made?
Why do T.U.F.C.0. peonle want to get rid of Local Unions?
Why is T.U.F.C.0. run by Sergeants. How can thev write
counselling memos and then represent you?
How will each member of T.U.F.C.0O. have a vote?
How will the Director and Associate Director be selected?
Eow much does it cost for a professional nesotiator?
How much will it cost for these rerional offices and staff.
Where is the money coming from? Your dues?
Where is the money coming from for offices, staff, vrofessional
nepotiator, insurance, benefits, servicing contract? Your dues?
All the things that Council 82 already has!
How does T.U.F.C.0. olan to ret better benefits for vou in
the state contract?
What issues can they improve on and how?
Why did one of the T.U.7.C.0. leaders write un a Transportation
Serreant which later led to the Serreant beinr charred and
discivlined?
23%
au,
25x
2f.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
3h.
Why did one of the T.U.F.C.0. leaders, when he was on the
nerotiating team, leave negotiations in 1979?
Why did one of the T.U.F.C.0. leaders fo to Vermont at the
start of the 1979 strike?
Why did another T.U.F.C.0. leader ro to Las Veras at the start
of the 1979 strike and NEVER get fined.
WHY DID TWO OF THE T.U.F.C.0O. LEADFRS NEGOTIATE FOR MANAGEMENT
AGAINST OUR UNION BROTHERS IN COUNCIL 66? They formed their
own nefotiating service while holding office in Council 82
representing management, which later led to Council 66 protesting
this action through Council 82 and A.F.S.C.M.E. International.
Why did these same two T.U.F.C.0. leaders fo around the state
asking villages and counties for jobs as negotiators, using
Assist.Deputy Commissioner William Coleman (former), Director
for the Governor's Office of Employee Relations Sandy Frucher
(former) and the Mavor of Catskill, Joe Izzo as references
on their resumes. These references are STATE, not UNION.
Why did they use their UNION BACKGROUND as KNOWLEDGE FOR
MANAGEMENT in negotiations?
Why is there a $509,900 lawsuit against one of the T.U.F.C.0.
leaders for failure to represent a Correction Officer at Auburn
when this T.U.F.C.0. leader was a Council 82 Representative?
Mhy did one of the T.U.F.C.0. leaders leave our 1982-85
nesotiating committee to become a Sergeant? Priorities!
Is this a Union Leader?
Why, after the conduct mentioned in number 25, did this
same T.U.F.C.0O. leader, who at the time was Correction Policy
Chairman, refuse to step down after several locals including
Clinton Correctional Facility asked for his resignation?
Why did one of the T.U.F.C.0O. leaders when he was a staff
representative for Council 82 settle a discivline - Loss
of Peace Officer status for two (2) years?
Why did two of the T.U.F.C.0. leaders refuse to return $150
each to the Sergeants local after the Council 82 convention
when the Vice-President and Treasurer of the Sergeants local
comolied with the vote of the Executive Board?
If the United Federation of Correction Officers and The Union
of Federated Correction Officers are two separate organizations,
one selling insurance and the other challenging as a union,
whv is the first organization vavine the exnenses of the second?
Why didn't the T.U.F.C.0. leaders assist in lobbvine days to
save Lone Island? They are fellow Correction Officers aren't they?
What is T.U.F.C.0.'s lerislative program? Fow would this be done?
‘
“Whv did two T.U.F.C.90. leaders after takine the resnonsihility
as representatives of Quality of Working Life, auit?
25. Whv is T.U.F.C.0. literature contradictory? Under additional
benefits to be provided by ™.U.F.C.0., section 5 states thev
will provide a state-wide PRE-PAID leral program. In the |
next two sentences they say this program will provide GROUP RATES
and REASONABLE RATES. What does PRE-PAID mean, by vou?
36. In the T.U.F.C.0. literature, what do they mean by a "spnecialized
union", providing "snecialized needs" for a "specialized froun"?
Sounds good, but what does it mean? Maybe the NON-UNION printer
left something out?
37. T.U.F.C.0. makes an allegation that Council 82 is controlled by
a distant bureaucracy. (Headauarters in Albany - with local unions
all over the state), vet T.U.F.C.0O. will have their headouarters
in Albany, (distant bureaucracy?), but will have NO local unions
around the state. Isn't that contradictory also?
38. T.U.F.C.0O. claims they can provide tax attorneys, C.P.A.'s
pension consultants, a comprehensive vrogram of insurance and
other benefits. Isn't the key word here, PROVIDE? That means
to make available, but it doesn't mean FREF. Someone has to
pay for the services, does that mean you? So what are they
reallv doing for vou, giving vou directions to an office where
these services are available?
39. Why were discrepancies found durine the auditing of Local
Financial books while T.U.F.C.0. advocates were in office as
local leaders?
IF YOU GET HONEST ANSWERS FROM THE T.U.F.C.O. REPRESENTATIVES
TO THESE QUESTIONS, YOU WILL SFE WHY THE PRESENT T.U.F.C.O.
LEADERS WERE UNABLE TO OBTAIN FURTHER POSITIONS IN COUNCIL 82
THROUGH NOMINATIONS OR ELECTIONS, EITHFR AT THE CONVENTION OR
OTHERWISE. HOW CAN THESE PEOPLE EVEN SPFAK OF LOYALTY?
Security and Law Enforcement Employees Council 82
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO
63 COLVIN AVENUE, ALBANY, N.Y. 12206 PHONE 518/489-8424
November 15, 1984
Mr. C. Abraham
48-50 57th Avenue
Rego Park, New York 13368
Dear Brother Abraham:
First, I want to thank you for participating in our
one-on-one program. Your participation helps ensure that
Council 82 remains as the bargaining representative for the
Security Services Unit.
It is essential that we thoroughly and decisively
crush "“TUFCO“ in the upcoming election in order to
strengthen our bargaining position with the State of New
York. Let's make sure that we “run up the score" so that
the State of New York realizes it's dealing with a tough,
unified force in negotiations, which can continue to deliver
the biggest pay increases of any union in the country.
The reports from the field and our polling on the one-
On-one program have been extremely encouraging. Where the
program has been fully implemented with member-to-member
polling and literature distribution, "“TUFCO" has virtually
disappeared. Keep up the good work, and make sure you get
credit for the good work you have done by sending us your
reports on a regular basis.
We will be sending you additional campaign literature
for distribution in the near future. In the meantime, keep
in close contact with the membership, and keep the Council
abreast of your activity with both written and oral reports.
Let's make sure that we hit “TUFCO" with a knockout punch
that will send the right message to the State. With your
help, we will deliver the best contract ever at the next
round of negotiations.
Fraternally,
John W. Burke
Executive Director
JWB:ss
Security and Law Enforcement Employees Council 82
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO
63 COLVIN AVENUE, ALBANY, N.Y. 12206 PHONE 518/489-8424
November, 1984
Dear Election Coordinator:
I am writing to thank you for taking the respon-
sibility for coordinating the "WIMPCO" busting campaign in
your facility. As it says in our leaflet -- it's easy to
promise...it's hard to deliver...Council 82 delivers."
That's our message, and we're counting on you to bring the
Council 82 message to your fellow union members in one-on-
one situations.
As the campaign progresses, we will distribute other
leaflets to you for distribution so that you can discuss the
fundamental and deep-seated differences which exist between
Council 82 and "Tufco".
Worthless
Inexperienced
Misrepresentatives for
Phony
Correction
Officers
You may be wondering why we are calling “Tufco"
"WIMPCO". This is because the name "Tufco" is a fraud. It
implies that it is a tough union, when it is, in tact, an
association run for and by WIMPS -- Worthless,
Inexperienced, Misrepresentatives tor Phony Correction
Officers. "“Tufco” is not a union, it is not a federation --
it is a charitable organization for five self-appointed
dictators. It doe not deserve to be called a union since it
has never negotiated a single contract, processed a single
grievance, held a single election for officers, or held a
single constitutional convention.
-
Article in the Plattsburgh Press Republican October 3, 1984
TUFCO vs. Council 82
To the Editor:
Council 82 is intentionally distorting the language of the
Constitution of TUFCO. Lets set the record straight.
Council 82's distortions
TUFCO is run by a dictatorship.
TUFCO leadership have been put into power permanently.
TUFCO does not have conventions.
TUFCO'will have its main office in Hudson Falls and ignor
the rest of the State.
TUFCO lied to the people and refused to respresent the whole
Security Services Unit.
TUFCO local officers are appointed by the directors.
There will be an initial fee of $200 per man.
The TUFCO directos set fees and dues arbitrarily at any time.
TUFCO Constitution does not allow referendums or vots by the
membership.
THE TRUTH ABOUT TUFCO:
The Statewide officers are elected by on man one vote sustem.
Statewide elections every three years.
Conventions are held every two years.
After the election the main office will be in Albany.
TUFCO will represent the entire Unit as required by the Taylor
Law. However, a separate structure is put into place for non-
correction grounvs.
The locals will elect their own leadership.
The budget is proposed by the directors based on imoput from the
locals and regional business agents. The budget must then be
approved by the Union board made up of the chief stewards of
all locals.
The dues are set by the regular budget procedure. There is no
initial fee.
The directors may propose amendments but the regular or special
conventions must approve the amendments by majority vote. The
membership at large then may approve the amendments by majority
vote. Amendments may be submitted by locals.
There will be an election between TUFCO and Council 82. The
petition cards have been turned over to PERB. The dues paying members
will decide who is the better Union. In order to make a wise decision
one must know the facts. If any one would like more information or
have a meeting in your area please write to TUFCO, Box 310, Hudson
Falls, New York 12983.
Signed Phil Dobie, Saranac Lake, N.Y.
THE ISSUE IS POWER
Dear Brothers and Sisters:
In the coming days, you will be making an extremely
important choice. You can vote to continue progress with
Council 82 as your bargaining representative, or you can
risk losing everything by replacing us with an unproven
paper organization, which has never negotiated a _ single
labor contract!
On the other’ hand, the Council 82 record of
achievement is clear, and we're proud of it:
- 32% pay increase over the past 3 years;
- strong seniority system;
- 25 year half-pay immediately upon retire-
ment for all Correction Officers.
While other unions have been “giving back", Council 82
has been winning victories at the bargaining table and in
the Legislature. Our success isn't based on luck, it's a
matter of power.
In the upcoming election, you have a choice between a
proven, powerful union, Council 82, and an inexperienced,
powerless paper organization, tufco. It's that simple. The
stakes are high and the choice is clear. Stick with the
real union -- stick with power -- vote for Council 82.
Fraternally,
John W. Burke
Executive Director
JWB:ss
One Commerce Plaza, Suite 1012, Albany, New York 12210 (518) 465-4585
(|
To: Frank Benedetto From: Steve Fantauzzo A Date__5/30/84
Phil Sparks Memo of 5/22/84
COUNCIL 82 _
For Your Information
4/4/34 7 eb bi _
One Commerce Plaza, Suite 1012, Albany, New York 12210 Telephone: (518) 465-4585
May 29, 1984
£0: Phil Sparks
FROM: Steve Pentausedff
RE: Council 82 Communications Program
In reviewing your May 22, 1984 memo regarding
International Public Affairs Assistance for Council 82,
we May want to address two additional areas.
1) In addition to developing an organizing
poster for Council 82, it is my understanding
that we will also be reprinting 5,000 copies
of the special Public Employee reprint of
correction officers for Council 82. This
reprint will eliminate the back-side picture
of Leander McCall and include on its front-
page the Council 82 slogan, "Council 82 - The
Right People, The Right Union, The Right Stuff."
2) We will also be placing a Council 82 story
(to be determined) in the July or August issue
of the Public Employee. The purpose of this
story will be to accentuate the positive efforts
that Council 82 is undertaking on behalf of its
members.
The July to September proposed project budget
presently contains funding for the corrections reprint.
Please let me know is there is a problem in
pursuing these two additional areas.
SF: dbw ss
cc: John W. Burke’
Thomas King
Vincene O'brien
John Funiciello
STATE OF NEW YORK - DEPARTMENT CF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
WALLKTLL CORRFCTIONAL FACILITY
INTER-DEPARTMFNTAL COMMUNICATION
FROM; Robert Vosper,Ex.Bd.Member
Council 82 DATE: 3-10-84
T: Frank Benedetto,Project Staff
This is to inform you that on this date Correction officer William West,
was obcerved by myself distributing TUFCO materials,at this facility.
Officer West was on the clock at the time. Also he has approached the
facility administration to have permission to place a TUFCO bulletiatin
Board,in the facility.
As a member of Local 613 & Council 82,it would seem that these activities
place Brother West in direct violation of AFSCME'S constitution.
As a member of this organization I would like to see charges brought against
“OAK VQ
Robert ve
Brother West for these activities.
COUNCIL 32
S7NHESY, nt
Wa Ce L ve
{B/12/19/79
Yous? &
F We HB
“THE
COUNCIL &2
Some lk
POSE:STAR -
Home Newspaper of the Adirondack Region
GLENS FALLS, NEW YORK
Monday, April 16, 1984
School district,
Federation agree
on school
By PAUL RAYNO
Correspondent
HUDSON FALLS — The Unit-
ed Federation of Correction
Officers Inc. and the Hudson
Falls School District have
agreed on terms for the
purchase of the Main Street
School.
Reginald Cote, spokesman for
the Federation, told the The
Post-Star Sunday night that he
signed a contract and put a
deposit on the building Thursday
while meeting with Board of
Education representatives and
Dr. John G. Zeis, school district
superintendent. Cote said the
closing could take place within
60 days, pending favorable ac-
tion on a loan application by the
employee organization. The
purchase
purchase price reportedly was
$50,000.
The group has a membership
of more than 500 local security
personnel employed by the state
Department of Correction,
mostly from Great Meadow and
Mt. McGregor facilities. Plans
for the building include an
extensive health center. offices
for the organization which will
include its state headquarters
and banquet facilities.
The Hudson Falls Central
School District declared the
Main Street School surplus after
it moved the district head-
uarters last year summer to
the Junior High School.
There will be a meeting of the
Federation membership at 7:30
tonight in the Park House
restaurant. Plans for the build-
ing will be detailed.
at ee
8s 1 et Oe
1625 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone (202) 452-4800
To: John Burke/Steve FantauzzOfrom;___ Phil spafks Date__2/22/84
Re: International Assistance for Cn. 82 Communications PYOGLAaM cal No.
Per our meeting last week, and a meeting I had today with
Vinnie O'Brien and Tom King, I wanted to summarize the assistance
that the International is committed to giving Council 82 this
Summer prior to the window period.
a) John Funicello will be available to help on the writing
and editing of the Council 82 newspaper as well as the
various mailings we will do this Summer.
b) The International will help write, edit, produce, print
and mail three unit-wide pieces emphasizing Council 82
accomplishments and services, legislative victories
and negotiating victories and a "strength in numbers
brochure" noting the value of being part of AFSCME.
In addition, we will work on several specialized
mailings to predominantly black facilities, other
safety offices, those with high seniority (Tier III
reforms) and new Correction Officers (the trainee rate
victory).
c) We will hold-off a decision on the airing of radio ads
for now because the TUFCO campaign has not developed
yet. We would want to focus on issues as they unfold.
Further, if a campaign does unfold, it would
probably be more effective to air our ads later in
the Summer. We will reassess our position in July
or August as the campaign progresses.
da) We will set a regular schedule of radio actuality feeds
every two wecks, produced and fed to the 45 stations
near the facilities, through the Summer as a way of
increasing our public visibility.
e) We will develop an organizing poster for Council 82.
£) We will work to publicize any special legislative
conferences or leadership meetings that Council 82
has this Summer.
PS:le COUNCIL 82
ann
cc: Tom King f f
Vinnie O'Brien [
John Funicello
ui
hw
|
Janet McMahon a Ht
Sabina Parks SASS: aS
Skip Prior AFSCME AFL-CIO
in the public service
BAe. - GO-6
COUNCIL @2
; pS Em oF
' x
1 a . Nat
ar JUND 2 1984 ji
Lowered
AFSCME AFL-CIO
G/l2/f 4 Glynn bP DcBetnact | 7
Types ef Tips. Sen! 6Y Thee amphi PY
4 of pnepr STZa ces
Caschdled Ties 19- YER
(op ng cy Trips 3g5- 413
Ad missus Te hosps 196 |) 937
Di schoiges Toc Aoi p YR 403 FF
SF Gapes ESceTS/ Tp i SA
Local Sehedelad Teper 2647.1 6F
Totals S¥7 Ea os
Aroeze ef STUY Teper fr oly
os
(SCP fmaian foes pet ory
hosp Saale ac aiTA semmafis 14 Fee
A Laas l7e£ 77 me
Val halle hosp «life ¢- SBYEY l2s0 Aer
Melon hasp = —g 1/220 her
Ja7al £502 bes
4 T. ly ps spewdey =
Laas = Se: ya llew Shes T
; Zfprek we Lol aol SG orf "7S
J fvsp s
—_ Ppp ror. C6 pss20(Ts_ov OTe xy fa 1 :
‘a gssov le fur av oA eo frF
= Tir 2 Sl
E Cyp rm. Fisuva)
z P77 eu Fel escrpes ov eocopes off*
eee grovied Tres ot
~ - dee dpe HK da & OTe my Tak
CES 27 ey 4H TE yer perish
Py Es copes -
ie Ie ale eaceuigiad Comision _ 6/eo_
— RO PTemyrel Se
-_ ei Zp pe or. pits: O mey. bows = mostty.
oT OT voTe — :
Ce caaps wiTe—
flesp. Covers Qe =— WU2W be insets we
Lrmmater + a a
€ otk s7G Y/ [go -Sa2/ey 42586 \w
¥ Mow Tbr
ba al |
a S32S ke
TY pes Pre. ae scncecesimab cei
—See~e, yelw thmeie—*
i Types —~ bile il
bur glerty feed €3
Growl howweens
Cri. Sole Cont Sods.
fos. STles prop
Eodans, ele Foun: eltf
pd i
a we a Pee Budamy,
=
rs, Tistses Aow Sos fowe
: a pre - Ih ee eee ee
: GIO. 20 | SL6
Peo: 1S JER
(3p MAO HR
933 €927(2P) 3G
aid beomagtis : _
Movlew~ / aw
2m _ ee ee al
AM 41 4
ts " 2X es
: Maslov 42
TC pe 20
Sodomy 9
Lex Po6urme Kq
Aa 2/
ts 26.3 Yo
Cvwm. fos. Weper 1.9
WV s ep 27
Reblevy fk 303 3S
5%.
fAcfe! Most oF Ts, lou ee
Ml Te pa | cho~ sex, ON/y
et] KMosT Sermovs Bloc
—
Fa
queens ft LS. eer Tek
so3 hs. Sowvsy.—_ 2
ia i ol Alp! | —
at =
Mid-Hudson Psychiatric Center
‘:NCIDENT REPORT
February, 1984
Swellings
% of Incident Bruises &
MONTH lucident # of Pts. Involved Pts. Superficial
1933 Rute Incident; Injured Sustaining Inj. Lacerations
Feb. '83 16 169 43 23% 38
Mar. 13 149 26 16% 25
Apr. a 123 32 24% 25
May 14 156 29 17% 15
June BAe | 142 39 25% 23
July BEE 128 28 20% 25.
Aug. 13 148 50 31% 20
Sept. 12 134 33 22% 18
OCt. 3 iB 114 29 23% a7
Nov. 10 109 32 27% 18
Dec. 10 is 30 24% 18
Jan. '84 10 LES: 30 25% 14
Feb. 10 121. 41 30% 29
% of Incident
Averaye February Incident # of Pts. Involved Pts.
Population ~%& Incidents _ Rate Injured* % Sustaining Inj.
HOSP, 386 100 "S20. 100 10 41 100 30
Kid.
2 65 17 24 20 12 5 LZ 24
3 143 37 44 36 10 19 46 36
4 147 38 42 35 9 L3 32 28
5 13 3 ake & 9 27 4 10 36
8 18 5 (¢) = = (e) - 0
*Includes Repeaters
®*ineludes repeaters
Classification (Section 24) February, 1984
/ o j / |
‘ of a i /
= Q,
v Q 5
s / 2 [ss
Pi
o = “| “ on | a
% a 6 o we <
o o 2 FS
( (s) wv
< a fo)
Unit #2 3 = - c = 8
21
22
23
24
uUrN re
'
'
!
'
31 2
ae 3
33 4
34 1 ae i = =
35 vi
36 8
Unit #3 25 2 2 4 = 20
41 - - - - -
42 -
43 4
44 4
3
3
1ewit
i)
'
'
45
46
Unit 4 14 7 = = = 26
cael - - - 1 1 -
52 3 - - 6 = 1
Unit #5 3 = - 7 1 1
81 - - - - - -
HOSP.
