Every statement in defendant's Rule 56.1 Statement is supported by a citation to Lucyk's affidavit, but no statement relies upon paragraphs 34 or 35 of Lucyk's affidavit. The Public Employees' Fair Employment Act confirms the duty of fair representation imposed upon public sector unions. ( Id. This provision is "only a guarantee in the form of a fundamental right, of something that both legislative policy and prevailing court decisions had previously recognized." At the first session Local 456 sought language in the collective bargaining agreement that would prevent the County from seeking to exclude titles from the bargaining unit. Plaintiffs argue that defendant failed to "advise and assist them in seeking to protect their rights." 160 SOUTH CENTRAL AVE. See Adickes, 398 U.S. at 152, 90 S.Ct. The letter requested "copies of any and all documents . The court held that: Here, defendant was negotiating the collective bargaining agreement to benefit the entire bargaining unit because its members had not received a wage increase in more than three years. ", It is unclear which section of the New York State Civil Service Law plaintiffs allege has been violated. Here, plaintiffs were not designated "managerial" or "confidential," but their job titles were removed, upon agreement between the Union and the County and with the approval of the Union membership, from the bargaining unit. Plaintiffs also allege a deprivation of their right to form, join and participate in any employee organization of their choosing in violation of the New York State Civil Service law. ), On June 11, 1999, the County and the Union signed a Stipulation of Agreement. 265 West 14th Street Other courts have required that the plaintiffs bringing a claim pursuant to section 105 of the LMRDA first request that the union comply with the law by apprising the member of the provisions of the LMRDA. Try our Advanced Search for more refined results, Searching cases in Teamsters Local 456 4504 (2000) (recognizing the right of public employers and public employee unions to alter by agreement the composition of their bargaining units); In the Matter of Onondaga-Cortland-Madison BOCES Fed'n of Teachers, 25 N.Y.P.E.R.B. Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries. . . See Sharrock v. Dell Buick-Cadillac, 45 N.Y.2d 152, 159, 379 N.E.2d 1169, 1173, 408 N.Y.S.2d 39, 43 (1978). 1 ii work day and work week 3 iii wages and premium pay 5 iv holidays 11 v vacations 12 vi sick leave 14 vii injury leave 16 . (Am.Complt. See 587 F.2d at 1391 (noting that the plaintiffs failed to raise the issue with the union, and immediately sought judicial relief, while affirming district court's dismissal of section 105 claim). Upon leave from this Court, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 11, 2000. 27.) ^4oz7oDsq:F7&+|~^wXQ^a!5x DNE QtkQ9p!t The committee was composed of Brian Lucyk, an attorney retained by Local 456, Robert Villani, an Assistant County Attorney, Nicholas Longo, shop steward for the Environmental Engineering Department, Betsy Weir from the Personnel Department, Neil Squillanta from the Parks Department, and John Markiewicz from the Westchester County Medical Center. ( Id. at 23. ku grad school application deadline; 2020 toyota camry trd edmonton; why do crickets chirp after rain; how many jordans did tinker hatfield design; beretta 92x performance grips Given plaintiffs' utter lack of argument or evidence in support of these two state constitutional claims, and this Court's inability to locate any cases in which the plaintiffs were afforded compensatory or declaratory relief for violation of the relevant portion of section 17, summary judgment is granted to defendant on plaintiff's tenth and eleventh causes of action. Summary judgment is granted to defendant on plaintiffs' federal constitutional claims, causes of action one and two in the amended complaint. 292, 13 L.Ed.2d 190 (1964), the Supreme Court held that section 101(a)(1) "is no more than a command that members and classes of members shall not be discriminated against in their right to nominate and vote." 1966). table of contents. Finally, plaintiffs bring a cause of action for failure to advise plaintiffs of the LMRDA's provisions, pursuant to section 105 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. Plaintiffs also allege that members of the negotiating team for the Union acted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner because some of the members had jobs that were more managerial than those of plaintiffs, but retained their position in the bargaining unit while eliminating plaintiffs' job titles. It looks like nothing was found at this location. Here, plaintiffs admit that every member of the bargaining unit received a letter from the president of the Union advising them of the ratification vote for the collective bargaining agreement, and attaching a copy of the agreement. at 914-15. 