Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1354 Filed 07/08/13 Page 1 of 12

usOC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONiCALLY f\LED
DOC #:_--..-r-----=.--
DATE FILED: q t
RIVELLA & FORTE,
ATTORNEYsATLAw CJr1
1
1311 MAMARONECK A VENUE, SUITE 170
WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK 10605
(914) 949-9075/FACSIMILE (914) 949-4752
July 3, 2013
VIA OVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY:
Hon. Richard M. Berman
United States District Court
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312
CHAMBERS OF
RICHARD M. BERMAN
U.S.D.J.
Re: Response to 6/28/13 Letter to the Court from Spivak Lipton, LLP regarding US v District
Council, 90 Civ. 5722 and Manufacturing Woodworkers Association of Greater New
York, Inc. v District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 13 Civ. 4473
Dear Judge Berman:
This office is counsel to Manufacturing Woodworkers Association of Greater New York,
Inc. ("MWA") in the action Manufacturing Woodworkers Association of Greater New York. Inc.
v District Council ofNew York City and Vicinity ofthe United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, 13 Civ. 4473 filed 6/27/13. The MWA is a multiemployer collective
bargaining association representing for almost 40 years employers in the millwork industry. In
the 13 Civ. 4473 action the MWA has requested immediate injunctive relief enjoining current
strike activity by the District Council ofNew York City and Vicinity ofthe United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America pending a hearing and determination of an arbitration filed
by the MWA against the District Council ofNew York City and Vicinity of the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.
This office just last night at 5:19P.M. received the attached 7/2/13 letter addressed to
Judge Nathan from Spivak Lipton LLP, counsel for the District Council ofNew York City and
Vicinity ofthe United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. The 7/2/13 letter
contained a 6/28/13 Spivak Lipton LLP letter to Your Honor requesting you take action relating
to the 13 Civ. 4473 action. The 6/28/13 letter we received for the first time last night in the
7/2/13 letter. Spivak Lipton, LLP engaged in sharp practice in not copying this office on the
6/28/13 letter when Spivak Lipton, LLP delivered the letter to Your Honor. The failure to notify
this office of the existence of the 6/28/13 letter at the time it was delivered to Your Honor was
also a violation of Your Honor's Individual Practices. It is clear the reason Spivak Lipton LLP
did not copy this office was to prevent this office from timely responding to the 6/28/13 letter
and, by ex parte communication in requesting a reassignment of the action, a blatant attempt to
delay the pending motion for injunctive relief. For the reasons that follow we respectfully submit
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1354 Filed 07/08/13 Page 2 of 12
Hon. Richard M. Berman
July 3, 2013
Page 2 of3.
the 13 Civ. 4473 action is properly before Judge Nathan and should be returned to Judge Nathan
for hearing and a determination.
The 13 Civ. 4473 litigation before the Honorable Judge Alison Nathan is a standard
motion seeking injunctive relief in aid of arbitration which does not require Your Honor's
attention and which has a pending motion for injunctive relief that requires the immediate
attention of Judge Nathan. Since the relief requested in that action is immediate injunctive relief,
and since the motion is currently scheduled to be heard before Judge Nathan this Monday, we
respectfully request that Your Honor return the 13 Civ. 4473 litigation to Judge Nathan so that
Judge Nathan can hear the application for injunctive relief without the further delay which will
result if the case is reassigned. Every day that the illegal strike is continuing is costing the MW A
employers lost revenue and is threatening to cause MW A employer members to go out of
buisness. The District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America attempt to reassign the 13 Civ. 4473 action is designed to
delay that proceeding and the hearing requesting injunctive relief so that the strike can continue
to irreparably harm the MW A. This conduct by the District Council should not, respectfully, be
condoned by this Court.
The June 28, 2013 letter from James Murphy mentions the District Council Review
Officer is reviewing the legality of the District Council's strike. Upon information and belief,
there is no motion filed by the Review Officer or anyone else in federal court seeking to hold the
District Council in contempt of the Consent Decree. There is therefore no need for Your Honor's
assistance at this time. If the Review Officer after completing his investigation finds conduct that
impacts the Consent Decree, I am sure he will contact you and/or file a motion and the issue can
be addressed at that time. For these reasons, and to prevent delaying the MWA's pending
application for injunctive relief, the MW A respectfully requests this Court immediately return 13
Civ. 4473 to Judge Nathan.
