Q&A
Mastro's 2014 testimony for Cablevision questioned
6:51:52
·
154 sec
Council Member Carmen De La Rosa questions Randy Mastro about his 2014 testimony on behalf of Cablevision regarding a franchise agreement and labor disputes. Mastro defends his past statements, explaining his role was limited to representing Cablevision's position that the labor dispute was a private matter.
- De La Rosa references Mastro's assertion that the Council had no role in oversight of the franchise agreement
- Mastro clarifies he was representing Cablevision's position that the labor dispute should be handled by the NLRB
- Discussion touches on the appropriateness of the Council holding a hearing on a private labor dispute
Carmen De La Rosa
6:51:52
Thank you.
6:51:52
Good afternoon, Mister Mastrom.
UNKNOWN
6:51:54
Thank
Carmen De La Rosa
6:51:54
you.
6:51:54
I'm gonna draw us into more recent history.
6:51:58
In 2014, you appeared before the council to testify on behalf of Cablevision.
6:52:02
And this is a follow-up to public advocate William's questions, digging in a little deeper at the hearing on Cablevision's franchise agreement, the city with the city and whether the company was expecting its workers' right to organize and collectively bargain.
6:52:17
2 regions of the National Labor Relations board issued complaints against cable vision for unfair practices.
6:52:23
At the time, you asserted that the castle had no role in oversight.
6:52:27
The hearing and that the hearing was inappropriate use of counsel resources, and there had been no investigation into the charges.
6:52:34
In fact, you specifically said you did your job already when you passed the authorizing resolution.
6:52:40
You have no right in the administration of the franchise.
6:52:44
However, you still appeared at the hearing on behalf of Cablevision.
6:52:48
My first question to you is, why did you assert that there had been no investigation about Cablevision's unfairly bird practice charges that the NRB issued?
Randy Mastro
6:52:58
I I I I don't think again, you're asking me to go back 10 years ago.
6:53:03
I don't think that accurately describes the state of play.
6:53:06
I was not Cablevision's lawyer in connection with anything at the NLRP.
6:53:11
There were subsequent issues resolved by the NLRP.
6:53:14
And I knew that there were, you know, issues percolating, but that was not what I was handling.
6:53:20
And the point I was making was a simple narrow one, which was that that was a private labor dispute between a private company and a labor union.
6:53:31
There had been it was surrounded by allegations that the the labor union had had according to Department of Investigation report, improper communications with certain city officials.
6:53:43
I I was simply asserting for cable vision that why were we having a hearing like that when it was a private labor dispute but I was not involved at all in the NRRB proceedings or what happened after that.
6:53:59
That's the place for that to be resolved.
Carmen De La Rosa
6:54:01
I understand
UNKNOWN
6:54:02
that.
6:54:02
I
Randy Mastro
6:54:02
and and I I certainly intended no disrespect to the council.
6:54:05
I was representing a client in private practice.
6:54:08
Who had a principled position that it was a private labor dispute.
6:54:12
So why were we having a hearing?
UNKNOWN
6:54:14
I that was all I was doing there.
Carmen De La Rosa
6:54:16
I understand your role.
6:54:18
I had the fortune or misfortune of watching that hearing twice this week.
6:54:24
In preparation for this hearing.
Randy Mastro
6:54:25
Okay.
Carmen De La Rosa
6:54:25
And you did indeed assert that there were indeed no complaints issued against cable vision.
