12.20.11 U.S. v. D.C. Status Conference

8/3/2019 12.20.11 U.S. v. D.C. Status Conference

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/122011-us-v-dc-status-conference 1/58

1

1CK5usaC conference

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

2 ------------------------------x

2

3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

3

4 Plaintiff,

4

5 v. 90 CIV. 5722 (RMB)

5

6 DISTRICT COUNCIL, et al.,

6

7 Defendants.

7

8 ------------------------------x

8

9 December 20, 2011

9 10:10 a.m.

10 Before:10

11 HON. RICHARD M. BERMAN,

11

12 District Judge

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.

(212) 805-0300



2

1CK5usaC conference

1 APPEARANCES

1

2 PREET BHARARA

2 United States Attorney for the

3 Southern District of New York

3 BY: TARA LaMORTE

4 Assistant United States Attorney

4

5 BISCEGLIE & DEMARCO

5 Attorneys for Defendant Holt

6 BY: ANGELO BISCEGLIE

6

7 LATHAM & WATKINS

7 Attorneys for United Brotherhood of Carpenters

8 BY: KENNETH CONBOY

8 WILLIAM RECHLER

9

9 DECARLO, CONNOR & SHANLEY, P.C.

10 Attorneys for DISTRICT COUNCIL10 BY: BRIAN F. QUINN

11

11 MARK ROSEN

12 Attorney for General Contractor Association

12

13 LOREN FORREST

13 Attorney for Building Contractor Association

14

14 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO, LLP

15 Attorneys for International Union of Painters

15 BY: JOSEPH KOLICK, JR.

16

16 RAYMOND McGUIRE

17 ELIZABETH O'LEARY

17 Attorneys for Carpenter Fringe Benefit Funds

18

19 REVIEW OFFICER:

20 FITZMAURICE & WALSH

20 BY: DENNIS WALSH

21

21 MINTZ LEVIN

22 BY: BRIDGET ROHDE

23

24

25


(212) 805-0300



3

1CK5usaC conference

1 (Case called)

2 THE COURT: So, this is one of our regularly scheduled

3 status sessions. Here are the issues that I would like to hear

4 about and then if there is time after that, if there is

5 anything else that people want to talk about, but I would like

6 to hear about the -- let me just list them: The elections. If

7 there is anything new to stay about the bylaws. I would also

8 like to hear about the status of the collective bargaining

9 agreements and if there is also anything, no. four, about the

10 restructuring. And then, Mr. Walsh, I want to hear about the,

11 what you put in -- something that you included in your third

12 interim report dated December 5, 2011 which you mentioned that

13 your office was investigating -- this is a quote from that

14 report, the suspected involvement of members of local unions

15 affiliated with the district council with a new union. We will

16 call that, for want of a better phrase, the amalgamated union,

17 and anybody who wishes to be heard on that subject.

18 So, I wouldn't mind proceeding, if it is okay with

19 you, in that order, and ask everybody who is going to speak, if20 you could mention your name first so that the court reporter is

21 sure to know who is speaking.

22 I will turn to Mr. Walsh first.

23 MR. WALSH: Good morning, your Honor. Dennis Walsh,

24 the review officer.

25 THE COURT: Nice to see you.


(212) 805-0300



4

1CK5usaC conference

1 MR. WALSH: Nice to see you, your Honor.

2 With respect to the election, the election is

3 concluded. The newly elected delegates voted for the ward

4 conductor and three trustees on December 15th and the mail-in

5 balloting for EST and president and vice president was tallied

6 on December 16th. I have a copy of the official tally sheet

7 for the executive positions, EST vice president, and president,

8 and I will hand that up with the Court's consent.

9 THE COURT: Sure.

10 Tell us, if you would, whether you had a good turnout

11 for this election.

12 MR. WALSH: My opinion was that it was a very

13 disappointing turnout. It was approximately 25 percent of the

14 mail ballots that were returned to the AAA of over 18,000

15 ballots that were distributed. The tally for EST was for Dan

16 Franco, 1,739 votes, and for Michael Bilello 2,932 votes. For

17 president Bill Lebo got 1,939, Greg Kelty got 1,126 votes, and

18 Paul Tyznar received 1,829 votes. For vice president Byron

19 Schuler received 2,187 votes and Michael Cavanaugh received20 2,678 votes.

21 I intend to certify the results of the election as per

22 the election rules either today or tomorrow and that will be

23 accomplished by giving a signed and certified copy of the tally

24 sheet to the supervisor of the UBC, Frank Spencer.

25 We plan on sticking to the schedule of installing all


(212) 805-0300



5

1CK5usaC conference

1 of the new officers on January 11th, 2012. The transition

2 process has started on both sides. The supervisor's office, I

3 was informed by Mr. Conboy yesterday, has instructed all

4 department heads to write a memo for Mr. Bilello explaining

5 their functions and what current matters are garnering their

6 attention, and I have also received cooperation from both the

7 District Council and the benefit fund including the trustees to

8 meet with Mr. Bilello, Mr. Lebo, and Mr. Cavanaugh to discuss

9 the various functions on both sides of the wall, so to speak.

10 The employer trustees have been in contact with me and have

11 offered to meet as soon as possible with Mr. Bilello who will

12 be a trustee on January 11th and to explain, from their

13 perspective, what the issues confronting the funds are.

14 THE COURT: Would you take a minute -- I'm sure I

15 should know -- but tell us a little bit, I think we have met

16 Mr. Bilello here before but sort of briefly who he is and who

17 Mr. Lebo is and Mr. Cavanaugh, so to speak and what their work

18 experience is if you know it, briefly, and how long they've

19 been members of the union?20 Your Honor, with the Court's indulgence, Mr. Bilello I

21 think can encapsulate what he thinks the salient features of

22 his experience are and I saw that Mr. Lebo is here as well this

23 morning.

24 So, with the Court's permission, I would ask that they

25 speak briefly on their history in the union.


(212) 805-0300



6

1CK5usaC conference

1 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Bilello.

2 MR. BILELLO: Thank you, your Honor. Michael Bilello.

3 THE COURT: And, as I said before, the record can

4 reflect that you have been to many of our conferences and have

5 been an active participant in the past.

6 MR. BILELLO: I have been to all the conferences; yes,

7 your Honor.

8 I have been a member of the union since 1975. I came

9 in as a first year apprentice, completed my apprenticeship. I

10 worked for general contractors. I worked for the dock builders

11 for a brief period of time as a diver and I returned into the

12 building construction end of the trade. I became a foreman and

13 superintendent, then I went on to work as a shop steward out of

14 Local 257 and then Local 157. I ran in the first District

15 Council membership election back in 1995 in opposition to Fred

16 Devine's administration who was duly elected in that election.

17 After they were removed during that trusteeship, I worked in a

18 labor management fund at the District Council and then went on

19 to become a business agent for Local 157 and I was removed from20 that position by the International back in 1999 due to what I

21 believe was my honest activities in cleaning up a lot of the

22 corruption that we all know existed at that time. And after

23 that, I went back to working as a carpenter on my tools and I

24 ran the District Council election in 1999 in opposition to

25 Michael Ford who we all know was indicted in 2010 and --


(212) 805-0300



7

1CK5usaC conference

1 THE COURT: He was convicted.

2 MR. BILELLO: And convicted which brought us to where

3 we are today.

4 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

5 MR. BILELLO: Thank you.

6 THE COURT: Is Mr. Lebo here?

7 You were elected president, Mr. Lebo?

8 MR. LEBO: Yes, your Honor.

9 THE COURT: You also have been to at least several of

10 these Court conferences as well?

11 MR. LEBO: Yes, your Honor.

12 THE COURT: Right.

13 MR. LEBO: I am a six year member of our union and I

14 believe it was 1996 I was vice president of Local 348 which was

15 later merged with Local 531 into Local 45 and that was done

16 against the rule of the membership. In fact, I was a part of

17 three lawsuits, one being the Local 20 case, that Mr. Bisceglie

18 case, and Harkins Lebo v. the UBC. We basically forced the

19 membership's rights to vote, elect their business agents and so20 forth and so on.

