U.S. Court Case No. LACV03-6605 CBM (RZx)Central District of California
Western Division
312 N. Spring Street, Room G-8
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Tele: (213) 894-1565
Regarding: Complaint for Breach of Contract
I, John Ruff, doing business in California as “Ruff Services”, a Professional Land Surveying Company, do hereby RESPOND to the charges made against me concerning CASE NO. LACV03-6605 CBM (RZx) of the United States District Court Central District of California. Said charges which were made and filed on September 15, 2003 and listed on page 5 of lines 9 through 20 of said CASE NO. LACV03-6605 CBM (RZx) of said District Court. Those CHARGES being:
- For unpaid fringe benefit contributions in amounts as proved;
- For damages for breach of contract in amounts as proved;
- For liquidated damages in amounts as proved;
- For audit expenses in amounts as proved;
- For interest at the rates established by Title 26 U.S.C. 6621 on all fringe benefit contributions and/or damages from due dates;
- For the Trusts’ attorney’s fees and costs of suit incurred herein; and
- For such relief as this Court deems just and proper.
In RESPONSE to Item 1 (For unpaid fringe benefit contributions ...):
1. I, John Ruff, on behalf of “Ruff Services”, HAVE PAID and DO PAY ALL FRINGE BENEFIT CONTRIBUTIONS entitled to my employees in accordance to California Labor Code Laws regarding Public Works Projects. I, however, do not send these payments to the Operating Engineers Trust Fund (hereinafter “O.E.T.F.”), but rather pay these amounts outright to my employees. For the record, those fringe benefit amounts, in total and to date, being:
| Rolando Ramos | Chainman/Rodman | (869.567-010) | $3892.25 |
| Filipino Bayan | Instrumentman | (018.167-034) | $4119.20 |
In RESPONSE to Item 2 (For damages for breach of contract ...):
2. Through DURESS, COERCION, and EXTORTION, I, John Ruff, along with my employees, Rolando Ramos and Filipino Bayan, were compelled into signing forms and statements demanded on us by representatives of the International Union of Operating Engineers (hereinafter “I.U.O.E.”) Local Union No. 12 on that September 13, 2002 day.
I, and as spokesman for my employees, we, have resisted the “I.U.O.E.” since their approach for offers to join their organization. Their first solicitation took place on Monday, July 29, 2002 at approximately 9am on the Los Angeles Unified School District (hereinafter “L.A.U.S.D.”) Public Works Jobsite, Albion Elementary School, in Los Angeles. I.U.O.E. representatives presented themselves to us as figures of authority to public works projects.
“I.U.O.E.s” second solicitation came on Thursday, August 1, 2002 at approximately 10am on the L.A.U.S.D. Project, Franklin Elementary School, in Los Angeles. During both times, I listened to their offers with respect for their apparent authority. During both times, I expressed my thoughts to consider.
Apparently, I did not consider quickly enough. On August 19, 2002, a formal grievance was filed against “Ruff Services” by “I.U.O.E.” citing violations to a “Project Stabilization Agreement“ (hereinafter “PSA”) made between the “L.A.U.S.D.” and the “Los Angeles and Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council” (see document 2A). This formal grievance (see document 2A) and an accompanying directive letter (see letter 2B) were sent to myself as well as to my general contracting client, Masters Contracting Corporation (hereinafter “Masters”). Obviously, this formal grievance and directive disturbed my client, “Masters”. I was requested by “Masters” to reply.
I acquired a copy of the “PSA” agreement of which was “I.U.O.E.s” point of reference. My review of the “PSA” agreement denoted my exclusion based upon my engineering service to “L.A.U.S.D.” projects (see Section 3.7 of “PSA”). On August 27, 2002, I formally replied in a letter to both “I.U.O.E.” and to “Masters” (see letter 2C).
During this time, “Ruff Services” had five on-going “L.A.U.S.D.” projects through “Masters”. On August 30, 2002, when I requested partial payments to the work on-going, “Masters” could only provide me partial payment to ONE of the FIVE. That amount was $2880. Their reason for the withholding was because of the grievance made against me and my inability to have it resolved.
On September 3, 2002, “I.U.O.E.” lawyer, David Koppelman, responded to my letter. But this time, “I.U.O.E.” addressed their remarks (see letter 2D) to my client, “Masters” lawyer, John Harrington. The debate now became mediated through my client, “Masters”, who had already been questioning my contentions and arguments.
