Update: October 16, 2006
October 13, 2006
United States Government
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Subregion 33
Ms. Judith Boone, Investigator
300 Hamilton Boulevard, Suite 200
Peoria, Illinois 61602-1246
Re: Case 33-CB-4187
Ms. Boone:
Please include the following statement in my charge against AFSCME, Council 31
AFSCME (Union) is the bargaining unit for Gateway employees at Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan). AFSCME has met with some Gateway employees voting to strike against the new vendor of Sheridan the 2nd week of November if the new vendor does not agree to their proposed contract. This vote included only those who were on the strike line. This proposed strike intimidates me and threatens my employment.
Every employee of Gateway is a bargaining unit member. This vote and decision did not include every Gateway employee who is part of the AFSCME bargaining unit. This vote did not include those, like me, who chose not to participate in the strike. This vote did not include those who were on the strike line and crossed. This vote did not include those who crossed the picket line of June 6, 2006. Also, I was informed the “no” votes from the first strike were thrown away and discarded. This is an unfair labor practice.
A vote whether to strike or not against the new vendor at Sheridan should include all Gateway employees who are members of the bargaining unit of AFSCME. I received the following letter from Scott D. Miller, AFSCME Attorney:
September 29, 2006
Fred L. Nance
c/o Gateway Foundation, Inc.
Sheridan Correctional Center
4017 East 2603 Road
Sheridan, Illinois 60551
Offer of Representation
In the Matter of the Appeal of:
Fred L. Nance,
Claimant-Employee of
Gateway Foundation, Inc.,
AFSCME No. 06-09-28439
Dear Mr. Nance:
As a bargaining unit member covered by AFSCME Council 31, Local 472 (Union), the Union hereby offers to represent you, free of charge, at the above-referenced Illinois Department of Employment Security case scheduled for a 4:30 P.M., October 12, 2006, telephone hearing. If you are interested in Union representation during the proceeding, please contact me at (312), 641-6060, ext, 4354, no later than noon on Thursday, October 5, 2006.
Very truly yours,
Scott D. Miller
AFSCME Counsel
cc: R. Fonti
J. Pluger
This letter reports all Gateway employees are members of AFSCME Council 31’s bargaining unit. The vote that took place is illegal. All Gateway employees/bargaining unit members have a right to participate in AFSCME Council 31’s voting practices regarding any issue at Sheridan.
Also, the proposed action created toward the new vendor taken by AFSCME Council 31 to strike, threatens, intimidates and is retaliatory in nature to my matter before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) because when the new vendor comes in “all” Gateway employees may be probationary.
IDOC locked me out from my employment on June 6, 2006 reporting to Gateway I was locked out because I was a probationary employee, notwithstanding IDOC informing the Illinois Department of Employment Security I was locked out because of security issues with other AFSCME employees working at Sheridan.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc: Attorney W. James Young
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
Update: October 9, 2006
On October 6, 2006 I received a harassing, intimidating and retaliatory e-mail from an AFSCME union member. The AFSCME union member stated, in part, "THE BEST THING FOR THE STATE, EMPLOYEE'S,AFSCME, INMATES AND THE HUMAN RACE WOULD BE FOR THE NEW VENDOR TO FIRE YOUR RACIST ASS...I CAN ONLY PRAY THAT NO ONE INSIDE THE FENCE HAS TO EVEN LOOK AT YOU AGAIN...I AM SURE IN YOUR EYES YOU HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS. BECAUSE YOU PROBABLY FIGURED EVERYTHING OUT IN THE COUNTY AWAITING TRIAL FOR YOUR FELONY CONVICTION." This person is probably a counselor working Governor Blagojevich's program to prevent recidivism. This person will not prevent recidivism.
This e-mail demonstrates the character and behavior of the AFSCME union members. This e-mail is a direct assault upon my character and behavior. It is my belief AFSCME is attempting to persuade the new vendor to deny my employment. Vendors who have bidded on the Sheridan contract have been in touch with AFSCME's union representative at Sheridan. I am not mentioning names because I gave this information to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). I sent this e-mail to Investigator Ms. Boone of the NLRB requesting a thorough investigation along with an additional request of adding this e-mail to my charge against AFSCME.
Update: October 5, 2006
The bidding for the State of Illinois, Illinois Department of Corrections/Sheridan Correctional Center's Sheridan Project concluded at midnight October 4, 2006. Oral presentations are scheduled for today, October 5, 2006. The State of Illinois will soon decide who will be the next vendor conducting business at Sheridan providing substance abuse counseling. AFSCME will begin bargaining, again, with the new vendor. Presently, there is no union binding contract between any vendor and AFSCME. AFSCME will have to present their issues all over again to the new vendor. All social service agency work alike. The game stays the same. Nothing changes but the players. Whatever this "new" vendor wants to do I will back the employer. I am a company man. If the new vendor enjoins the union, I will follow suit. I do not want any surprises with my job this time. I want to stay in continued employment for my family and the services I render.