852, Civil Serv. ( Id. finding that mere negotiation in the course of completing a collective bargaining agreement does not rise to the level of improper conspiracy", granting summary judgment on 1983 claim against a labor union where the complaint "fail[ed] to allege the existence of a conspiracy between the County and defendant Union", granting summary judgment to defendants on plaintiffs' New York duty of fair representation claim, noting that "the Union here represents county employees, and thus must be considered to be an adversary of the county government", reasoning that union defendant's "only 'collaboration' with the County arose from the negotiation of an agreement for the bargaining unit," "[m]ere negotiation in the course of completing a collective bargaining agreement does not rise to the level of an improper conspiracy," and "[i]n fact, the Union's role in relation to the County was adversarial. The Center for Union Facts is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that fights for transparency and accountability in America's labor . Rule 56.1 Stmt. 160 S Central Avenue Therefore, plaintiffs' claim pursuant to the equal protection clause of the New York State Constitution also fails for lack of state action. WILLIAM C. CONNER, Senior District Judge. ( Id. Id. The next Local 282 membership meeting will be held Thursday, March 30th at 7pm. at 123.) purpose the improvement of wages, hours and other conditions of employment of municipal employees. . Members | Teamsters Local 456 Meet the Executive Board/Business Agents Coming together from a wide variety of backgrounds, our Executive Board and Business Agents help shape the direction and mission of our organization as it continues to develop and adapt to the changing labor landscape. 814, 820 (N.D.N.Y. at 4.) .," and this conduct constitutes a violation of LMRDA 101(a)(1) even though a subsequent vote of the membership ratified the agreement. Additional copies of the agreement were provided at the meeting, and all questions about the agreement were answered. oaklawn park track records. (Lucyk Aff. at 117); and deprivation of the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, all in violation of the New York State Constitution. ( Id. See Stelling v. International Bhd. at 29.) E.). (Lucyk Aff., Ex. 183, 66 L.Ed.2d 185 (1980) To defeat defendant's motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs must present sufficient evidence to support an inference that an improper conspiracy took place. While the salaries for Teamster officers have come down over the years, CEO pay has skyrocketed. 9-20.) ( Id. Plaintiffs also bring a cause of action pursuant to New York State law for breach of the duty of fair representation. Breach of Duty of Fair Representation. 721 were here. at 30.) A private individual may be subject to liability under this section if he or she willfully collaborated with an official state actor in the deprivation of the federal right. Employees Ass'n, 95 A.D.2d 800, 463 N.Y.S.2d 519 (1983). (Am.Complt. For the first five, OLMS requires unions to provide detailed information on any recipient that received more than $5,000 per year. Id. at 56.) The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), which is enforced by the Office of Labor-Management Standards, requires labor unions to file annual reports detailing their operations. Section 17 was "not intended to invalidate existing legislation which imposed a duty to bargain collectively with employees even though that obligation by reason of certain exemptions or exceptions was not in all respects coextensive with the rights of labor." Members for A Better Union v. Bevona, 152 F.3d 58, 65 (2d Cir. Kress Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150, 90 S.Ct. ( Id. Plaintiffs' Claims Pursuant to the United States Constitution. at 521. The Docket Activity list does not reflect all actions in this case. The union members voted and approved the agreement, however, the Westchester County Board of Legislators did not approve it. New York courts have recognized a dichotomy between state action, which is subject to scrutiny under the New York State Constitution, and private action, which is insulated from such scrutiny. Rule 56.1 Stmt. You have to know whats happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. at 24.) 1920, 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980); Adickes v. S.H. Teamsters Local 456 was out in force today in Bronxville, fighting for good jobs and fair wages in the concrete industry. at 12. It is well established that in order to state a claim under 1983, a plaintiff must allege (1) that the challenged conduct was attributable at least in part to a person acting under color of state law, and (2) that such conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 3020 (1999). The Teamsters Local 456's contract with the town expired June 30, 2019. 