21 I also spoke in Congress at a Congressional hearing on

22 the impediments to union democracy in our union and I have been

23 a foreman, super, shop steward. I preferred to be shop steward

24 because I got a chance to protect membership rights. And

25 that's where I have stood my entire career. It has always been


(212) 805-0300



8

1CK5usaC conference

1 about the membership and their rights and I intend to make this

2 a really membership democratic union.

3 THE COURT: Thank you.

4 Is Mr. Cavanaugh here by any chance? No.

5 MR. LEBO: No.

6 THE COURT: Do you know Mr. Cavanaugh?

7 MR. LEBO: Yes.

8 THE COURT: Could you tell just briefly who he is?

9 MR. LEBO: He is a millwright. He is a third

10 generation millwright. He has been the business agent, I

11 believe trustee. I'm not sure of all of his positions in his

12 local, it is I believe a 300-member local, Local 740, and he

13 has always been an outstanding man as far as I'm concerned.

14 THE COURT: So he is going to be vice president and

15 you the president?

16 MR. LEBO: That's correct.

17 THE COURT: Thank you.

18 Anything else on the election? I don't think so. So,

19 let's hear, I think the bylaw issue, is there much to say20 there?

21 MR. WALSH: Judge, I think the bylaws are settled and

22 we have received also a document that is contemplated by the

23 bylaws which are the guidelines for the inspector general's

24 office which were recently submitted and I think are being

25 close to finalized. We have the personnel policy which was


(212) 805-0300



9

1CK5usaC conference

1 attached as an exhibit to the third interim report. So, I

2 think all of those important documents are going to be ready

3 and the bylaws are for use on January 11th when the new regime

4 begins its tenure.

5 With respect to collective bargaining agreement --

6 THE COURT: Before you get to that I just have a

7 thought and I'm not sure that there is, but is there any sort

8 of orientation for Mr. Bilello, Mr. Lebo and Mr. Vice

9 President, formal or informal, so that they move into their new

10 positions as head of this union?

11 MR. WALSH: Yes. We have started the transition

12 process yesterday. Mr. Bilello and Mr. Lebo were at the

13 District Council all day and met first with me and Jack

14 Michelle, my chief investigator, and we informed them of the

15 various things we had contemplated, various meetings that we

16 are going to set up. During the course of the day we received

17 cooperation from Mr. Spencer's office, from various function

18 heads at the District Council, from Mr. Epstein at the benefit

19 funds and from the employer chair of the board of trustees,20 Dave Meadberg who extended invitation to Mr. Bilello to come

21 meet with the employer trustees. He is also going to be

22 attending trustee training along with other newly appointed

23 trustees appointed by the supervisor last week to fill the

24 vacancies on the union side of the board.

25 We have other meetings contemplated, Mr. Bilello has


(212) 805-0300



10

1CK5usaC conference

1 told us that he intends to spend as much time as possible down

2 at the union at the District Council side and the fund side and

3 it would be my hope that the minutia of both operations are

4 given to the new leadership, that he see the investment

5 materials and the statistics with respect to the condition of

6 the various funds, the pension, the welfare, the annuity. It

7 would be my hope that Mr. Bilello also be invited to attend the

8 committee meetings that are scheduled to occur among the

9 trustees before his installation, and if any sort of a

10 confidentiality agreement needed to be prepared I'm sure that

11 Mr. Maguire's office could write that up if the trustees wanted

12 that to be the case.

13 So, it is our intention to facilitate an orderly

14 transition. We have received cooperation from everyone

15 involved through yesterday and I expect that process to

16 continue to get the three new executives up to speed before

17 they're sworn in on January 11th.

18 THE COURT: Great. Thanks.

19 And then you had just about, I think, gone into the20 CBAs; status of the collective bargaining agreements.

21 MR. WALSH: Yes, Judge. I can certainly be corrected

22 by Mr. Quinn or Mr. Conboy if my detail is not up to the

23 minute, but my understanding is as of yesterday there were

24 three collective bargaining agreements that were posted last

25 week on the District Council website, the Floor Coverers, the


(212) 805-0300



11

1CK5usaC conference

1 Wall Ceiling Association and the DCA.

2 THE COURT: Eight.

3 MR. WALSH: Yes. They're very close to posting a

4 fourth in the cement laying agreement and they're optimistic,

5 although I don't want to go through when they might be posted,

6 but they're optimistic that at least two more agreements for a

7 total of six to be posted and certainly the date that I have

8 been informed, the supervisor intends to gather the delegates

9 for a vote on those agreements which have been posted for at

10 least two weeks as of January 5th, 2012.

11 So, right now they are scheduling a vote on collective

12 bargaining agreements that have been posted for at least two

13 weeks as of the date of January 5, 2012.

14 THE COURT: The delegates would vote on them.

15 MR. WALSH: The delegates elected in October from the

16 eight affiliated local unions would be called in and asked to

17 vote on the agreements.

18 I have been told that the supervisor's office intends

19 to have special informational meetings for those delegates.20 THE COURT: In advance, obviously.

21 MR. WALSH: Yes. I would also hope that because I

22 have received requests from rank and file members for

23 information that the supervisor's office give due consideration

24 to having a town hall as quickly as possible so that member

25 questions can be answered about the agreements that have been


(212) 805-0300



12

1CK5usaC conference

1 posted. They are obviously very intricate documents, they have

2 appended to them important wording on the formation of the

3 labor management corporation.

4 THE COURT: Right.

5 MR. WALSH: And this whole concept of full mobility

6 which is contingent upon the delegates understanding it and

7 approving it and being fully versed in how it is going to be

8 policed. And I think it would be an excellent idea if we can

9 get information out to the rank and file member and not just

10 have special sessions for the delegates in that it be

11 conducted -- a town hall be conducted in ample time for the

12 rank and file members to reach out to the delegates to give

13 them their view based on the information that they have gained

14 from the documents being posted on the website and from

15 attending a town hall and being able to ask specific questions.

16 THE COURT: So, there is not much time, really. I

17 don't know when the first vote is going to be but it is already

18 December 20th today.

19 MR. WALSH: No. There is very little time and it20 would have to be put together, frankly, for next week, in my

21 view.

22 THE COURT: How many delegates are there all together

23 that would be voting?

24 MR. WALSH: Right now as a result of the vote review

25 and I have to process we have -- I have been asked by the UBC


(212) 805-0300



13

1CK5usaC conference

1 whether the local union president will be allowed to exercise

2 their interim appointment authority to fill those vacancies and

3 the response has been that if I have sufficient time to perform

4 reviews on persons reported, that since this is a concession

5 from the UBC, that this is not something that the UBC

6 supervisor had a to agree to, that I would agree to those slots

7 being filled by the president to the local unions with the

8 express purpose of gathering with their brother and sister

9 delegates to vote on January 5th. But, my reading of the

10 bylaws thereafter is that if there are vacancies in delegate or

11 executive committee positions, that those vacancies be filled

12 by secret ballot voting which occurs at the local unions.

13 THE COURT: I see.

14 And what is a quorum or who, you know, how many people

15 vote and what is required to approve the agreements?

16 MR. WALSH: Judge, I don't know the answer to that

17 question off the top of my head but I would assume that since

18 it is a matter of great interest that would have close to

19 perfect attendance.20 THE COURT: I see.

21 MR. WALSH: For the session on January 5.

22 THE COURT: So that's actually a voting date, January

23 5?

24 MR. WALSH: Right.

25 THE COURT: So you will have -- it sounds like you


(212) 805-0300



14

1CK5usaC conference

1 will have to absolutely schedule a town hall meeting for next

2 week, I would imagine.

3 MR. WALSH: And if I could facilitate it, I can

4 certainly have a review officer at the town hall next week but

5 I would certainly need the cooperation of the supervisor's

6 office in order to provide the details that the members are

7 obviously going to request at such a meeting.

8 THE COURT: Could we get that through Mr. Conboy? Is

9 that how that would work?

10 MR. WALSH: Mr. Quinn is also here who is actually

11 counsel for the district council so I would ask either one or

12 both if that is something that we could arrange.