Update: October 4, 2006
This is a response to a recent anonymous writer, to which their writing is posted below in the comment section. First, I want to say I am not standing alone. I have God. Second, regarding the statement of being disrespectful to AFSCME and its members, I am not being disrespectful. AFSCME and its union members of Gateway have been disrespectful. There is one thing AFSCME, its union members of Gateway and the world need to understand, never mess with a person's livelihood. Third, you talk of why I addressed racism. It is, what it is.
Illinois may be the most polarized and racist State in the Union, notwithstanding the other states whose members may believe in "white" supremacy. I am not afraid to address race issues. We, as black people, can never be "color" blind. You and others need to stop using this phrase. We cannot forget where we come from, because we have too many reminders of it, as one of your fellow "colleagues" (union member) stated when they emailed me telling me to "get back on the boat."
Nevertheless, I have to look at all issues from God's perspective. AFSCME and its Gateway members decided to strike on June 6, 2006. This use of "666" struck me very hard. Therefore, I need to let you know the driving force for my life. I found this writing in Chicago's county jail while awaiting what was to transform my life.
AFTER A YOUNG AFRICAN WAS MARTYRED FOR HIS FAITH THIS WRITING WAS FOUND IN HIS ROOM
I am part of the fellowship of the unashamed. The die has been cast. I have stepped over the line. The decision has been made. I am a disciple of Jesus Christ. I will not look back, let up, slow down, back away, or be still.
My past is redeemed. My present makes sense. My future is secured. I am finished and done with low living, sight walking, smooth knees, colorless dreams, tamed visions, worldly talking, cheap giving, and dwarfed goals.
My face is set. My gait is fast. My goal is heaven. My road is narrow. My way is rough. My companions are few. My guide is reliable. My mission is clear. I will not give up, shut up, or let up, until I have stayed up, stored up, prayed up, for the cause of Jesus Christ.
I must go until He comes, give until I drop, preach until everyone knows, work until He stops me and when He comes for His own, He will have no trouble recognizing me because my banner will have been clear.
With this kind of resolve we will, with Gods help, have the strength to survive against our cultural stream, or perhaps even reverse it. Of course, we are a minority, but armed with the promises of God we can have a spiritual impact that is greater than our numbers might suggest.
It may come down to a simple question: Are we willing to pay the price?
This is and will be my story. I am never standing alone. Some people will never understand. I understand what is my calling. My calling is to address the social policy implications of all who are being disenfranchised and disadvantaged.
Update: October 3, 2006
I talked to Ms. Efia Goosby, Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) Supervisor on October 2, 2006 requesting she recuse herself from judging my IDES Appeal. Ms. Goosby refuses to include the Illinois Department of Corrections in my appeal, even though I have persisted in requesting their inclusion because they locked me out from my employment, and that they are the "indirect employer" in this matter. I have also left a message with Ms. Goosby's supervisor Hilda Whittington.
I informed Ms. Goosby one of her line items for discussion in my pre-hearing of September 28, 2006 was "Whether the Administrative Law Judge, Efia Goosby, must disqualify herself from hearing this matter." Ms. Goosby informed me on October 2, 2006 that this issue will be discussed on October 12, 2006 at my "hearing." This is absurd.
Update: October 1, 2006
In response to an anonymous writer, which I posted the comment, I will always choose employment management over staff ridiculous arguments and the unprofessional behavior and character of uneducated staff. Staff who are led "blindly" by uneducated and unprofessional people will always lose the war. These little battles will not survive the war. When the new vendor who replaces Gateway comes to Sheridan Correctional Center, I will support the managements' mission, purpose and goal statements. I will never support an entity such as AFSCME in their endeavors to undermine a company's structure and procedural processes.
To the anonymous writer, what does it mean that counselor III's and above were on the strike line? Are you inferring Gateway management was on the line? Any Gateway employment step higher is management.
Do you know the legal definition of similarly situated and/or class? Let's take class. The legal definition for class is "a group of persons, things, qualities, or activities having common characteristics or attributes. Regarding this strike and unemployment, I am a "non-participating" Gateway employee. You are a "participating" employee. Tell me, do you know your class alignment? I think you need to do some research.
Whoever this anonymous writer is, you better wise up and smell the coffee. As for social/human service to incarcerated individuals, the need for cultural competencies should be the rule of the day. As far as I can determine, cultural competency training is needed for all counselors at Sheridan.
Review my other website at http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/ for updates to the unemployment benefits issue. I have posted my response to the telephone interview on September 28, 2006. I have asked Ms. Goosby to recuse herself from this hearing because of her apparent biases and prejudices.
Update: September 29, 2006
Review my other website at http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/ for updates to the unemployment benefits issue.
