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.
August 14, 2006
On August 11, 2006 I filed another charge/complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) and AFSCME for compulsory unionism and discrimination requesting a full, complete and thorough investigation. In addition, I am requesting the NLRB acquire a court ordered injunction against IDOC that would allow all "similarly situated" Gateway employees, who want to cross the picket lines, entry into Sheridan Correctional Center to work.
IDOC has allowed Gateway employees who were on the picket lines, access to cross the picket lines to work. IDOC has denied other Gateway employees, who did not participate in the strike, access to cross the picket lines. IDOC reported the following to the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES), "IDOC states it refuses to allow entry to SCC to the NON-PARTICIPATING WORKERS because various AFSCME bargaining units are the recognized collective bargaining representatives of correctional officers (i.e., security staff) and other IDOC employees at SCC, and therefore the safety and security at SCC could be disrupted if it allowed the NON-PARTICIPATING WORKERS into SCC in order to work before the differences between the UNION and the COMPANY is resolved."
In employment law, this is discrimination and compulsory unionism to give one group of individuals a liberty to enjoy that another group of "similarly situated" individuals cannot enjoy because they did not participate in a strike. The safety and security at Sheridan could be disrupted because IDOC allowed individuals to cross the picket who were strikers. IDOC has presented a straw man to IDES.
On July 12, 2006 Mr. Derek Schnapp, a spokesman for IDOC, told Mr. Jonathan Bilyk of "The Times" a newspaper in Ottawa Illinois regarding the Non-Participaing Workers of AFSCME's strike, that "...All we can say is their case is under review, but they have not been cleared to enter the facility." Now, IDOC reports the Non-Participating Workers are a security risk and the AFSCME's strikers who crossed the picket lines are not a security risk.
I have contacted the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, DC regarding this issue sending by fax all my material to Mr. Ronald Meisburg, General Counsel of the NLRB, and Mr. Richard A. Siegel, Associate General Counsel, and Ms. Shelly Korch, Assistant to the General Counsel.
Update: August 21, 2006
The National Labor Relations Board should file a complaint against AFSCME for their compulsory unionism with the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). IDOC is the employer of Gateway employees. The NLRB has found that an employer “may not discriminate against certain employees merely because it anticipates that they will NOT honor a picket line or otherwise engage in protected activity.” An employer’s discriminatory lockout on the basis of a protected activity is unlawful even when it is supportive of an employer’s bargaining position, and in this case AFSCME's position, by deliberately locking out those employees who had not struck, an employer working in concert with AFSCME, which the NLRB only has juridiction over AFSCME, discriminates against them for not striking, and by such action violates Sections 7 and 8(b)(1) (A) of the Act.
Update: August 23, 2006
Honorable Rod R. Blagojevich
Governor of Illinois, Office of the Governor
207 State House
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Sheridan Correctional Center Strike
Mr. Governor:
I am a Counselor III, employed by the Gateway Foundation working at Sheridan Correctional Center. I have written you many times without getting any responses from your office. What is happening to me is discriminatory on its face. IDOC is allowing Gateway employees to cross the picket lines, returning to work. I am being told I cannot cross the picket lines to return to work. We, Gateway employees, are similarly situated, except that I am not participating in the strike at Sheridan. This is discriminatory. This issue, among the other issues regarding this strike, has been posted on my website at http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/. I posted on my website I would be faxing you and Director Walker of IDOC this letter today.
Mr. Governor, the Sheridan Project is your program. Mr. Walker, Director of IDOC, works for you. Discrimination cannot flourish like this in IDOC. Someone has to act in the best interest of the Sheridan Project. Someone has to act to avoid litigation in this matter. My attorney is this matter is W. James Young of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. Mr. Young has filed his appearance and position statement with the National Labor Relations Board.
The government cannot become the perpetrator or lawbreaker. This would create dissent for the government. Who will act? If IDOC allows Gateway employees to cross the picket lines returning to work, they must allow all Gateway employees who wish to cross the picket lines returning to work. You cannot discriminate against a group of people in employment.
Update: August 23, 2006
AFSCME's (the union) bargaining unit for the Gateway Foundation (Gateway) counselors at Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan) went on strike on June 6, 2006. I am a Counselor III for Gateway working at Sheridan. I am not participating in this strike at Sheridan Correctional Center. I want to cross the picket lines but the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) refused to let me cross the picket lines as similarly situated employees of Gateway are allowed to cross the picket lines returning to work.
I have been enrolled in a debt management company (American Financial Solutions) since September of 2004 to pay outstanding debt accumulated by my family. Because I have not been able to provide the monies necessary to keep my debt management account active, I am receiving calls from my creditors under this debt management company suggesting I am in default and new proposals have to be sent to them for re-evaluation for continued acceptance of payments under a "new" proposal. In addition to this my mortgage payments have tripled, along with other household debt.
This is what AFSCME and IDOC's compulsory unionism has done to my family. IDOC is purposely and maliciously working in concert with AFSCME to deny me the right to cross the picket lines and return to work. IDOC incarcerates criminals or violators of our statutes. Who is the violator of our statutes in this instance? Who is the violator of our laws here? What will our system of justice do about this issue?
I have informed Governor Blagojevich of this issue. Our State government will not address this issue. The News Media will not address this issue. What IDOC has told the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) is I am being locked out because of security issues. I guess I have security issues but the other simarily situated Gateway employees, who were striking on the picket lines, do not have security issues preventing them from crossing the picket lines. Discrimination is definitely taking place here. Violations of Illinois statutes are apparent.
Who will incarcerate the incarcerator? I am faxing this writing under this title to Governor Blagojevich's office and to Mr. Roger E. Walker Jr. (who is the Director of IDOC) today, August 23, 2006.
Update: August 25, 2006
This is discrimination, retaliation and compulsory unionism at its best. At the beginning of the strike at Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan) on June 6, 2006, Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) officials began informing Gateway Foundation (Gateway) supervisory staff at Sheridan that employees who were on probation would not be allowed to cross the picket lines. The next story that came from IDOC officials is Gateway employees who were probationary had to be cleared again before they could cross the picket lines. The next story that came from IDOC officials was told to the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) stating Gateway employees who were probationary employees, who needed to be cleared a second time, were being denied access to cross the picket lines because they were a security risk to the prison because of other IDOC employees who were union represented might bring reprisals. Nevertheless, those Gateway employees who were on the picket lines and chose to cross the picket lines and return to work are allowed to do so by IDOC. Evidently, these Gateway employees are different from the other Gateway employees because they joined the union during their strike.