13 MR. CONBOY: Kenneth Conboy Latham & Watkins.

14 There won't be any problem with that, Judge. Your

15 Honor, I can't conceive of any issue here so it will be taken

16 care of.

17 THE COURT: So, it is really an information session by

18 people who are conversant with the terms and conditions of

19 agreements and who can explain those to whomever wishes to20 attend the town hall be they rank and file or delegates?

21 MR. CONBOY: Correct.

22 THE COURT: Right. Okay.

23 MR. WALSH: Judge, with respect to the voting --

24 THE COURT: Voting on the CBA.

25 MR. WALSH: -- voting on the CBAs, there is obviously


(212) 805-0300



15

1CK5usaC conference

1 no way of predicting whether they are passed, but if for

2 whatever reason any of the agreements fails to gain a majority

3 of the delegates, there will obviously be very little time,

4 perhaps no time whatsoever to have another vote to fix whatever

5 the delegates fail to approve.

6 THE COURT: Right.

7 MR. WALSH: So, I think this is shaping up as a

8 one-shot occurrence, that if there is no agreement as a result

9 of the delegates rejecting any of the agreements that they will

10 follow up on the new administration to take over the

11 discussions with the contractors.

12 THE COURT: In other words, to renegotiate, as it

13 were.

14 MR. WALSH: Yes. Mr. Bilello's team would have to, on

15 behalf of the District Council members, sit down at the table

16 with the various employer associations.

17 THE COURT: Okay.

18 Anything to bring me up to date with respect to

19 restructuring? Or no.20 MR. WALSH: Judge, there is no update since the last

21 conference that we had.

22 THE COURT: Right.

23 MR. WALSH: I have not been told of any intention to

24 engage in any further restructuring. I will say this, though,

25 that with respect to the newly formed local unions, as I


(212) 805-0300



16

1CK5usaC conference

1 referenced in the third report, it seems that they're all

2 meeting their business responsibilities. Local 1556 continues

3 to administer the unemployment benefits paid for by the

4 assessment taken from member paychecks by the various

5 contractors. The members still are benefitting from the

6 unemployment benefits that flow from that and the life

7 insurance coverage that flows from that. All of the local

8 unions have been conscientious in meeting their paragraph 5B

9 notice obligations. I wish that we could get more members to

10 appear at local union meetings. Perhaps with the resumption of

11 democratic control in New York City we can see an uptick in the

12 level of interest in the part of the rank and file members

13 among the local unions.

14 THE COURT: So, let's turn to this issue of the

15 amalgamated union. I should mention to you that my office, I

16 think -- not I think -- we have received two additional letters

17 which I have not really had a chance to review yet but I think

18 just this morning, and on quick review one indicated that there

19 is some activity before the National Labor Relations Board with20 respect to these matters. But, maybe if you could frame the

21 issue for us and then we will hear if there is anybody here who

22 wants to be heard on that subject we will hear what is going

23 on.

24 MR. WALSH: Judge, I did see that Mr. Bisceglie --

25 MR. FORREST: Loren Forrest for the Building


(212) 805-0300



17

1CK5usaC conference

1 Contractors' Association.

2 Just on one issue, Mr. Walsh. If there is any delay

3 about the January 5th date, as far as we know it is a firm

4 date, is that correct?

5 MR. WALSH: I have been told that's a firm date, your

6 Honor.

7 MR. FORREST: Okay. If there is any delay I would

8 only request, respectfully, that the contractors' associations

9 be notified and that the Court be notified if there is any

10 request on the issue of delaying the January 5th date.

11 MR. WALSH: I can inform everyone gathered here that I

12 have no intention to affect the scheduling of the CBA.

13 THE COURT: You are planning to go forward on January

14 5.

15 MR. WALSH: Unless I am told by the District Council

16 that there is some reason not to have that vote that date that,

17 I assume, is going to be the day of voting.

18 THE COURT: Hold on. Just one at a time.

19 So, Mr. Conboy --20 MR. CONBOY: I just want to confirm, your Honor, that

21 the January 5 date is in fact solid. That's the position of

22 Mr. Spencer, the trustee, and Mr. Quinn confirms that that is

23 the date for the vote.

24 THE COURT: Where does that take place, just for the

25 record?


(212) 805-0300



18

1CK5usaC conference

1 MR. CONBOY: It will be at Hudson Street, Judge.

2 THE COURT: Okay.

3 MR. FORREST: And, your Honor, again, with due respect

4 to both Mr. Conboy and Mr. Walsh, if there is any change in

5 that date we want to be notified.

6 THE COURT: I'm sure everybody would get notified if

7 there are any changes.

8 MR. FORREST: Thank you, your Honor.

9 MR. BILELLO: I can tell you that at a regular meeting

10 of Local 157 that took place last night that the membership put

11 a motion on the floor and directed their delegates to table any

12 vote on the contracts on the night of the 5th or the afternoon

13 of the 5th until they have returned to their local union

14 through a special called meeting to brief everyone at the local

15 on what they were briefed on for the two days, the 4th and.

16 5th. So, they were directed by motion to not vote on the night

17 of the 5th

18 THE COURT: So delegates who followed that directive

19 would not vote -- they would appear.20 MR. BILELLO: They would appear, they would go through

21 the briefing on the 4th and 5th, and they would move to table

22 the vote until they've returned to their membership and advised

23 them on the details of the contract and give them direction by

24 the membership on how they should vote.

25 MR. FORREST: Your Honor, again Loren Forrest for the


(212) 805-0300



19

1CK5usaC conference

1 Building Contractors Association.

2 Our understanding is that the January 5th date, as

3 agreed to as you heard by Mr. Walsh, Mr. Conboy and Mr. Quinn

4 by the international, the union and the review, we don't

5 believe there is any reason, considering that the parties have

6 an agreement in principle for some time, to delay the January

7 5th date.

8 THE COURT: I don't think --

9 MR. FORREST: We --

10 THE COURT: You have heard pretty unanimously that

11 nobody is delaying that date.

12 MR. FORREST: I thought he said they're not going to

13 vote.

14 THE COURT: Well, he said -- what he said was pretty

15 clear to me what he said and so there is no point in litigating

16 the issue today. You will wait until January 5th and see what

17 happens and then we will take the next step but, you know, it

18 is very clear what he just said. I don't know how many

19 delegates that refers to but there is not much really more to20 do on this issue at this time, as I see it. Thanks.

21 MR. FORREST: Thank you, your Honor.

22 THE COURT: So, you were going to bring us up to date

23 on the amalgamated.

24 MR. WALSH: Yes. I also wanted point out for the

25 record that I know Mr. Bisceglie is here today and with the


(212) 805-0300



20

1CK5usaC conference

1 Court's permission, he wanted to join the proceedings. I think

2 now would be an appropriate time.

3 THE COURT: Okay.

4 MR. WALSH: Judge, I wrote, as you know, my letter to

5 the Court for one large, salient reason, and that is the

6 question of whether the consent decree and its permanent

7 injunction against racketeering activity will have any force

8 and effect on the current members and the past members of

9 affiliated local unions of this district council in their new

10 careers as members of the amalgamated union and as employees of

11 the same contractors who are currently honoring holdover

12 agreements with the district council carpenters. And I say

13 this based on the plain language of the permanent injunction

14 against racketeering activity in the consent degree which

15 plainly says all current and future officers, employees and

16 members of the district council and its constituent locals are

17 permanently enjoined -- permanently enjoined -- from committing

18 any act of racketeering activity from knowingly associating

19 with any member or associate of any La Cosa Nostra crime family20 or any other criminal group and from obstructing or otherwise

21 improperly interfering with the work of the officers described

22 in the consent degree.

23 And I posed an essential question in my letter and I

24 have a view as to what the answer is, that it would be a prima

25 facie frustration of the consent decree of the Court's


(212) 805-0300



21

1CK5usaC conference

1 authority and the purpose of the parties in implementing a

2 consent decree and its benefit not only to the members but to

3 the employers and to society in general if 20,000 members of

4 the carpenters' union could simply resign their membership in

5 the carpenters' union and resume their very same work as

6 members of new union without the strictures of the federal

7 court order.