Update: September 28, 2006
Rob Fanti, AFSCME union representative for Gateway employees wants to know what happened to my September 27, 2006 writing. Rob, you have to look for it. Contact the NLRB or your local office. They have it now. By the way, have I taken your bait now?
Nevertheless, the names of the individuals involved in the writing below were given to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). My September 27, 2006 writing, with the names of the people involved, was also given to the NLRB.
September 22, 2006
United States Government
National Labor Relations Board
Ms. Judith M. Boone, Investigator
Subregion 33
300 Hamilton Boulevard, Suite 200
Peoria, Illinois 61602-1246
Re: AFSCME Council 31, AFL-CIO (Gateway Foundation)
Case No. 33-CB-4187
Dear Ms. Boone:
This letter responds to Acting Regional Director Mr. Will Vance’s request for the Charging Party’s Position statement on the above-referenced unfair labor practice Charge.
I. Facts of the Case
Charging Party Fred L Nance Jr. is employed as a Counselor III by Gateway Foundation, Inc. (Gateway) a provider of substance and alcohol abuse counseling services to the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) at the Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan). I was hired by Gateway and began working at Sheridan on May 1, 2006.
AFSCME (the union) engaged some Gateway counselors developing a bargaining unit at Sheridan. These counselors went on strike June 6, 2006 against Gateway. On or about June 7, 2006 I filed Charge No. 33-CB-4170 alleging threats of retaliation by AFSCME union members. I engaged the legal services of the National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. On August 31, 2006 the NLRB office of Subregion 33 issued a Conditional Decision to Dismiss Charge No. 33-CB-4170. On September 14, 2006 the National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. filed an appeal on Charge No. 33-CB-4170. On September 14, 2006 the National Right To Work Legal Foundation, Inc. filed an additional Charge against AFSCME alleging retaliation, harassment and intimidation. This Charge No. being 33-CB-4187. On September 20, 2006 the National Labor Relations Board, Office of the General Counsel- Washington DC, acknowledged receipt of the appeal stating, "...you may be assured your appeal will receive careful consideration and that you and all interested parties will be advised, as soon as possible, of our decision" signed Yvonne T. Dixon, Director Office of Appeals.
On or about August 29, 2006 Gateway relinquished its contract with the State of Illinois/Illinois Department of Corrections. This event ended the strike at Sheridan. I was allowed to return to work on September 7, 2006. The returning Gateway staff was allowed by IDOC/Sheridan to attend trainings only, with no visits to any other buildings during the training period.
On September 7, 2006 and September 8, 2006 at and between 8:00 am to approximately 12:00 pm AFSCME union members verbally promoted, consistently and continuously, AFSCME’s position and politics when responding to comments and questions to and from the training officer during cycle training. The responses made by the union members degraded the Gateway program and policies, which I value, creating a hostile work environment for me. The union members promoted union agenda and policies during work hours, on State property, without permission from Gateway or IDOC.
When responding to the training officer’s discussion on contraband, the union members stated aloud if contraband is found in or around your office contact your union representative. This is absurd. I informed the Director of Gateway/Sheridan about this statement suggesting IDOC should be contacted, not a union representative. The union members created an environment where non-union members are subjected to an onslaught of union agenda that normally would not be permissible in the work environment attempting to force one to join or co-sign their agenda and/or policy. This construction of compulsory unionism is intimidating and threatening to me because I rejected the union demand to strike on June 6, 2006, suffering a lockout by IDOC/Sheridan, which caused severe financial hardship to my family.
On September 8, 2006 at approximately 7:45 am a union member announced a company named “Wells” had taken over 2 of Gateway’s programs in IDOC’s institutions. This announcement took place on IDOC/Sheridan property as Gateway employees were waiting outside the inmate’s visiting room building awaiting instructions on the training. The union employees applauded the union member's announcement. The statements by the union member and the applause was intimidating, threatening and harassing to me because of what I have suffered being a non-union person and the financial burden suffered because of the strike. Union business or announcements should not take place on IDOC property unless prior permission is given to union representatives. The union members are creating an unsafe working environment.
In addition, on September 8, 2006 at approximately 9:00 am and following, a female officer was conducting training in building C3. At the first break I approached the female officer stating the answers and responses given by union members during her training were union oriented and directed, and had nothing to do with her curricula. I informed the training officer the union members were attempting to force their union ideologies upon me. The female training officer informed me she was a union member. The female training officer reported my conversation with her to her superiors. The Gateway Director and 2 Assistant Wardens (one male and one female) questioned me about my statements to the female training officer.
