blacklisting

[mulan123]

Ok, I can see that I will get no help without listing my state. Since that is why I came to this site, I will give you this information.

I sure hope there are some attorney's reading this that will offer good solid advice for how to handle the jobs WITHIN the district I still work for that were rescinded and are continuing to offer stages only to be dropped like a hot potato once they are getting these mixed references between the letters and the verbal). I want to AVIOD suing them and solve this now. I cannot imagine being fired for seeking help, as I am.

I live in Colorado.

Also, I HAVE spoken to a few attorneys on the phone. Most say one of two things:

1. You can sue anyone at anytime for defamation (the principal that is misstating material facts of my work history as discovered by the reference firm I hired) - How can I do this since I still work there? They will surely try to fire me for something else if I target one of their own they are already protecting

2. You cannot do much until you are let go or put on unpaid leave (a new law contained within SB191)

3. You can send a cease and desist letter to people who have egregiously tried to keep you from working, by notifying them you have proof that they are saying untrue FACTS about you that are refuted by your work history evaluations THEY signed and their letters. You can change opinions (they have qualified immunity) but, they CANNOT distort facts to disparage your work and keep you from future employment.

 

[justalayman]

=mulan123;2772100]
1. You can sue anyone at anytime for defamation (the principal that is misstating material facts of my work history as discovered by the reference firm I hired) - How can I do this since I still work there? They will surely try to fire me for something else if I target one of their own they are already protecting

Misstating facts, in itself is not defamation. It would have to be determined by what exactly was said. Beyond that, opinion is not a misstatement of fact. Just be sure an opinion is not being misinterpreted as fact (although even opinion can be defamatory in some situations).

As to being fired for some action: if that prevents you from acting, then give this up now. There are times it costs to stand up for your rights. If you are not willing to pay those costs, then you might as well relax and hope for the best.

2. You cannot do much until you are let go or put on unpaid leave (a new law contained within SB191)

There ya go. Since you have a job, what are your damages?

3. You can send a cease and desist letter to people who have egregiously tried to keep you from working, by notifying them you have proof that they are saying untrue FACTS about you that are refuted by your work history evaluations THEY signed and their letters. You can change opinions (they have qualified immunity) but, they CANNOT distort facts to disparage your work and keep you from future employment.

I suspect this goes along with #1. There could be retaliatory actions taken against you should you do this. If you fear for your job, then you should not consider doing anything other than what your superiors tell you to do.

The union has refused to send my blacklisting claim to an arbitrator stating that there is not refutable proof that shows the blacklisitng is DIRECTLY realted to my filing of a girevance.

If the union acknowledges there is illegal blacklisting, why you are being blacklisted is irrelevant. That action itself is illegal and should be addressed.

If the union fails to represent you, then you need to start actions against your union as well. You need to address it through the hierarchy of union first before you take any true legal action.

I see a serious problem with your intentions though. You state you do not want to sue the school admin yet the union is not doing anything for you. Just what other actions do you believe are available to you?

 

[mulan123]

Thanks for the reply. I have checked with ALL the regulatory labor boards and none of them have jurisdiction over the union.

Therefore, my only delimma now is whether or not to notify the top union executives that I intend to hold them complicit for ignoring the blacklisting when I am laid off (within 12 months) due to the new SB191 language which makes an employee accountable to secure a mutual consent assignemnt. I cannot secure this, obviously, due to the blacklisting.

So, should I inform them, hoping to force their hand in defending me now against the blacklisting?Their position is that becuase blacklisitng cannot be proven to eminate from my protected action ( union grivance), they do not have to defend me, period. They are only bound to defend actions that violate the master agreement, not the law. Wow!

 

[justalayman]

mulan123;2781404]Thanks for the reply. I have checked with ALL the regulatory labor boards and none of them have jurisdiction over the union.

you spoke to the wrong people then. There is a really big place in Washington that has authority over unions. The NLRB.

You need to run this through the union first though. You can file a grievance with the next level of union hierarchy against your local. You should (and possibly must) exhaust internal remedies before involving the NLRB.