TOTAL 51 9 2 18 1 55
_ eee re es
oo , February, 1984
Assault Fight Self-Abuse Other 11-7
“February, '84 51 9 18 55 4
January, '84 32 8 12 63 10
December, '83 50 17 is 49 4
November, '83 50 8 5 50 1
October, ‘83 51 A 5 53 -
September, '83 63 14 10 47 8
August, '83 60 14 Ed 61 4
July, '83 60 i9 is 45 6
June, '83 61 17 13 58 4
May, '83 66 14 17 78 9
April, 83 46 20 9 55 4
: March, '83 59 15 2 78 re
February, '83 yp 20 8 Si 2
saswars., "83 Re 9 14 Zs ?
Security and Law Enforcement Employees Council 82
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO
63 COLVIN AVENUE, ALBANY, N.Y. 12206 PHONE 518/489-8424
June 5, 1984
Deputy Superintendant George Frees
c/o Long Island Correctional Facility
Brentwood, New York 11717
Dear Deputy Superintendant Frees:
This letter is to confirm our conversation on June l,
1984 in reference to illegal soliciting of Council 82 members
by T.U.F.C.O. I brought to your attention that on the morning
of May 23, 1984 Marion Dantzler (a T.U.F.C.0O. board member)
went into the training classroom with 16 0.J.T. correction
officers present. He distributed T.U.F.C.O. challenge cards
and solicited the officers to sign the cards. All officers,
including Mr. Dantzler, were on duty at the time.
Mr. Dantzler's actions were both unethical and in violation
of the Employee Relations Manual, page 12.3, section 6. With
this I am requesting that you investigate this matter and let
me know what action you took to correct it.
Sincerely,
bury Metron
Larry Germano
Council 82 Field
Representative
LG/dmf
cc: John W. Burke, Executive Director
Security and Law Enforcement Employees Council 82
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO
63 COLVIN AVENUE, ALBANY, N.Y. 12206 PHONE 518/489-8424
June 5, 1984
Superintendant George Frees
c/o Long Island Corr. Facility
Brentwood, New York 11717
Dear Superintendant Frees:
This letter is to confirm our conversation on June l,
1984 in reference to illegal soliciting of Council 82 members
by T.U.F.C.O. I brought to your attention that on the morning
of May 23, 1984 Marion Dantzler (a T.U.F.C.O. board member)
went into the training classroom with 16 0.J.T. correction
officers present. He distributed T.U.F.C.0O. challenge cards
and solicited the officers to sign the cards. All officers,
including Mr. Dantzler, were on duty at the time.
Mr. Dantzler's actions were both unethical and in violation
of the Employee Relations Manual, page 12.3, section 6. With
this I am requesting that you investigate this matter and let
me know what action you took to correct it.
Sincerely,
Huy barns
Larry Germano
Council 82 Field
Representative
LG/dmf
cc: John W. Burke, Executive Director
— COUNCIL 62
UNITED STATES POST OFFICE
ELMIRA, NY 14901
July 17, 1984
AFSCME AFL-CIO
American Agriculturist
P.O. Box 516
Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
Gentlemen:
A determination has been made regarding the improperly made Business
Bulk Mailing of February 21, 1984 on your Permit # 13 on behalf of
THE UNITED FEDERATION OF CORRECTION OFFICERS, INC.
The organization is not an integral part of your firm, with the
only common factor being that the National Casualty Insurance
Company is the Agent for your firm, and TUFCO Inc. It would not be
out of the realm of possibility that National Casualty is also the
Agent for many other organizations, however this does not meet the
criteria for sharing or using a client's assigned Bulk Business
Mail Permit.
Therefore, it is our decision to find that this mail should not
have been mailed on the permit of another, and since TUFCO does
not have a permit at our office, declare it to be a Revenue
Deficiency of $361.53. This amount was arrived at by taking the
number of pieces in the mailing, 4017, times the .09¢ difference
between the .11¢ charged and the single piece rate for third class
mail, which is .20¢.
Furthermore, please be advised that it is not permissible to mail
matter for other than your organization under your permit for Bulk
Business Mail, and your Permit Imprint.
The above mentioned Revenue Deficiency should be taken care of as
soon as possible, but no longer than 90 days from the receipt of
this letter. This would mean a target date of October 18, 1984
for payment to have been made. Thank you for your understanding in
this matter, and should you have a question regarding this Deficiency,
please contact me at (607) 734-5188.
Sincerely,
YGUEY Cl fee fools £10 UK
Manager, Customer Services
U.S. Postal Service
Elmira, N.Y. 14901-9998
jeegenad, Z CO Lardite Richard L. Dalton
TO: Jack Burke , >
FROM: Chris Gardner
DATE: September 5, 1984
3 Validation of Signatures on Challenge Cards
In response to your request I have prepared a memorandum
concerning PERB's policies concerning validation of authorization
cards and our right as a Union to force them to validate these
signatures.
I.) PEF - CSEA
The premier case concerning the validation of signatures
involves the PEF - CSEA fight. Since this case reached the Court
of Appeals, it is the most authoritative case law on the subject.
In order to understand the Court of Appeals case, however,
it is essential to review the Appellate Division determination as
well, and the underlying facts.
In compliance with PERB rules, in August, 1979, PEF filed
a representation petition with PERB, accompanied with a 30% showing
of interest on Signature cards and/or petitions.
On October 4, 1977, the Assistant Director of Public
Employment Practices and Representation determined that PEF had
made the necessary showing for an election.
On October 7, 1977, CSEA formally requested that PERB
conduct a signature comparison to determine whether PEF had actuaily
established a 30% showing of interest.
On October 26, 1977, the Director of Public Employment
Practices and Representation determined that the petition was timely
and ordered an election in the PS&T unit. The attempt to gain
judicial review prior to the election was dismissed by the Supreme
Court pursuant to 213(b) of the Civil Service Law which precludes
judicial review of PERB orders during certification proceedings until
PERB finally issued a certification order.
The election was held in April, 1978 and PEF won with a
vote of 15,062 to 12,259 for CSEA.
CSEA filed objections to the election and a hearing officer
held a hearing on these objections. Both the hearing officer and PERB
upheld the election, whereupon PERB certified PEF as the bargaining
agent.
One of the three issues presented to the courts was the
alleged deficiency in the 30% showing of interest.
Prior to the election CSEA repeatedly urged that the
Director take a random sampling of the signature cards on the
showing of interest and have their signatures checked against
known signatures of the employees in order to determine their
authenticity. According to the Court, "This method would have
required the checking of only 450 signatures and would have deter-
mined the total number of signatures within a 5% margin if ever.
Quick, simple, and inexpensive, this method would have resolved
any lingering doubts as to the validity of the showing of interest."
The method which PERB actually employed to authenticate
signatures was bizzare:
"The Director engaged a handwriting expert who was given examples
of four people involved in the PEF campaign. After reviewing
approximately 1,000 signatures in the showing of interest,
which were not randomly selected, the expert concluded that
there was no evidence of common authorship in the showing of
interest. Having made the decision to investigate the question
of forgery, the Director was bound to proceed in a manner
reasonably related to the result sought to be achieved. He
did not do so. The method used by the Director's handwriting
expert merely disproved a particular method of forgery rather
than the presence of forgery.
Accordingly, the Appellate Division annulled PERB's
determination and remitted the matter to PERB for further hearings
into the authenticity of the signatures.
However, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate
Division and ordered the certification of PERB to be reinstated,
based upon the dissent of A. Franklin Manoney. The Court added:
"In addition we would note that the method selected by the
Director of PERB was reasonably designed to detect the only
type of forgery which was alleged to have occurred in this
case and no alternative method was proposed until after the
selection of the method employed and the results were known."
II.) Other Relevant Cases
It is well-established that certification petition of
Union which submitted fraudulent showing of interest cards should
be dismissed. Town of Babylon,6 PERB Par. 4024.
Nevertheless, it is also well-established that a Director's
decision as to the numerical sufficiency of a showing of interest
is not subject to board review. Yonkers v. Bd. of Educ., 10 PERB Par.
3100 See also State of New York, 15 PERB Par. 3014.
In a case involving Council 82, PERB held that claimed
misrepresentation that employees signing a petition were advised that the
&
instrument was merely petition "to eliminate overtime” was not
a sufficient basis for vitiating the showing of interest. Even
if the alleged statement was made, it was not such as to distract
or direct signer from words on written form which indicated that
signers were designating petitioning Union as their exclusive
representative. Erie County Sheriff, 13 PERB Par. 4060.
Thus, the suggestion that verbal statements
made to card signers that it was to get a Union just for correction
officers, would not be sufficient to knock TUFCO off the ballot,
since that would not be enough to "distract or direct signer" from
the written words on the form.
In New York City Transit Authority, 15 PERB Par. 3037, PERB
held that a Union's certification without an election as representative
of a unit of transit authority employees on basis of its evidence of
majority support was improperly granted since post-certification
data raised question of authenticity of designation cards upon which
determination of Union's majority support was based. Certification
was revoked and an election was ordered.
TELS Possible Course of Action
In order to get PERB to take a look at the authenticity
of the cards, I suggest two specific courses of action.
First, based on the PEF - CSEA fight, it is important
that we uncover some fraud. Since we cannot look at the cards,
I suggest we mail out to each bargaining unit member a card
stating that they have not signed a TUFCO authorization and, which
the member would be affirmed under penalty of perjury. At the same
time, we would ask each local president to get these cards signed
at their facilities and return them to Council 82. Local President's
would mail these back in bulk. Individuals could mail these cards
back with postage paid by Council 82.
Under New York City Transit Authority, 15 PERB 3037, a
sufficient number of cards so Signed could raise an issue of fact,
as to the authenticity of the TUFCO cards.
Second, we should request as soon as possible, that FERB
authenticate all signatures on a random sampling of cards versus a
known signature of the employee. We should also submit a list of
TUFCO organizers who we believe have forged cards and request that
PERB authenticate all signatures on a random sampling of cards versus
the signatures of suspected TUFCO forgers. We should, at the same
time, submit some evidence of fraud.
At that point, we could also submit a list of people who
claimed to not have signed cards and submit their signatures on
cards which state that they have not signed cards.
We cannot force PERB to authenticate the cards, but if
we are able to help them put together a case of possible fraud, then
they may take some action. Even if we don't knock TUFCO off the
ballot, it should be an effective organizing tool.
SAMPLE AFFIRMATION
a , affirm under penalty of
perjury that I am a member of the Security Services Unit and that
I have never signed a card or any other document authorizing the
Union of Federated Correction Officers to act as my bargaining
representative.
NAME ; FACILITY
DATE LOCAL
oF
_Loos
238
rangements for the division of professional
income in circumstances where such a prac-
tice might threaten or impair the discharge
of professional responsibility to clients.
There is nothing of that here. In the arbi-
tration, as would have been the case in a
judicial proceeding, a computation of dam-
ages has been made. It is not invalidated
because it was predicated on the parties’
own prior division of client revenue or the
circumstance of the precise arithmetic par-
allel thereto.
We have considered the other contentions
advanced by respondent for denial of the
motion to confirm the award and find them
to be without merit.
COOKE, C. J., and JASEN, GABRIELLI,
JONES, WACHTLER and FUCHSBERG,
JJ., concur.
Order reversed, with costs, and the judg-
ment of Supreme Court, New York County,
reinstated in a memorandum.
389 N.E.2d 833
46 N.Y.2d 1005
_jIn the Matter of the CIVIL SERVICE
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Respondent-Appellant,
v.
Harold NEWMAN et al., Constituting the
Public Employment Relations Board, et
al., Appellants-Respondents,
and
James B. Northrop, as Acting Director of
the Governor’s Office of Employee Rela-
tions of the State of New York, et al.
Respondents.
Court of Appeals of New York.
March 27, 1979.
Appeal was taken by union from a
judgment of the Supreme Court, Special
416 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES
ee
Nise
* 46 N.Y.2d 1003
Term, Albany County, Con G. Cholakis, J.,
dismissing application of union for an order
declaring determination of the Public Em-
ployment Relations Board null and void and
78 petition was initiated by union to review
determination of board certifying a rival
union as exclusive bargaining agent for civ-
il service employees. The Supreme Court,
Appellate Division, T. Paul Kane, J., 66
A.D.2d 38, 412 N.Y.S.2d 432, affirmed the
judgment of the Special Term and annulled
the determination of the Board, and appeal
was taken to the Court of Appeals. That
court held that Public Employment Rela-
tions Board properly certified the public
employees federation as the exclusive repre-
sentative of state employees in the profes-
sional, scientific and technical services unit
notwithstanding charge that the election, at
which the federation was chosen as the
employees’ representative, was tainted by
forgery.
Order of Appellate Division modified
and as modified affirmed.
Labor Relations 214
Public Employment Relations Board
properly certified the public employees fed-
eration as the exclusive representative of
state employees in the professional, scientif-
ic and technical services unit notwithstand-
ing charge that the election, at which the
federation was chosen as the employees’
representative, was tainted by forgery.
James W. Roemer, Jr., Marjorie E. Ka-
rowe, Richard L. Burstein, Michael J.
Smith, Albany, and William M. Wallens,
Guilderland, for respondent-appellant.
Martin L. Barr, Jerome Thier, Anthony
Cagliostro and Richard A. Curreri, Albany,
for Public Employment Relations Board,
appellant-respondent.
James R. Sandner, Jeffrey S. Karp, David
N. Stein, New York City, and Susan Bloom
Jones for Public Employees Federation,
New York City, appellant-respondent.
peer
jit
46 N.Y.2¢ 1011
LOPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
In this article 78 proceeding the Civil
Service Employees Association (CSEA)
challenges an order of the Public Employ-
ment Relations Board (PERB) which certi-
fied the Public Employees Federation
(PEF) as the exclusive representative of
State employees in the professional, scien-
tific and technical services unit. With re-
spect to most of the issues, the Appellate
Division accepted PERB’s determination
that the objections raised by CSEA lacked
merit. However a majority at the Appel-
late Division disapproved the method em-
ployed by the director of PERB for resolv-
ing and rejecting CSEA’s claim that the
election, at which PEF was chosen as the
employees representative, was tainted by
forgery. Thus the Appellate Division an-
nulled PERB’s determination and remitted
for the limited purpose of conducting fur-
ther proceedings on the forgery complaint.
PERB and both unions have appealed from
that determination.
The order of the Appellate Division
should be modified and PERB’s determina-
tion reinstated for the reasons stated in the
opinion of Presiding Justice A. Franklin
Mahoney at the Appellate Division. In ad-
dition we would note that the method se-
lected by the director of PERB was reason-
ably designed to detect the only type of
forgery which was alleged to have occurred
in this case and no alternative method was
proposed until after the selection of the
method employed and the results were
known. Thus in our view there is no basis
whatsoever for concluding that the director
acted arbitrarily and capriciously in choos-
ing this method for resolving the forgery
claim.
The other issues, raised by CSEA on the
cross appeal, were properly resolved by the
Appellate Division, and to that extent, the
PEOPLE v. GONZALEZ
Cite as 416 N.Y.S.26 238
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Michael F.
Colligan and Shirley Adelson Siegel, Asst.
Attys. Gen., of counsel), for respondents.
239
order of the Appellate Division should be
affirmed.
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate
Division should be modified, with costs to
PERB and PEF against CSEA, to the ex-
tent of reinstating the determination of
PERB and, as so modified, affirmed.
COOKE, C. J., and JASEN, GABRIELLI,
JONES, WACHTLER and FUCHSBERG,
JJ., concur in Per Curiam opinion.
Order modified, with costs to PEF and
PERB against CSEA,|in accordance with _|100s
the opinion herein and, as so modified, af-
firmed. -
w
© £ KEY NUMBER SYSTEM
T
389 N.E.2d 834
46 N.Y.2d 1011
1The PEOPLE of the State of New
York, Respondent,
ben
v.
Carlos GONZALEZ, Appellant.
Court of Appeals of New York.
March 27, 1979.
Defendant was convicted in Supreme
Court, Bronx County, Stanley S. Ostrau, J.,
of first-degree robbery, and the Supreme
Court, Appellate Division, First Depart-
ment, 61 A.D.2d 666, 403 N.Y.S.2d 514, af-
firmed. The Court of Appeals held that the
circumstances surrounding an accidental
viewing of defendant by a robbery victim
were not unnecessarily suggestive, and that
a policeman was properly permitted to tes-
tify that the victim identified defendant
during such confrontation.
Affirmed.
432 412 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES
The contents of these two reports were not
made known to defense counsel or included
anywhere in the record. The trial court
should have taken testimony or stated for
the record, outside the jury’s presence, its
reasons for taking unusual visible security
measures before a jury (People v. Mendola,
2 N.Y.2d 270, 277, 159 N.Y.S.2d 473, 478,
140 N.E2d 353, 356). This error may be
cured by a post-trial hearing wherein the
contents of the reports upon which the trial
court based its rulings may become known.
In this way, it can be determined whether
there has been-an abuse of discretion (Peo-
ple v. Mendola, supra, Pp. 276, 277, 159
N.Y.S.2d pp. 477, 478, 140 N.E.2d pp. 356,
857; People v. Reingold, 44 A.D.2d 191, 197,
353 N.Y.S.2d 978, 985; People v. Williams,
36 A.D.2d 1018, 321 N.Y.S.2d 463).
The matter must be remitted to the trial
court for a hearing as to the necessity of
handcuffing defendant during the trial.
Decision withheld, and matter remitted to
the Columbia County Court for proceedings
not inconsistent herewith.
w
© § KEY NUMBER SYSTEM
Tt
66 A.D.2d 38
In the Matter of The CIVIL SERVICE
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC., et
al, Appellants,
v.
Harvey MILOWE et al., Respondents.
(Proceeding No. 1.)
In the Matter. of The CIVIL SERVICE
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
INC,, Petitioner,
Vv.
Harold NEWMAN et al., Constituting the
Public Employment Relations Board, et
al, Respondents. (Proceeding No. 2.)
Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
- Third Department.
Jan. 11, 1979.
Appeal was taken by union from a
“judgment of the Supreme Court, Special
i :
Term, Albany County, Con G. Cholakis, J.,
dismissing application of union for an order
declaring a determination of the Public Em-
ployment Relations Board null and void and
an Article 78 petition was initiated by union
to review determination of Board certifying
a rival union as exclusive bargaining agent
for civil service employees. The Supreme
Court, Appellate Division, Kane, J., held
that: (1) sufficiency of showing by rival
union of an interest in representation by
civil service employees in bargaining unit
already in existence was not 4 jurisdictional
prerequisite to obtaining a representative
election, and (2) director of public employ-
ment practices and representation did not
proceed in a manner reasonably related to
results sought to be achieved and, as such,
acted arbitrarily and capriciously in investi-
gating question of forgery with respect to
showing of interest by rival union of at
least 30% of civil service employees in bar-
gaining unit where method used by hand-
writing expert merely disproved a particu-
lar method of forgery rather than presence
of forgery.
Judgment of Special Term affirmed,
and determination of Board annulled.
Mahoney, P. J., concurred in part and
dissented in part and filed opinion.
Affirmed as modified, 46 N.Y2d 1005,
416 N.Y.S.2d 238, 389 N.E.2d 833.
1. Statutes =219(1)
Construction given a statute by agency
responsible for its administration should not
be lightly set aside and should be upheld if
not irrational or unreasonable.
2. Labor Relations ¢=261
Premature extension of bargaining
agreement between state and union repre-
senting civil service employees did not ex-
tend period of unchallenged status beyond
that which. resulted from duration of origi-
nal agreement an¢, hence, certification peti-
tion filed by rival union subsequent to dura-
tion of original agreement was not untime-
ly. Civil Service Law §- 208, subds. 2, 2(b,
c).
CIVIL SERV. EMP. ASS’, INC. v- MILOWE
Cite as 412 N.Y.S.26 432
3, Labor Relations e214
It was not unreasonable for Public Em-
ployment Relations Board to accept as rea-
sonable the decision of Industrial Commis-
sioner holding that employee who was
charged by union with favoritism because
he was retained on state payroll while he
devoted his energies to @ rival union would
not be subjected to discipline at that time
because such discipline was inappropriate
during a contested election campaign by
poth unions for representation of civil ser-
vice employees. Civil Service Law § 208,
subds. 2, 2(b, ¢).
4, Labor Relations 210
Sufficiency of showing by rival union
of an interest in representation by civil
8. Labor Relations e215
Certification election was not in itself
sufficient to cure any defects appearing by
reason of fraud in showing of interest by
rival union of at least 30% of civil service
employees in bargaining unit. Civil: Service
Law §§ 202, 203, 208, 213(b).
9. Labor Relations =214
That rival union was created for pur-
pose of supplanting union representing civil
service employees was not & fact which was
inconsistent with its primary purpose of
improving terms and conditions of employ-
ment for public employees and, hence, was
not a basis for denying rival union status as
an “employee organization.” Civil Service
Law §§ 201, subd. 5, 213. f
service employees in bargaining unit al-
ready in existence was not 2 jurisdictional
prerequisite to obtaining 2 representative
election. Civil Service Law § 208, subds. 2.