415. (Lucyk Aff. ( Id. New York, finding alteration of bargaining unit did not violate 101 where excluded employees were not prevented from commencing litigation. The union representatives on the negotiating committee submitted a counter-offer concerning the removal of the Senior ACAs. Even if plaintiffs put forth evidence in support of these allegations, which they have failed to do, the negotiators' personal interests do not demonstrate that the Union, as an organizational entity, intended to punish plaintiffs by agreeing to remove them from the bargaining unit. income of employees making less than $50,000 Source: LM forms filed with the Office of Labor-Management Standards. This Court agrees. at 6.) February 08, 2023 | New York Southern Teamsters Local 456 Pension, Health & Welfare, Annuity, Education & Training, Industry Advancement, and Legal Services Funds by Louis A. Picani, . Source: Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Plaintiffs allege that defendant limited their right to institute an action in any court or administrative agency in violation of 101(a)(4) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. Plaintiffs further allege that defendant discriminated against them with respect to their voting rights in violation of 101(a)(1) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. Defendant asserts that under section 204, the Union is authorized to remove job titles from a bargaining unit pursuant to agreement with the employer. All bargaining unit members were given the opportunity to vote and the membership voted in favor of the agreement. Local 456 represents both public sector and private sector employees. (Am.Complt. See United States v. Int'l Bhd. (Lucyk Aff., Ex. Although an employee may be designated as "managerial" or "confidential" only upon application of the employer to the PERB, see N.Y. Civil Serv. $1000 salary base builder, $4600 in increased and new stipends and and optional zero pay prescription plan (some wanted to stay with the current plan as is). 699, 705 (E.D.Pa. Because the bargaining agreement had expired three and one-half years earlier, and the bargaining unit had not had a wage increase in that time, the Union decided that it would be in the best interest of its members to agree to the County's demands. 66.) The complaint in Breininger was deficient because it described only "personal vendettas" instead of actions taken by the Union as an organizational entity. at 23.). 1978); Broomer v. Schultz, 239 F. Supp. In April, the County and Local 456 were at a deadlock. 117.) 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). Sch. Further, plaintiffs have put forth no evidence to support their allegations that the Union negotiators were engaged in self-dealing. at 20.) 1998.) On the basis of the undisputed facts, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under section 105 of the LMRDA. teamsters local 456 . By Order dated January 4, 2000, the New York State Supreme Court ordered that the documents be preserved, but did not order production. Password (at least 8 characters required). Local 456 members also deliver fuel oil and gas and drive school buses. Teamsters Local 456 represents workers in Westchester and Putnam Counties. EIN: 13-6804536. ( Id. Plaintiffs' twelfth cause of action alleges that "[t]he conduct of the Local 456 against the plaintiffs constituted a deprivation of plaintiffs' right to form, join and participate in any employee organization of their own choosing in violation of New York State Civil Service Law." 5599 0 obj <>stream On cross-motions for summary judgment, the standard is the same as that for individual motions. ), On October 29, 1997, the County and Local 456 reached a Stipulation of Agreement that provided that the County would not seek to have any of the positions or persons in the bargaining unit designated as managerial or confidential. 1.) local #456 international brotherhood of teamsters . Defendant also moves for summary judgment on plaintiffs' claims under the New York State Constitution. Id. United States District Court, S.D. June 4, 1996), the court found that a union was not acting under the color of state law where it had an adversarial role in relation to the state by nature of the fact that it was the representative of city employees. ( Id. at 31. Elmsford, New York 10523. Id. (Lucyk Aff. The Local 282 Trust Funds Participant Portal provides access to information on-demand, 24/7 to some of the most common benefit inquiries. For the reasons stated below, defendant's motion is granted, and plaintiffs' cross motion is denied. Plaintiffs have put forth no evidence creating a material issue of fact concerning these causes of action. Plaintiffs