Update: October 14, 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 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.
The names of the individuals involved in this writing 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.
Update: September 21, 2006
September 21, 2006
State of Illinois
Department of Employment Security
Administrative Hearings
Ms. Efia Goosby, Supervisor
33 South State Street, 8th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60605
Re: Scheduled Pre-Hearing Conference on Docket #DL 59719
Ms. Goosby:
On or about September 18, 2006 I called you regarding the pre-hearing on September 28, 2006 requesting a call back to discuss the consolidation of my case with the individuals who participated in the strike against Gateway Foundation (Gateway), and my bi-weekly unemployment certification. On September 21, 2006, at approximately 3:35 pm, I called Ms. Hilda Whittington reporting I had not received a call back from you. Ms. Whittington called me back. You called me a few minutes later.
You informed me the pre-hearing on September 28, 2006 at 4:00 pm would be a pre-hearing conference to discuss the items to be considered listed on my paperwork. I spoke to you about two issues. First, about the pre-hearing conference where it is reported my case may be consolidated with the other appeals, which are not similarly situated to my issue, and second, my bi-weekly certification.
On the first issue you informed me you could not speak about the issues being discussed at the conference. I informed you I strongly object to a consolidated hearing with individuals who voluntarily went on strike against Gateway. We are not similarly situated. These individuals participated in a strike where they “voluntarily” walked off their jobs. According to IDES’ language in their decision denying my unemployment benefits, these individuals are “participating” employees of the strike at Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan). Additionally, IDES’ language reports I am a “non-participating” employee locked out from my employment. I was “intentionally” locked out from my employment at Sheridan. Therefore, we are not similarly situated.
In addition, pursuant to the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act (IUIA), §604-Voluntary Leaving, “an individual shall be ineligible for benefits for the week in which he has left work voluntarily….” The individuals who participated in the strike against Gateway walked off their jobs voluntarily. Pursuant to IUIA, §604-Labor Dispute, “For the purpose of disqualification under this Section the term “labor dispute” does not include a lockout by an employer, and no individual shall be denied benefits by reason of a lockout, provided that no individual shall be eligible for benefits during a lockout who is ineligible for benefits under another Section of this Act…This Section shall not apply if it is shown that (A) the individual is not participating in….”
Sections’ 601 and 604 defines and discusses ineligibility. Individual’s who participated in the strike, whether they were locked out or left work voluntarily, are not eligible for unemployment benefits pursuant to Sections’ 601 and 604. I did not voluntarily leave work. I did not a participant in the strike. I was locked out from employment by the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). Therefore, my case should not be consolidated with the strikers/participants in the strike.
On the second issue you suggested I wait until the outcome of the hearing. I disagree. On September 11, 2006 I called in to certify for unemployment benefits. This certification was for the weeks covering August 27, 2006 through September 9, 2006. I attempted to challenge the prompts stating I went back to work on September 7, 2006. The prompts would take my request. Therefore, I called my local unemployment office twice on September 11, 2006 and September 12, 2006, leaving a message regarding this issue. I have not received a call back. I informed you I had no other recourse but to alert you to this issue. You informed me you did not know who I should contact other than my local office.
Nevertheless, to avoid the appearance of fraud this is my formal notice to IDES that I am certifying for unemployment benefits for the period of August 27, 2006 through September 6, 2006. You informed me there is no fraud because I have not received any benefits. Therefore, we agreed the issue of fraud is a non-issue because I have not received any benefits.
You also stated you have received my phone number for the telephone pre-hearing conference on September 28, 2006 at 4:00 pm and would be calling me at the designated time. I asked you if I could tape record the pre-hearing conference. You informed me you would be taping the proceedings but I could not. I requested you send me a copy of the legal citations stating I could not tape record the proceedings. You agreed to send me the necessary legal citations before the pre-hearing.