2b, c).
5, Labor Relations 223
Union representing civil service em-
ployees did not have a constitutionally pro-
tected interest in continuing as exclusive
bargaining agent for those employees when
there was a showing by @ rival union of an
interest of at least 30% of employees in
unit. Civil Service Law §§ 202, 203, 208,
213(b). .
6. Officers 61
Provision of Civil Service Law prohibit-
ing judicial review of any orders made by
Public Employment Relations Board or its
agents until order of certification is made is
not unconstitutional. Civil Service Law
§ 213(b).
7. Labor Relations 214
Director of public employment prac-
tices and representation did not proceed in
a manner reasonably related to results
sought to be achieved and, as such, acted
arbitrarily and capriciously in investigating
question of forgery with respect to showing
of interest by rival union of at least 30% of
civil service employees in bargaining unit
where method used by handwriting expert
merely disproved @ particular method of
forgery rather than presence of forgery.
Civil Service Law §§ 202, 203, 208, 213(b).
412 N.Y.S26—10
organization”
Law.
218. me
See publication Words and Phrases
for other judicial constructions and
definitions.
10. Labor Relations 214
Finding of Public Employment Rela-
tions Board that rival union’s current mem-~
bership was not controlling on issue wheth-
er rival union was ent
“employee organization
tial number of
indicated a desire to become members of
rival union was reasonable and supported @
more liberal construction of term “employee
itled to status as an
” because a substan-
civil service employees had
appearing in Civil Service
Civil Service Law §§ 201, subd. 5,
Roemer & Featherstonhaugh, Albany
(James W. Roemer, Jr., Albany, of counsel),
for petitioners-appellants.
Martin L. Barr, Albany, for Harold New-
man and others, respondents.
James R. Sandner, New York City, for
Public Employees Federation, respondent.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Michael
F. Colligan and William J. Kogan, Albany,
of counsel), for James B. Northrop and an-
other, respondents.
Before MAHONEY, P. J., and GREEN-
BLOTT, SWEENEY, KANE and STALEY,
JJ.
eee anes
if
a
Hy
parr
434 412 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES
KANE, Justice.
On August 31, 1977, Public Employees
Federation (PEF) filed a petition for decer-
tification of CSEA as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative for the Professional, Sci-
entific and Technical Services Unit (PS&T
unit) and certification of PEF as its bar-
gaining agent. In order to file such a peti-
tion, PERB required that the petition be
supported by a showing of interest of at
least 30% of the employees in the unit al-
ready in existence (4 NYCRR 201.3{e]). In
compliance therewith, PEF filed signature
cards and/or petitions allegedly represent-
ing a 30% showing of interest. On October
4, 1977, the assistant director of Public Em-
ployment Practices and Representation de-
termined that PEF had made the necessary
showing. On October 7, 1977, CSEA for-
mally requested that PERB conduct a sig-
nature comparison to determine whether
PEF had actually established a 30% show-
ing of interest. This request was denied.
On October 26, 1977, the director of Pub-
lic Employment Practices and Representa-
tion (director) determined that the petition
which had been filed by PEF was timely
and ordered an election in the PS&T unit.
In January of 1978, CSEA sought to stop
this election by seeking actual authentica-
tion of the signatures comprising the show-
ing of interest. This attempt to gain judi-
cial review was dismissed by Special Term
pursuant to section 213 (subd. (b]) of the
Civil Service Law.! The election, conducted
by CSEA, was held in April of 1978. PEF
won with a vote of 15,062 to CSEA’s 12,259.
CSEA promptly filed objections to the
election. During the post-election hearing,
hearsay evidence of forgery in the showing
of interest was elicited. CSEA, therefore,
joined complaints of fraud and forgery to
its earlier attack on the sufficiency of the
showing of interest. After a protracted
hearing which resulted in a voluminous rec-
ord that included the receipt in evidence of
numerous exhibits, the director, by decision
dated July 20, 1978, overruled all objections
1. Section 213 (subd. [b]) of the Civil Service
Law, when read in conjunction with section
207 of the Civil Service Law, preciudes judicial
filed by CSEA. This decision was affirmed
by PERB on September 27, 1978, and it
concurrently certified PEF as the repre-
sentative of the PS&T unit. Certification
of PEF as the representative of the PS&T
unit has been stayed pending this proceed-
ing and dues deductions are being held in
escrow during this period. Consolidated
with this appeal are CSEA’s challenges to
both the ruling of Special Term, which dis-
missed its petition in March, and the Sep-
tember order of PERB certifying PEF as
the representative of the PS&T unit. The
issues raised fall into three broad catego-
ries: (1) defects in the showing of interest,
(2) favoritism on the part of the State to-
wards PEF, and (3) the ineligibility of any
union to have challenged CSEA’s represen-
tation of the PS&T unit at the time PEF
filed its certification petition (timeliness of
the petition): Considering these issues in
their inverse order, we address ourselves
first to the effect of subdivision 2 of section
208 of the Civil Service Law on the timeli-
ness of PEF’s petition under the facts
presented.
CSEA entered into a contract with the
State on behalf of the PS&T unit for the
period April 1, 1973 through March 31, 1976.
The same parties subsequently entered into
a new contract for a term beginning April
1, 1976 and ending March 31, 1978. On
June 3, 1977, the parties executed a new
two-year agreement to cover from April 1,
1977 to March 31, 1979. At issue is the
effect of subdivision 2 of section 208 of the
Civil Service Law when a two-year contract
is revised in its second year so that the
agreement will continue in existence for a
third year.
Subdivision 2 of section 208 of the Civil
Service Law states:
An employee organization certified or
recognized * * * shall be entitled to
unchallenged representation status until
seven months prior to the expiration of a
written agreement between the public
employer and seid employee organization
review of PERB orders during certification pro-
ceedings until PERB finally issues a certifica-
tion order.
CIVIL SERV. EMP. ASS'N, INC. v. MILOWE
Cite as 412 N.Y.S2d 432
determining terms and conditions of em-
ployment. For the purposes of this sub-
division, (a2) any such agreement for a
term covering other than the fiscal year
of the public employer shall be deemed to
expire with the fiscal year ending imme-
diately prior to the termination date of
such agreement, (b) any such agreement
having a term in excess of three years
shall be treated as an agreement for a
term of three years and (c) extensions of
any such agreement shall not extend the
period of unchallenged representation
status.
CSEA submits that the correct interpre-
tation of this subdivision requires that the
total three-year period from April 1, 1976
through March 31, 1979 constitutes the
measuring period for determining the
length of unchallenged representation sta-
tus provided for in the statute. Therefore,
the protected status should continue until
seven months prior to the expiration of the
third year covered by contract, i. e, until
August $1, 1978. This construction would
make the instant PEF petition filed on Au-
gust 31, 1977, untimely and require an an-
nulment of PERB’s certification of PEF as
the representative of the PS&T unit
It is CSEA’s argument, in which the
State joins, that paragraphs (b) and (c) of
subdivision 2 of section 208 of the Civil
Service Law must be read together. The
bar to continuing exclusive representation
status would, therefore, be applicable only
when a contract extension exceeded the
three-year limit
PERB, on the other hand, characterizes
this interpretation of the statute as
“strained and contrary to the clear policy of
the law.” It has, in effect, adopted the
position of: the National Labor Relations
Board (NLRB) on similar questions in the
private sector wherein it has held that a
premature extension of an employment
agreement’ does not extend the period of
unchallenged status beyond that which re-
sulted from the duration of the original
contract (Deluxe Metal Furniture Co., 42
LRRM 1470).
435
[1,2] While the intent behind subdivi-
sion 2 of section 208 of the Civil Service
Law is unclear and both sides present what
may be considered reasonable interpreta-
tions thereof, we adhere to the basic rules
that the construction given a statute by the
agency responsible for its administration
should not be lightly set aside (Matter of
Ward v. Nyquist, 43. N.Y.2d 57, 400 N.Y.
$.2d-757, 371 N.E.2d 477; Matter of Lezette
v. Board of Educ., 35 N.Y.2d 272, 360 N.Y.
§.2d 869, 319 N.E.2d 189), and should be
upheld if not irrational or unreasonable
(Matter of Howard v. Wyman, 28 N.Y.2d
434, 322 N.Y.S.2d 683, 271 N.E.2d 528; Mat-
ter of Elmsford Transp. Corp. v. Schuler, 63
A.D.24 1036, 405 N.Y.S.2d 792). According-
ly, we sustain PERB’s finding that the peti-
tion was timely filed.
[3] The charge of favoritism on the part
of the State towards PEF is founded upon
the prolonged retention on the State payroll
of one John Kraemer as a “no-show employ-
ee”. For at least six years prior to March
30, 1976, this individual enjoyed a special
status at the Department of Labor whereby
he devoted his energies to union affairs on
behalf of Service Employees International
Union (SEIU) and later PEF while being
paid by the State. Efforts to cure this
impropriety were met with unfulfilled
promises or open defiance until March 30,
1976 when steps were taken to eliminate
the special treatment being given to
Kraemer, then a prominent PEF official.
Thereafter, he used accumulated leave cred-
it to pursue his “other interests”, but when
the available credit was exhausted he still
remained among the missing. As @ result,
his salary was withheld and he received an
unsatisfactory work performance rating for
the year 1977. At the time of this proceed-
ing, his employee status was unsettled.
However, it is clear that disciplinary meas-
ures have not been instituted by the Indus-
trial Commissioner because, as he explained
at the director's hearing, he felt the disci-
plining of a prominent PEF official would
be inappropriate during a contested election
campaign. PERB accepted this decision of
the Industrial Commissioner as a reasonable
one under all the circumstances, and while
oe
Aimee HHL:
436 412 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES
we do not pass upon the wisdom of this
choice, we cannot say it was unreasonable.
While the record contains hundreds of
pages of testimony relative to the status
and activities of Kraemer and his various
confrontations with his superiors, the di-
rector excluded from consideration all activ-
ities prior to August 31, 1977, the date on
which PEF filed its certification petition.
PERB has adopted this position and in our
view it is a sound one. Otherwise, investi-
gations of election interference could be-
come history lessons. Moreover, we con-
clude that there is substantial evidence to
support PERB’s finding that CSEA has
failed to establish any impact on the elec-
tion arising from the conduct of State offi-
cials during the campaign, and John
Kraemer in particular. We recognize that
his mere presence on the scene coupled with
the notoriety of his high-level connections
could influence others, but this alone is not
enough to overturn the results of an elec-
tion. However, this pattern of shameless
conduct over a period of years strikes at the
very heart of the governmental process and
mandates close scrutiny by the appropriate
prosecutorial authority. We note that the
record contains a copy of a letter, dated
May 23, 1978, from the District Attorney of
Albany County to the counsel for CSEA
requesting any information concerning
these matters. Accordingly, we.direct that
the original record herein be made’ available
to the office of the District Attorney of
Albany County for his examination and
such action as he may deem appropriate.
[4] In determining the alleged defects
in the showing of interest, we are called
upon to examine a multitude of particular-
ized charges both substantive and procedur-
al in nature. Some of these objections to
PERB’s determination that PEF’s showing
of interest was sufficient raise troublesome
questions. At the threshold is CSEA’s con-
tention that the 30% showing of interest
requirement under PERB’s rule (4 NYCRR
201.3) is a jurisdictional prerequisite to ob-
taining a representative election. In reject-
ing this argument, PERB relied upon its
own rule that the director’s determination
as to the timeliness and numerical sufficien-
cy of a showing of interest is a ministerial
act not reviewable by the board itself (4
NYCRR 201.4{c]). Again, PERB has adopt-
ed the reasoning of the NLRB, which has
held that the sufficiency of a showing of
interest in the private sector is not a juris-
dictional prerequisite to the election (NLRB
v. Louisville Chair, 6 Cir., 385 F.2d 922, 926).
The process is one of administrative conve-
nience and we reject CSEA’s contention on
this issue.
[5,6] We also reject CSEA’s constitu-
tional argument that it has a constitutional-
ly protected interest in continuing as the
exclusive bargaining agent for the PS&T
unit. The right to organize and bargain
collectively belongs to the public employees
(Civil Service Law, §§ 202, 203). The un-
ion’s rights are limited to those specified
under section 208 of the Civil Service Law
which does not create a property interest of
constitutional dimensions (cf. Board of Re-
gents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S.
564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548). CSEA
also challenges the constitutionality of sub-
division (b) of section 213 of the Civil Ser-
vice Law which prohibits judicial review of
any orders made by PERB or its agents
until the order of certification is made.
While delay in judicial review may create
undue burdens upon a party, the wisdom of
withholding review of questions which may
be mooted by an election has been recog-
nized in this State (see New York Public
Interest Research Group v. Carey, 42
N.Y.2d 527, 399 N.Y.S.2d 621, 369 N.E.2d
1155; Matter of McCabe v. Voorhis, 243
N.Y. 401, 153 N.E. 849). Since there is a
reasonable basis for this provision, its con-
stitutionality must be sustained.
Of greater substance are the issues raised
by CSEA’s claim of substantial forgeries in
PEF’s showing of interest and PERB’s dis-
missal of the claim of forgery for lack of
evidence. The issue was raised preliminari-
ly, but CSEA’s request for investigation by
PERB was denied for matters of policy.
However, at the post-election hearing
CSEA presented testimony from a former
member of New York State United Teach-
ers (NYSUT) and co-editor of PEF’s cam-
paign publications that he was told the
showing of interest contained some 5,000
forged names and another 5,000 names
from outside the PS&T unit. The sources
of this information were revealed and their
testimony was made part of the record.
The evidence presented was either hearsay
or direct denial of any wrongdoing or
knowledge thereof. It was established,
however, that PEF’s showing of interest did
include 5,000 names from outside the PS&T
unit, but these names were not counted in
arriving at the 30% requirement.
[7] While the “pandwagon” effect of
these additional names is questioned by
CSBA, it was the claim of forgery that
created enough uncertainty in the mind of
the director to cause him to conduct his own
investigation of the serious charges made (4
NYCRR 201.4fe]). In his report the di-
rector had stated that “at this point in my
investigation there is now sufficient objec-
tive and circumstantial evidence to warrant
going forward, and I have done so in a
manner which preserves the confidentiality
of the showing of interest.” It is the man-
ner in which that investigation was con-
ducted that arouses @ certain uneasiness in
reviewing PERB’s ultimate determination
that the election represented @ genuine ex-
pression of the free choice of the voters.
The director engaged 4 handwriting expert
who was given exemplars of four people
involved in the PEF campaign. After re-
viewing approximately 1,000 signatures in
the showing of interest, which were not
randomly selected, the expert concluded
that there was no evidence of common au-
thorship in the showing of interest. Hav-
ing made the decision to investigate the
question of forgery, the director was bound
to proceed in a manner reasonably related
to the result sought to be achieved. He did
not do so. The method used by the di-
rector’s handwriting expert merely dis-
proved a particular method of forgery rath-
er than the presence of forgery.
[8] CSEA had repeatedly urged that the
director take a random sampling of the
signature cards in the showing of interest
aS = La
—— j ao = a
CIVIL SERV. EMP. ASS'N, INC. v. MILOWE 437
Cite as 412 N.Y.S.26 432
and have those signatures checked against
known signatures of the employees in order
to determine their authenticity. This meth-
od would have required the checking of only
450 signatures and would have determined
the total number of forgeries in the show-
ing of interest within a 5% margin of error.
Quick, simple and inexpensive, this method
would have resolved any lingering doubts as
to the validity of PEF’s showing of interest.
The record fails to disclose any reason for
the rejection of this seemingly foolproof
method of deciding an issue critical to the
resolution of, the ultimate question present-
ed. Accordingly, we find there is presented
for our determination more than a mere
review of the choice of the methods selected
by the administrative agency (see Civil Ser-
vice Law, § 213; Matter of Town of Clay v.
Helsby, 51 A-D.2d 200, 204-205, 379 N.Y.
S.2d 896, 898-899). When the method
available is measured against the one se
lected, the action taken Jacked a reasonable
basis upon which to determine the presence
of forged signatures. Thus it was arbitrary
and capricious. Moreover, we further re-
ject PERB’s argument, in which PEF has
* joined, that the election itself has cured any
defects in the showing of interest. This
argument is certainly not appropriate when
the issue, as here, is the extent to which
fraud has poisoned the electoral process. A
substantial forgery would, of course, taint
the election results and should not go un-
challenged (cf. Town of Babylon v. Local
100, Service Employees International Un-
ion, AFL-CIO, 6 PERB, 93047, p. 3089).
[9,10] Finally, we reach the issue of
PEF’s status as an “employee organiza
tion”, which is defined as an organization of
any kind having as its primary purpose the
improvement of terms and conditions of
employment for public employees (Civil Ser-
vice Law, § 201, subd. 5). CSEA makes @
strong argument that PEF does not meet
this definition because it is not an organiza-
tion at all since it has no membership, no
employees, no bank accounts, no officers,
nor any indicia of an organization. It fur-
ther argues that PEF’s only purpose is to
supplant CSEA. While PERB has found
mE eT
eae
4
te Lola clin unde ho Takeda
: siren hier ie itite
438 412 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES
that PEF was created as a vehicle through
which NYSUT and SEIU could jointly sup-
plant CSEA as the representative of State
employees, this is not inconsistent with its
primary purpose of improving the terms
and conditions of employment for public
employees. PERB also found that since a
substantial number of public employees in-
dicated their desire to become members of
PEF, current membership is not controlling.
While this reasoning may seem circular, it is
reasonable and supports a more liberal con-
struction of the term “employee organiza-
tion”; one that is preferred by PERB and
followed by the NLRB in the private sector
(Indiana Metal Products Corp. v. NLRB, 7
Cir., 202 F.2d 613). We, therefore, sustain
PERB’s finding on this issue.
Accordingly, and for the’ reasons stated,
the judgment of Special Term should be
affirmed, and the determination of PERB
that the procedure used to determine the
question of forgery in the showing of inter-
est was reasonable and fairly conducted and
that there was no reason to consider
CSEA’s objections to that procedure is an- -
nulled.
In Proceeding No. 1, the judgment should
be affirmed, without costs.
In Proceeding No. 2, the determination
should be annulled, without costs, and the
matter remitted to the Public Employment
Relations Board for further proceedings not
inconsistent herewith and the stay of certi-
fication to be continued.
In Proceeding No. 1, judgment affirmed,
without costs.
In Proceeding No. 2, determination an-
nulled, without costs, and matter remitted
to the Public Employment Relations Board
for further proceedings not inconsistent
herewith and the stay of certification to be
continued. ‘
GREENBLOTT, SWEENEY and STA-
LEY, .JJ., concur.
MAHONEY, P. J., concurs in part and
dissents in part in an opinion.
* Actually, there were 5,000 non-unit signatures,
but it is not contended that the number of unit
MAHONEY, Presiding Judge (concurring
in part and dissenting in part).
Although I agree with my colleagues that
_ the judgment in Proceeding No. 1 should be
affirmed, 1 disagree with them that in Pro-
eceding No. 2 a remittal to PERB is re-
quired “for further proceedings not incon-
sistent herewith”, presumably, for PERB to
employ the methodology proposed by the
CSEA to detect if forgeries permeated the
showing of interest by PEF to such a de-
gree that the election result should be void-
ed. Such a result, in my view, would usurp
the significant role legislatively delegated
to PERB (Civil Service Law, § 205) to re-
solve disputes concerning the representative
status of employee organizations, to estab-
lish procedures for the prevention of im-
proper employer and employee practices
and to hold such hearings and make such
inquiries as it deems necessary for it prop-
erly to carry out its functions and powers
(Civil Service Law, § 205, subd. 5[b], [d] and
{j]). In conducting the post-election hear-
ing PERB afforded CSEA an opportunity
to come forward with such proof as it had
bearing on its allegation of substantial for-
gery. CSEA responded by calling as its
witness Ned Hopkins, a former employee of
PEF. Mr. Hopkins testified that one Ms.
Fellner had told him that John Geagan, a
co-director of the PEF campaign, had told
her that Diane Dougherty, the SEIU em-
ployee in charge of compiling the showing
of interest for PEF, was responsible for the
forgeries. Ms. Fellner denied this and testi-
fied she had mentioned only that several
thousand signatures from non-unit employ-
ees had been submitted in the showing of
interest.* She also testified that she had
not forged the signatures on any cards or
knew of anyone who had done so. Both
Geagan and Dougherty denied having any
knowledge of forgeries and insisted they
had not forged any signatures. The di-
rector credited the compounded hearsay tes-
timony of Hopkins over that of Fellner, but
found the testimony of Geagan and Dough-
signatures could not comprise the requisite
30% showing of interest.
CIVIL SERV. EMP. ASS’N, INC. v. MILOWE 439
Cite as 412 N.Y.S.24 432
erty to be convincing. Clearly, these factu-
al findings based upon credibility, a func-
tion solely within the competence of the
fact-finder, fall far short of proving for-
gery. If the matter had concluded there
and a proceeding was commenced to annul
a determination confirming the election re-
sults, I think it only fair to conclude that a
confirmance based on substantial evidence
to support the determination would follow.