base their allegations under section 101(a)(4) on their assertion that in order to remove plaintiffs from the collective bargaining unit, the County was required to request that the PERB designate the title of Senior ACA as "managerial" or confidential. The court focused on the union's motivation, and stated that "union action which adversely affects a member is discipline only when (1) it is undertaken under color of the union's right to control the member's conduct in order to protect the interests of the union or its membership, and (2) it directly penalizes him in a way which separates him from comparable members in good standing." Every construction worker deserves the wages and protections guaranteed by a union contract. Pursuant to M.G.L. Teamsters Local 456 was out in force today in Bronxville, fighting for good jobs and fair wages in the concrete industry. relating to the negotiations from January 1, 1998 to present which ultimately resulted in the Stipulation of Agreement." Plaintiffs' first cause of action alleges that they were deprived property rights without due process in violation of 42 U.S.C. Dominick Cassanelli Jr., Vice President Additional copies of the agreement were provided and the agreement was read to the membership. 5585 0 obj <> endobj pennsylvania supreme court judges; 4618 forthbridge drive houston, tx; lincoln memorial events; chemerinsky, constitutional law syllabus ." Yonkers Municipal Housing and International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), Local 456 (2008) (MOA) Yonkers Parking Authority and City of Yonkers Parking Authority Unit 9322, CSEA, Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Westchester County Local 860 (2006) York Central School Board of Education and York Central School Bus Driver Association (2002) Plaintiffs contend in their Rule 56.1 Statement that all factual allegations made in the amended complaint, except for those facts also contained in defendant's Lucyk affidavit, remain in dispute. 2023 Center for Union Facts. 424, 107 L.Ed.2d 388 (1989). 2023, Portfolio Media, Inc. | About | Contact Us | Legal Jobs | Advertise with Law360 | Careers at Law360 | Terms | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings | Help | Site Map, Teamsters Local 456 Pension, Health & Welfare, Annuity, Education & Training, Industry Advancement, and Legal Services Funds et al v. M. Velardo Enterprises, Inc. et al, Teamsters Local 456 Pension, Health & Welfare, Annuity, Education & Training, Industry Advancement, and Legal Services Funds by Louis A. Picani, Joseph Sansone, Dominick Cassanelli, Jr., Saul Singer, et al v. Koski Trucking, Inc. et al, Amalgamated Union Local 450-A Welfare Fund et al v. McKinsey & Company, Inc. et al. What kinds of nonprofits do foundations support? Plaintiffs cannot assume that their request for documents relating to the negotiation of the collective bargaining agreement would result in the Union providing information on the LMRDA. at 7. . local 456 international brotherhood of teamsters. Teamsters Local 456 emerged out of the need for worker representation and the desire for collective actions to speak louder than individual words. Therefore, defendant did not act under the color of state law, and cannot be subject to liability under section 1983. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No 456 is child organization, under the parent exemption from. 33, Ex. While ZipRecruiter is seeing annual salaries as high as $100,000 and as low as $45,000, the . 212-924-0002 401 et seq. Region Assigned: Local 456 and Westchester County have negotiated three successive collective bargaining agreements which were effective for the two-year periods January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1993, January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1995 and January 1, 1996 through December 31, 2001. In general, a union is not a state actor. at 2.) 212-691-7074, A Year of Progress for New York Teamsters, Local 456 protests Mill Creek development, Local 456 Rallies for Good Construction Jobs, TEMP Act to Protect Workers from Extreme Heat, Governor Hochul Blocks E-Commerce Project, Saves Freeport Park, New York Heating Workers Approve Citywide Union Contract with Big Raises. 83.) Therefore, Brown does not dictate a different result in this case and summary judgment on plaintiffs' New York State Constitutional claims for due process and equal protection is granted in favor of defendant. DPW workers say they have not gotten paid for overtime hours worked since early December. (Am.Complt. (Am.Complt. Defendant argues that because the due process and equal protection clauses of the New York State Constitution do not apply to private conduct, Montalvo v. Consolidated Edison Co., 92 A.D.2d 389, 393-94, 460 N.Y.S.2d 784, 787 (N.Y.App.Div. at 19.) (Am.Complt. 