Wherefore, this written statement shall be deemed a part of my discussion scheduled for September 28, 2006 at 4:00 pm. This statement shall hold all the requirements of a lawful and valid statement and shall be construed as a part of the record for September 28, 2006. I certify that the foregoing writing/statement is true and accurate to best my knowledge.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc: Ms. Hilda Whittington (fax only)
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
Update: September 18, 2006
On September 14, 2006 the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. (The Foundation) filed an appeal to Mr. Ronald Meisberg, General Counsel National Labor Relations Board in Washington DC, and to Ms. Yvonne T. Dixon, Division of Appeals Office of the General Counsel National Labor Relations Board in Washington DC, regarding the "conditional dismissal" of my original complaint. The Foundation reports in part, "On June 6, 2006, District Council 31 and some of the members of the bargaining unit went on strike. Because he is not a union member, Mr. Nance and others are not participating in the strike, and decided to go to work on June 6, 2006. District Council 31 also represents guards at Sheridan. In concert with IDOC, District Council 31 has conspired to deny Mr. Nance and his co-workers (other probationary employees) their statutory right to refrain from collective activity, and specifically, their right to work notwithstanding District Council 31's strike."
In conjunction with this appeal, on September 14, 2006 the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. filed an additional charge stating, "This Charge arises out of the fact that the union is carrying through on its threats of retaliation, based upon his refusal to join the union, and to participate in the union's strike against the employer, notwithstanding your dismissal of his earlier unfair labor practice charge...Since the settlement of the strike against Gateway Foundation, the above named labor organization, through its agents, has engaged in retaliation against Fred L. Nance Jr., for his refusal to join the union and/or participate in its strike, in violation of section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act."
Update: September 16, 2006
The State of Illinois and Sheridan/IDOC's National Drug Prison & Re-enry Therapeutic Community will soon realize the mistake of allowing AFSCME, Council 31, AFL-CIO (the union) to disintergrate a program of National importance. The State of Illinois has lost its dignity and respect under this regime.
Gateway Foundation (Gateway) will soon be leaving Sheridan Correctional Center/Illinois Department of Corrections (Sheridan/IDOC). Gateway may have gave up this contract because its integrity, honesty and clinical treatment paradigm was being subverted and demoralized by a union with issues clearly beyond the scope of a clinical therapeutic treatment community.
Since the union has successfully penetrated and forced the State of Illinois toward non-action in their endeavors to undermine, destabilize and subvert the mission of the National Drug Prison & Re-entry Therapeutic Community, it will next go after Safer Foundation, Inc. (SAFER) and the Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities (TASC) to unionize or get out of Sheridan.
I guess we need to give thanks to Governor Blagojevich and his regime. The union does not care about criminal recidivism. The Sheridan Program was created to address criminal recidivism. I guess the people of Illinois will continue to suffer the pains and stress of criminal activity because this union and the State of Illinois does not really care about the criminal activity of our State. If the State of Illinois cared they would not have let a union destroy their program and force a respectful and renowed social service agency like Gateway to relinquish their contract.
On August 29, 2006
At approximately 2:00 pm Gateway Foundation (Gateway), AFSCME and the State of Illinois agreed that Gateway would cancel its contract with the State of Illinois/Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). Gateway reports a union would not fit in the scheme of the programming. The State of Illinois/IDOC is looking for another vendor to provide services to the inmates at Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan).
Gateway will continue to provide optimal services to the inmates at Sheridan until the State of Illinois/IDOC finds their vendor. Is the strike over? Will the new vendor unionize?
Will all the employees working for Gateway continue working at Sheridan until the new vendor is in place? What will happen to the employees of Gateway who work at Sheridan? Will the employees of Gateway who were locked out of Sheridan by IDOC be able to come back to work until the State of Illinois/IDOC finds a new vendor? How does this decision effect the employees of Gateway who filed an appeal with the Illinois Department of Employment Security seeking their unemployment benefits? Will the new vendor retain the current employees of Gateway working at Sheridan? These are some of the questions surrounding this issue. Details will follow.
Update: September 6, 2006
Gateway Foundation contacted me this morning informing me I could return to work. I will return to work on Thursday, September 7, 2006, at 7:30 am. I was forced out from my employment by the Illinois Department of Corrections on June 6, 2006 because I did not participate in the AFSCME strike against Gateway. AFSCME claims to be the bargaining unit for all the counselors at Sheridan, which I am a counselor at Sheridan.
AFSCME did not contact me informing me I should return to work. AFSCME informed the counselors who were striking to return to work today. AFSCME discriminated against me because I did not strike. AFSCME cannot be my bargaining unit.