8 THE COURT: So you are saying that it is your view

9 that they could not get out from under the Court proceeding and

10 consent decree by forming a new union, so they would be bound,

11 it is your position, by the same terms and issues that

12 currently --

13 MR. WALSH: I can certainly let the government

14 articulate its position, but in my view as a policy matter that

15 it would single-handedly kill the efforts of the United States

16 Justice Department to engage in continued civil RICO cases that

17 culminate in consent decrees if members who simply don't want

18 to be bound by the strictures of the Court order simply pack up

19 and leave.20 THE COURT: You mean incorporate, so to speak.

21 MR. WALSH: As far as I know that is the intention of

22 the current members. Some of them are fiduciaries of local

23 unions, some of them have been elected to fiduciary positions

24 of the District Council who are involved in soliciting current

25 members of the District Council of Carpenters. We have


(212) 805-0300



22

1CK5usaC conference

1 received information that as part of the petition drive members

2 have not been given adequate information about what they're

3 actually signing. We received a call last week from a member

4 who said he had been told by members that they wanted to take

5 their names off of petitions once they realized what they had

6 signed, that they had no intention of leaving the carpenters'

7 union, and I think that that raises the issue of whether

8 adequate information is even being given to current members of

9 the carpenters' union, whether they want to leave the

10 carpenters' union which has a pension fund in the green zone to

11 go to a union which does not give pension benefits, which has

12 one of the best medical plans in the industry to a union that

13 has not given any particular assistance or medical coverage

14 available.

15 But I do not stand before this Court or tell any

16 person who wants to go to the amalgamated that they can't do

17 it. I am not arguing that they should be restricted from

18 leaving the carpenters' union because they have political

19 issues with Mr. McCarron. That's their choice. And if they20 can explain to their families why it is better, in their view,

21 to leave the carpenters' union and go to a new union, I think

22 that's their right.

23 But what I seek an answer to, and Mr. Bisceglie can

24 certainly help me understand his view on this as to whether

25 there is going to be any continued applicability of the consent


(212) 805-0300



23

1CK5usaC conference

1 decree and the permanent injunction against racketeering

2 activity which, in my view, applies to every person who has

3 been a member of the carpenters' union from the spring of 1994

4 through this day.

5 THE COURT: Mr. Bisceglie, are you here?

6 MR. BISCEGLIE: Yes, your Honor.

7 THE COURT: Did you want to comment? I think you

8 wrote me a few weeks ago wanting to have a conference with the

9 Court on a different matter.

10 MR. BISCEGLIE: Thank you, Judge.

11 THE COURT: Is that right? That was you who wrote?

12 MR. BISCEGLIE: Yes, I did, and Mr. Kolick, the

13 general counsel for the painters, also wrote a letter to your

14 Honor and he is here also to address the Court.

15 THE COURT: Okay.

16 MR. BISCEGLIE: Mr. Walsh is correct. We are

17 presently before the NLRB and there is a Louis Nikolidas who

18 works with Dan Clifton and his firm, they're handling the ARB

19 election on behalf of the election on behalf of the amalgamated20 and he is here today to address the Court.

21 THE COURT: So you are before the NLRB at this time?

22 MR. BISCEGLIE: Yes, your Honor; and we have

23 petitioned for an election. We originally thought it would be

24 employer by employer but it appears it may be industry-wide.

25 So, it is under the direct supervision of the National Labor


(212) 805-0300



24

1CK5usaC conference

1 Relations Board. And Mr. Walsh's letter initially provided a

2 blocking charge with respect to proceeding but we have a

3 conference, I believe, with the National Labor Relations Board

4 this Thursday to proceed with procedural questions on the

5 election.

6 Simply put, Judge, this is an effort by a number of

7 rank and file dock builders who are fed up with Mr. McCarron's

8 policies. They're frustrated. They feel like they've lost

9 their identity. They feel like they've lost their democratic

10 rights within the union and, consistent with the National Labor

11 Relations Act, they're merely exercising their right under the

12 law to elect a union of their choice. And it is going to be

13 supervised by federal agency, Judge. They'll have three

14 choices to either go with the amalgamated carpenters, stay with

15 District Council or to go non-union.

16 THE COURT: Or to go what?

17 MR. BISCEGLIE: Non-union, Judge.

18 So, to use Mr. Walsh's analysis, hypothetically if the

19 members elect to go non-union and Mr. Walsh is arguing that the20 consent decree follows the members into a company to

21 supervise --

22 THE COURT: The first question was whether the consent

23 decree follows to this new union.

24 MR. BISCEGLIE: You know, Judge, I don't believe it

25 does. Mr. Kolick will speak more on it but I don't believe it


(212) 805-0300



25

1CK5usaC conference

1 does.

2 THE COURT: Why wouldn't it?

3 MR. BISCEGLIE: Because it is an agreement, the way I

4 read it, your Honor -- I haven't seen it for a while but my

5 recollection is it is an agreement between District Council,

6 local unions and the government, not between individual rank

7 and file members, Judge.

8 THE COURT: Well --

9 MR. BISCEGLIE: I mean, hypothetically if you called

10 it the shop local, I mean if the rank and file members elected

11 to certify from the carpenters' union and form a totally

12 different named union, I can't imagine the consent decree

13 following that individual.

14 THE COURT: You can't.

15 MR. BISCEGLIE: I cannot, Judge. No.

16 THE COURT: What legal authority would you cite?

17 MR. BISCEGLIE: I haven't researched the issue, your

18 Honor, but on the face of the consent decree I don't believe it

19 does because they are not local union affiliated with the20 District Council -- not the District Council but the

21 individual --

22 THE COURT: Do you believe you could get out from

23 under the anti-racketeering provisions and all of this

24 apparatus just by saying we're no longer in that union, we are

25 now in XYZ union and so can we now engage in racketeering


(212) 805-0300



26

1CK5usaC conference

1 activities?

2 MR. BISCEGLIE: Well, I think that's a very important

3 aspect and just by way of background, your Honor, we signed an

4 affiliation agreement with the international painters union.

5 We have the support of 12 general presidents in Washington,

6 D.C. We have the support of the president of the AFL-CIO in

7 what we are doing. We realize the importance of keeping a

8 clean-running union. The painters share in that. And what we

9 have done is we have created a team of individuals, both dock

10 builders and members of the painters international union, in

11 putting this union forward. This is a movement against

12 Mr. McCarron over all over the country, it is not unique to New

13 York City. We have it going on in Rochester as we speak, in

14 Albany, in Atlanta, Georgia, in other places in the United

15 States. And I think what we have is we have -- we have a team

16 of attorneys when we have Dan Clinton and Nikolidas, we have

17 Warren Borish who is an --

18 THE COURT: Would you spell that for the record?

19 MR. BISCEGLIE: B-O-R-I-S-H, out of Philadelphia who20 he is an ERISA expert who is working with us, Joe Kolick who is

21 here today, general counsel of the painters union, an expert in

22 labor law who is also working with us, and we have the general

23 president -- we have the assistant to the general president of

24 the painters' union Jim Williams, Jr. who is director of

25 organizing and we have a subcommittee of the dock builders.


(212) 805-0300



27

1CK5usaC conference

1 So, there is nothing that is decided that goes outside

2 the subcommittee and the host of advisors working with us very

3 closely in getting this union off the ground getting elections

4 to go forth.

5 So, that's my position, your Honor.

6 THE COURT: Anybody else?

7 MR. BISCEGLIE: One other thing, your Honor.

8 Mr. Walsh mentions in his letter a number of

9 individuals and I just want to note for the record,

10 Mr. Ficorotta, Mr. Arzana, John Harkin --

11 THE COURT: If you could spell these names? I'm not

12 familiar with them and I'm sure that the reporter isn't.

13 MR. BISCEGLIE: The first name is F-I-C-O-R-O-T-T-A,

14 the second name is A-R-Z-A-N-A, and the next name is Harkins,

15 H-A-R-K-I-N, and Charles H-A-R-K-I-N.

16 None of these individuals are involved in any way

17 shape or form with the amalgamated dock builders, contrary to

18 what Mr. Walsh suggested in lis letter. Mr. Holt and

19 Mr. Boston are here in the Court today and they'll address the20 Court separately, your Honor.

21 Thank you.

22 THE COURT: Before we hear from you, Mr. Walsh, there

23 is somebody else who wants to be heard who I am not sure I have

24 heard before.