However, the Director found “sufficient ob-
jective and circumstantial evidence to war-
rant going forward” and he did so (4
NYCRR 201.4, 201.9) by engaging a hand-
writing expert. The expert used exemplars
of Dougherty, Geagan, Kraemer and Canny,
all directly involved in obtaining the show-
ing of interest cards of unit members, and
compared the signatures thereon with ap-
proximately 1,000 showing of interest cards
of unit members which contained one or
more characters which appeared in the
known writings of the four suspects and
found no evidence of common authorship.
Now, CSEA insists, and the majority
agrees, there is a better method of detect-
ing forgeries than that employed by the
Director and the failure to use that method
was an arbitrary and capricious act requir-
ing annulment. I cannot agree.
Neither statutory law (Civil Service Law,
§ 200 et seg.), nor the State Constitution
commands a hearing for the resolution of
contested election results following a chal-
lenge by one representative unit against
another. Paragraph [j] of subdivision 5 of
section 205 of the Civil Service Law autho-
rizes PERB “[{t]o hold such hearings and
make such inquiries as it deems necessary
for it properly to carry out its functions and
powers.” (Emphasis added.) However,
once PERB exercises this discretionary
power and, pursuant to its own internal
regulations, delegates the authority to hear,
inquire and determine to its Director, it
must proceed to develop a hearing record
that lends itself to judicial scrutiny. Once
the record is developed and the administra-
tive determination challenged in court, the
standard for judicial review is whether that
result is supported by substantial evidence
(cf. Matter of Older v. Board of Educ., 27
h
f
N.Y.2d 333, $87, 318 N.Y.S.2d 129, 131, 266
N.E.2d 812, 815). It follows, therefore, that
this court need only review PERB’s dismiss-
al of allegations of forgery for substantial
evidence supporting the Board’s determina-
tion (300, Gramatan Avenue Associates v.
State Division of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d
176, 181-2, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 57, 379 N.E.2d
1183, 1186). Issues of credibility, as here,
are for the administrative agency to decide
and where there is substantial evidence,
again as here, to support either of two
opposing conclusions, the Board’s determi-
nation must be upheld (Matter of Collins v.
Codd, 38 N.Y.2d 269, 379 N.Y.S.2d 733, 342
N.E.2d 524; Manhattan Scene, Inc. v. State
Lig. Auth.,.58 A.D.2d 1010, 397 N.Y.S.2d
495).
However, since the majority opinion does
not state that the challenged result is not
supported by substantial evidence, but,
rather, that the selection of the method for
testing forgeries was an arbitrary and ca-
pricious act lacking a reasonable basis, it is
necessary to examine that act to determine
if it drained the Board’s conclusion of ra-
tionality to an extent requiring annulment
(Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 356
N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321; 125 Bar
Corp. v. State Lig. Auth., 24 N.Y.2d 174, 299
N.Y.S.2d 194, 247 N.E.2d 157; Sag Harbor
Union Free School Dist. v. Helsby, 54
A.D.2d 391, 388 N.Y.S.2d 695). There was
no direct proof of forgery, only compounded
hearsay. Where evidence of forgery is en-
tirely hearsay, as here, a finding of guilt is
not based on substantial evidence (Matter
of Riverton Funeral Home v. Whalen, 63
A.D.2d 887, 405 N.Y.S.2d 704). Next, the
Director did investigate the authenticity of
the signatures using the services of an ex-
pert whose credentials are not challenged.
Where alternate methods of arriving at a
common goal are proposed, failure of an
administrative agency to select what most
would consider to be the better method does
not render that determination arbitrary as
a matter of law. Where an administrator
adopts one of several conflicting opinions, it
is not the province of the court to substitute
its judgment unless the agency’s determina-
beh
ours
glen
Me
440
tion is unreasonable or without a basis in
law (Matter of Denise R. v. Levine, 39
N.Y.2d 279, 283, 383 N.Y.S.2d 568, 570, 347
N.E.2d 893, 895; cf. Matter of Talamo vV.
Murphy, 38 N.Y.2d 637, $82 N.Y.S.2d 3, 345
N.E.2d 546; Matter of Wilcox v. Stern, 18
N.Y.2d 195, 208, 273 N.Y.S.2d 38, 42, 219
N.E.2d 401, 405).
Accordingly, in Proceeding No. 2, PERB’s
determination should be confirmed.
Ww
(© & REY NUMBER SYSTEM
T
67 A.D.2d 759
Claim of Nick WALL, Respondent,
v.
PREMIUM TRANSPORT SERVICE
et al., Appellants,
and
Special Disability Fund, Respondent.
Workers’ Compensation Board,
Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Third Department.
Jan. 11, 1979.
Workers’ Compensation Board decided
that carrier had failed to prove that em-
ployer had a good faith belief of a previous
permanent impairment, and thus that Spe-
cial Disability Fund should be discharged
from liability, and appeals were taken. The
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held
that Board’s decision was not supported by
substantial evidence, since employer's testi-
mony was clear and unequivocal, did not
raise credibility questions, and provided
necessary “factual basis” for employer’s be-
lief given fact that it was not necessary for
employer to know “precise physical compo-
nent” causing disability and employer did
not have to have medical evidence or
knowledge to point of medical certainty
concerning permanency of impairment.
412 NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES
Reversed.
Sweeney, J., dissented and filed opin-
ion.
1. Workers’ Compensation = 1030.1(6)
Workers’ Compensation Board’s deci-
sion that carrier had failed to prove. that
employer had a good faith belief of a previ-
ous permanent impairment, and thus that
Special Disability Fund should be dis-
charged from liability, was not supported
by substantial evidence, since employer’s
testimony that claimant informed him when
he was first hired as a driver chauffeur that
he had numerous falls as a jockey, that
many bones in his body had been broken,
that his health was not that good, and that
he was not capable of lifting luggage and
getting in and out of a vehicle and, as a
result, employer permitted him to work as a
security man and garage attendant, was
clear and unequivocal, did not raise credibil-
ity questions, and provided necessary “fac-
tual basis” for employer's belief. Workers’
Compensation Law § 15, subd. 8a).
2. Workers’ Compensation e=1030.1(2)
In workers’ compensation case concern-
ing whether carrier had failed to prove that
employer had a good faith belief of a previ-
ous permanent impairment, which would
have result that Special Disability Fund
should be discharged from liability, it was
unnecessary for employer to know “precise
physical component” causing disability and
employer did not have to have medical evi-
dence or knowledge to point of medical
certainty concerning permanency of impair-
ment. Workers’ Compensation Law § 15,
subd. 8(a).
Philip J. Caputo, New York City, for ap-
pellants.
George Cholet, New York City (Patrick
E. Harnedy, New York City, of counsel), for
respondent Sp. Disability Fund.
Before MAHONEY, P. J., and GREEN-
BLOTT, MAIN, MIKOLL and SWEENEY,
JJ.
= ~ rs 2
— x ee
3
m4 Les
Western Region Meeting 9/5/84
Maloney - Host
Groveland - Mike Clark -
Attendance - Attica, Collins, Groveiand, Aibion, Eimira
No Show - Aiden, Auburn
26 to 28 members =
tiotion made and passed by all present
Position Western Region - Wnen PERB declares T.U.F.C.0. cards valid- |
Move for speedy elections - no delays
When ana if elections are to take place, have a Locai committee i |
each facility, each member of the committee to have a list of mem-
bers to contact, making sure All Members Vote
Seniority - Time, in Title or 2 Titles. Demand in negotiations to
sectle issue.
Division of Youth coming into the D.0.C.S. lateral transfers?
._ What is the status of these employees? Does the Council have a posi-
tion, or agree?
- Council communication - When an incident happens at a Correction
Facility - Notify all staff so they can inform leadership in their
working areas. Request D.O.C.S. to send a TWX to all facilities to
be read at lineup. Keep membership informed.
When a member retires’ - The Local Union shouid purchase a one year
weibersnip in the Council 82 Retiree Chapter - Approx. $10
Opening of new facilities - New leadership no experience, no guide-
lines to follow. Nc cooperation with new management. No job descrip-
tions, no bidding, speed bidding, structure. Policy and procedure
snoula be established with D.0.C.S. to guide both iocal leaders and
management. Also, Council 82 staff should be available to assist
in day to day problems.
Bob Maloney needs a copy of new Council 82 Constitution
Next meeting - Oct. 9 in Batavia
Add Bob Kerr, Collins, to Sgt. at Arms Comm,
Bob Maloney to check on CO transfers to Groveland. Trainees are being
assigned over transfer list:
x RJB/ck
= Sees Ja Burkes
- H. Chase
J. Mann
J. Puma |
PRP Maloney >
s
NEWS RELEASE -
From
Security and Law Enforcement Employees Council - 82
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — AFL-CiO
63 Colvin Avenue, Albany, N. Y. 12206 Phone 518/489-8424
Sept. 26, 1984
SOLIDARITY IS COUNCIL 82 WATCHWORD
Immediate Release
Council 82, Security and Law Enforcement Employees, AFSCME,
AFL-CIO, came away from a Public Employment Relations Board (PERB)
primary conference today with a call for union solidarity.
A PERB hearing officer received petitions from the State of
New York and two splinter groups to fragment the Security Services
Bargaining Unit and a petition for a representation election by a
dissident group of employees calling themselves TUFCO.
Executive Director John W. Burke stated: "Council 82 has
aggressively and effectively represented every employee in the Security
Services Bargaining Unit for nearly 15 years. The cornerstone of that
representation and the source of the strength and effectiveness of the
Council has been, and now is, the unity of the workers.
"Solidarity is, and always has been, the basis of every gain
we have made for working people. The state is trying to destroy that
solidarity by its petition to carve from the Security Services Unit
correction sergeants and other employees totaling more than 1,000
individuals. The splinter groups are playing right into the hands of
(more)
page 2
“-
the state with their ill-advised petitions. The dissidents calling
themselves TUFCO have filed a showing of interest tainted by fraud
and misrepresentation as you might expect for an organization like
TUFCO with only five members.
"Their position, brought out at the conference, is that they
partly oppose the state's efforts to destroy worker solidarity and
are ‘neutral’ with regard to other parts of the state's petition.
Council 82 stands proud and strong for unity. No real union can ever
be neutral when management tries to destroy employee unity.
"Weeks ago we notified the state that we were prepared to set
dates for the beginning of bargaining, but the state has refused because
of the petitions filed by these groups. The actions of these individuals
is harming every correction officer, correction sergeant and every other
member of the bargaining unit by preventing us from proceeding with the
negotiation of additional pay raises and benefit improvements to add
onto the raises of more than 30 per cent that we negotiated in the
present contract. Council 82 will oppose these efforts to destroy
employee unity.
"When the Council disposes of these efforts to destroy solidarity
and wins any election that may be held, the result will send a loud and
clear message to management that the members of the Security Services Unit
are united in Council 82," Burke concluded.
The issues will be addressed again at a hearing Oct. 15 in the
PERB offices, 50 Wolf Road, Colonie.
= 30: ¢
Further details: Call Charles R. Booth, public relations director
MEMORANDUM _
TO 3: Jack Burke
FROM: Kathy McCormack
DATE: September 27, 1984
RE °: Council 82 TUFCO Campaign
I have devised a campaign to win the upcaming Bargaining
Rights Election. Please comment, add, subtract, etc.
The campaign will consist of two parts:
1. Phone Bank Campaign
2. One-On-One Campaign
PHONE BANK CAMPAIGN
l.
2.
3.
Turn on 15 phones at Council 82 phone bank. These, plus the 15
office phones, make 30 phones a day available for calls.
Get phone numbers for all locals we have targeted for calling.
Schedule all statewide non-corrections locals to call their member-
ship fran the Council 82 phone bank (time span - 3 days) - EnCon
Officers, Capital Police, Forest Rangers, Safety Officers, SHTA's
and University Officers. Call presidents to set up dates.
Local Membership # People Calling Hrs. To Call
Parks 380 5 4
Univ. Sup. 68 2 2
Safety Officers 830 10 4
Univ. Police 350 5 4
Cap. Police 65 2 2
Forest Rangers 120 3 2
EnCon Off. 235 4 3
Mid-Hudson 250 = 3
Central NY 170 _3: 28
2,468 38 people 27 hrs.
*Both Council 82 staff and local members will make calls (see
attached script).
* So
4. Correction Officer calls can be done by locals and our staff.
Prioritize facilities, calling the most pro-Council 82 facilities
first, down to the undecided (see attached script).
Pro-Council 82
Arthur Kill 272 Eastern 382
Groveland 131 Wende 113
Otisville 229 Elmira 424
Green Haven 553 . Clinton 891
Lyon Mt. 61 * Collins 261
Ogdensburg 161 Watertown 209
Albion 159 Altona 132
Attica 608 4,586
8 Days To Call
Plus - Non-Corrections + 2,468
7,054
Undecided
Youth Camps 185 Woodbourne 285
Edgecanbe 184 Fishkill 706
Queensboro 170 Coxsackie 292
Taconic 82 Bedford 195
Bayview 76 Ossining 589
Lts. 280 Srgts. 300
Mid-State 125
Wallkill 150
7 Days To Call 3,619
No
Mid-Orange 281 Great Meadows 536
Mt. McGregor 284 Gabriels 60
Downstate 470 Auburn 486
Hudson 144 Long Island 352
Adirondack 186 Srgts. 300
3,099
Actual Calls - Canvass Calls:
1.
2.
Council 82 Pitch for Correction Locals:
Hello, is ( ) there? Hello, my name is calling
from Council 82.
We are calling all our union members to ask their help in
keeping Council 82 as their bargaining unit. Did you know that
an association has challenged our right to represent you? In
the near future, you will be receiving a ballot in the mail fron
the Public Employees Relation Board on this issue. Can we count
on your support for Council 82?
Thank you for your time and support.
Responses:
Mark the following codes next to the person's name you have
called:
If a member supports Council 82, mark a Y.
If a member does not support Council 82, mark an N.
If a member is undecided, mark a ?.
Council 82 Pitch for Non-Correction Locals:
Hello, is ( ) there? Hello, my name is calling
from Council 82.
We are calling all our union members to ask their help in
keeping Council 82 as their bargaining unit. Did you know that
an association that represents correction officers only has
challenged our right to represent you? In the near future, you
will be receiving a ballot in the mail fran the Public Employees
Relation Board on this issue, Can we count on your support for
Council 82?
Thank you for your time and support.
Responses:
(Same as above)
After we have identified the "yes" and "undecided", we do a mailing:
A.
Cc.
"yes" mailing - thank for support, Council 82 will continue to stand
strong on the issues in upcaming negotiations; no give backs in an
age of give backs; explain ballot procedure. (fram Jack)
"Undecided" mailing - reasons why they should support Council 82; do
you want negotiations by amateurs when the State will be demanding
give backs. (fram Jack)
Non-Correction mailing - (fram local president) how good Council 82
is campared to the other association.
Starting two days before the ballot mailing fran PERB is done, we call
back every "yes" and "undecided", explaining procedure for ballot.
Three days before they are mailed, mail a sample ballot with Council 82
circled, to every "yes". Ignore all" no's".
Set up Council 82 tables in all our targeted facilities and have one of
the ten election coordinators covering every shift.
Things we will need to do:
1.
AFL-CIO is getting us a list of our membership with phone numbers as
soon as possible.
Beyond that, we need the local presidents of favorable facilities to
try to get phone numbers for the areas the AfL-CIO doesn't have.
Area phone books - Elmira, Plattsburgh, Attica, Buffalo, etc.
A list of our members in targeted facilities.
All this will be used to make our calling lists the best possible
when we start to call.
Time frame - NOW! We should start calling by October 15th.
Make sure the office has enough stationary for mailing, or printer
has available time. I know we have sane lightweight envelopes left
fran the Tier III mailing.
ONE-ON-ONE CAMPAIGN
1. Field Reps:
1.
2.
Get names of reliable people in facilities to be election
coordinators. :
Hold meeting with these people for each targeted facility.
At meeting, divide membership list among them.
Each coordinator's goal will be to talk with each correction
officer they have been assigned. They will explain to the
correction officer that Council 82 is being challenged by an
association for your bargaining rights. Tell the ©O he will
be receiving a ballot fram PERB in the near future. Provide
each CO on list with information on Council 82 - that we're
best qualified.
Find out if they are pro or con and record same on sheet in
their kit. When the ballots are mailed out, the election
coordinator will make sure the "yes" have mailed theirs
back, or else the election coordinator will mail it back for
them.
In the meantime, the election coordinator will send his list
of Council 82 supporters to Albany. We can do a mailing to
them fran their local president (or if the president is
TUFCO, fram Jack). We will also call them.
Their kit will contain:
1. Record Sheet
2. Hand-out on why Council 82, and this is Council 82.
3. Letter from Jack to election coordinator on what a
valuable job they are doing.
4. Stamped envelope to send record sheet back to Council 82
(there will be a deadline to send them back).
Ge. Nast, “Lalas
Tide U once Trach (N.C. Gok dager bo. 40. EM
LL = &%..
Om Yann DEW 19BY \ Lae y. LLM Rec
Te en asta, Dade datis : ‘
ee 8 - ey
N Jeet. Aank” R Wer anger Ae Necks oe ol
eF
i
+
at
f
;
i.
—— | Mo Lis ~> Reon. om De Lahr oh b-28-8y
ox. G
Open sah LoO.4Ho tw
COUNCIL 82
rn Cornel jc.
AFSCME AFL-CIO
DBb¢ 00 fo (Lunslille
Onagerrt ito
Security and Law Enforcement Employees Council 82
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO
63 COLVIN AVENUE, ALBANY, N.Y. 12206 PHONE 518/489-8424
November 13, 1984
Mr. Wally Clinton
Clinton Group
1250 I Street, N.W.
Suite 602
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Clinton:
Please find enclosed two memos on the TUFCO campaign,
a booklet on our one on one campaign and a piece of literature
the members of the one on one campaign have already delivered.
I look forward to hearing from you in the near future
on this matter.
Fraternally,
Kathy VlaGazme A
Kathy McCormack
Legislative Director
KM/dmf
Encs.
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF ALBANY )
SS.:
RONALD M. BROWN, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on
October 17, 1984, I attended a meeting which had been called by
The Union of Federated Correction Officers ("TUFCO"), held at The
Women's Civic Center in Katonah, New York.
The meeting began at 5:00 p.m. and concluded at
approximately 7:00 p.m. There were 16 people including myself at
this meeting.
Bruce Farrell was the main spokes person, speaking on the
subject of "TUFCO". One of the statements made by him was that
"TUFCO intends to only represent Correction Officers when and if
we win the representation election". Another statement made by
him was: "Even if PERB does not get others out of the bargaining
unit, TUFCO will deal with this issue later".
There were many other statements made by Mr. Farrell, but
the above is the most significant and outstanding of all his
remarks.
RONALD M. BROWN
Staff Representative
Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO
63 Colvin Avenue
Albany, New York 12206
(518) 489-8424
Sworn to before me this
day of October, 1984.
Notary Public - State of New York
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER )
SS.:
LILLIAN FRANCIS, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on
October 17, 1984, I attended a meeting which had been called by
The Union of Federated Correction Officers ("TUFCO"), held at The
Women's Civic Center in Katonah, New York.
The meeting began at 5:00 p.m. and concluded at
approximately 7:00 p.m. There were 16 people including myself at
this meeting.
Bruce Farrell was the main spokes person, speaking on the
subject of "TUFCO". One of the statements made by him was that
"TUFCO intends to only represent Correction Officers when and if
we win the representation election". Another statement made by
him was: "Even if PERB does not get others out of the bargaining
unit, TUFCO will deal with this issue later".
There were many other statements made by Mr. Farrell, but
the above is the most significant and outstanding of all his
remarks.
LILLIAN FRANCIS
President - Local 1265
Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO
Sworn to before me this
day of October, 1984.
Notary Public - State of New York
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NEW YORK Iss -
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER)”~~* *
STEPHEN ALBURY, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on
October 17, 1984, I attended a meeting which had been called by
The Union of Federated Correction Officers ("TUFCO"), held at The
Women's Civic Center in Katonah, New York.
The meeting began at 5:00 p.m. and concluded at
approximately 7:00 p.m. There were 16 people including myself at
this meeting.
Bruce Farrell was the main spokes person, speaking on the
subject of "TUFCO". One of the statements made by him was that
"TUFCO intends to only represent Correction Officers when and if
we win the representation election". Another statement made by
him was: "Even if PERB does not get others out of the bargaining
unit, TUFCO will deal with this issue later".
There were many other statements made by Mr. Farrell, but
the above is the most significant and outstanding of all his
remarks.
STEPHEN ALBURY
President - Local 2718
Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO
Sworn to before me this
day of October, 1984.