Thanks a lot Governor Blagojevich for how you handled this matter of my rights being taken from me. Thanks a lot Governor Blagojevich for how you allowed AFSCME to conduct its compulsory unionism. Thanks a lot Governor Blagojevich for how you let my family starve for 3 months because you need the union vote. For your participation and assistance in the compulsory unionism, thanks a lot Illinois Department of Corrections, Illinois Department of Employment Security and National Labor Relations Board for letting my family lose their income to further the cause of AFSCME the union.
Update: August 24, 2006
Mr. Governor:
If you stand static on this issue before you, you sanction its existence. The issue I present is not Gateway's performance or its contract with the State of Illinois. The issue is the compulsory unionism of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) and AFSCME, the union. Let us not confuse the two. Let us not attempt to persuade the public your intervention should come only if Gateway's services decline. You should have a public interest in whether an entity under your control is discriminating against its "contractual" employees.
When an employer becomes aware of a discriminatory practice in employment, the employer must act. You have control over the departments under your leadership. You appoint the Director of IDOC. I believe your regime created an entity called the "Office of Executive Inspector General for the Agencies of the Illinois Governor." You have the ability and power to stop the purposeful and nefarious acts of discrimination by IDOC. If you choose to stand static, then you become part of and partial to the problem.
It appears Illinois, IDOC and AFSCME may run me into financial hardship and difficulty, but not without the public knowing about it. The same appears to be happening to my colleagues, Lisa Carrico and Kathy Wicevic. The three of us are Gateway employees who are counselors at Sheridan Correctional Center. We have not participated in the strike since its inception on June 6, 2006. Yet, we are being prevented by IDOC from crossing the picket lines and returning to work as are similarly situated colleagues are allowed to cross the picket lines and return to work.
The prejudices, biases and indifferent treatment shown to us in favor of "Big" business is not conducive to leadership "for the people and by the people." Your constituents and the voters of Illinois must get the Democratic and Republican party to stop their partisan (sponsored) politics of corruption and deceit. We, the voters of Illinois, will one day demand equal justice for all. We, the voters of Illinois, are not fooled. We, the voters of Illinois, know the smell of the smoke when "party" politics has resulted in decisions made from "backroom" agendas. We, the voters of Illinois, know when political beliefs, principles and views have come from negotiations in "smoke-filled backrooms" and not from honest and open government.
June 6, 2006
Mr. Rod R. Blagojevich
Governor of Illinois
Office of the Governor
207 State House
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Re: AFSCME (the union) v. Gateway Foundation
Sheridan Correctional Center
Mr. Blagojevich:
On May 1, 2006 I began working for Gateway Foundation (Gateway) as a Counselor III at Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan). I was hired by Gateway in May 2005. It took me a year of writing letters to you and the Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, Mr. Roger E. Walker Jr. to get the Illinois Department of Corrections to allow me access to the Correctional Center.
On June 6, 2006 Gateway employee “union” members of AFSCME decided to go on a strike, stopping their employment with Gateway and Sheridan Correctional Center. I am not a member of this union. Technically, this union does not exist. They are in the bargaining stages with Gateway. There is no union contract between Gateway and AFSCME. Nevertheless, I am not a member of this “union.” I decided I was going to work on June 6, 2006.
On June 5, 2006 I received a call from my superiors stating the Warden of Sheridan decided all “probationary” employees of Gateway would not be allowed in the institution during the strike. This is absurd.
Sir, it appears Sheridan has aligned itself with AFSCME. I believe Sheridan should be a “neutral” partner to Gateway and AFSCME in the bargaining stages and when and if a contract manifest itself. Sheridan should not take a position aligning itself with the union and against Gateway. This takes away from the bargaining processes of the union and Gateway creating disparities. The action taken by Sheridan and Warden is discriminatory.
I need to work. I am not a member of this union. I am not striking. I should be allowed to feed and take care of my family. I have a choice here. There is no reason why Sheridan should disallow access to those Gateway employees who decide to cross the “picket” line. Other Gateway employees are allowed to cross the “picket” line. How can the State of Illinois justify its participation in preventing employees from crossing picket lines? Apparently, there is no danger if some Gateway employees are allowed to cross the picket lines. The State of Illinois cannot take a position determining whether “probationary” employees meet any criteria for non-striking employees, especially when the employees are not State employees, as defined by the State of Illinois.