25 MR. KOLICK: Good morning, your Honor. My name is


(212) 805-0300



28

1CK5usaC conference

1 Joseph Kolick, attorney for the law firm of Dickstein Shapiro.

2 I'm a member of the District of Columbia bar. With the Court's

3 permission, I will address the Court in this matter.

4 I am counsel to the International Union of Painters

5 and Allied Trades which has entered into an affiliation

6 arrangement to provide support to the Amalgamated Carpenters

7 and Joiners Union. I submitted a letter to the Court for one

8 principal purpose and I think that purpose is no longer

9 necessary. I wasn't sure where the review officer was coming

10 from but our main point -- and I was gratified to hear the

11 review officer say, we think there should be no interference

12 with the workings of the National Labor Relations Board

13 election proceedings. Under those proceedings all workers have

14 the right to form, join and assist any labor union and they

15 have the right to a secret ballot vote upon proper petition to

16 select which union they want to be represented by. That's what

17 is going on at the NLRB. Mr. Nikolidas is handling that

18 proceeding and he will be happy to answer any of the Court's

19 questions.20 With respect to one other minor issue, in my view, for

21 this Court that Mr. Walsh raised which is whether rank and file

22 dock builders being solicited to vote for one union or another

23 are receiving adequate information. That I would suggest, your

24 Honor, is within the exclusive, primary jurisdiction in the

25 National Labor Relations Board. It has exclusive jurisdiction


(212) 805-0300



29

1CK5usaC conference

1 to conduct representation proceedings and it has exclusive

2 jurisdiction over unfair labor practice charges that the

3 District Council of Carpenters took Mr. Walsh's letter to this

4 Court, they attached it to an unfair labor practice form and

5 they filed an unfair labor practice with the National Labor

6 Relations Board and they asked the board to hold the election

7 in abeyance while that was investigated.

8 Now, that is the primary thing we don't want to

9 happen. These employees should be entitled to a quick secret

10 ballot election supervised by the board.

11 THE COURT: You just said that that proceeding is in

12 the province of NLRB and I'm sure they'll know how to deal with

13 whatever people want to submit to them.

14 MR. KOLICK: Exactly, your Honor. Exactly your Honor.

15 THE COURT: It doesn't sound like such a big deal to

16 me.

17 Do you have a view as to Mr. Walsh's primary

18 contention that the anti-racketeering provisions that now

19 govern here would apply to this new group or not?20 MR. KOLICK: I do not, your Honor, except to say --

21 THE COURT: Do not have a view or do not think --

22 MR. KOLICK: I do not have a view that I'm prepared to

23 articulate today except to say -- because I haven't studied the

24 consent decree, I haven't done any research on the issue -- but

25 it strikes me that that is an issue for another day. If the


(212) 805-0300



30

1CK5usaC conference

1 dock builders win the election and they're certified as the new

2 representative, they'll elect officers and they'll negotiate

3 contracts, those contracts will be subject to ratification by

4 the members, and if the review officer or the United States

5 Attorney's office wants to take the position that those people

6 as former members of the Carpenters' District Council continue

7 to be bound by the consent order, they can bring the issue

8 before the Court at that time. It seems to me it is wildly

9 premature at this time.

10 THE COURT: And why is it premature?

11 MR. KOLICK: Because there is no allegation that

12 anyone in the dock builders did anything inconsistent with the

13 consent decree.

14 THE COURT: That's not his point. His point is

15 whether they're bound by it, not whether you do something

16 inconsistent on not.

17 MR. KOLICK: It seems to me the people who are

18 identified -- without benefit of the research, the people who

19 are identified in the consent decree are the people bound by20 it.

21 If, say, the election petition were filed by the auto

22 workers and the employees voted to be represented by the auto

23 workers and they all joined the auto workers, I think it is

24 clear in that circumstance that they no longer be bound,

25 they're no longer members.


(212) 805-0300



31

1CK5usaC conference

1 THE COURT: I would say finish the research before we

2 speculate as to whether or not you think they are bound. So,

3 you said you need to do more research on the subject. I think

4 that --

5 MR. KOLICK: I agree, your Honor. That was my point

6 that it is premature at this point.

7 THE COURT: Okay.

8 MR. KOLICK: Your Honor, if the Court would like to

9 hear from him, one of the principal rank and file organizers of

10 the dock builders' local is here in the courtroom.

11 THE COURT: Well, maybe at the end. Usually we hear

12 from rank and file toward the end of the session. I would like

13 to hear from the government on this same subject.

14 MR. KOLICK: Thank you, your Honor.

15 THE COURT: Thanks very much.

16 MS. LaMORTE: Good morning, your Honor. Assistant

17 United States Attorney Tara LaMorte for the United States.

18 Your Honor, the government very much shares the same

19 concern and the position that has been expressed by Mr. Walsh20 today. It seems apparent to us that one cannot avoid the

21 obligations and the injunctions contained in the consent decree

22 simply by leaving and joining a new union that does the same

23 work with the same employers.

24 The only other thing I think that we would add is that

25 notwithstanding what is occurring at the National Labor


(212) 805-0300



32

1CK5usaC conference

1 Relations Board, we believe that this Court and the parties

2 here have an independent obligation to ensure that the Court's

3 orders aren't being interfered with or obstructed.

4 THE COURT: And how, specifically, do you think that

5 that comes about? I mean, I hear you, I have heard Mr. Walsh

6 and also counsel who I hadn't heard before. Is there a doable

7 proposition before the Court at this time or just we are

8 watching the situation unfold?

9 MS. LaMORTE: For the government's perspective I

10 believe that we are closely monitoring the situation and

11 watching it unfold. I understand Mr. Walsh can speak more to

12 this or perhaps the UBC, that there are allegations that

13 members are being told that the consent decree would not apply

14 to amalgamated and that is of particular concern for the

15 government. I'm not sure if there is anything concrete that

16 can be done right now but I do believe it is incumbent to

17 continue to closely watch the situation.

18 THE COURT: And by the way, if anybody thought the

19 latter let's just say, would that be something that would be20 presented to the National Labor Relations Board in considering

21 this in the union? Or not.

22 MS. LaMORTE: I'm not quite sure of your question.

23 THE COURT: Well, I'm saying you just said that people

24 are being told that the consent decree does not apply to the

25 new union. Is that in fact an issue that is germane to the


(212) 805-0300



33

1CK5usaC conference

1 proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board and, if

2 so, who would bring it to their attention?

3 MS. LaMORTE: With all due respect, your Honor, I

4 don't believe I'm the best person to answer that question.

5 I honestly do not know. I think perhaps the UBC or

6 Mr. Quinn might be in a better position to address whether they

7 have in fact raised that with the NLRB or if that is something

8 that can be raised.

9 THE COURT: Mr. Walsh, do you want to comment on that?

10 MR. WALSH: Your Honor, at some point this is going to

11 come to a head because I can tell everyone that my position is

12 I have been granted authority by the Southern District of New

13 York, this bench, to ensure compliance with the injunction set

14 forth in the consent decree. And if I am presented with any

15 evidence whatsoever of a reasonable suspicion of conduct which

16 violates the Court's injunction committed by any past or

17 present member of the District Council of Carpenters, I will

18 investigate it. And if I find that the injunction has been

19 violated, I will initiate contempt proceedings in the District20 Court. And if I need to ask the Court for authorization to

21 subpoena parties for their testimony and their documents, I

22 will do that.

23 So, everyone can understand what my position is going

24 to be up front.

25 I can also tell the Court that we have taken a


(212) 805-0300



34

1CK5usaC conference

1 preliminary look at the case law under the All Writs Act, much

2 of if made by Judge Edelstein, and certainly going back to the

3 Supreme Court's decision in United States v. New York Telephone

4 back in 1977 that said that the All Writs Act empowers the

5 Court to issue extraordinary writs as may be necessary or

6 appropriate to effectuate and prevent the frustration of orders

7 it has previously issued." And I will certainly move this

8 Court for an order under the All Writs Act if I find any

9 evidence, certainly a reasonable suspicion of evidence that a

10 permanent injunction issued by this Supreme Court being

11 violated.