Notary Public - State of New York
|
»)
Sik of New teh ) SS.
of Hf ibe ea
AFFIDAVIT
Caiarty
On October 16, 1984, I attended a meeting called by
"“TUFCO" at the Woman's Civil Center in Katonah, New York.
Bruce’ Farrell, the spokes person for "TUFCO",
indicated, (among other statements, )Jthat "TUFCO" intends to
represent correction otficers only when and if they win this
upcoming election. rT ima
XQ <
. ~ (SK heer) gare
There were numerous statements made at this meeting,
but the foregoing is the most significant and outstanding
statement I recall at that time,
RONALD M. BROWN
Statf Representative
Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO
63 Colvin Avenue
Albany, New York 12206
(518)489-8424
Sworn to before me this
day of October, 1984,
Notary Public - State of New York
eR
Z ie
TEN
GABE STS
PAM EN, SNA
S (3
@
E%
Security and Law Enforcement Employees Council 82
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO
63 COLVIN AVENUE, ALBANY, N.Y. 12206 PHONE 518/489-8424
October 1l, 1984
Mr. Ray Rogers
Corporate Campaign, Inc.
16th Floor
80 8th Avenue =
New York, New York 10011
Dear Ray:
I have enclosed copies of some literature relative to
the challenge of Council 82 by The Union of Federated
Correction Officers in order to give you a better idea of
| what this election is all about.
We look forward to meeting with you next week; and
should you have any questions, feel free to call me.
Very truly yours,
FRatok fl A heals
Christopher H. Gardner
< Counsel
CHG:ss
Enclosures
cc: John W. Burke
Security and Law Enforcement Employees Council 82
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO
63 COLVIN AVENUE, ALBANY, N.Y. 12206 PHONE 518/489-8424
WIMPCO BUSTERS
CAMPAIGN
Your kit contains:
1. Handouts on Council 82
2. Instructions for Campaign
3. Ten Record Sheets with Ten Envelopes
4. Record Keeping Information
5. How to Approach a Member on this Issue
Your goal:
1. Contact the members you have been assigned.
2. Record responses of members.
3. Get the ballots back.
Security and Law Enforcement Employees Council 82
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO
63 COLVIN AVENUE, ALBANY, N.Y. 12206 PHONE 518/489-8424
November, 1984
Dear Election Coordinator:
I am writing to thank you for taking the respon-
sibility of coordinating the "WIMPCO" busting campaign in
your facility. I cannot stress enough the importance of the
task you are undertaking.
It has taken Council 82 fifteen years to build up a
union that is able to give its members a 32% raise over the
past three years, and the best contract in New York State.
Council 82's last contract achieved in one year what the
national average contract gained in three years. Our
contract is used by correction officers and law enforcement
personnel across the country as a model in negotiations.
Council 82 is a democratically run union and is proud of it.
I know both you and I are proud to be members of Council 82.
Let's keep it that way!
The success of our campaign is critical to our future
negotiations with New York State. Your role is a vital
component if we are to overcome the fraud and dictatorship
demonstrated by our challenger.
Good Luck! Let's give ‘em hell!
Fraternally,
John W. Burke
Executive Director
JWB:ss
Security and Law Enforcement Employees Council 82
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO
63 COLVIN AVENUE, ALBANY, N.Y. 12206 PHONE 518/489-8424
November, 1984
Dear Election Representative:
I am writing to thank you for taking on_ the
responsibility of contacting your brothers and sisters to
let them know about "WIMPCO" and the bargaining rights
challenge to Council 82. I cannot stress enough the
importance of the task you are undertaking.
It has taken Council 82 fifteen years to build up a
union that is able to give its members a 32% raise over the
past three years, and the best contract in New York State.
Council 82's last contract achieved in one year what the
national average contract gained in three years. Our
contract is used by correction officers and law enforcement
personnel across the country as a model in negotiations,
Council 82 is a democratically run union and is proud of it.
I know both you and I are proud to be members of Council 82.
Let's keep it that way!
The success of our campaign is critical to our future
negotiations with New York State. Your role is a vital
component if we are to overcome the fraud and dictatorship
demonstrated by our challenger.
Good Luck! Let's give 'em hell!
Fraternally,
John W. Burke
Executive Director
JWB:ss
Security and Law Enforcement Employees Council 82
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO
63 COLVIN AVENUE, ALBANY, N.Y. 12206 PHONE 518/489-8424
TO : Election Coordinators
FROM: John W. Burke
DATE: October 22, 1984
RE : WIMPCO Busters Campaign
Your job is to coordinate the activities of your
Election Committee. You are the most important component in
this campaign (next to your Election Committee). It is
going to be your responsibility to get the ballots back to
Albany and to ensure that your Committee is functioning. I
want to assure you at this time that should you need
anything to assist you in this endeavor, I will personally
make sure you get it.
The bottom line of the campaign is to get the
ballots back. Your kit contains the same material as the
kits your Election Committee contains. In the box you
received from Council 82, there are 4x6 cards with the names
of every member of your facility. It is your job to call
the Election Committee together for a meeting and divide the
cards up. You may want to meet every week, or every few
days as we approach the ballot deadline day, to keep a check
on activities. It is important to find out what members are
being told, and how they are reacting to the canvass.
The easiest approach would be to give your
Committee the names of their friends and people who work on
their shift. You may or may not want to take cards
yourself. Remember - the most important thing you can do is
keep track of what's going on in your facility. In regard
to those members who are known WIMPCO supports - IGNORE
THEM!
After reviewing your kit, you should be able to
explain the program, instructions and literature to your
Committee. However, if you have any questions or are
uncertain as to how to proceed, please contact Kathy
McCormack or Chris Gardner at 1-800-342-4321. Every few
days you will be receiving a box of literature to distribute
to your Committee, who, in turn, will hand it out to the
membership.
(over)
Security and Law Enforcement Employees Council 82
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO
63 COLVIN AVENUE, ALBANY, N.Y. 12206 PHONE 518/489-8424
TO Election Representatives
FROM: John W. Burke, Executive Director
DATE: October 22, 1984
RE
WIMPCO Busters Campaign Instructions
The goal of your participation in the WIMPCO
Campaign is for each of you to personally contact the
members you have been assigned.
We want you to explain to each of those members the
importance of the upcoming election. Tell them that Council
82 is being challenged by an association for your bargaining
rights. Explain that in the near future they will be
receiving a ballot from the Public Employment Relations
Board. Provide each member with information (in the kit) on
Council 82 and how we are the best qualified and experienced
to represent them, In this kit you will find a memo on how
to approach a member on this subject.
Find out if the member is for Council 82, undecided
or against Council 82. Record their response on the 4x6
cards provided. We ask that you record the responses of
those members you reached that week on the enclosed record
sheet, mailing same to Council 82 each Friday in the pre-
addressed envelope.
Each local has a WIMPCO campaign coordinator, who
will receive additional literature and information from
Council 82. He will be in touch with you on distributing
this information.
After the ballots are mailed out, we want you to
re-contact those members who are for Council 82 or undecided
to make sure they get their ballots back. We don't want to
encourage those who are for WIMPCO to send theirs back.
The most effective way to ensure the return of the
members ballots would be for you to collect the ballots and
give them to your election coordinator. In turn, he can
mail them to PERB. Your election coordinator will be in
touch with you on how we can assure that all ballots are
returned.
(over)
Security and Law Enforcement Employees Council 82
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO
63 COLVIN AVENUE, ALBANY, N.Y. 12206 PHONE 518/489-8424
HOW TO APPROACH A MEMBER ON COUNCIL 82
1. Start a general conversation with the employee on how
important it is to have a strong union, especially
since contract negotiations are coming up.
2. Give them the piece of literature on Council 82.
3. Explain to them that Council 82 negotiated a 32% wage
increase over the last three years, triple the national
average for union contracts.
4. Tell them that an association has petitioned the Public
Employment Relations Board (PERB) for bargaining rights
for the Security Services Unit.
5. Explain to the member that this association, "WIMPCO",
has filed with the Department of State as a charitable
organization and has never negotiated a single union
contract. Further, "WIMPCO" is not affiliated with any
labor organization and is not part of the powerful AFL-
CIO. Explain these points in detail, if necessary.
6. The "WIMPCO" constitution provides for no elections
until 1988. In contrast, Council 82 will hold
elections in 1985, 1987 and every two years thereafter.
7. The "WIMPCO" Board of Directors ("the Gang of Five")
won't care what kind of contract they deliver, and
they'll be able to raise the dues, charge initiation
fees and abolish locals at their whim. They can also
set their own salaries,
(over)
Security and Law Enforcement Employees Council 82
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO
63 COLVIN AVENUE, ALBANY, N.Y. 12206 PHONE 518/489-8424
RECORD KEEPING
You have been given a set of 4x6 cards with the names
of members of your local on them. These cards will be
your records for this campaign. Your goal is to
contact each of the members that have been assigned to
you.
Also in your kit are weekly record sheets that are to
be filled out and sent to Council 82 every Friday.
There are pre-addressed, prepaid envelopes in your kit
for this purpose. On these sheets you will intorm
Council 82 what the member's response was. Please
include the member's address and phone number when
possible.
your kit contains a sheet that will help you in this
endeavor. Please mark the member's response on the 4x6
card. You should also mark their response on your
weekly record sheet.
4x6 card: First - contact with member.
Today's date r
Circle member's response:
1, FOE Céutcil '82
2. Undecided
3. Against Council 82
Thereafter, Council 82 will be providing you with
leaflets to give to the members you have been assigned.
You should be keeping your members informed on Council
82's record and discuss the issues detailed in the
literature. The leafleting will be continued until the
ballots are sent out. You will not be marking your
cards during this period unless you perceive a change
in the member's position. Notify us if a member
changes their position on your weekly record sheets,
(over)
Security and Law Enforcement Employees Council 82
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO
63 COLVIN AVENUE, ALBANY, N.Y. 12206 PHONE 518/489-8424
Today's Date:
ELECTION COORDINATORS' WEEKLY RECORD SHEET
How many members has your Committee contacted this week?
(approximately)
How many Pro Council 82 members?
How many "WIMPCO"?
How many Undecided?
Was there any "WIMPCO" activity in your facility this past
week?
If yes, what type?
Any additional comments?
MEMORANDUM
TO : Council 82 Staff
FROM: Kathy McCormack and Chris Gardner
DATE: October 9, 1984
RE : Council 82 Challenge Campaign
We have devised a campaign to win the upcoming Bargaining
Campaign. Please comment, add, subtract, etc.
The campaign will consist of three parts. This model assumes
ballots will be mailed on December 14th.
1. Phone Bank Campaign
2. One-on-One Campaign
3. Ballot Parties
Phone Bank Campaign:
Council 82 phone bank will be turned on October 15th.
Council 82 staff, correction officers and non-correction members
will call all state Council 82 members. We will identify supporters,
undecideds and nos. A second call will be made back to supporters and
undecideds to remind them to send ballot back.
A schedule will be set up for correction otficers to came in and
call correction officers. Each non-correction local will call their
membership. (Facilities will be prioritized by how pro Council 82 they
are. )
Actual Calls - Canvass Calls:
1. Council 82 Pitch for Correction Locals:
Hello, is ( ) there? Hello, my name is calling
from Council 82.
2.
We are calling all our union members to ask their help in
keeping Council 82 as their bargaining agent. Did you know that
an association has challenged our right to represent you? In
the near future, you will be receiving a ballot in the mail from
the Public Employees Relation Board on this issue. Because of
this challenge, statewide negotiations have been delayed. Can
we count on your support for Council 82?
Thank you for your time.
Responses:
Mark the following codes next to the person's name you have
called:
If a member supports Council 82, mark a Y.
If a member does not support Council 82, mark an N.
If a member is undecided, mark a ?.
Council 82 Pitch for Non-Correction Locals:
Hello, is ( ) there? Hello, my name is calling
from Council 82.
We are calling all our union members to ask their help in
keeping Council 82 as their bargaining unit. Did you know that
an association that represents correction officers only has
challenged our right to represent you? In the near future, you
will be receiving a ballot in the mail from the Public Employees
Relation Board on this issue. Because of this challenge,
statewide negotiations have been delayed. Can we count on your
support for Council 82?
Thank you for your time,
Responses:
(Same as above)
Each caller will have an issue fact on Council 82 to answer any
questions.
After we have identified the "yes" and "undecided", we do a mailing:
A. “Yes" mailing - thank for support, Council 82 will continue to stand
strong on the issues in upcaming negotiations; no give backs in an
age of give backs; explain ballot procedure. (fram Jack)
B. "Undecided" mailing - persuasion letter, reasons why they should
support Council 82; do you want negotiations by amateurs when the
State will be demanding give backs; explain ballot procedure.
(from Jack)
C. Non-Correction mailing - (fram local president) how good Council 82
is campared to the other association; explain ballot procedure.
Calls will start on November 7th. ~
Staff Reps:
Try to get the phone numbers of locals through watch
camander, stealing or bribery.
Get phone books for the areas your facilities are. Bring or
mail them to Council 82 as soon as possible.
One-on-One Campaign:
The goal of this program is for each facility or local to
have 10 or more persons to be the election representatives, headed by an
election coordinator. They will be part of the Council 82 Election
Committee.
Between now and October 30th, the staff reps will identify
the election representatives in their facilities. The names should be
gotten through the local president (they can be the Executive Board and
Trustees, etc.), if the local president is pro 82. If not, you identify
10 pro Council 82 reliable people.
On October 30th, you give us the names, addresses and phone
numbers of these people. We will give you the kits for each
coordinator.
Between October 3lst and November 6th, you will meet with the
election representatives at each facility to explain the program and
distribute the kits. (It may be enough to explain program to local
president and he give the kits out.) On November 12th, the phone bank
will call the election representatives to see how its going, to thank
them, and to see if they need anything.
The 43 correctional facilities, the Building Guards, Capital
Police, Mid-Hudson PC and CNYPC will be involved. The Safety Officers
will be done through the mail, as well as the smaller locals.
Ballot Parties:
On October 30th, you will also receive a folder for each
facility for a ballot party. The election coordinator will be in
charge. It will contain a membership list for marking off members who
bring their ballot, suggested times and dates for the party (in same
cases, it can be done at their Christmas party), and a flyer on the
parties. A copy of the membership list with the names of those who have
returned ballots will be sent to Council 82. The local will continue to
contact those who haven't sent theirs back and Council 82 will call
them.
TO
All Council 82 Election Coordinators
FROM: John W. Burke, Executive Director
DATE: October 5, 1974
RE
Council 82 Bargaining Rights Challenge
YOUR KIT CONTAINS:
1. Record Sheet
2. Handout on Council 82 and election procedure
3. Stamped envelopes to send record sheets back every
Friday, starting November 16th. ~
4. Stamped envelope to mail completed kit back to Council
82.
THE PROGRAM:
1. Contact members personally
2. Record status of each member on 4x6 cards. You will
make an initial contact. After ballot mailing, re-
contact "yes" and "undecided".
3. Each Friday send a record sheet of members contacted
that week back to Council 82.
The goal of this program is for you to talk with each
member that you have been assigned. This can be done on the
job, off the job or by phone, We want you to explain to
each member that Council 82 is being challenged by an
association for your bargaining rights. Tell them they will
be receiving a ballot from the Public Employment Relations
Board in the near future. They have to mail it back, give
it to you to mail back, or bring it to the facilities'
ballot party if you are having one. Provide each member on
your list with information on Council 82 and why we are the
best qualified and experienced to represent them,
We also want you to find out if the member supports
Council 82. After determining the correction officer's
position on Council 82 (for, against, undecided), mark their
4x6 card. Each Friday, send a record sheet for the week
back to Council 82.
If you have any questions, call Kathy McCormack or Chris
Gardner at Council 82, 1-800-342-4321.
°
'
first contact with member.
Today's date
“ircle member's response
1. Pro Council 82 .
2. Undecided ;
3. Against Council 82
Second contact (only contact pro or undecided
members)
Today's date
Did member send ballot back?
1. Yes How sent? Date sent?
2. No Contact again until ballot is sent back.
‘
4
i mon comment me ee
MEMORANDUM
Jack Burke
Kathy McCormack
December 3, 1984
Status of Phone Numbers and One-On-One Campaign
ONE-ON-ONE CAMPAIGN:
iL)
2)
3)
4)
Arthur Kill
19 C-82 (Names and addresses of those
5 Und. contacted - many are different
_2 TUFCO tran Brigar list)
26
CNYPC
719 C-62 -Same CO's transporting fran
6 Und. downstate tacilities (Sing-
_2 TUFCO Sing, Downstate & Fishkill.)
87 have been pushing tor TUFCO
Elmira
162 C-82 Names and addresses - a lot of
6 Und new addresses
Q TUFCO
168
Wende 5) Summit
58 C82 23 C-82
3 Und. 1 Und.
Q TUFCO _1 TUFCO
61 25
6) Coxsackie 7) Bayview
126 C-82 102 C-82
40 Und. 10 ~Und.
__2 TUFCO __3 TUFCO
168 ll
8) Georgetown 9) Downstate (according
to Chet LaDuke)
13 C-82
3 Und. 386 C-82
__2 TUFCO 62 Und.
18 _68 TUFCO
516
10) Monterey 11) Mid-State
37 C-82 45 C-82
2 Und. 2 Und.
_3 TUFCO _3 TUFCO
42 50
12) Wallkill 13) Lincoln
18 C-82 10 C-82
13 Und. 8 Und.
_0 TUFCO 10 TUFCO
1 28
Council 82 Totals
Pro-Council 82 = 1,078 = 80.7%
Undecided - 161 - 12.1%
Zz TUFCO = 96 = 7.2%
1,335 100. 0%
PHONE NUMBERS:
# Found # Members
Downstate 255 540
Lincoln 13 66
Edgecamnbe 18 80
Fulton 22 80
Great Meadow 351 573
Collins 133 354
Fishkill 295 767
Mid-Hudson 143 291
Mid-Orange 88 308
Otisville 106 255
Mt. McGregor 186 314
Alden 56 131
Long Island 88 a7?
Clinton 715 924
CNYPC 120 223
Green Haven 198 601
Capital Police 134 274
Coxsackie 212 327
Watertown 146 168
Altona 142 155
Groveland 112 140
Lyon Mt. 67 67
EnCon 125 401
Attica 370 651
Elmira 385 478
Arthur Kill 102 330
Bedtord 58 195
Bayview 35 96
Ogdensburg 159 172
Taconic 40 109
Queensboro 41 204
Adirondack 142 219
Albion 84 192
Ossining 224 716
Auburn 225 543
5,590 11,321
49% ot the phone numbers have been found. We have gotten more
phone books in, especially tor NYC, which should improve the
percentage.
Kathy
KM:ss
cc: Frank Benedetto
Chris Gardner
THE ISSUE IS POWER
You were recently contacted by phone about~ the
upcoming bargaining rights election. In the coming days,
you will be making an extremely important choice. You can
vote to continue progress with Council 82 as your bargaining
representative, or you can risk losing everything by
replacing us with an unproven paper organization, which has
never negotiated a single labor contract!
On the other hand, the Council 82 record of
achievement is clear, and we're proud of it:
- 32% pay increase over the past 3 years;
- strong seniority system;
- 25 year half-pay immediately upon retire-
ment for all Correction Officers.
While other unions have been "giving back", Council 82
has been winning victories at the bargaining table and in
the Legislature. Our success isn't based on luck, it's a
Matter of power.
In the upcoming election, you have a choice between a
proven, powerful union, Council 82, and an inexperienced,
powerless paper organization, tufco. It's that simple. The
stakes are high and the choice is clear. Stick with the
real union -- stick with power -- vote for Council 82.
Fraternally,
John W. Burke
Executive Director
JWB :ss
THE ISSUE IS POWER
Dear Brothers and Sisters
BOVE tetentiy Contec bed by phone about the COCO: “~
\
bareyarni m4 Faqs cleeher,
*)
In the coming days, you will be making an extremely
important choice, You can vote to continue progress with
Council 82 as your bargaining representative, or you can
risk losing everything by replacing us with an unproven
paper organization, which has never negotiated a_ single
labor contract!
On the other hand, the Council 82 record of
achievement is clear, and we're proud of it:
- 32% pay increase over the past 3 years;
- strong seniority system;
- 25 year half-pay immediately upon retire-
ment for all Correction Officers.
While other unions have been "giving back", Council 82
has been winning victories at the bargaining table and in
the Legislature. Our success isn't based on luck, it's a
matter of power.
In the upcoming election, you have a choice between a
proven, powerful union, Council 82, and an inexperienced,
powerless paper organization, tufco. It's that simple. The
stakes are high and the choice is clear. Stick with the
real union -- stick with power -- vote for Council 82.
Fraternally,
John W. Burke
Executive Director
JWB:ss
PHONE CALLER OPERATION
Your job is to make a series of five (5) phone calls
to each person on the card. After each call, you are to
mark the card appropriately and put each card in its
respective pile. For the present, we are only dealing with
Call #1. You will mark the card in the Call #1 column only.