Therefore, my only delimma now is whether or not to notify the top union executives that I intend to hold them complicit for ignoring the blacklisting when I am laid off (within 12 months) due to the new SB191 language which makes an employee accountable to secure a mutual consent assignemnt. I cannot secure this, obviously, due to the blacklisting.

based on their interpretation of the contract, they would not be complicit in the action as they claim they have no standing to object.

So, should I inform them, hoping to force their hand in defending me now against the blacklisting?Their position is that becuase blacklisitng cannot be proven to eminate from my protected action ( union grivance), they do not have to defend me, period. They are only bound to defend actions that violate the master agreement, not the law. Wow!

I would find it odd that there is a section within your contract that would allow the union to ignore illegal actions against you. If there is nothing specific, it can generally be seen within other actions not allowed to be taken against a union member. Without reading the contract, I cannot say for sure one way or the other. I would strongly suggest you take your entire contract to a labor law attorney that can read the entire document and advise you of his findings.

 

[mulan123]

Thank you for your reply. However, I have contacted the NLRB. They do not have jurisdiction over the DCTA according to the man I spoke with. Believe me I did research all my options.

I have not contacted NEA of which my union is an arm of. That is my next step. Acording to the union hierarchy, I have exhausted all remedies available to me. I asked this question.

I will be trying to reach someone this week at NEA to see about their charge over the local, but it does not look promising.

There is nothing in the master agreement that syas anything about the law, it is just an MOU between the union, its members and the school district.

 

[justalayman]

is the DCTA a formal union? If so, I see no reason why the NLRB would not have jurisdiction over them. That is what the NLRB does; governs unions and union activity.

A very quick Google search shows a lot of dealings between the NEA and and the NLRB so obviously there is something the NLRB is involved with concerning the NEA.

If you cannot find anything in your contract requiring the union to represent you if the employer breaches state or federal law, I suggest you take the contract to an attorney that works in labor law to review it. It isn't so much a clear cut statement that says exactly that but more of a clause that would require the union to represent you in actions between you and the employer where the employer takes actions that are detrimental to you in some way.

 

[mulan123]

Thank you again for your reply. Just to understand, are you suggesting I take my employment contract or the union master agreement to a labor attorney?

I did reach NEA and they are looking into it, but she did state that their role is procedural review in nature, not one of telling the state arm whether my case is meritous or not.

In other words, I got the impression that if the local union and the state union have decided not to help me, all she can do at NEA is make sure procedures and appeal processes are followed.

I agree with your thinking that no employer should be able to break the law. There is a clause in the master agreement which states;

"This Agreement shall be governed and construed according to the Constitution and Laws of
the State of Colorado. If any provision of the Agreement or any application of this
Agreement to any teacher covered hereby is found contrary to law, such provision or
application shall have effect only to the extent permitted by law, but all other provisions or
application of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect."

 

[justalayman]

mulan123;2783105]Thank you again for your reply. Just to understand, are you suggesting I take my employment contract or the union master agreement to a labor attorney?

at this point I was addressing the union contract. That is what defines the relationship between you, the union, and the employer but your individual contract may affect that relationship so it would be best if both were presented together.

I did reach NEA and they are looking into it, but she did state that their role is procedural review in nature, not one of telling the state arm whether my case is meritous or not.

correct but if you believe your local is not representing you, you would file a claim of failure to represent with the union level superior to the one you are filing the grievance against. Not knowing the structure of your union, if that is the NEA, then that is who you would file the grievance with. If there is a level in between, then that is who it is filed with.

In other words, I got the impression that if the local union and the state union have decided not to help me, all she can do at NEA is make sure procedures and appeal processes are followed.

aha! The state level. That is where you would file a failure to represent grievance. If you wish to appeal their decision, then it would likely go to the NEA. You have to either go step by step or skip all the union steps and go to court. Usually you are required to use all union steps first.

I agree with your thinking that no employer should be able to break the law. There is a clause in the master agreement which states;

"This Agreement shall be governed and construed according to the Constitution and Laws of
the State of Colorado. If any provision of the Agreement or any application of this
Agreement to any teacher covered hereby is found contrary to law, such provision or
application shall have effect only to the extent permitted by law, but all other provisions or
application of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect."

that wasn't what I was looking for though. That is simply a statement of severability that allows any section that is contrary to law is not enforceable while the remainder of the contract remains in force.