SO

Richard M. Berman, U.S.D.J.
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1354 Filed 07/08/13 Page 3 of 12
Hon. Richard M. Berman
July 3, 2013
Page 3 of3.
Thank you for the Court's kind attention to this matter. Please notify this office
immediately of the Court's decision.
Enclosures
SPT:ac
Very truly yours,
TRIVELLA & FORTE, LLP
Scott Trivella
Scott Trivella
cc: James Murphy, Esq. (via electronic mail); (Attorney for the District Council); Review
Officer Dennis M. Walsh, Esq. (via electronic mail); B. Torrance, Esq. (via electronic mail).
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1354 Filed 07/08/13 Page 4 of 12
SPNAKLIPTON LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAw
July 2, 2013
VIA E-MAIL:
(NathanNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov)
Hon. Alison J. Nathan
Thurgood Marshall
United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Re: Manufacturing Woodworkers Association of Greater New York
v. New York City District Couacil of Carpenters. 13 Civ. 4473
Dear Judge Nathan:
1700 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
T 212.765.2100
F 212.765.8954
spivaklipton.com
This firm represents the Defendant in the above-referenced case. I write to provide
you with a copy of the enclosed correspondence submitted to Judge Richard M. Berman
on June 28, 2013 in connection with United States v. District Council. et al.. 90 Civ. 5722.
Pursuant to Your Honor's Individual Practices, I am copying counsel for Plaintiff on
this letter by e-mail.
Encl.
cc: BY HAND
Hon. Richard M. Berman
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 1 0007
Respectfully submitted,
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1354 Filed 07/08/13 Page 5 of 12
SPNAKLIPTON LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAw
Hon. Alison J. Nathan
Manufacturing Woodworkers Association of Greater New York
v. New York City District Council of Carpenters, 13 Civ. 4473
July 2, 2013
Page2
BY E-MAIL
Scott P. Trivella, Esq.
Denise A. Forte, Esq.
Jonathan Bardavid, Esq.
Trivella & Forte, LLP
1311 Mamaroneck Avenue
Whrte Plains, NY 10605
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1354 Filed 07/08/13 Page 6 of 12
SPIVAKLJP1"()N LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
BY HAND
Hon. Richard M. Berman
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007-1312
June 28, 2013
Re: United States v. District Council. eta/., 90 Civ. 5722 (RMB)
Dear Judge Berman:
1700 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
T 212.765.2100
F 212.7658954
splvaklipton.com
As you know, this firm represents the New York City District Council of Carpenters.
I write to advise Your Honor that there is an action in the court that was filed
yesterday that, according to the plaintiff's correspondence to the Review Officer on June
26, 2013, implicates the Consent Decree and the Stipulation & Order entered in the matter
of United States v. District Council. As such, prudence and judicial economy counsel that
this newly filed action should be before Your Honor under 90 Civ. 5722.
The action is Manufacturing Woodworkers Association of Greater New York v. New
York City District Council of Carpenters, 13 Civ. 4473 (filed 6/27/2013 and currently before
Judge Sidney H. Stein on plaintiffs application for a TRO and otherwise assigned to
Judge Alison J. Nathan).
On June 26 2013, the attorneys for plaintiff wrote to Review Officer Dennis M.
Walsh alleging that the District Council's possibly commencing an economic strike against
plaintiff's member-employers upon expiration of the current collective bargaining
agreement on June 30, 2013 would constitute a violation of the Consent Decree. A copy
of that letter from plaintiff's attorneys to the Review Office is enclosed.
The Review Officer requested specifics of how the Consent Decree or other orders
of the Court are implicated and would be violated by the District Council. In response, the
attorneys for plaintiffs cited to Paragraph 5(e)(i) of the Stipulation and Order. Copies of
that June 26, 2013 e-mail correspondence are enclosed.
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1354 Filed 07/08/13 Page 7 of 12
SPIVAKI .lP'T'()N LLP
ATTORNF.YS AT LAW
Hon. Richard M. Berman
United States District Judge
Re: United States v. District Council, et al., 90 Civ. 5722 (RMB)
June 28, 2013
Page2
The District Council understands that the Review Officer has taken the allegations
of plaintiff's attorneys under advisement. If the Review Officer should agree with plaintiff's
attorneys, then he would have to move before Your Honor to find the District Council in
contempt of the Consent Decree and the Stipulation & Order. If Your Honor so found,
then a remedy would have to be fashioned. Consequently, prudence and judicial
economy counsel in favor of this newly filed action being assigned to Your Honor as a
related case.
