Date: 04/21/06 18:47:53
To: Scott Linsley
Subject: Fw: BRICKNER v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION #92-00191-(30)
|
Date: 04/21/06 18:47:53
To: Scott Linsley
Subject: Fw: BRICKNER v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION #92-00191-(30) |
Wes Brickner
800 Oro Terrace
(310) 519-0314
SENT VIA EMAIL AND
Mr. Robert Wilson, Chief
Investigations and Compliance Division
Veterans’ Employment and Training Service
(202) 693-4719
RE: BRICKNER v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION (PMA)
VETS FILE: 92-00191- (30)
Dear Mr. Wilson:
I am writing to formally request the reevaluation of my claim and file as we have discussed in our recent phone conversations.
I contend the DOL’s investigation of my claim was cursory at best and bordering on malfeasance and/or nonfeasance as documented in my VETS File.
The entire investigation was one letter to J. D. MacEvoy, Area Manager for the PMA. Mr. MacEvoy was not involved with the hiring process or responsible for its outcome.
The investigator, Mack C. Owens, relied on the erroneous and deceitful information provided by Mr. MacEvoy without verifying its veracity. Mr. Owens never inquired if the PMA was in compliance with the laws governing veterans’ reemployment rights.
Mr. Owens never inquired if the PMA had a program, a process or a procedure in place or written into its collective bargaining agreements protecting veteran’s rights, as required by law and as a term and condition of their government contracts.
Had Mr. Owens made any of the above inquiries he would have found that the PMA was in noncompliance with the laws governing veterans (VRRA, VEVRAA and USERRA).
The PMA believes their collective bargaining agreements supersede state and federal laws. Contrary to PMA’s belief, veterans’ reemployment rights statutes supersede, “…any contract, agreement, policy, practice, or other matter that reduces, limits, or eliminates in any manner any right or benefit provided by [the Act].” 38 U.S.C. 4302 (b).
When Mr. Owens told me my claim had no merit he referred me to case law, COX v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1273, et al. After researching and reviewing this case law I found it supported my claims and that Mr. Owens did not understand the employment arrangement in the longshore industry with the PMA. I do not believe Mr. Owens made any real and sincere effort to discover the truth and secure my rights.
Both the VETS and the DOJ contend that my claim has no merit. However, they do not state a basis for that contention. If my claim has no merit, then explain to me what criteria I fail to meet.
I meet all the criteria of VRRA, VEVRAA and USERRA. I have been denied my veteran’s rights continuously over the last thirty-five (35) years. I have endured thirty-five (35) years of discrimination, retaliation, harassment, blackballing and creation of a hostile work environment.
Not only do I meet all the criteria of all the veteran laws but all of the subsequent case laws and precedents, also, support my claims and contentions.
Beginning in May of 1990 through April of 2003 the PMA adopted new policies regarding veterans’ reemployment rights which all support my claims and contentions.
However, with each new policy the PMA still refuses to grant me my veteran’s reemployment rights when I request them. The PMA fails to grant me any consideration under their new policies even when there are provisions within the new policy for such consideration.
The PMA has continuously discriminated and retaliated against me by: 1) not processing my grievances properly through the grievance machinery according to the collective bargaining agreements, 2) failing to respond to certified letters, 3) failing to give me fair and equal treatment as other employees who are veterans, 4) failing to act in “Good Faith” and 5) failing to train, transfer and promote me according to the contract and law.
The last document in my VET File is dated
Thank you for you time and assistance. Feel free to contact me at any of the above addresses.
Sincerely,
Wes Brickner
RobertWilson2-14-2006