You are to mark the card according to the response you
get.
If the phone number is wrong or disconnected,
mark that response (disc).
If there is no answer, mark the DA response
for doesn't answer.
If you reach the member or his/her spouse and
give them the message, mark (c) for a call
completed.
If the member voluntarily indicates that
he/she is in favor of TUFCO or unfavorable to
Council 82, mark the response (x).
When you are finished with the card, you will put it
in one of tour piles in ftront of you, depending on the
response you receive. Place them face down on the piles.
This will keep them in alphabetical order. There will be
three piles:
PILE ONE - for all disc or x responses
PILE TWO - for doesn't answer
PILE THREE - _ for call completed
At some point during the day, the Phone’ Bank
Supervisor will collect these cards. Before he/she takes
the cards from you, you should add up the responses you
received on the sheet marked PHONE CALLER RECORD.
When you finish with the cards you have been given,
inform the Phone Bank Supervisor; he/she will give you new
ones.
You are expected to make 15 or more calls an hour.
If you have any questions, ask the Phone _ Bank
Supervisor.
PHONE CALLER OPERATION
Your job is to make a series of 5 phone calls to each person on the
card. After each call, you are to mark the card appropriately and put
each card in its respective pile. For the present, we are only dealing
with Call #1. You will only mark the card in the Call #1 colum.
You are to mark the card according to the response you get.
If the phone number is wrong or disconnected mark that response. (disc)
If there is no answer mark the DA response for doesn't answer.
If you reach the member or his/her spouse and give them the message mark
(c) for a call completed.
If the member voluntarily indicates that he/she is in favor of TUFCO
or unfavorable to Council 82 mark the response (x).
When you are finished with the card you will put it in one of four
piles in front of you depending on the response you receive. Put them wo these
There will be three piles piles in face down
order - Ths wil\ Ke 20
PILE ONE - for all disc or x responses them cn elehabe heal
ordec:
PILE TWO - for doesn't answer
PILE THREE - for call completed
At some point during the day, the phone bank supervisor will collect
these cards. Before he/she takes the card from you, you should add up
the responses you received on the sheet marked PHONE CALLER RECORD.
When you finish with the cards you have been given, inform the
phone bank supervisor, he/she will give you new ones.
You are expected to make 15 or more calls an‘hour.
If you have any questions, ask the phone bank supervisor.
Security and Law Enforcement Employees Council 82
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO
63 COLVIN AVENUE, ALBANY, N.Y. 12206 PHONE 518/489-8424
PHONE BANK CALLER INFORMATION SHEET
Welcome to Council 82! Council 82 is a union that
represents security and law enforcement employees in New
York State. We represent Correction Officers, Environmental
Conservation Officers, Forest Rangers, Safety Officers, etc.
The reason you are here making these calls is because
an outside organization called TUFCO has challenged our
right to represent these employees in collective bargaining
with New York State.
You are calling our membership to inform them of this
challenge. It is very important that our members vote for
Council 82 in the upcoming election. We are the only union
with the power, clout and experience necessary to represent
these employees.
Thank you for your help in this endeavor. If you have
any questions, please ask the Supervisor.
C
SENSITIZING TELEPHONE MESSAGE S
Hello, , this is o from
(Name of Member) (Your Name)
your union, Council 82. On January 28th, the Public
Employment Relations Board will mail you a ballot asking you
to decide who will represent you at the bargaining table.
This election is extremely important because we have to
negotiate your new contract, and we know the State's goal is
to roll back the gains Council 82 has tought tor over the
past 15 years.
Let's send the State a message ot unity, strength and
power. You will be voting on your destiny.
We will be sending you some intormation about Council
82 which will help you decide who can best represent you.
We hope you keep your eye out tor this intormation. We'll
keep in touch. Thank you for your time.
MEMORANDUM
TO 3: Jack Burke
FROM: Kathy McCormack
DATE: December 19, 1984
RE : Status of Phone Numbers on One-On-One Campaign
(Update)
ONE-ON-ONE CAMPAIGN:
1) Arthur Kill
32a: “¢=82 (Names and addresses of those
ll Und. contacted - many are different
_6 TUFCO from Brigar list)
50
2) CNYPC
95 :C=82 -Some CO's transporting from
6 Und. downstate facilities (Sing-
2 TUFCO Sing, Downstate & Fishkill)
103 have been pushing for TUFCO.
3) Elmira
362 C-82 Names and addresses - a lot of
11 Und. new addresses.
1 TUFCO
74
4) Wende 5) Summit
58 C=82 23 C-82
3. Und. 1 Und.
Q TUFCO 1 TUFCO
6) Coxsackie oh) Bayview
126 C-82 102 (C=82
= 40 Und. 10 Und.
2 TUFCO 3. TUFCO
168 115
8) Georgetown 9) Downstate (ac-
cording to Chet
13 C-82 LaDuke)
3. Und.
2 TUFCO 386 C-82
18 62 Und.
_68 TUFCO
516
10) Monterey 11) Mid-State
37 C-82 45 C-82
2 Und. 2 Und.
3. TUFCO 3. TUFCO
42 50
12) Wallkill 13) Lincoln
18 C-82 10 C-82
13. Und. 8 Und.
Q TUFCO 10 TUFCO
31 2
14) Woodbourne 15)) Fishkill
238 C-82 29 C-82
81 Und. 3. Und.
30 TUFCO 3 TUFCO
349 35,
16) University Police La) Auburn
41 C-82 300 C-82
QO Und. 91 Und.
Q TUFCO 89 TUFCO
41 48
Council 82 Totals
= Pro-Council 82 - 1,934
Undecided a 347
TUFCO = 222
2,503
Phone Numbers:
# Found # Members
Downstate ZOD 540
Lincoln 13 66
Edgecombe 18 80
Fulton 22 80
Great Meadow 351 S73
Collins 133 354
Fishkill 295 767
Mid-Hudson 143 291
Mid-Orange 88 308
Otisville 106 255
Mt. McGregor 186 314
Alden 56 131
Long Island 88 377
Clinton TLS 924
CNYPC 120 223
Green Haven 198 601
Capital Police 134 274
Coxsackie 212 327,
Watertown 146 168
Altona 142 155
Groveland 112 140
Lyon Mt. 67 67
EnCon 125 401
Attica 600 651
Elmira 385 478
“Arthur Kill 102 330
Bedford 58 195
Bayview 35 96
Ogdensburg FS9 172
Taconic 40 109
Queensboro 41 204
Adirondack 142 219
Albion 84 192
Ossining 224 716
Auburn 225 543
Summit 13 45
# Found = #_ Members
Beacon 21 46
Woodbourne 223 320
Georgetown 1d 45
Monterey ‘24 45
Pharsalia 24 45
Gabriels 38 67
Wallkill 98 174
P&R 92 207
CNY Corrections 45 157
Eastern 196 411
Hudson 56 163
SUNY 260 522
6,930 13,361
50% of the phone numbers looked for have been found.
Kathy
KM:ss
cc: Frank Benedetto
Chris Gardner
mM
COUNCIL S2
=i
Bay Steve Dageat ra AFSCME AFL-CIO
Grom. Wwke BOO)
Dubyect: See Attached
Nate: /ooember 21, /984
the following Was recently Stubrn Hed
bu Paul Gilmore.
Tt mar be of Same Use.
ly (AC
12) 3/ FP 4 Gc , Ce
Obge ol ed Fegoee ~
41) C0 Khao
INSTRUCTIONS
After telling many correction officers that it was seeking
cards to represent a bargaining unit of correction officers only
TUFCO has petitioned for the entire security services bargaining
unit including non-corrections titles such as Capitol Police
Officers, Campus Security Officers, Building Guards, Forest
Rangers, etc. Many employees have signed statements that they
were told that TUFCO wanted to represented a bargaining unit of
correction officers only and signed TUFCO cards based upon that
representation. These employees have signed statements saying
that they would not have signed the TUFCO cards but for that
representation.
PERB has now asked for more detailed information about
TUFCO's representations that it sought a corrections only bar-
gaining unit. PERB as requested the names of the individuals who
made the statements, the date, time and place and witnesses to
the statements and what was said.
PERB wants this information in affidavit form. Attached to
this instruction sheet is a blank affidavit form. Please fill in
the blanks in your own words with as specific information as you
can recall. Paragraph 9 is blank. If you were told on more than
one occasion that TUFCO was going to petition to represent
correction officers only, fill in the details of the other
occasions in paragraph 9. Sign it before a notary public and
return it to your field rep. He will see that it gets to the
Public Employment Relations Board.
If there is no notary public available, cross off the
portion at the end that says:
Sworn to before me this
day of October, 1984
NOTARY PUBLIC
and have anyone else sign your statement as a witness. If you
have any questions, call Brian O'Donnell collect at (518)
434-6187. If he is not there when you call, leave your name,
phone number and a time when he can call you back.
wVr=seew
STATE OF NEW YORK
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
In the Matter of :
STATE OF NEW YORK, :
Employer,
- and - :
AFFIDAVIT
THE UNION OF FEDERATED CORRECTION :
OFFICERS, Case No. C-2825
Petitioner,
COUNCIL 82, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, :
Intervenor. :
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF )
ee , being duly sworn, deposes
and says that:
le I am a correction officer employed at Wwarerrown
Correctional Facility. My post office address is 3,: Ccyeyrem
SD \W/ATER TOWN NOY i340) °
My telephone number is (home) 7aa-¢572 (work) 4343-440 ‘
25 I had a conversation with wma. FirzPrarricK. 7
a representative of the Union of Federated Correction Officers,
(TUFCO) . In words or substance what he told me about which
employees TUFCO was seeking to represent waS:_CogrRecTion
QFFICERS Oniy.
3. In words or substance what he told me TUFCO was going
to do about other employees such as Capitol Police Officers,
Campus Security Officers, Building Guards and Forest Rangers,
etc. was: = REPRESENTE =
|
|
|
|
|
|
4, During this conversation I was asked to sign a TUFCO
designation card. Based upon those representations which I
understood to mean that TUFCO was seeking to represent correc-
tion officers only, I did so.
Sie I would not have signed a designation card for TUFCO
but for those representations which I understood to mean that it |
would represent only correction officers.
6. This conversation took place at: (the place) cam’s
- ‘ — , = Lx
7. It occurred on or about: (the date and time as best |
you can remember) Qpour ico Pm. = MARCH oF 2654
—————
Q : Chow of OFFICERS THaT wee THERe Tr
LEARN Amour were present at the time that the conversation
: TJUFCo.
} occurred.
9. = : : =
| er oe Tae HEY aA ee ee
Sworn to before me this
Qic> day of October, 1984
Pass ee es hk TRY
NOTARY PUBLIC
) |
TO : Jack Burke
FROM: Kathy McCormack
DATE: December 11, 1984
RE ;: Status ot Phone Numbers and One-On-One Campaign
(Update)
ONE-ON-ONE CAMPAIGN:
1) Arthur Kill
19 C-82 (Names and addresses of those
5 Und contacted - many are different
_2 TUFCO fran Brigar list)
26
2) CNYPC
95 (6382 -Some CO's transporting fran
6 Und. downstate facilities (Sing-
2 TUFCO Sing, Downstate & Fishkill)
103 have been pushing for TUFCO
3) Elmira
294 C-82 Names and addresses - a lot of
7 Und. new addresses
1 TUFCO
302
4) Wende 5) Summit
58 C-82 23 C-82
3 Und. 1 Und.
_0 TUFCO _1 TUFCO
61 25
6) Coxsackie 7) Bayview
126 C-82 102 C-82
40 Und. 10 Urd.
2 TUFCO 3 TUFCO
168 115
8) Georgetown 9) Downstate (according
to Chet LaDuke)
13 C82
3 Und. 386 C-82
__2 TUFCO 62 Und.
18 _68 TUFCO
516
10) Monterey 11) Mid-State
37' C-82 45 C-82
2 Und. 2 Und.
_3 TUFCO _3 TUFCO
42 50
12) Wallkill 13) Lincoln
18 C-82 10 C82
13 Und. 8 Und.
_0 TUFCO 10 TUFCO
31 28
14) Woodbourne
238 C-82
81 Und.
_30 TUFCO
349
Council 82 Totals
Pro-Council 82 - 1,464 a 79.8%
Undecided - 243 - 13.2%
TUFCO - 127 - 6.9%
1,834 100.0%
PHONE NUMBERS:
# Found # Members
Downstate 255 540
Lincoln 13 66
Edgecambe 18 80
Fulton 22 80
Great Meadow 351 573
Collins 133 354
Fishkill 295 767
Mid-Hudson 143 291
Mid-Orange 88 308
Otisville 106 255
Mt. McGregor 186 314
Alden 56 13h
Long Island 88 377
Clinton 72S 924
CNYPC 120 223
Green Haven 198 601
Capital Police 134 274
Coxsackie 212 327
Watertown 146 168
Altona 142 155
Groveland 1i2 140
Lyon Mt. 67 67
EnCon 125 401
Attica 370 651
Elmira 385 478
Arthur Kill 102 330
Bedford 58 195
Bayview 35 96
Ogdensburg 159 172
Taconic 40 109
Queensboro 41 204
Adirondack 142 219
Albion 84 192
Ossining 224 716
Auburn 225 543
Summit 13 45
Beacon 21 46
Woodbourne 223 320
Georgetown ll 45
Monterey 24 45
Pharsalia 24 45
Gabriels 38 67
Wallkill 98 174
P&R 92 207
CNY Corrections 45 157
Eastern 196 411
Hudson 56 163
6,431 12,839
50% of the phone numbers looked for have been found. I still have
to tabulate SUNY and Safety Officers after more of their numbers
are looked up.
Kathy
KM:ss
cc: Frank Benedetto
Chris Gardner
MEMORANDUM
TO : Jack Burke
FROM: Kathy McCormack
DATE: December 2, Gas
RE : Status of Phone Numbers and One-On-One Campaign
(Vedate)
ONE-ON-ONE CAMPAIGN:
1) Arthur Kill
19 (C82
5 Und.
3) Elmira
MY 162 o-82
"a 6 Und.
4) Wende
(Names and addresses of those
contacted - many are different
tran Brigar list)
-Same CO's transporting fran
downstate tacilities (Sing-
Sing, Downstate & Fishkill)
have been pushing tor TUFCO
Names and addresses - a lot of
new addresses
5) Summit
23 C-82
1 Und.
_1 TUFCO
25
|
6) Coxsackie 7)
| 126 C-82
40 Und.
__2 TUFCO
| 168
8) Georgetown 9)
13 C-82
3 Und.
2 TUFCO
18
| 10) Monterey 11)
|
37 C-82
| 2 Und,
| _3 TUFCO
42
|
| 2) Wallkill 13)
18 C-82
13 Und.
_0 TUECO
1
Council 82 Totals
jae
Pro-Council 82 - 31,078
Undecided - 29346r
(4 TUFCO - j27 46
17335~
Ka
PHONE NUMBERS:
# Found
Downstate 255
Lincoln iB
Edgecambe 18
Fulton 22
Downstate (according
to Chet LaDuke)
386 C-82
62 Und.
68 TUFCO
Mid-State
45 C-82
2 Und.
3 TUFCO
50
Lincoln | yw
10 C-82
8 Und. ye”
10 TUFCO y yr
28 el
= ROTTS 714. &
= pbarte (36>
- 7.2% %.%
100.08 — o
# Found # Members
Great Meadow 351 573
Collins 133 354
Fishkill 295 767
Mid-Hudson 143 291
Mid-Orange 88 308
Otisville 106 255
Mt. McGregor 186 314
Alden 56 ES).
Long Island 88 377
Clinton 715 924
CNYPC 120 223
Green Haven 198 601
Capital Police 134 274
Coxsackie 212 327
Watertown 146 168
Altona 142 155
Groveland 112 140
Lyon Mt. 67 67
EnCon 125 401
Attica 370 651
Elmira 385 478
Arthur Kill 102 330
Bedtord 58 195
Bayview 35. 96
Ogdensburg 159 172
Taconic 40 109
Queensboro 41 204
Adirondack 142 219
Albion 84 192
Ossining 224 716
Auburn 225 543
5,590 11,321
49% ot the phone numbers have been found. We have gotten more
phone books in, especially tor NYC, which should improve the
percentage.
Kathy
KM:ss
cc: Frank Benedetto
Chris Gardner
Great Meadow
Collins
Fishkill
Mi
d-Hudson
Mid-Orange
Otisville
Mt. McGregor
Al
den
Long Island
cl
inton
CNYPC
Green Haven
Ca
pital Police
Coxsackie
Watertown
Al
tona
Grove land
Lyon Mt.
EnCon
Attica
Elmira
Ar
thur Kill
Bedford
Ba
view
Ogdensburg
Taconic
Queensboro
Ad
Al
Os
irondack
bion
sining
Auburn
50 7s
KM:ss
cc:
Frank Benedetto
Chris Gardner
ina for
ate Suny + Sofrry
Parnnd Nd aro log Kea wy
STATE OF NEW YORK
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
In the Matter of
STATE OF NEW YORK,
Employer,
-and-
THE UNION OF FEDERATED CORRECTION CASE NO. C-2825
OFFICERS, ASS
Petitioner,
-and-
COUNCIL 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO,
Intervenor.
DECISION OF DIRECTOR
On August 29, 1984, The Union of Federated Correction
Officers (TUFCO) filed a petition seeking the
decertification of Council 82, AFSCME (Council 82) and its
own certification as the exclusive negotiating agent for
employees of the State of New York (State) in the State's
Security Services Unit. A conference was held before
Kenneth J. Toomey, Esq., the Administrative Law Judge
assigned to the case, on September 26, 1984, to discuss
issues raised by the petition. At that time, Council 82
challenged both the validity of TUFCO's showing of
Case No. C-2825 =e De
interest, 2/ asserting that it had been’ fraudulently
induced, and TUFCO's eligibility to represent all employees
in the Security Services Unit. based, inter alia, on
certain provisions of its constitution and by laws .2/
In furtherance of my investigation under §201.9(a)(1)
of the Rules, Council 82 was directed to submit an offer of
proof setting forth the specific facts in support of its
allegations. It did so on October 22. On October 31, the
parties were directed to submit legal memoranda addressing
the issue of whether, if proven, Council 82's assertions
should affect the further processing of TUFCO's petition.
Each party has responded.
THE SHOWING OF INTEREST
In support of its first allegation -- that the showing
of interest submitted by TUFCO in support of its petition
is so permeated by fraud in its inducement as to be invalid
Rules of Procedure (Rules), §201.4(a).
Ir
~
While the make-up of the bargaining unit is not
challenged in this proceeding, three petitions were
filed in August to remove certain titles from the
Security Services Unit. Of those, one (Case No.
C-2829, relating to lifeguards) has been withdrawn,
one (Case No. C-2827, relating to "supervisory"
employees) is pending a hearing, and one (Case No.
C-2826, relating to parkway police) has been litigated
and awaits decision.
In
~
Case No. C-2825
-- Council 82 offered written statements by a number of
correction officers that they signed TUFCO designation
cards because, and only because, it was represented to them
by TUFCO agents that TUFCO would seek to represent a unit
consisting solely of correction officers. Since those
cards were in fact used to support TUFCO's petition to
represent the existing unit, which includes other than
correction officers, Council 82 asserts that the showing of
interest should be invalidated as being obtained through a
deliberate misrepresentation as to the purpose of the cards.
My investigation into the validity of a showing of
interest submitted in support of a representation petition
is limited in its scope by §201.4(e) of the Rules, =/
which provides in pertinent part:
(e) The Director may direct an
investigation and, if necessary, a hearing
whenever he deems it appropriate to ascertain --
whether the evidence submitted is accurate.
If he determines that evidence is fraudulent
3/ The scope of review of a showing of interest is not so
limited in some jurisdictions. For example, §447.307(2)
of the Florida Public Employees Relations Act permits a
challenge to signatures on a showing of interest on the
grounds that they "were obtained by collusion, coercion,
intimidation, or misrepresentation or are otherwise
invalid."
Case No. C-2825 -4-
or that the declaration4/ is false, he
shall take such reasonable action as he deems
appropriate to protect the integrity of the
procedures of the Board in connection with
the pending matter.
Thus, unless it can be shown that the evidence of a showing
of interest submitted is in a form which is a fraud or
mispresentation on the Board such as would compromise the
integrity of its proceedures, the evidence will be
S/
accepted. Examples of such fraud or misrepresenta-
tion would be forged signatures on the caras®/ or
submission of a showing of interest which had been tampered
4/ This reference is to the “declaration of authenticity”
required by §201.4(d) of the Rules. In its brief, Council
82 for the first time asserts that TUFCO's declaration of
authenticity is false, alleging that some of
designation cards were not, as the declaration avers,
signed on the dates indicated thereon. However,
instances cited are not nearly sufficient in number, even
if true, to affect the numerical sufficiency of TUFCO's
showing of interest. Thus, further investigation
these particular assertions, especially at this stage of
the proceedings, is not warranted. See O'Keefe v. Helsby,
76 Misc. 2d 934, 6 PERB ¥7014 (Sup.Ct. Nassau Co. 1973).
Similarly, Council 82's broad assertions, also first
raised in its brief, that unit employees were "urged"
sign TUFCO cards by other unit employees who may have
supervisory responsibilities and that newly hired
employees were under "constant pressure" from senior
emmployees to sign TUFCO cards, are neither sufficiently
specific nor substantial to warrant investigation.