Respectfully submitted,
d : : : : M ~ / : : 7 j
Enclosures
cc: BY E-MAIL
Dennis M. Walsh, Esq.
Review Officer
The Law Office of Dennis M. Walsh
415 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Bridget M. Rohde, Esq.
Counsel to the Review Officer
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
666 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Benjamin H. Torrance, Esq.
Tara LaMorte, Esq.
Assistant United States Attorneys
Civil Division
Office of the United States Attorney
for the Southern District of New York
86 Chambers Street
New York, NY 10007
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1354 Filed 07/08/13 Page 8 of 12
TRIVELLA & FORTE, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1311 MAMARONBCKAVBNUE
WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK 10605
(914) 9499075
TELECOPIBR (914) 949-4752
VIA EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Dennis M. Walsh, Esq.
Office of Dennis M. Walsh, Esq.
Review Officer
415 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor
New York. New York 10024
June 26, 2013
Re: Potential VIolation of the Consent Decree ln 90 CMl5722 (8DNY)
Dear Review Officer Walsh:
As you know, my firm is counsel to the Manufacturing Woodworkers Association of
Greater New York, Inc. ("MW A") with regards to labor and employment matters. I write to
advise you of a potential contractual violation by the New York City District Council of
Carpenters C'NYCDCC"), which I believe faUs within your purview as Review Officer.
As you know, the MW A and the NYCDCC are currently engaged in negotiations for a
successor coUective bargaining agreement as the current collective bargaining agreement
between the MWA and NYCDCC is set to expire on June 30, 2013. During a most recent
telephone conversation with the attorney for the District Council, I was informed that a strike
vote was taken and that the Union will strike as the parties could not reach agreement on the
terms of a successor contract.
Article XXVII of the current contract entitled "Automatic Renewal and Expiration"
provides, in pertinent part, "Once negotiations have eommeneed, neither party will seek to
alter unilateraUy the terms or conditions of employment of employees covered by this
Agreement until snch terms bave been ebanged by execution of a newly negotiated
agreement. Neither party shall have the right to waive or modtty any provfsion of this
Agreement without the mutual consent of both parties." Any job action post June 30, 2013
or any actions, which change the status quo, including but not limited to, revocation of
recognition would violate this provision.
I send this letter to you in your official capacity as the Review Officer, in an effort to
allow you to perform your duty and obligation to ensure that the NYCDCC docs not take any
action in violation of its contractual obligations and that the NYCDCC does not engage any
action that could lead to needless litigation which would waste the NYCDCC's valuable
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1354 Filed 07/08/13 Page 9 of 12
resources. We trust that you will investigate this matter immediately so as to prevent
UIU\ece&sary litigation and relief.
Please be advised that in the event that I do receive written assurance from your office or
the Union that the Union will not engage in any job action
1
my office will petition the United
States District Court for a Temporary Restraining Order and will seek to hold the Union
responsible for any and all damages as a result of their breach of an express provision contained
within the current collective bargaining agreement.
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to call my office directly.
Sincerely,
-:p
Scott P. Trivella
cc: James Murphy, Esq.
MW A Executive Board
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1354 Filed 07/08/13 Page 10 of 12
James Murphy
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Thank you Denise.
Regards,
Dennis M. Walsh
Review Officer
90 Civ. 5722 (SDNY)
Dennis Walsh [dmwfw@verlzon.net]
Wednesday, June 26,2013 5:40PM
'OEIOise Forte'
James Murphy; 'Scott Trivella'; 'Jonathan Bardavid'; 'Bridget Rohde'
RE: MWA and the NYCDCC
The Law Qf(ice of Dennis M Walsh
415 Madison Avenue, 11
111
Floor
New York. NY 10017
646.553.1357 (office)
914.610.1663 (mobile)
www.dennismwalsh.com
dwalsh@tknnismwaJshcom
dmwfw@verizon.net
This email is corifidential and may conJain privileged communications. It may be viewed and tlSed only by the
intended recipient(s). If you have received it in error, please <.{estray the message and notify the sender.