12 THE COURT: Got it. Is that generally the

13 government's position as well?

14 MS. LaMORTE: Yes, your Honor. That is the

15 government's position.

16 THE COURT: Okay. All right.

17 MR. QUINN: Good morning, your Honor. Brian Quinn for

18 the District Council.

19 Just to follow up on what has been said already with20 the National Labor Relations Board; upon Mr. Walsh's letter

21 that was filed with the court concerning amalgamated, they

22 filed for unfair labor practices, two in Brooklyn and two in

23 Newark with respect to alleged violations of the Act under

24 Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. That was based upon information

25 that the District Council has and things mentioned in


(212) 805-0300



35

1CK5usaC conference

1 Mr. Walsh's letter about what members are being told vis-a-vis

2 the consent decree that they were part -- that the consent

3 decree would not --

4 THE COURT: They were told that.

5 MR. QUINN: In the charges alleged, your Honor,

6 violations of alleged violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the

7 National Labor Relations Act, among the evidence that is being

8 put forward by the District Council is that members of 1556 are

9 being told that if they come over to amalgamated the consent

10 decree is not going to apply. The region in Brooklyn has begun

11 investigation of at least one of those charges and the

12 petitions that were filed by amalgamated are being consolidated

13 in the Newark office and there are hearings scheduled for this

14 Thursday with respect to those petitions. On the other hand,

15 the investigation into the unfair labor practices is continuing

16 at this point.

17 THE COURT: I got it. Okay. All right. I think I

18 have got the picture on the subject.

19 So, anybody else on this side of the audience needs to20 be heard on any other issues? If not, we will spend a brief

21 amount of time hearing from any of the members who wish to be

22 heard.

23 Quickly and briefly.

24 MR. ARANA: Thank you.

25 THE COURT: You have to spell your name and speak


(212) 805-0300



36

1CK5usaC conference

1 slowly.

2 MR. ARANA: A-R-A-N-A, first name Donnie.

3 I'm a New York City District Council member, I'm an

4 active member in good standing and one of the -- you know, this

5 amalgamated union, you know, just I want to speak quickly on

6 that, that the consent decree is a big thing that everybody

7 seems to be concerned about if it is going to be followed by

8 them or not. And the other gentleman spoke and he says that

9 they want a quick election and it is really not relevant if the

10 consent decree follows over and the reason why I think it is

11 relevant and it is very, very relevant is because the members

12 that are going to run for those positions to run the

13 amalgamated union, if that consent decree follows over, that's

14 going to stop certain members from running for those high

15 positions because they know the consent decree will be there

16 which is the watchdog for the Carpenters' Union. And anybody

17 affiliated with racketeering or, you know, in general the mob,

18 is not going to take on that position to run that new

19 amalgamated union if that consent decree is in place.20 THE COURT: So are you saying by, if I rephrase that,

21 as Mr. Walsh is saying, someone who would not, for example, be

22 permitted to be an officer under the current regime, Mr. Walsh,

23 you're saying could also -- and I think you're saying could

24 also -- not be an officer in this new regime. Is that

25 essentially it?


(212) 805-0300



37

1CK5usaC conference

1 MR. ARANA: Absolutely.

2 THE COURT: Is that your view too, Mr. Walsh?

3 MR. WALSH: Judge, I mean, a legalistic response is

4 that every case turns on its facts.

5 THE COURT: Fair enough. Fair enough.

6 MR. ARANA: So, you know, it is very important and

7 very relevant to determine if this consent decree follows or

8 not before there are any elections are to be heard because if

9 the consent decree does follow, which I believe as a New York

10 City District Council member that this consent decree should

11 follow because it is just like saying I own ABC Corporation and

12 I'm under these government watchdogs and all I can do is change

13 the names to CDEF and I'm relieved of all obligations and

14 responsibilities to the watchdog, that seems to be what is

15 taking place here and if the consent decree does not follow

16 over, the mob is going to look at this union as a big fat cake

17 and they're going to want to get their hands all over it.

18 THE COURT: I got it. Okay. Thanks very much.

19 MR. CLARK: Good morning, your Honor. Gene Clark.20 First I would like to speak quickly on the election.

21 The election was, to me, unfairly run, and the membership felt

22 it was unfairly run and what we have to do is lay out the

23 facts.

24 The first thing I objected to with the election was

25 the 250 names. Then night of nominations 66 and two thirds


(212) 805-0300



38

1CK5usaC conference

1 percent of those running for EST were taken out, they weren't

2 allowed to run. As a result there was a two man race -- a

3 friend of Dennis Walsh, a friend of mine, a friend of Spencer

4 but that is what was left. A weak candidate and a strong

5 candidate. The strong candidate being Michael Bilello, he had

6 the edge. The other fellow, Dan, no one hardly knew him.

7 Then we had the form A, the form I requested from

8 Mr. Walsh that I be allowed to question. We had paid $65,000

9 for the form, 200 people showed up, and not one member ever got

10 a question at the candidates. It was, why bother? It was like

11 being in Russia again. You're running against Mickey Mouse and

12 that is the way this election was set up. And I really feel

13 that election should be thrown out completely because of 66

14 percent of the candidates on the EST phoned right out. That's

15 ridiculous. Why bother having an election? And the night that

16 it was done was night of nominations. The 66 percent was

17 removed. Where could a new guy come and run? He should have

18 done that weeks before.

19 THE COURT: I got it.20 MR. CLARK: Instead he let it go until that night when

21 you and I both know no new guy could run for office because

22 where was he going to get 250 names?

23 THE COURT: Okay. I got it. Thanks, Mr. Clark.

24 MR. CLARK: Now, I would like to give you a little

25 insight on what just took place.


(212) 805-0300



39

1CK5usaC conference

1 The reason why we have pigs at the trough, as usual,

2 is because McCarron and Trump are at each other's throat for

3 power. This is a power struggle, nothing else. And the

4 membership don't even count, they don't even rate in this.

5 This is the money pile, this is what it is all about. I have

6 here statistics which I'm going to give over to you, you read

7 them and you feel embarrassed as I do. Money is still moving.

8 People that are wrong are still in office there.

9 When Mr. Walsh came into the RO position he came in

10 with a half-loaded gun. We are just getting now at the green

11 card three years after extortion was used against the

12 membership of this union and part of that co-conspiracy was

13 Doug McCarron in Washington who ignored letters from the

14 membership saying you can't raise it to 500. He could care

15 less. That was his drug addict ERO just standing there, Mike

16 Ford.

17 We have been robbed long enough and we don't need a

18 civil RICO, we need a criminal RICO and we have got to get it

19 quick to get this thing over with or we won't have a union.20 And also, if this is allowed, this new union, where

21 would the contributions for our pensioneers come from? They

22 would be denied that money. We cannot allow this to happen.

23 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

24 MR. CLARK: I am going to leave this with you. You

25 puke.


(212) 805-0300



40

1CK5usaC conference

1 THE COURT: Next. We will make this submission a

2 Court Exhibit A to this proceeding.

3 MR. MAROWSKI: Good morning, your Honor. There is

4 three things I want to touch on this will take a few minutes.

5 The mobility issue. I had spoken here before about

6 the contempt remedy that was taken care of. We have been

7 living under that contempt for well near a dozen years. To

8 further injure us with the implementation of form ability that

9 way we never got a chance to lick our wounds, that's the issue

10 on mobility. Judge Haight actually said R & S carpenters were

11 injured because of it so if it is continued the wound is just

12 opened again.

13 Local 157 meeting last night. I want to quote the new

14 EST Michael Bilello. He pointed out that it is very important

15 for us, the members who show at these meetings -- last night

16 was one of the most populated meetings I have seen in a long

17 while, maybe because it was Christmastime party, food, etc.,

18 and members knew that the contract was available and up for

19 discussion but it is up to those representative members that20 showed up to carry the day and every one of those people in

21 that room last night were dead set against this issue. The

22 problem is here our delegates will not take that message to

23 council. When they execute their vote they're going to do it

24 the way they want to, not what the member desires.