5/ For the proposition that the showing of interest
requirement is for the administrative convenience of the
Board rather than for the protection of any party see
Board of Education of the CSD of the City of New York,
PERB 43138 (1982), and cases cited therein at p. 3218,
2.
6/ See State of New York, 11 PERB 4053, aff'd., 11 PERB
43077 (1978).
Case No. C-2825 a (Bs
with so as to be substantially different from that signed by
the employees. 2/
Here, however, Council 82 alleges that employees signed
the TUFCO cards on the basis of misrepresented facts. Since
there is no allegation that the signatures are not genuine or
that the cards are not accurate, i.e., are not in the form
actually signed, the showing of interest is acceptable and
sufficient.
The designation cards clearly state on their face that
they are to be used for purposes of securing an election "for
the right to represent my bargaining unit," an unambiguous
reference to the unit of which the signing employee was at that
time a member -- the Security Services Unit. Even if the
purpose of the cards was misrepresented by the TUFCO agents,
the written form was sufficiently clear to belie any statement
of contrary purpose. £/ The question of whether the
employees desire representation and the identity of the
negotiating agent is best answered in circumstances such as
these through the election process.2/
oe A 4 See County of Westchester, 14 PERB ¥8005 (1981).
8/ County of Erie, 13 PERB 44060 (1980).
The private sector cases cited by Council 82 to support
its argument are inapposite in that they involve unfair
labor practice charges and possible bargaining orders,
issues not here present.
9/ See Suffolk Chapter CSEA v. PERB, 63 Misc. 2d 403, 3 PERB
qy7008 (Supt.Ct. Suf.Co. 1970), aff'd, 35 A.D.2d. 655 (2nd
Dept. 1970).
Case No. C-2825 - 6 -
Accordingly. the objections of Council 82 to the showing
of interest are dismissed.
TUFCO ELIGIBILITY
Council 82 asserts that TUFCO is ineligibie+2/ for
certification as negotiating agent for the Security Services
Unit on two grounds: first, that it has expressed an intention
not to represent the noncorrection officers who are in that
unit; second, that its structure deprives its members of
meaningful participation in TUFCO.
Read in a light most favorable to Council 82's position,
the evidence submitted in the offer of proof may demonstrate
that TUFCO's ultimate goal, admitted in its brief, is to
represent correction officers in a separate negotiating unit.
However, the statements attributable to TUFCO agents in this
regard do not establish that if certified, TUFCO would “abandon
part of the negotiating unit, "22/ and do not constitute
grounds for dismissal of the petition.
Council 82's second objection to TUFCO's eligibility for
certification is based on provisions of the TUFCO constitution
whereby the five original officers, all un.t employees, will
maintain office, and thus membership on TUFCO's governing body
-- the Executive Board of Directors -- until at least December
10/ Council 82 does not challenge TUFCO's status as an
“employee organization" under §201.5 of the Taylor Law.
11/ Manhasset UFSD, 12 PERB 43059, at 3105 (1979); See also
Enlarged CSD of the City of Saratoga Springs, 14 PERB
43080, aff'g 14 PERB 44052 (1981).
Case No. C-2825
of 1988, when the first election is scheduled. Because of
the powers these officers have in the organization's
operations, and will have for four more years, Council 82
argues that the membership is deprived of any meaningful
participation in TUFCO and that it is therefore ineligible
for certification.
The issues raised by Council 82 relate to internal
affairs of TUFCO which have no adverse bearing on unit
members' terms and conditions of employment22/ or on
TUFCO's representation of all unit members .22/ Since
there is no dispute that TUFCO is an employee organization.
TUFCO is eligible for certification. Accordingly. I find
no impediment to the further processing of this petition.
Dated at Albany, New York,
this 30 day of November. 1
12/ CSEA Inc. ogack), 9 PERB 3064, aff'g. 9 PERB
Y4520 (1976). See also Board of Education of the
City of Syracuse School District, 7 PERB {4539
(1974)
13/ All Security Services Unit employees are eligible
for membership in TUFCO.
E-= + r
§201.12 Exceptions to Decision of Director; Action by Board. Fee,
(a) Within 15 working days after receipt of the decision of the Director, a party may
file with the Board an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting forth
exceptions thereto, and an original and four copies of a brief in support thereof, together
with proof of service of copies of such exceptions and brief uvon each party to the
proceeding.
(b) The exceptions shall:
(1) Set forth specifically the questions of procedure, fact, law, or policy to
which exceptions are taken;
(2) Identify that part of the decision to which objection is made;
(3) Designate by page citation the portions of the record relied upon; and
(4) State the grounds for exceptions. An exception to a ruling, finding or
conclusion which is not specifically urged is waived.
(c) Within seven working days after service of exceptions, any party may file with
the Board an original and four copies of a response thereto, or cross-exceptions and a brief
in support thereof together with proof of service of a copy thereof upon each party to the
proceeding.
(d) A request for an extension of time within which to file exceptions and briefs
shall be in writing and filed with the Board at least three working days before the
expiration of the required time for filing, provided that the Board may extend the time
during which to request an extension of time because of extraordinary circumstances. A
party requesting an extension of time shall notify all the parties to the proceeding of
its request and shall indicate to the Board the position of each other party with regard
to such request.
(e) If a party desires to argue orally before the Board, a written request with reasons
therefor shall accompany the exceptions filed, the response thereto, or the cross-exceptions
filed. The Board may grant such a request; it may also direct oral argument on its own motion.
(£) Upon submission of the case to the Board, it may adopt, modify or reverse the
decision of the Director.
(g) Unless a party files exceptions to the decision of the Director within 15 working
days after receipt thereof, that decision will be final.
(h) The Board may designate an employee organization as the exclusive representative
of public employees within a negotiating unit if the employee organization has demonstrated
that it represents a majority of the employees within the negotiating unit and there has
been prior agreement between the public employer and the employee organization of organizations
representing a substantial majority of the public employees in the unit that the majority
representative should be accorded exclusive rights of representation.
KKKKKKKK KEKE KKKEEEE
KEKHEKKEE
§200.9 Working Days. The term "working days", as used herein, shall not include a
Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday.
§200.10 Filing; Service. (a) The term "filing", as used herein, shall mean delivery to
the Board or an agent thereof, or the act of mailing to the Board.
(b) The term "service", as used herein, shall mean delivery to a party or the act of mailing
to a party.
8/82
JEFFREY H. BROZYNA
ATTORNEY AT LAW
313 WASHINGTON AVE.
ALBANY. NEW YORK 12206
PHONE 518-465-3352
December 20, 1984
Mr. Kenneth Toomey
Public Employment Relations Board
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12205
Re: Case No. U-7723, TUFCO Union v. State of New York
(OER) and District Council 82, AFSCME
Dear Mr. Toomey:
Enclosed pursuant to your Order of December 6, 1984, please
find an original and four copies of our Bill of Particulars
herein. Proof of service is also enclosed.
I would like to emphasize that, although the Respondents’
requests for particulars seemed to focus on our "joint action"
allegations, the ¢harge alleges acts of interference for which
the State is jointly and severally liable.
Also, I would like to emphasize that, while we have
attempted to make our responses as complete as possible, some of
the demanded particulars were not readily available to us, being
in the exclusive knowledge of the Respondents. Therefore, we
have made a Freedom of Information Law request to discover the
additional particulars, and will supplement our answers when we
obtain the needed information. This is the practice under the
CPLR (see Weinstein-Korn-Miller, New York Civil Practice,
9§3041.07). It should be even more appropriate under the Taylor
Law, given the lack of protective orders and discovery in
improper practice proceedings.
Respectfully yours,
on
JEFFREY H. BROZYNA
Attorney for TUFCO Union
Charging Party herein
encs.
cc: Office of Employee Relations (Pellegrini)
Rowley, Forrest & O'Donnell (Rowley)
STATE OF NEW YORK
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
In the Matter of
COUNCIL 82, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
STATE, COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES,
AFL-CIO,
Petitioner, CASE NO. C-2824
-and-
STATE OF NEW YORK,
Employer.
STATE OF NEW YORK,
‘ petitioner/Employer,
-and -
COUNCIL 82, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF CASE NO. C-2827
STATE, COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES,
AFL-CIO,
Intervenor.
-and-
THE UNION OF FEDERATED CORRECTION
OFFICERS,
Intervenor.
STATE OF NEW YORK,
Employer,
-and-
THE UNION OF FEDERATED CORRECTION
OFFICERS,
Petitioner, CASE NO. C-2825
-and-
COUNCIL 82, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
STATE, COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES,
AFL-CIO,
Intervenor.
STIPULATION
It is hereby stipulated by the parties herein and
endorsed by the Public Employment Relations Board ("PERB")
that:
1. Proceedings on the petition numbered C-2824 filed
by Council 82, AFSCME, shall be adjourned until the
petition numbered C-2827 filed by the State of New York is
litigated.
“2. Proceedings on the petition numbered C-2827 filed
by the State of New York shall be adjourned until such time
as an employee organization is certified by the Public
Employment Relations Board to represent’ the Security
Services Negotiating Unit.
3. Petition numbered C-2827 shall be litigated at a
time set by the Director, after consultation with the
parties to the litigation: the State
of New. York and the certified employee organization(s)
representing the Security Services Negotiating Unit and the
Security Supervisors Unit, at the conclusion of
negotiations for a successor agreement to the agreement in
the Security Services Unit which expires on March 31, 1985,
or a legislative determination of the terms and conditions
of employment of the Security Services Unit.
4. All incumbents in positions and all positions
sought to be declared supervisory in petition C-2827 which
are determined by PERB to be appropriately placed in the
Security Supervisors Negotiating Unit; either after
litigation or stipulation by the State of New York and the
certified employee organization(s) representing the
Security Services Negotiating Unit, and the Security
Supervisors Unit shall be placed in the Security
Supervisors Negotiating Unit for the purposes set forth in
PERB Rule 201.3(d) and (e) and 201.4 at the beginning of
the period (August 1) during which a new challenge may be
filed for representation rights to the Security Services
Negotiating Unit after April 1, 1985. Incumbents in such
positions shall continue to receive the benefits contained
in the Security Services Negotiating Unit Agreement until
expiration of any legislative determination or expiration
of the successor agreement to the agreement which expires
on March 31, 1985, or as otherwise provided by §209-a.1(e)
of the Civil Service Law. However, upon the transfer of
any positions to the Security Supervisors Unit on the date
set forth in this paragraph, the positions and employees in
those positions will be represented on and after that date
by the representative of the Security Supervisors Unit.
5. An election in petition numbered C-2825 filed by
The Union of Federated Correction Officers to determine
whether an employee organization is to be certified by PERB
to negotiate for the Security Services Negotiating Unit may
proceed as soon as PERB can schedule it.
The parties herein reach the agreements set forth
above in an effort to expedite the process of providing an
election for the members of the Security Services
Negotiating Unit to determine their negotiating agent and
to eliminate unnecessary delay to the commencement of
negotiations for a successor agreement to the present
agreement which expires on March 31, 1985.
seer YU sa YAR a aA Qe g
WALTER J PELLEGRINY / JEFFREY H. BROZYNA
Deputy Counsel Attorney at Law
NYS Governor's Office of Representing The Union of
Employee Relations Federated Correction Officers
oo is i /
BRIAN J.'DONNELL HARVEY MILOWE
Rowley, Forrest & O'Donnell Director, Public Employment
Representing Council 82, Practices & Representation
AFSCME, AFL-CIO, as nego- PERB
tiating agent for the
Security Services Unit and DATED: Albany, New York
the Security Supervisors Unit. December 20, 1984
One Commerce Plaza, Suite 1012, Albany, New York 12210
Telephone: (518) 465-4585
April 5, 1984
LO: Elizabeth Brickman
FROM: Steve ey
RE: T.U.F.C.0. Project Proposed
The purpose of this memo is to provide background
information on TUFCO and request a project covering the
potential decertification.
BACKGROUND
TUFCO (The Union of Federated Correction Officers)
is an independent association comprised of former local
union leaders within Council 82. They were officers who
also held Council Executive Board vositions and upon their
failure to achieve re-election, incornorated an independent
association in December 1982. Originally, they claimed
they were only a "fraternal" organization, selling disability
insurance at a much lower cost that Council 82 has been able
to secure.
Annual membership dues for TUFCO are $10.00, allowing
you to purchase the disability insurance. The three most
active officers in TUFCO are; Dennis Fitzpatrick (Local 1279),
James Morrissey (Local 1447), Kevin Casey (Local 1871), and
Jim Shannon (Local 1255).
Prior to the AFSCME Council 82 Convention in September,
the TUFCO leadership announced their intention to run a slate
of officers against the Council's current leadership. By
nomination time, it was very evident that TUFCO had little
support and stood no chance of success. Rather than embarrass
themselves, the TUFCO leadership ran a slate of secondary
low visability officers who gained little support. After the
Convention, TUFCO was forced public (see attached) with their
effort to decertify Council 82.
Most of the TUFCO effort has been with new officers
and dissidents of Council 82. In the last three years, over
in the public service
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-ClO ao
Elizabeth Brickman
Page 2
60% of the current unit has been hired. Most of these young
officers have no strong allegiance to Council 82 and did not
participate in the officers strike during the late 1970's.
They have not seen the advances made by Council 82 over the
last five years. Further, many are being pressured (see
activity section) into signing cards.
Council 82's most serious internal problem comes from
black officers who see the Council as unresponsive to their
needs. This is a long standing problem and TUFCO has made
a special effort to play on this weakness.
ACTIVITY
Thus far, TUFCO has produced one six-page brochure which
has been stuffed in mail boxes at about twelve prisons. The
brochure has not yet been mailed to the membership in general.
The TUFCO leadership has been holding "beer and pizza"
card signing meetings around the State which have been fairly
successful in the Downstate area. TUFCO has attempted two
fund-raisers and lost money both times. We believe that they
are being financed by the insurance provider (Unity Insurance) .
The corrections supervisory local (Sergeants and Lieutenants)
is a strong TUFCO unit. TUFCO has employed a strategy of
pressure where these officers individually approach new
recruits and transfers with authorization cards. It is
obviously difficult for a new recruit to tell his "boss"
that he does not want to join.
PITCH
TUFCO is hitting on several different themes to encourage
membership. They include:
1. Council 82 is controlled by elitist who have sold-
out to management.
2. Excessive dues
3. Council 82 is too passive and has failed to bring
back good settlements to the membership.
4. Representation is uneven and inconsistent.
5. Grievances take too long to process.
6. No need for an International Union or affiliation.
7. Half million dollars sent to Washington can be
better spent locally.
8. Council 82 lacks professional negotiators.
Elizabeth Brickman
Page 3
While TUFCO has yet to specifically address dues or
structure, they are committing to the following:
"Professional" business agents and negotiators.
disciplinary
Ls
2. Legal counsel for every "major
proceeding.
3. Disaster fund for correction officers.
4. Educational scholarships.
5. Prepaid legal program.
6. Tax and retirement planning services.
7. Cheaper life insurance.
INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESS
The following prisons have been identified as either
strong TUFCO or strong Council 82 facilities.
numbers are identified in parenthesis.
TcUks CinOis
399 -
738 = =-
866 -
1279 -
1285 -
1447 -
1653 -
TOTALS
SF/dbw
Downstate (487)
Hudson (144)
Adirondack(196)
Great Meadow (529)
Camp Gabriels (59)
Auburn (438)
Long Island (293)
- (2146)
Membership
COUNCIL 82
781 - Ogdensburg (137)
923 - Albion (161)
1040 - Attica (565)
1041 - Eastern (370)
1151 - Woodbourne (276)
1240 - Elmira (410)
1264 - Coxsackie (282)
1272 - Clinton (869)
1548 - Watertown (120)
2398 - Arthur Kill (260)
2556 - Groveland (127)
2655 - Mid-Hudson (241)
(3818)
8M" x 14"
= universal KH ee ll Legal Pad 29 §9-U-4000
EES 0e@ 3
OO teg GE ts
Oke in Hrwterr 7etieg Ueki aty
Bo Ben TFET ui fi-7 Ly
we Mm N-7 8b .
>
ass ao 3 78? Pr
tee
ia _ Sor Atey Ales AP inte - Hite Paaal Sell
7A Ne Ah | FFCO ma eZ MSsile Fae.
_— wher tee —~ée0 Og ed Cred |
ev, Ce 4 Sipe fe. fhe rs ouvT
gil 4 — :
Sent pe Keys. al Ske Ye
Ye Fore atl Segn —— we TUFECO.
9 Ho ges Lethe)
‘Ae VL le ll» 4) U5 SherwPr
Oriily Goan! Bnaele at ule, Syjued
MF Tove Hgts Catlye fi cxea Filey (Advis
FULOE 0 Decl oe WZ sompes
ie (tee Seeee ee vaiforas
0 Chet Kad
| op ye Ae ger EL ee Greed genset
| (008 hat prot YLEAPEA LE Li che ery
| To d Cg d 5/ spam |
| Wéiten Kipott &y Sim / pila!
COUNCIL 82
Sen
MAY 171984}
Z|
i
INE “areca pT
wl Shae oer y
Le LE
‘pt ThE
VHAT HAS COUNCIL 82’s bargaining done for you? «4 7? C tl BS
« A hell of a lot. Let’s just capsulize the highlights: we on CC
«In 1957, our job rate was keyed to grade 11. In 1966, we pushed it to grade 12; in
1970, to grade 13; in 1972, to grade 14.
* In 1971, our job rate was $9,000 a year. In October it will be $24,827 including
line-up pay, which Council 82 negotiated, and uniform allowance, which Council 82
Negotiated. For officers with longevity, it will be $27,095, more than triple the 1971
rate.
* Council 82 increased the trainee scale stunningly. Now an officer starts at
$14,200, gets 5.6 per cent more ($800) in six months and another 34.8 per cent ($5,214)
at the end of ayear. This $6,014 raise amounts to $115.65 a week. Such increments are
almost unheard of in any other union, public or private sector!
* An officer hired in April, 1982, for $12,920 is now earning $20,572, a 59.2 per
cent increase. Do you know any one of your neighbors who got a 60 per cent raise in
the last two years?
* Because of the effort of your Council 82 negotiating team, the present contract
increases base salaries 30 per cent in 30 months. No other public employee union can
make that boast. It would be ludicrous to think a new bargaining unit without depth
of experience and extremely limited financial resources could come anywhere near
this figure, much less surpass it.
* Governor Cuomo, addressing our 1983 convention, said he knew of “no union
that did more for its members” than Council 82. That’s hardly something he’d say
about an idle or do-nothing union.
* Health insurance, dental plan, GHI allowances, one-dollar co-pay drug pre-
scriptions and fully paid vision care: all were either initiated or vastly upgraded by
Council 82 negotiators in the current contract. And that’s just the frosting on a
tremendous economic cake. Spell that y-o-u-r_ s-a-l-a-r-y.
HOW ACCESSIBLE IS COUNCIL 82 ASSISTANCE TO YOU?
Totally accessible. Through your president, shop steward or an executive board
member on your shift, you can contact the Council’s staff representative for your
region. For questions on insurance, publications (such as the Review or assistance
on local newsletters) or unusual problems, you can call Council 82 headquarters
at (518) 489-8424 and talk to a union officer.
xz” dew? wael TF ce
John W. Burke
Executive Director
63 Colvin Avenue
Albany, New York 12206
(518) 489-8424
a
WhaT pene bil Cowes! B28 0085,
Ov Wtivsin?
wilf They
Correct) his
TAs Vane f
SY
SWUM GIL 82, Security and Law Enforcement Employees
Richard J. Bischert
President
That’s the Truth
Governor Cuomo, in his recent address to the Pub-
lic Employees Conference, described a government
employee. One of his few choices for a portrait: “the
government (employee) is the correction officer who
isn’t paid enough to walk through Auburn without a
weapon among criminals who have proven their cap-
ability to kill.”
And who was the governor addressing? Officers of
major state public employee unions. Particularly, your
Council 82.
Non-Profit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
Permit No. 173
Albany, N.Y
Couneil 82
The Right Union, The Right People,
THE The Right Stuff
BOTTOM LINE
a
399
R.C, Skinner
224 Riley Wl.
New Windsor, NY
12550
\’ve worked as a New York State correction officer for 26 years. Twenty-three of these years have
been here in Attica. When | started out in the correctional system, we didn’t have a union.