From: Denise Forte [ma!lto;deoise@tfsllg.com]
Sent: Wednesday
1
June 26,2013 4:36PM
To: Dennis Walsh
Cc: James Murphy; Scott Trivella; Jonathan Bardavld; Bridget Rohde
Subject: Re: MWA and the NYCOCC
Dear Dennis-
[n response to your inquiry, I respectfully submit that paragraph S(eXi) of the June 3, 2010 Stipulation and
Order regarding Appointment of a Review Officer warrants notification of the Review Officer of a potential
violation by the NYCDCC ofthe collective bargaining agreement with the MWA.
Specifically Paragraph 5(e)(i) of said Stipulation provides, in pertinent part, that representatives, officers and
employees of the District Council, or employees ofthe Benefit Funds, must promptly report to the Review
Officer any known or suspected violations of any District Council collective bargaining agreement pertaining to
payment of wages or benefits or the union security clause.
Thank you.
Denise
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1354 Filed 07/08/13 Page 11 of 12
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at l :56 PM, Dennis Walsh <dmwfw@verizon.net> wrote:
Dear Denise:
I have read the letter you forwarded. Please specifically cite any and all provision of the Consent Decree (and
any other relevant order of the SDNY to which the District Council is subject) which you believe will be
implicated and possibly violated should the District Council engage in a strike against the MW A.
Regards,
Dennis Walsh
Review Officer
Law Office of Dennis M Walsh
415 MadisonAvenue, I lthF!oor
New York, NY 10017
646.553.1357
dwa/sh@,dennismwglsh.com
JWW.dennismwalsh.com
This email is conjlderrtial and may comm11nicoliom. It may be liewed and used solely by the tnunded recipillll(s). Jfyqu
hove it m err01, plea.fe destroy fr and 1tori[v the sender.
On Jun 26, 2013, at 1 :40 PM, Denise Forte wrote:
Dear Review Officer Walsh
Please see the attached correspondence regarding the above-referenced subject matter.
Thank you.
Denise
Denise A. Forte, Esq.
TriveJla & Forte, LLP
1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 170
White Plains, NY 10605
Tel:
Fax: 914-949-4752
Visit us on the Ww
This cmlllil and any tiles lni!ISIIlilled mill i 1 ar< und salcly furll1e (I( the individual or ooliLy to .m:y addre:ised. l(ynu
have M:ti''<U tbia email in error pleust IIOLil)' tbe TI1is contuillll confidcllt'31 infunnati<m an.! inttnd.:d only tilr the individual
named. rr;.w Nre 1101 the named shoukltlot di$51lmi nate, distlib1M or copy lhis -t--fllftil. nOli!) tne by c-tnaU if}'\'11
re.:eiva.l this e-<nail by mistake iild del\!lt this e-mail from y011r !!)au lift nllt 1he int<:nded Il!tipient J100 are notified mat disclosinc. <:oJ>)ine,
lliSIIilluling ur any action in an the a>utcnls ot'rhis inlbnnmion ;, Slrictly pmhibiled.
<Letter to Walsh 6-26-2013.pdf>
Denise A. Forte, Esq.
2
Case 1:90-cv-05722-RMB-THK Document 1354 Filed 07/08/13 Page 12 of 12
Trivella & Forte, LLP
1311 Mamaroneck A venue, Suite 170
White Plains, NY 1 0605
Tel: 914-949-9075
Fax: 914-949-4752
Visit us on the Web
This alld MY flits U'llll$1\lilll wilh it arc tonliclcntlllland imenlk.l sol.: f!)f Ilk' use orUw indivi<Jual or emily 10 whom lhey....., ltddn:sscd. tr you have m:ch'lld thii in
error pleli:!C nOtify l'his ntl.'lt'ill&e cutlll!ins ccnfldcntial infonnJtloo a11d i$ in:ended ar.ly li.lr the indlvidualniliUild. lf)'(lll31'r llOllht :tddressec )'<Ill
sllould n(ll disuninaw, di$1ribiii'C or n>!l>' this l'l.:a:sc natifY tlle immeditoly \ty .... mail ir ylll b.,VI} e-m11il by und dclcll: this e-mail from yuur
')'SCCnL lfyotan.- not tlllt inll.'!ltkd l'ccipient ycu urc notified th;l( dillCI\'Ising. distril:lllliug or any llttiunln rliance on the COill.l:nt oflhis inlbrmuliOfl is strittl)
PJ<lh\bil((l.
3