In May of 2006 I reported to my superiors a phone call I received from Mr. John DiNicola, Staff Representative, AFSCME, Council 31, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 800, Chicago, Illinois 60606. I reported Mr. DiNicola threatened me suggesting consequences if I did not join the “union” in their activities of striking. I suggest the consequences Mr. DiNicola alleged are manifesting themselves.
On May 19, 2006 I received a letter at my home from AFSCME suggesting their strike and the bargaining processes they have incurred, before I became an employee of Gateway. I decided I would not take part in a strike against Gateway. I do not agree with a lot of their issues against Gateway. Sheridan is forcing me to take part in this strike.
Therefore, I am requesting an investigation from Mr. James A. Wright, Executive Inspector General for the Office of Executive Inspector General for the Agencies of the Illinois Governor into this matter of Sheridan preventing Gateway employees access to the Correctional Center who have decided not to strike.
Sheridan should not be engaged in choosing sides during this bargaining process between Gateway and AFSCME. Sheridan should not align itself with AFSCME against Gateway during the bargaining process. This alignment negates all good faith bargaining. Sheridan’s alignment appears to suggest a breach of contract.
Gateway is in the business of helping people through their addictions. I am dedicated to this cause.
I want to work. I do not want to strike. I believe this is my right. Please allow me to work to support my family.
Thank you.
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc: Rod R. Blagojevich, Governor of Illinois (fax copies of this letter sent to Chicago and Springfield Offices)
Roger E. Walker Jr., Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections (fax copy only of this letter)
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/ C.L.I.C.K. for Justice and Equality
Gregg Dockins, Director Gateway Foundation Sheridan Correctional Center (fax)
June 14, 2006
Mr. Rod R. Blagojevich
Governor of Illinois
Office of the Governor
207 State House
Springfield, Illinois 62706
AFSCME (union) Strike at Sheridan Correctional Center
Governor Blagojevich:
I, Fred L Nance Jr., am a counselor III with Gateway Foundation (Gateway) working at Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan). My job description states, in part, “…Serves as professional resource, and provides clinical supervision to other Counselors as needed…May assume responsibility for supervision of Counselors in absence of supervisor.”
The AFSCME union Gateway employees are presently engaged and participating in a strike at Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan). AFSCME does not have a union contract with Gateway. They are in the bargaining stages for a union contract with Gateway.
Governor, why is the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) working with the union preventing Gateway employees from crossing the picket line, attempting to go to work? Why is IDOC discriminating against me? Sir, it appears IDOC and the union is working in concert to undermine the purpose and goal of your model program for the country, the Sheridan Project. This may violate fair bargaining practices. The Sheridan project claims to be a role model for the United States.
The behavior displayed by IDOC and AFSCME in the Sheridan Project is no role model for our country. Anytime a union can dictate policy and procedure for a project such as this, the project belongs to the union. This also has the appearance of your office supporting this mission because your office is refusing to comment or intervene.
Sir, Illinoisans are aware there is an election soon. Illinoisans know you need the vote coming from the union. Something has to be done about the appearance of your office allowing the sacrifice the Sheridan Project because of your alliance or reliance on the union vote. You will soon be debating on ethics. I have concern about the ethics involved in this situation. I believe the country would have concern about the ethics also. What are you going to do with my issue? What is your ethical stance?
I talked to Attorney Nicholas Ohanesian of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on June 13, 2006. He informed me I have a right to cross the picket line. I informed him of what I suspected was happening at Sheridan, which is reported above and on my website. Mr. Ohanesian adamantly reports the NLRB has nothing to do with me being denied access to Sheridan. I informed Mr. Ohanesian I would go to Sheridan today, June 14, 2006, and attempt to enter, gathering information about who was denying me access to work. Mr. Ohanesian thought this was good idea. I informed Mr. Ohanesian Gateway was not denying my access to work.
On June 14, 2006 at approximately 7:10 am, I arrived for work at Sheridan. The Director of Gateway/Sheridan, Gregg Dockins, was posted at the gate. I approached Mr. Dockins requesting the sign-in sheet for Gateway employees. Mr. Dockins informed me I had to check in with security before I sign in. Major Renkosik looked on a list and informed me I was not cleared to enter Sheridan. I requested to speak to Warden Rothwell. Major Renkosik informed me he was in his office. I requested an escort.