411(a)(1). See id. Every construction worker deserves the wages and protections guaranteed by a union contract. Region 02, New York, New York. Therefore, defendant is granted summary judgment on plaintiffs' twelfth cause of action. ( Id.). Plaintiffs have put forth no evidence that defendant failed to advise them of their rights under the LMRDA when they became members of the Union. This is the equivalent of $1,298/week or $5,627/month. Local 456 submitted affidavits and legal argument to oppose plaintiffs' efforts in state court. Although the state and its political subdivisions, including the County, are excluded from the definition of "employer" contained in section 2 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. (Am. 411(a)(5), for deprivation of their right to procedural protections prior to expulsion from the collective bargaining unit. The Union's failure to "win" on every point in the negotiations, and its compromise with the County that resulted in the agreement, do not indicate that the County was so implicated in the activity so as to transform the Union's activity into state action. According to the undisputed facts, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under section 101(a)(4) of the LMRDA, and summary judgment for defendant on this claim is granted. at 14.). at 13.) Plaintiffs have chosen to seek resolution of their grievances in this court and in New York state court. The court may conclude that material issues of fact do exist and deny both motions." According to the Court, such a breach "occurs only when a union's conduct toward a member of the collective bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith." In Thomas, the union informed its membership of the LMRDA's provisions after the law was enacted in 1959, but had not done so since. Founded in 1946, Teamsters Local 456 is committed to our mission of organizing and educating workers. Similarly, the Union here represents county employees, and thus must be considered to be an adversary of the county government. Teamsters Joint Council 39 Endorses Janet Protasiewicz for Wisconsin Supreme Court. .sv6k0FdHZneB-22":22:2:222RW- 6630nMhM36K6N```T july 1, 2016 2019 - june 30, 20192023 . (Am.Complt. Defendant argues that although expulsion is a form of discipline under section 101(a)(5), plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that there was a punitive aspect to their removal from the bargaining unit. at 32.) Union action affecting a membership right constitutes "discipline" for the purpose of triggering section 101(a)(5) where that action is "imposed as a sentence on an individual by a union in order to punish a violation of union rules." of Educ. Plaintiffs' reliance upon Brown v. State, 89 N.Y.2d 172, 652 N.Y.S.2d 223, 674 N.E.2d 1129 (1996), to support their contention that state action is not required for a violation of state constitutional provisions, is misplaced. (Am.Complt. local 456 teamsters wagespcl curvature estimation. Union-busters who try to use union salaries to attack unions should look in the mirror. Local 456 continued its efforts to retain the Senior ACAs in the bargaining unit. Defendant has moved for summary . 1867, 72 L.Ed.2d 239 (1982). In so doing, the Union and the County agreed to exclude plaintiffs from the bargaining unit. Proudly created with Wix.com. The Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) requires unions to report how they spent their money in a number of categories. 2000). (Lisa F. Colin Aff.) Plaintiffs allege that the Union's actions resulted in the deprivation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. at 22-23.) The Union, as the representative of its membership, and the employer, have the right to negotiate to redefine the bargaining unit. 212-924-0002 96 Civ. D'Amico v. City of New York, 132 F.3d 145, 149 (2d Cir. Relevant sections of collective bargaining agreements between organized and management are being provided below as these agreements provide guidance to the Department when setting prevailing wage rates. T__D6K3GiGPH4aAji9wJnz"0 Tq~mCUq@YU1h iVt B@( `P`J@d` 0@d" (X034X4D !Z29IJp )ef& @HQ$3u$_iv 9+#0Delc9j],@m H20qKO|1w # YM of Teamsters v. City of New York, 64 N.Y.2d 188, 196, 485 N.Y.S.2d 227, 474 N.E.2d 587 (1984). Plaintiffs' tenth cause of action alleges a violation of their right to form, join or participate in a labor organization as guaranteed by the New York State Constitution. Contained in those reports are breakdowns of each union's spending, income and other financial information. You will be notified when it is ready. 1996), aff'd, 110 F.3d 892 (2d Cir. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). endstream endobj 5586 0 obj <. Plaintiffs bring these constitutional claims against the Union pursuant to 42 U.S.C. In Civil Service Bar Association, the union filed a grievance on behalf of all attorneys affected after the city hired an associate attorney at a salary $3,000 higher than the stated minimum salary for that position. Law360 may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.Youll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. The official facebook page of Teamsters Local 456! After the grievance was denied, the union took the matter to arbitration, where the arbitrator ruled in favor of the union and ordered the city to increase all minimum salaries. "An issue is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party." Broth. CSL 209a(2). . Conclusory and vague allegations are too speculative to support a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation. New York, NY 10011 (Pl. Dist. Reply Mem. N.Y. In Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Correctional Officers v. Rendell, No. . Rule 56.1 Stmt. Albert Liberatore, Trustee 1997). ( Id. (Am.Complt. (Lucyk Aff. (Am.Complt. Agritronics Corp. v. National Dairy Herd Ass'n, 914 F. Supp. allianz ticket insurance. All members of the bargaining unit, including plaintiffs, were given an opportunity to vote on the agreement. 80.) To defeat a defendant's motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs must present sufficient evidence to support, Accordingly, Universal did not submit evidence, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. Union of Operating Engrs. ( Id. 968 (N.L.R.B. at 26. 1834, 1996 U.S. Dist. x, Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. The Union did not recommend the agreement to the membership and advised the membership that it was taking a neutral position toward the agreement. ( Id. art. ELMSFORD, NY 10523, Source: Office of Labor Management Standards, Year Covered: 2019 Last Updated: April 8th, 2021, See All Employees' Compensation and Salary History. at 28-29.) Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n Local Union No. 415. ), At the second negotiation session, the County proposed removing a number of titles from the bargaining unit. 7|PSqc Retry Copy with citation Copy as parenthetical citation Plaintiffs allege, but do not support with any evidence, that members of the Union, including the negotiating team, may have acted out of self-interest because they were under investigation. . LOCAL 456 160 S Central Avenue Elmsford, New York 10523 914-592-9500 Teamsters Local 456 represents workers in Westchester and Putnam Counties. The County merely agreed with the Union to alter the composition of the bargaining unit. ( Id. 4580 (1996); In the Matter of Joanne Rooney, 20 N YP.E.R.B. See, e.g., Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 835, 102 S.Ct. local 456 teamsters wages. To obtain a copy, please file a request through our craft: teamster (applies only to work on the construction site) determination: nc-23-261-1 . Local 456 made several attempts to retain plaintiffs' title in the bargaining unit after the County submitted the proposal to remove plaintiffs from the bargaining unit. Local 456 proposed that the Senior ACAs who wanted to remain in the bargaining unit should be allowed to transfer to non-senior ACA positions while retaining their higher wages. Id. Rule 56(e), to create a genuine, Full title:Kyle MCGOVERN, Linda Trentacoste Spagnuolo, Richard Cashman and William, Court:United States District Court, S.D. More than two dozen members of Teamsters Local 456 gathered on the steps of Mount Vernon City Hall to voice their outrage next to a giant rat as a symbol of union strength. I, 6. Plaintiffs' other state law claims allege the deprivation of property rights without due process, ( id. * This document may require redactions before it can be viewed. This Brownfield Cleanup Program project, supported with our tax dollars, is using non-union contractor Titan Concrete. 1976), the court construed "discipline" to "conform to the essential character of the specifically enumerated types of discipline: fine, expulsion, and suspension." UPS Teamsters Supplemental Negotiations Update. McIntyre v. Longwood Central School District. ( Id. Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies. Because the Union and a public employer may agree upon the composition of the bargaining unit, defendant did not violate the Civil Service Law by negotiating a collective bargaining agreement that removed plaintiffs' title from the bargaining unit. In Calhoon v. Harvey, 379 U.S. 134, 138, 85 S.Ct. Joseph Sansone, Secretary-Treasurer In fact, the Union's role in relation to the County was adversarial. RPS Principals Join Teamsters Local 592. TEAMSTERS 826, 828 (S.D.N.Y. Further, this Court has failed to locate, and plaintiffs have failed to point to, any case law supporting plaintiffs' claim for compensatory damages arising from the alleged violation of their right to participate in a union or bargain collectively.