Aware of “I.U.O.E.s” non-recognition of “Ruff Services”, my second letter in reply dated September 7, 2002 was addressed to “Masters” lawyer, John Harrington (see letter 2E). Again, I reiterated Section 3.7 of the “PSA” agreement of which “I.U.O.E.” lawyer made no comment to. I also cited Section 3.12 of the “PSA”, a clause that allows the “PSA” to supercede all other local collective bargaining agreements (their own, in particular).
My client, “Masters”, wanted no more of these contentions. If I were to remain their survey company on “L.A.U.S.D.” projects, I was told to make an appointment with “I.U.O.E.” and have myself and my two workers sign “I.U.O.E.s” agreement.
I made an appointment to appear at “I.U.O.E.s” office which is in Pasadena. On September 13, 2002, my two employees and I arrived and were subjected to their terms and conditions. Still resistant, I contended further with “I.U.O.E.” representatives, Monte Anders and Steve McElroy. But at its end, “I.U.O.E.” representative, Monte Anders, stood up, waved that Grievance Form (see document 2A) in front of me, and made that angry threat in which he would begin legal action against “Ruff Services” if I did not end this resistance and sign. Alas, with too many consequences at stake, our battle was over (hereinafter “Alamo”).
On September 27, 2002, I once again requested from my client, “Masters”, for partial payments to on-going projects. This time, with "I.U.O.E." grievance issues aside, “Masters” willingly released to me $12,000 for THREE of the remaining FOUR projects unpaid. Thankfully so.
From an envelope postmarked October 2, 2002, I received the first monthly report form for fringe benefit contributions from the “Operating Engineers Trust Fund” (hereinafter “O.E.T.F.”). Remembering the “Alamo” and the railroading that happened on us that September 13th day, I determined once again to oppose this CRIMINAL EXTORTION. Yes, I attempted to explain to “O.E.T.F.” and their field representative, Mick Watkins, of the injustice to our signing, but he responded much the same way that “I.U.O.E.” responded - unmoved and demanding.
Over the months that past, I found that I was able to legally pay fringe benefit contributions directly to my employees. My employees were happy about that. “O.E.T.F.” disagreed, of course.
“O.E.T.F” continued their badgering and harassing. “O.E.T.F.” accused “Ruff Services” of non-compliance to the State of California Labor Commissioner, Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. The State Office formally requested our public works payroll information. We complied. The State Office found no wrongdoing on our part and their investigation ceased.
Your investigation will also find that “Ruff Services” operates honorably and honestly. I believe in God; I believe in good; I believe in right; and I will oppose the wrong. A side note: being in business, I have found the IRS to be good guys. EDD; good guys. Good guys make America good, and bad guys make America bad.
In RESPONSE to Item 3 (For liquidated damages in amounts as proved):
This claim is subject to the decision on Charge 2.
In RESPONSE to Item 4 (For audit expenses in amounts as proved):
“Ruff Services” DOES NOT recognize the audit authority claimed by “O.E.T.F.” Having found “I.U.O.E.” and “O.E.T.F.” non-responsive to reason, all letters and calls for an audit by “O.E.T.F” have been ignored. However, with respect to Section 1812 of the California Labor Code, “Ruff Services” DOES recognize the auditing authority of the Public Agency that awarded the contract, as well as the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (a State Government Office).
In RESPONSE to Item 5 (For interest at the rates established ... on fringe benefits ...):
See Response 1 of which ALL FRINGE BENEFIT CONTRIBUTIONS entitled to my employees HAVE BEEN PAID.
In RESPONSE to Item 6 (For the Trusts’ attorney’s fees and costs of suit ...):
Claims to reimbursement of fees and costs of suit is without grounds.
In RESPONSE to Item 7 (For such additional relief ... Court deems just and proper):
I learned a new vocabulary word during the days of compiling this letter: “RACKETEERING”. What I hope the Court will deem just and proper would be a thorough investigation into the deeds and activities of “I.U.O.E.” and “O.E.T.F”.
“Right makes might”, I believe that. God in heaven will see to that. The judges in our great land must ensure that. The government by the people, for the people, of the people will decide that.
Enough said. Thank you for the opportunity given me to reply to a defense that can finally be made.
In Professional Service for California.
 John Ruff, PLS - Owner Ruff Services - Professional Land Surveying |
THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE ACQUIRED ONLINE AT: http://www.ruffservices.com/court |