Mr. Stanley Brooks, a Gateway supervisor, escorted me to Warden Rothwell’s office. I met Assistant Warden Adella Jordan-Luster as I was entering Warden Rothwell’s office. I requested to speak to Warden Rothwell (Rothwell). Warden Jordan-Luster asked Warden Rothwell if he could see me. Rothwell agreed. There was another gentleman in the office.
I introduced myself to Rothwell. Rothwell greeted me with a handshake. I asked Rothwell, why am I denied access to Sheridan to work? The gentleman began telling me I was not cleared to work. I asked his name. He stated Deputy Director Pierce (Pierce). Pierce approached me, reaching for my State ID card, which was around my neck, taking it in his hand, looking at it, reading my title (counselor III) aloud.
I began asking Pierce, why am I denied access to Sheridan? Pierce informed me I had not been cleared yet. I informed Pierce I was already cleared by IDOC to work at Sheridan. I asked Pierce who was giving the order stating I could not come to work. Pierce stated he could not tell me. I asked Pierce for his supervisor’s name. Pierce informed me his supervisor’s name was Terry Buscher. I asked Pierce his supervisor’s title. Pierce stated, Operations Security Director. I asked Pierce for Mr. Buscher’s phone number. Pierce refused to give me his supervisor’s phone number. Pierce asked me if I wanted to speak to his supervisor. I said yes. I asked Pierce if I could have a seat while he calls his supervisor. Pierce stated “I am not calling anyone this time of day.” Pierce was very cantankerous and belligerent. I continued asking Pierce, who gave the order to lock me out of Sheridan? Pierce informed me someone would call me with this information. Pierce stated our conversation was over because he did not want to get into a confrontational conversation. I informed Pierce I was not engaged in confrontational conversation, but seeking information about my entry into Sheridan to work. I left Warden Rothwell’s office.
When I got home I looked on the IDOC website for Director Buscher’s phone number. I called Director Buscher (Buscher). Buscher informed me I was not cleared to come to work yet. I informed Buscher, I was cleared before I started working at Sheridan. Buscher informed me that was a background check clearance. I informed Buscher I did not know there was a difference.
It took me a year to get cleared from the background check. Should I anticipate another year’s wait? I guess this answer from Buscher means if something else comes up, union or whatever, I will be denied access until IDOC clears me again. I was under the impression I was given a “security clearance” to work at Sheridan.
I asked Buscher who gave the order denying my access to Sheridan. Buscher informed me he would have someone call me back. Buscher requested my call back number. I gave him my number. On June 14, 2006 at approximately 9:55 am, I received a call from Ms. Lori Killam who reports she is the administrative assistant to Buscher. Ms. Killam states Buscher reports I should contact Gateway management about the issue of my denial of access to Sheridan. I have been asking Gateway management since the strike began, June 6, 2006, about access to Sheridan. Gateway has stated they have not been advised by IDOC. Gateway is not denying me access to work. IDOC is denying my access.
Governor, what is going on? Why does it appear IDOC is hiding something? IDOC is acting like this is a Federal investigation. If the NLRB does not have a roll in determining my access to Sheridan, why is IDOC involved with AFSCME in deciding who crosses the picket line during the strike? Something is very wrong with this picture. Sir, can we avoid litigation with this issue? I am being discriminated against by IDOC and the Sheridan staff. I need answers. I am being denied access to my employment.
Therefore, I respectfully request immediate access to Sheridan to engage in my employment duties. I am not a member of AFSCME. I am not participating in the strike at Sheridan. I am being forced to strike by IDOC and AFSCME. There is no logical reason for denying my access to employment. Someone is overreaching their authority in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc: Rod R. Blagojevich, Governor of Illinois (fax copies of this letter sent to Chicago and Springfield Offices; hard copy mailed)
Roger E. Walker Jr., Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections (fax)
Greg Dockins, Director Gateway Foundation Sheridan Correctional Center (fax)
Terry Buscher, IDOC Operations Security Director (fax)
Nicholas Ohanesian, Attorney – National Labor Relations Board (Peoria)(fax)
Matt Buedel, Journal Star (Peoria)(fax)
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/ C.L.I.C.K. for Justice and Equality
June 30, 2006
Honorable Rod R. Blagojevich
Governor of Illinois, Office of the Governor
207 State House
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Sheridan Correctional Center Strike
Governor:
I, Fred L Nance Jr., wrote a letter to you on June 6, 2006 regarding my employment with Gateway Foundation (Gateway) at Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan). You have not responded, in writing or verbally, to my letter of June 6, 2006. In the letter of June 6, 2006 I report AFSCME union members working for Gateway decided to go on strike on June 6, 2006. AFSCME union members working for Gateway have developed a bargaining unit. The bargaining unit is in the negotiating processes with Gateway. I am not a union member. I did not sign a membership with AFSCME. I am not striking against Gateway at Sheridan. I am not participating in the strike in anyway.
The Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) and/or Illinois Central Management Services (CMS) has locked me out of Sheridan because I am not a union member and participating in the strike. I have written and fax letters regarding this issue to Mr. Roger E. Walker Jr., Director of IDOC and to Mr. Paul Campbell, Director of CMS. They have not responded, in writing or verbally, to my issues.
I have written Ms. Brenda Russell, Director of the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) regarding my unemployment benefit claim pursuant to §604 of the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act stating I am not a union member, I am not participating in the strike and I was locked out of my employment by IDOC and/or CMS. She has not responded, in writing or verbally, to my letter.
I researched IDES contacting the Labor Dispute Unit. I called Manager Cheryl Howard leaving a voice mail requesting she call me on this issue. Ms. Howard responded expeditiously, calling me attending to my concerns regarding unemployment benefits. Ms. Howard reports she had to pass my case to the Labor Dispute Unit attorneys for review. The attorneys have not responded, in writing or verbally, to my concerns.
Sir, it seems to be a pattern here by you and the decision makers of your administration. First, you and your administration are not responding to the concerns of your constituents. Second, it seems they are catering to the goals of AFSCME creating an unfair bargaining practice between AFSCME and Gateway. It seems IDOC, CMS and IDES are purposely hindering the fair bargaining processes of this labor dispute. It seems IDOC, CMS and IDES are favorably treating AFSCME concerns by targeting and locking out specific employees of Gateway who want to cross the picket lines. At the end of the day, all employees of Gateway are your constituents.
All employees of the State of Illinois expect you and your administration to respond in a professional manner to their concerns, especially when there appears to be corruption and tyranny afoot. There is no legal basis or foundation for this lockout of targeted Gateway employees. This assumption is made because there is no response from you or your administration. It is not the responsibility of Gateway, participating in fair bargaining practices, to inform the targeted employees of reasons for their lockout status. Gateway did not lock their employees out of Sheridan. Gateway is welcoming any employees who want to cross the picket lines, which is a legal right. Is your administration engaged in illegal activities targeting and locking out specific employees of Gateway? Are you and your administration engaged in unfair bargaining practices with AFSCME?
Sir, I and many of my colleagues, who I am in contact with, want to work. We have a right as citizens of the United States of America to work without hindrance from our government and your administration. We have a right to cross the picket lines created by AFSCME. Your administration is denying citizens of the United States the opportunity to work to support of their families. Is this the legacy you want to leave? Where are our human rights? Where is our right to seek, gain and retain employment without illegal hindrances from our government?
Someone from your administration must respond to the need of your constituents. How can you or your administration justify denying citizens of Illinois the right to work because they do not belong to a union or condone specific union activities. I am not anti-union. I, along with many others, do not like oppression and tyranny. If a person does not want to strike against their employer, they should not be forced to participate in a strike, especially in the bargaining stages of the formation of a contract. AFSCME does not even have a contract with Gateway. My position would be completely different if the union was in place upon my hire. I am a team player. I did not come to Gateway/Sheridan to cause harm. I came to provide a needed service to the consumer. Sir, its time for us to go back to work if that is our choice. Your administration has taken choice away from us. What does Independence Day stand for in the United States of America? Sir, how do I feed my family?
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc: Mr. Gregg Dockins, Director Gateway/Sheridan
Mr. Jim Young, Right to Work Foundation
Ms. Brenda Russell, Director IDES
Mr. Paul Campbell, Director CMS
Mr. Roger E. Walker Jr., Director IDOC
Ms. Judith M. Boone, Field Examiner National Labor Relations Board
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