25 The third issue I want to put forward to you is I was


(212) 805-0300



41

1CK5usaC conference

1 given, by our recording secretary this morning, a motion that

2 was passed at last night's meeting. It has to do with the blue

3 card assessments; to abolish them, to make it ago away, to end

4 this controversy once and for all. The only person that didn't

5 receive a copy of this so far was the U.S. Attorney

6 Mr. Torrance but everybody else has been copied on it, so I

7 have two copies here and I would like to hand them up.

8 THE COURT: One for the U.S. Attorney?

9 MR. MAROWSKI: I have one for the U.S. Attorney that

10 she didn't get yet and everybody else will be copied.

11 THE COURT: We will make that Court Exhibit B.

12 Thanks.

13 MR. MAROWSKI: Thank you.

14 THE COURT: Next speaker.

15 MR. FRANCO: Good morning, your Honor. Dan Franco,

16 F-R-A-N-C-O, Local 157.

17 As some of the members are speaking about as Mike did,

18 we made a motion last night to tell the delegates that they

19 have to come back to us for further instruction after they20 discussed the contracts on the 4th and the 5th. Now, I see it

21 that that is what they have to do because we made that motion

22 and now they're bound by it but we have some of our delegates

23 saying they're going to vote the way they're going to vote.

24 But, I think it is exceptionally important that our delegates

25 come back to us first for further instruction because we are


(212) 805-0300



42

1CK5usaC conference

1 going to be living by this, we are going to be working under

2 these agreements. We don't have them all, we only have three

3 of them, as far as I know, that we are going to be working

4 under these for the next five years. So, it is absolutely

5 important to me and many members that we get to discuss these

6 contracts, tell them about changes that we might want to have

7 and tell them how to vote on it.

8 This brings me to: Why must we have a vote on January

9 5th? Why must that happen before the new officers are

10 installed? Why can't we continue to hold off on these

11 contracts -- as we have been for the last several months --

12 until our new officers get installed, until members have a

13 chance to review these contracts and talk to our delegates?

14 What is the UBC trying to do to us? Why are they trying to

15 make this happen before we have a chance to really review it?

16 THE COURT: That is a fair question. We will ask them

17 in a minute.

18 MR. FRANCO: As far as I heard this morning, basically

19 Spencer said it was a firm date for January 5th for these20 contracts to be voted on? I just need everybody here to

21 question that. I would like to have, if possible, anyone that

22 thinks it is a firm date or wants it to be a firm date to

23 explain their position on that and why we can't continue to

24 hold off just for a few more weeks and have the date set back

25 until after we have talked to our delegates.


(212) 805-0300



43

1CK5usaC conference

1 Now, there is one more thing I just want to clarify,

2 that when there is vacancies that occur in any elective office

3 of a local union or in the position of delegate to council from

4 the local union, the president of the local union may appoint a

5 qualified member to fill a vacancy pro tem until such time as

6 an election is held to fill the vacancy. That's our UBC

7 constitution. If the consent decree modifies that to some

8 degree I don't understand this at this time but as far a know

9 that is our right at this time.

10 And the last thing is the blue card. I have been told

11 that the working dues assessment, which really is a fine and it

12 was originally a fine of $250 and they changed the wording on

13 it to forego bringing us a home charge and then finding us

14 guilty and then applying the fine, they changed the rules and

15 they call it a working dues assessment so they can just

16 automatically charge us that. I find that to be a violation of

17 the LMRDA where the press is to force us to do a mandatory

18 voluntary day of union duty. And for them to force us to do

19 that, I think, is a violation of the LMRDA and to fine us more20 than $300. And it is a fine and a working dues assessment but

21 the lawyers have worked it to get around that wording so that

22 they don't have to charge us first and they can automatically

23 deduct it from our vacation pay.

24 And we were sent a series of these blue cards which

25 updated the wording of our former vacation assessments and I


(212) 805-0300



44

1CK5usaC conference

1 still have my three blue cards that I was sent and I refuse to

2 sign these because I knew right away they were a form of

3 extortion and they could take whatever they wanted from us at

4 any time.

5 So, I just wanted to update you on that. Thank you.

6 THE COURT: Thanks.

7 Before we hear from the next speaker, why does this

8 January 5 date need to be set in stone? If I remember

9 correctly, Judge Conboy, originally you had thought that the

10 agreements were going to be posted earlier than they in fact

11 were. I think you had originally thought around November 18.

12 So, that would have given people more time to review and study

13 them and so -- and it is also true that there can, at the

14 earliest, be a town hall discussion and meeting about these

15 agreements, those three or however many have been signed so

16 far, until at the earliest next week. And then you have

17 Christmas holidays are coming up and then you have the New Year

18 holidays. It does seem that January 5 is awfully close in

19 terms of what, I imagine, is the complexity of these agreements20 to review them.

21 MR. CONBOY: Judge, I just want to make two points.

22 First of all, the trustee who negotiated these contracts has

23 now a legal obligation with these contractor associations to

24 carry through and seek approval on what has been an

25 extraordinarily challenging and difficult process.


(212) 805-0300



45

1CK5usaC conference

1 THE COURT: Nobody is suggesting anything contrary to

2 that.

3 MR. CONBOY: Well, let me just try to speak further to

4 it.

5 THE COURT: Right.

6 MR. CONBOY: The second point is that the

7 international president made the initial proposal to the United

8 States Attorney, to Mr. Walsh, and ultimately to you that these

9 collective bargaining agreements should focus on and achieve a

10 radical and crucial reform in terms of any corruption problems.

11 We have heard a great deal on the consent decree this morning

12 and what these years of oversight have meant and the key

13 language in the undertaking to bring full mobility to a

14 successful conclusion was the phrase good faith negotiations.

15 Judge Haight made it very clear in terms of his order that all

16 he was expecting was a good faith effort to achieve the reforms

17 that, in our view, are the single most important issue to the

18 rank and file and that issue is that these benefit funds be

19 protected going forward against disaster that occurred under20 Michael Ford.

21 Now, these delegates are elected delegates. Whether

22 or not they have an obligation to respond to their constituents

23 and have their constituents rigidly control their vote, that's

24 an issue that will be resolved by the delegates themselves.

25 These contracts are finished, we have full expectation that


(212) 805-0300



46

1CK5usaC conference

1 there are going to be three additional contracts posted by the

2 end of the week, there is going to be a comprehensive effort

3 made that everybody should understand the substance of these

4 agreements. If there is an inadequate basis of knowledge those

5 delegates for whom the District Council and the trustee have

6 immense respect, they can decide completed CBAs whether or not

7 they should be ratified now and not punted into some kind of

8 amorphous political process. None of us can see the end of

9 that.

10 THE COURT: Well, that's not what I had in mind. I'm

11 just thinking that you are talking about a vote on January 5 --

12 just as an observer -- on agreements some of which are not

13 ratified or concluded at this point and you're talking about

14 two holidays in between. It is kind of hard to imagine doing

15 anything in that short time frame. I'm just not hearing from

16 you -- I agree with everything you said philosophically, but I

17 don't know why January 5th, in and of itself, must be the date.

18 MR. CONBOY: Well, Judge --

19 THE COURT: Hold on a second. That you have been at20 these agreements now as long as I have been here and they keep

21 taking longer and longer because they're complex and important

22 documents so one would be hard pressed, if you were a stranger

23 to this proceeding and you were just called in today and I said

24 to you, Mr. Conboy, would you, by January 5th, give me your

25 opinion as to these agreements, just wondering why it has to be


(212) 805-0300



47

1CK5usaC conference

1 January 5, and particularly since the majority of these

2 agreements are not yet executed.

3 MR. CONBOY: Well --

4 THE COURT: As opposed to January 25 or 15 or some

5 other time that people might have more opportunity to study

6 them.