After explaining what I said to the training officer, the Gateway Director and the 2 Wardens determined there were no negative connotations to my “private” conversation with the female training officer. The male Warden stated there are some issues going on because of the strike but they will go away eventually. The Gateway Director and the male Warden offered form DC 434 (incident report) to me to document the event. I informed the three I was unsure of documenting the event for fear of reprisal. The Gateway Director, in the presence of the 2 Wardens, suggested I pick up the DC 434, fill it out, and submit it to him if I wanted to file it.
At the lunch break I picked up the form from the Gateway Director. At the next break I went to the Gateway Director to discuss what I had written. I called the male Warden informing him I had visited the Gateway Directors’ office twice. I called because I wanted the male Warden to know I had left the training to acquire the form and fill it out, which they had authorized me to perform. The male Warden informed me anyone could go to Gateway's administrative office in Sheridan if they wanted to take care of some personal business. The male Warden also informed me he had received calls from the other staff (union members) reporting I had left the training area without authorization. The male Warden told me don't worry about it. I filed 3 incident reports on these events with IDOC/Sheridan. I have not heard or received a response from anyone on my incident reports.
On September 8, 2006 at approximately 2:00 pm a union member decided she would give instructions to Gateway employees returning to work on September 11, 2006. Another union member informed the Gateway employees to listen to their union representative. Other union members made statements about the strike and comments on the Internet knowing I was listening while in the presence of other Gateway employees. The statements were intimidating and threatening.
On September 20, 2006 a black non-union Gateway employee (the informant) informed me a white union Gateway employee wrote an incident report on him calling him a racist. The informant reports he was called into the Assistant Director’s office because of this incident report.
The informant reports on or about September 20, 2006 the union member requested the opinion of the informant during a group process with the clients. The union member is a new Gateway employee who has never conducted a group at Gateway/Sheridan until now. The union member is a Counselor I. The informant is a Counselor II, with experience at Gateway/Sheridan.
The informant reports during group discussion the Gateway clients had stated that black families were raised differently than white families. The union member disagreed with the clients. The informant reports the union member engaged him asking his opinion of the matter. The informant reports he informed the union member in his opinion the clients were right. The union member then alleged the informant was a racist because of this statement.
The informant reports on the union member’s incident report she stated three other white Gateway employees encouraged her at lunch to write the incident report. The informant reports these three individuals, along with himself, were called into their supervisor's office. The informant reports the three individuals affirmed the union member had spoke to them about the incident but denied encouraging her to write an incident report about it. The white union member falsified the incident report.
The informant reports he saw the union member sitting and talking with another union member during lunch before the reported incident. The informant reports when the other union member left the lunch area, while walking across the “blacktop”, she hollered to other union members “call me if you see or hear anything going on.”
The black informant was a striker that crossed the line, going back to work, after a few weeks out. There were other “black” strikers who crossed the line also.
II. The Unfair Labor Practice Charge
My unfair labor practice charge very simply alleges that since the settlement of a strike against Gateway Foundation, AFSCME District Council 31, through its agents, has engaged in retaliation and race related discriminatory acts against me and other Gateway Foundation employees who oppose and refuse to join the union and/or participate in its strike, in violation of § 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
As the facts have developed before, during and after the original Charge (Charge No. 33-CB-4170) and are continuous, it will, at the appropriate time, become necessary to amend the Charge to allege violations of § 8 (b) (2) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158 (b) (2), as well.
III. Argument
The facts of this case are fairly simple. Union members are operating in concert promoting compulsory unionism throughout Sheridan. In addition, the union members have not only embarked upon a polarization of Gateway employees, but have also created racial polarization of the non-union members who are Gateway employees. The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. suggested it is well established that employees cannot be required to join or pay full union dues as a condition of employment. NLRB v. General Motors Corp., 373 U.S. 734 (1963); Pattern Makers League v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95, 106 (1985); and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988).
In Charge No. 33-CB-4170 Union Official John DiNicola stated that the union would “retaliate against me when I returned to work.” DiNicola’s threat on behalf of District Council 31 was clearly unlawful on its face. DiNicola’s threat has now manifested itself.
Furthermore, and more outrageously as cited in the National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.’s position statement of August 17, 2006, District Council 31 is abusing its position as representative of another bargaining unit – one whose members are charged with maintaining order at a state correctional institution. District Council 31 is infringing upon the rights of the employees it purports to represent in this bargaining unit in perhaps one of the vilest manners the Board has ever seen: by creating polarization of the Gateway employees as well as polarizing the race/ethnic backgrounds of Gateway employees who are non-union members; and by threatening, harassing and intimidating the employees, creating an unsafe and hostile work environment at the hands of their own agents.
IV. Conclusion
The violations presented here are similar to one who attempts to force their “religion” on you in the workplace, which is a violation of the 1st Amendment to our Constitution. Under these circumstances, the Board should immediately issue a Complaint upon these alleged violations.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
cc: W. James Young, Staff Attorney National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. (via e-mail)
Ms. Judith M. Boone (via e-mail)