Officers were underpaid and completely under management's control. Really, there was only
one difference between the way they treated us and the way they treated the prisoners... They
let us go home at night.
AFSCME has more than doubled our pay. The union has brought some fairness into shift
assignments, grievance systems, and promotions. Above all, the union has given us a sense of
dignity on the job. We’re free working people, not prisoners ourselves. We’ve made important
progress with AFSCME, but we still have a long way to go. This is one of the toughest jobs in
America. I’m glad we have a tough union representing us.”
—Charles Biggins
Attica Correction Officer
Recently Retired
See eee eee
‘ ihiatl BLACK ANU HESPANIC OFFICERSSY OES eee
———
oO
—————
*. DONT BE A _TUFCO-SUCKER.} - a
ae
1 og
1) WHO ARE THE LEADERS OF TUFCOft :°
2) DID"ENT YOU KNOW THEY ARE TREACHEROQUS.RALISTS. THATS RIGHT RACL3 iS! (KKK)
3) WHAT DOES TUFCO HAVE TQ OFFER us BLACK AND HISPANIC OFFICERS 227
I tora tela aC ma
BOT
f
THE MAIN RACIST RING LEADERS OF TUFCQ ARE - DENNIS FITZPATRICK, JAMIiS MORRISSEY
KEVIN CASEY AND, SGT BRUCE FARRELL, THESE LAMES WERE ALL AT ONL Thi uNTOW -
TEADERS IN COUNCIL . ; FOUR) ° =
FITZPATRICK AND,MORRISSEY BOTH SERVED AS OUR STATEWIDE CORRECTION POLlCY CHAIR-
MAN. FITZPATRICK FROM 1978 to 1979 and,MORRISSEV from 1979 to T9841. ~ RE
DHAT VID THEY DO TO HELP US ADDRESS OUR PROBLEMS WITH THE ADMINISTEAIION HERE -
IN THE N.Y.CITY AREA?? ““~NOFHING AT ALL, ZEROIT CASEY IS A COnvkt OF
FITZPATRICK ANOD,HORRISSEY ~ BRUCE FARRELL THE FORMER PRESIDEN) Of DOWNSTATE
LOCAL*®399 IS A TREACHEROUS SOMETIMES UNDERCOVER RACIST WHO RUNSA CAMI ON MIN-
ORITY OFFICERS WHEN IT SUITS HIS PERPOSE, ‘IF YOU GO FOR THE OKEY YOKE YOU ARE
IN HIS POCKET. THIS GANG OF FOUR NAMED THE WYC AREA®THE PLANTATT ON" BECAUSE
THTS 1S WHERE US MINORITIES ARE MOSTLY.
IF YOU SIGN A _TUFCO CARD YOU MAY BE PUTTING YOUR FUTURE WORKING CONDUI I... IN
THE HANDS OF THESE RACIST.” BIGOTS. DONT, BE SO GULLABLE AND,SO QUICK 10 JUMP ON
A NEW BAND WAGON THAT SOUNDS GOOD, REMEMBER " EVERYTHING THAT LOOKS «00D 18 NOT.
GOOD FOR you". :
MEO gt than, AB eRe Sadie eneate o decawean Mise
LETS LOOK AT SOME FACTS! ;
1) COUNCIL 82 HAS NOT BEEN PERFECT BUT NOTHING IS! WE HAVE A LOT Oi KIGHTS -
WE DONT ALWAYS APPRECIATE. EVEN NY.CYTY CORRECTION, PD, TRANSIT ['),10USING PD-
DO _NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS AND, JOB PROTECTIONS WE HAVE, WHICH WF TAKITT Oi GRANTED,
THE STATE OTD NOT GIVE US THESE RIGHTS IW KIWDNESS, THEY WERE FOUGHT 10K,
_SENTORTTV [PERSONAL LEAVE DAVS|SUSPENSTON UP 103 dage WIT ACUT” HE AW | NOTTARTITS
NY. .STATE NY.STATE =. NYC, CORRECTION, NYCPD,NYCTP, NYCHAPL
CORRECTION CORRECTION . ° TEES
ONLY. : a in ‘
nycPo oe se
AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE CHART ABOVE, ONLY WE HAVE SENIORITY FOR ASSIONMENTS AND,
SHIFTS AND, TRANSFERS. ONLY US AND THE NYCPD HAVE P/L DAYS. ALL CITY UNIFORMED =
FORCES ARE SUBJECT TO SUSPENSIONS UP TO THREE DAYS BY A SUPERIOR, CAVIAIN OR --=>
ABOVE WITHOUT A HEARING OR ANY APPEAL RECOURSE, (LIKE MILITARY ARTICLI 15),
A LOT OF YOU WOULD BE SUSPENDED FOR THREE DAYS EVERY WEER,TF OUR UPIiCK RANKING-
SUPERVISORS AND,ADMINISTRATORS HAD THAT KIND OF POWER. 1! i
#2) TUFCO says THAT COUNCT! 82 TS RULED BY AN ELITE GROUP BY A SLIECI iitw,
THIS TS BULL, COUNCIL 82 RUNS BY THE LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF wAIORITY=--
RULES ? LIKE ALL REAL LEGITIMATE UN@ONS.. .THE. FACTS ARE THAT WE DOWN LITRE
ART THE MINORITY, and-UPSTATE HAS THE MAJORITY, FACE REALITY- UFSTAI( WAS THE -
BIOGLST FACILITIES AND,MORE MEMBERS. THYS WITT NOT CHANGE UNTIL This kt ARE SOME
LARGE FACILITIES HERE IN NYC AREA, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT TUFCO OR ANY UNION WILL
GIVE UP THE RULE OF THE MAJORITY TO GIVE US AN EQUAL VOTE WITH Tila iN RUNNING.
THE STATEWIDE UNION, YOU ARE ‘LIVING IN A WORLD OF FANTASY, THE ONLY WAY WE WILL
RULE IS IF WE BECOME THE MAJORITY. OR 4T LEAST INCREASE OUR SIZE HikK{ ITF WE GET
MORE AND,BIGGER FACILITIES IN NY.CITY.
THE LEADERS OF COUNCIL 82 ARE SELECTED: BY YOUR LOCAL LEADERS ,WHOM Yi il SELECT BY-
DIRECT VOTE. YOUR LOCAL LEADERS WITH ALL OTHER LOCAL LEADERS CAST Ti vOTEOF--
THTER™LOCATS EVERY TWO YEARS AT THE COUNCIL 82 CONVENTION. THIS 1S KNOWN AS ELEC-
TOKIAL VOTE. SIMILAR TO THE WAY THE U.S, PRESIDENT 1S SELECTED. But tvin 1F VOU
HAO OTRECT VOTE IN SELECTING STATEWIDE UNION LEADERS 1T WOULD NOT MAKt ANY -DIFFE-
RUNCE TO US. THE MAJORITY WOULD STILL RULE, ALSO MOST WENBERS WOULD NOT? KNOU-THE
CANDTOATES OR ANYTHTNG ABOUT THEM, BEING FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE STATE,
YOUR LOCAL LEADERS KNOW THEM BECAUSE THEY ATTEND THE MEETINGS IN ALBANY AND, BEC-
OME KNOWLEDGEABLE OF WHO THEY ARE AND,WHATS GOING ON. SO THEY ARE Abit 10 ACT IW
ae ee MEMBERS BEST INTRESTS. THIS 1S PART OF THE JOB LOCAL LEAILRS ARE SUP-
208 TO . ¥]
°
-
SINCL TUFCO CANT AND,WONT GIVE. US EQUAL VOTE POWER WITH THE FACILIIILS UPSTATE
WHAT CAN THEY DO FOR US???, NOT_A_DAMN THING BUT CAUSE US TO LOUSI ININGS WE
ALREADY HAVE.
KE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, THE RASIST IEADERS OF TUFCO HAVE NO ust Ten US BLACK
AND CHTSPANTCS——THEV-BETTE VE LUE SHOULD ALL BEN GREEN INSTEAD OF 1iue. TSS
THT EORGANTZATION' YOU WANT TO REPRESENT YOU??. THEY ALSO BULIL 4 1 UMALES-
SHOULD NOT BE ON THIS JOB. AND, AS YOU KNOW MOST FEMALE OFFICERS Axi ULACK.
NO THEY ARE NOT ADVERTISING THESE THINGS,THAT WOULD BE STUPID ON InliR PART.
BUT ~~ JF THEY TAKE OVER YOU'LL FIND OUT,LIKE THE JEWS DID WHEN WW1Tii: kk TOOK -
OVER GERMANY. THEY DID NOT BELIEVE IT UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE!!.
TUFCO - IS TRYING TO ROPE US IN WITH INSURANCE AND,TAX PLANS AND, uy VROMISING
ATTORNEY SERVICES FOR ALL MEMBERS. THIS IS TOTAL PIE IN THE Sky,
TN TOOAVS TNFLATIONARY ECONOMY NO UNION CAN PROVIDE ATTORNEY StrviciS TO ALL
MEMBERS FOR LESS DUES THAN WE NOW PAY. AGAIN-LET'S FACE REALITY COSIS OF EVER-
YTHING 1S SKY HIGH,MORGAGE, RENT, FOOD, UTILITIES CLOTHES, CARS EVERVINING, 5
THE EXPENCES OF RUNNING A UNION ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN ANYTHING Ce) . ANYONE-
WHO SAYS THEY CAN GET YOU MORE FOR LESS 1S SELLING YOU A DRLAM. 5
AS FAR AS ATTORNEYS ARE CONCERNED THE GOING RATE FOR AN EXPERIENCE LAWYER TS
100.00 DOLLARS AN HOUR AND,UP “PLUS EXPENCES AND, COURT COSTS DEPIND ING ON WHAT
KIND OF CASE 1S BEING HANDLED. ONE PERSONS CASE COULD COST 5,000.00 VOLLARS -
AND, UP. IN ORDER TO INSURE GOOD [AWYERS FOR EACH MEMBER FOR ON OR CIT DUTY =
MATTIRS. YOU WOULD HAVE TOPAY 50.00 FIFTY DOLLARS A PAY PERIOD Toe DULS WITH
AT LEAST THIRTY GOING INTO THE LEGAL DEFENCE FUND OUT OF THE Flily.
NY.CITY CORRECTION, PD,TAPD AND,HAPD PAY TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS A Pty 1- prop FoR
PUES AND, THEY STILL DUNT GET THAI KIND OF SERVICE . ITS IMPOSSi BI). 0
UNLESS THEY PLAN TO USE CHEAP LAWYERS WHO JUST FINISHED LAW -SeHoc) | NEWLY --
GRADUATED LAWVERS ARE HIRED BY THE STATE, LEGAL AID AND,THE DAS Oli) t. THE SAL
ERTES THEY MAKE BASICLY SAME AS OURS, HIGHLY EXPERIENCED FEES Aki s Kost $100.0
TO 150.00 PER HOUR PLUS EXPENCES, IF YOU WANT INDIVIDUAL ATTORNI. “tRVICES -
FOR ALL PURPOSES ON AND,OFF DUTY MATTERS, you HAVE TO BE WITLING 1 Pay ATs
DUES INCREASE OR FORGET IT. THOSE TUFCO CLOWNS ARE INSOTTING your 1th GENCE
BY EXPECTING YOU TO BELIEVE IT CAN BE HAD FOR PESS., =e ~ —
"3) YOU HAVE HEARD IT BEFORE - " A UNION IS ONLY AS STRONG AS TI's ci uoregs
THAT'S COLD FACT BRO! ON THE LOCAT TEVEL THE UNTON TS SuPPdsty tej FORCe
THE CONTRACT UPON THE FACILITY ADMINISTRATION. THIS CANT BE DORE ret oLiVELy
WITHOUT YOU- THE MEMBERS FULL SUPPORT AND, COOPERATION. You AKL tit NTCN, UNLON-
TS UNITY f° YOU DONT HAVE TO LIKE EVERYONE YOU WORK WITH, BUT ON Tit toBK EACH
ANDTEVERY OFFICER SHOULD SUPPORT EACH OTHER, IF YOU HAVE A BEtE w COMPLAINT
YO YOUR HOMEWORK AND, HAVE THE HEART TO BACK IT UP IN WRITING (GEEEtavey,
JUST GIVING A VERBAL COMPLAINT TO A UNION REP DOSENT GET TVs Ve aa acedts CANT
be IT WITHOUT YOUR BACK-UP AND SUPPORT, NO MATTER WHAT UNION YOu WALL THIS --
1S FACT. BRING TI ONT BRING AKOUT UNITY ONLY You CAN |
ALL BACK-BITING AND, DIME-DROPPING MUST STOP TO HAVE UNITY WHTCH Ts ° NPRONG--
UKiCw ON THE LOCAL LEVEL. ON THE STATEWIDE LEVEL THE STATE KNOWS SINCE 1979
THAT COUNCIL &2 IS A TOUGH UNION TO BARGAIN WITH. WHAT WE DID IN i) VALD OFF-
TN 82,83 AND WILL AGAIN IN &4, READ YOUR CONTRACT ARTICLE 11. IN Ist LAST NEG-
OTIATIONS THE CIVILIAN UNIONS (CSEA & PEF) GAVE BACK TWO PERSONAI teAUL DAYS]
WHAT DID COUNCIL 82 GIVE BACK? NOTHING! THAT'S THE OTFFERENCE™ B6TWwt tN WOAR-
AND,STRONG UNIONS, —
BEING AN INDEPENDENT UNTON IS NOT_AN ASSET WHEN YOU ARE DEALING Wiis A POwERFUG
> ENT ENTITY LIKE THE STATE. ONTY ONE GOVERNMENT 18 HORE Pout ess AND, THAT
PS fut ftDS. HAVING AN INTERNATIONAL TO RELY ON FOR ASSISTANCE, Sites 't BACKUP
IN LING WITH THE STATE OF NEW YORK. IS AN ASSET THAT'S WORTH FAV. sii TOR,
Te THE INTERNATIONAL WOULD BE CUTTING OUR OWN THROATS. 1ulec ES ABOUT-
KE AW INDEPENDENT 18 REALY A ROWBOAT IN THE MIDOLE OF THE ATiANI.. CLAN.
f4) Ti UNTON CERTIFICATION PROCESS HOW WILL IT EFFECT your?
THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS 1S THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH PULLTC=ENPLOytL. settcT=
WHAT UNTON THEY WANT TO REPRESENT THEM,TF TuPCO CAN ERESEGT’ CAS $ rq ut i
TOiAL STATEWIDE MEMBERSHIP. THE STATE MUST THEN HOLD AN rere ty es
UNTON WE WANT, BETORE-ANY ELECTION COUNCIL &2 MAY ABPLAL OF CHAT LIS. | Ss
PETITION, THIS CAN BE TAKEN ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE COURTS AIT 4 eS ibe
WITT VO TF NECESSARY, NO MATTER WHO WINS WE LOOSE, BECAUSE THIS Ait cTS CAN G
JiR ONE YEAR. IN THE MEANTIME NO-NTCOTTATLONS CAN TARE Fi Act ty =
MCE TS"RESOLVED!, THIS MEANS ~v@UR RALSES WILE BL MLAyie THAT LONG,
TwO YEARS, BECAUSE ONCE NEGOTIATIONS START 11 TAKES S18 ten THS OR”
TS THIS WHAT YOU WANT TO HAPPEN??, IF ENOUGH PEOPLE AKL Sucas itp INTO
SIGNING TUFCO CARDS IT WILL HAPPEN, !
ON FO
WANT TO STOP 1T NOW THAT YOU KNOW THE REAL ‘DEAL. DONT BE & Tule SuchtR AND,
UCnT TRUST ANYONE WHO TRIES TO MAKE VOU ONE,
INES MESSAGE 1S & SERVICE OF THE BLACK@AMIISPANIC OFFICERS CACY a AIAST TUECE
(SEE NEXT PAGE)
ad
*5) TUFCO-PRESIDENT DENNIS FITZPATRICK AND,HIS BUDDY JANES MORRISSEY HIRED -
THEMSELVES OUT AS PRIVATE --- NEGOTIATORS A FEW YEARS AGO!
THATS RIGHT!
F YOU MADE THE MISTAKE OF SIGNING A TUFCO CARD AND,YOU WANT TO REVOKE IT.
ILL OUT THE FORM BELOW AND,GIVE IT TO YOUR LOYAL COUNCIL &2 REPRESENATTIVE. !
DO AT NCW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE. Dont LISTEN TO ANY FOOL TRYING TO PUSH TUFCO-
“THEY OBVIOUSLY DONT KNOW WHAT AND,WHO TUFCO REALY IS, NOW you DO!
(CUT OFF ALONG THE DOTTED LINE) ——— ee
FACILITV----------------------------
I HERBY REVOKE ANY CARD I PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED INDICATING THAT I WISH TO BE -:
EPRESENTED BY THE UNION OF FEDERATED CORRECTION OFFICERS (TUFCO). 1 NOW CERTIFY
THAT IT ('2SH TO CONTINUE TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL §2 AFSCME.
SIGNATURE __
DATE
mma STATE OF NEW YORK
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
In the Matter of 2
STATE OF NEW YORK, sits
EMPLOYER, *
AND
THE UNION OF FEDERATED CORRECTION OFFICERS, : CASE NO. 67-2825
PETITIONER,
AND
COUNCIL 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, :
INTERVENOR.
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Pursuant to a Petition duly filed under Section 207 of the Public
Employees' Fair Employment Act (herein called the Act) and pertinent
Sections of the Rules of Procedure of the Public Employment Relations Board
(herein called the Board), and subject to the approval of the Director of
Public Employment Practices and Representation of the Board (herein called
the Director), the undersigned parties hereby AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. A question has arisen concerning the representation for
purposes of collectivenegotiations of the employees of the undersigned
Employer within the unit or units defined in paragraph "3" below.
2. Each employee organization is an “employee organization" as
that term is defined in Section 201.5 of the Act, as amended.
3. The unit or units appropriate for the purpose of collective
negotiations are:
Included: Security Services Unit as presently constituted.
Excluded:
4. If an employee organization is certified, it shall be certified
as an "exclusive" negotiating agent.
5. SECRET BALLOT ELECTION. An election by secret ballot shall be
held under the supervision of the Director, among the employees of the
undersigned Employer in the unit defined in paragraph "3" above, to determine
whether such employees desire to be represented for the purpose of collective
negotiations and if so, by which of the undersigned employee organizations.
The election shall be conducted at a time and place to be fixed by the
Director or his agent, and in accordance with the procedures and policies
of the Board.
A. ELIGIBLE VOTERS. The eligible voters shall be those employees
included within the unit described in paragraph "3" above, who were in
the employ of the Employer on December 1, 1984, and who are so employed
on the date of the election, including employees who did not work during said
period because they were ill, on vacation or temporarily laid off and
PERB 9B (10/79)
employees in the military services of the United States.
At least five (5) days prior to the election, the
Employer wili furnish to the Director and the employee organizations
accurate lists of all the eligible voters and such other records as may
be necessary to the proper conduct of the election.
B. NOTICE OF ELECTION. At least twenty-four hours before the
election, the implioyer will conspicuously post in his premises
copies of the Board's Notice of Election.
C. OBSERVERS. Each party hereto will be allowed to station
an equal number of authorized observers, to be approvea beforehand
by the Director or his agent, at the polling places during the election
to assist in its conduct, to challenge the eligibility of voters, and
to witness and certify the count.
b. TALLY OF BALLOTS. As soon after the election as feasible,
the votes shall be counted and tabulated by the Director or his agent.
Upon the conclusion of the counting, the Director or his agent shall
furnish a Tally of Ballots to each of the parties.
E. OBJECTIONS AND CHALLENGES. Objections to the conduct of
the election or conduct affecting the results of the election, or
challenges of the eligibility of voters, and all other questions
arising out of the election, shail be determined by the Board in
accordance with the Act and Rules of Procedure.
F. RUN-OFF PROCEDURE. In the event that no choice on the
ballot receives a majority of the valid votes cast, the Director
shall conduct a run-off election in accordance with the Board's
Rules of Procedure.
G. WORDING ON THE BALLOT. The choices on the ballot will
appear in the wording indicated below and in the order enumerated
below, reading from left to right on the ballot, or if the occasion
demands, from top to bottom.
First Second Third
Council 82, The Union of Federated Neither
AFSCME, AFL-CIO Correction Officers
(TUFCO)
agreement to be duly executed this 20th day of December , 1984,
State of New York TUFCO
(Employee Organization)
(Public Employer)
fdr WA
VA Lebf 24, ~ BY
|
|
|
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
|
|
“= (Name and ritle)7
Recommended:
Council 82, AFSCME
(Board Agent) (Employee Organization)
Date Approved BY CP hd ee?
, (Name and’ Title)
Aowty favrese. O'Donnell £C.
Harvey Milowe, Director
Public Employment Practices
and Representation
Public Employment Relations Board
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0