7 MR. CONBOY: Your Honor, I firmly believe that if

8 there is an inadequate basis on which to vote on the 5th of

9 January these delegates will express their view. I will point

10 out that the delegates have been consistently part of the

11 process in negotiating these agreements. If the Court would

12 intervene --

13 THE COURT: I'm not intervening. I'm giving you an

14 observation which seems -- by the way -- to be common sense.

15 MR. CONBOY: Well, Judge --

16 THE COURT: It doesn't seem to be anything legal. I'm

17 thinking today is, you know, the week before the Christmas

18 holiday and then next week is the week before the New Year's

19 holiday and you're telling me that five agreements are not even20 executed and they will be posted when they're executed and then

21 they'll be voted on by January 5 and it does seem like a

22 stretch, frankly, in a common sense way -- not in a

23 philosophical way, not in a legal way, just in a common sense

24 way. And I promise you that most lawyers sitting in this room,

25 if they faced a deadline like that, would likely write me a


(212) 805-0300



48

1CK5usaC conference

1 letter and say: Judge, can we have two more weeks?

2 [Applause]

3 THE COURT: Hold it, will you?

4 MR. CONBOY: Judge, may I respectfully remind the

5 Court that everybody at these tables agreed that two weeks to

6 review these documents and consult with the clients was

7 adequate? This is --

8 THE COURT: Some of the documents are not done yet.

9 MR. CONBOY: Judge, there are not going to be any

10 voting on anything that has not been posted for the two weeks

11 that were agreed to by the Court and by everybody else. These

12 negotiators have included very difficult negotiations that have

13 taken months and I do think that closure on that effort,

14 consistent with Judge Haight's order is essential, and that if

15 the delegates themselves do not feel suitably informed, they

16 can table it. That's what we understand.

17 So, I just want to reiterate that it is the position

18 of the trustee that the immensely difficult work of all of the

19 these months that it be allowed to come to a conclusion on the20 5th of January with the understanding, obviously, that these

21 delegates who are empowered under the constitution and, indeed,

22 all of the assumptions that we have made in the course of

23 trying to come positively to the end of this trusteeship, that

24 they have the chance to vote on the 5th, they will have the

25 language in these documents available for two weeks, they will


(212) 805-0300



49

1CK5usaC conference

1 have had the chance to consult, there will be as, Mr. Walsh

2 suggested, a town hall. Let us see what occurs on the 5th of

3 January.

4 THE COURT: All I would say to you is that I would

5 like you to go back over your notes and the transcripts of

6 these proceedings as to dates that you indicated earlier when

7 all these documents would be -- you didn't know for sure but

8 you estimated would be executed and posted and they were long

9 before two weeks before January 5. All I'm saying is -- well,

10 you get what I'm saying.

11 So, the last time I think you said that all the

12 agreements would be posted by the 18th of November, today is

13 about a month later than that and three have and five haven't.

14 So, you know, draw whatever conclusions you want to draw from

15 that but it just seems to me that January 5 seems to be a close

16 call.

17 Mr. Walsh, do you have any thoughts on that?

18 MR. WALSH: One point that hasn't been mentioned is

19 the expectation of the employers.20 THE COURT: I'm sure.

21 MR. WALSH: That the agreements would be considered

22 during the supervisor's tenure.

23 I think Mr. Conboy has frankly made a good point that

24 if it is the delegates' pleasure the UBC will not object and

25 the supervisor will not object and intercede if the delegates


(212) 805-0300



50

1CK5usaC conference

1 vote on the 5th to table this and consider all of the CBAs

2 three weeks afterwards or a month afterwards.

3 MR. FRANCO: I just want to continue.

4 As far as I know, based upon last night's meeting,

5 Local 157 meeting, the many delegates did not know that January

6 5th they were going to be meeting for the contracts. That was

7 my understanding last night. So, as far as I know -- Bill, you

8 didn't know until last night and Bill is the recently elected

9 president.

10 MR. LEBO: Yesterday --

11 THE COURT: Let's hear from him and move this along.

12 MR. FRANCO: I just want to finish up with the

13 contract. Why is the International trying to get these

14 contracts done before our new officers and full mobility seem

15 to be the big thing or one of the big things for them? That

16 violates my sensibility and many members' sensibility because

17 full mobility further converts our labor organization into an

18 employment agency and I'm absolutely against that.

19 Thank you.20 MR. FORREST: Your Honor, Loren Forrest for the

21 Building Contractors' Association.

22 Just following along on Mr. Walsh's point, he is

23 right, the Employers' Association, my client in particular, the

24 Building Contractors' Association, expected that the contracts

25 would be voted on on January 5th and, as Mr. Conboy said, those


(212) 805-0300



51

1CK5usaC conference

1 are expectations are based on good faith negotiations and based

2 on agreement.

3 THE COURT: Counsel, you know this is a very simple

4 issue and I get it and I don't think you are hearing me. I'm

5 understanding exactly what you said but I'm saying to you, as a

6 lawyer, that the January 5 date is awfully close now for

7 anybody to give their full consideration to these contracts

8 when you know, as well as everybody else at the table that you

9 are sitting at, that five of the eight of them are not even

10 executed.

11 So, and if you know, also, as an experienced lawyer,

12 that if you had a deadline like January 5 and you weren't ready

13 or you had another court appearance or you hadn't reviewed the

14 documents, you might say to somebody like me, Judge, can we

15 have another week or two so that we can study these complex

16 documents?

17 Nobody is in any way trying to harm the employers or

18 the people who negotiated, etc. It took longer than, frankly,

19 I was told that it was likely to take. And so, all some people20 are saying, myself included, is that they ought to be reviewed

21 and voted on on a date that you can be sure that people have

22 had a chance to study them.

23 That's all I'm saying.

24 MR. LEBO: Your Honor, in reference to the contracts,

25 it almost seems to me that they're assuming that these


(212) 805-0300



52

1CK5usaC conference

1 contracts are going to be passed. Now, I've listened to many

2 of the delegates and as these proceedings have noted in the

3 past, all these contracts seem to hinge on full mobility which

4 is a huge problem with most of the delegates. And for some

5 reason the UBC and the supervisors seem to be pushing this as

6 hard as they can to get it done before we're seated which I

7 find offensive because I would like to at least have the

8 members who have been elected, myself included, deal with the

9 proceedings of our own contracts and these are our members'

10 contracts.

11 THE COURT: When are you installed?

12 MR. LEBO: We are installed on the 11th. So, I find

13 it far-fetched that they pushed it to the 5th right before

14 we're installed. And I have talked to Mr. Bilello about filing

15 an injunction to stop these proceedings or these contract

16 finalizations until such time as we are installed and I would

17 hate to have to start our officeship as litigants.

18 THE COURT: I hear you.

19 The issue is one: Simple due process and notice.20 That's all it is. It seems to me pretty obvious of what ought

21 to happen but maybe it is not obvious to all of you.

22 MR. GUNDERSON: Good morning, your Honor. My name is

23 Aaron Gunderson. I'm a member of the Dock Workers' Local Union

24 formerly known as 1456. I'm a 13-year member of that local and

25 recently we have been combined with the timbermen during a


(212) 805-0300



53

1CK5usaC conference

1 restructuring process that we did not agree with. I am also an

2 advocate of the dock builders' break away in joining with the

3 amalgamated carpenters.

4 I am standing here before you saying that not without

5 having given it some careful thought, I understand your Honor's

6 implications of charges and such things that can be brought

7 before me and I just wanted to let you know that I still feel

8 convicted enough to come up here and tell you the reasons why

9 we chose to go and attempt to create our own union through the

10 National Labor Relations Board.

11 To begin with was the restructuring and our identity.

12 I was brought into this local union by a 55-year member of the

13 Dock Builders' Union Local 1456. I have many family members,

14 friends, fourth and fifth-generation members in Local 1456. We

15 have tremendous identity out there in the work force, we are

16 known for our hard work, and bringing in jobs on time, safely,

17 and just sticking together as a brotherhood. That was

18 shattered the day they combined us with the timbermen and

19 proceeded to implement this restructuring process.20 Mr. McCarron obviously implemented this and the reason

21 why we decided to go forward with the break-away and putting

22 together our own union was for that reason as well as several

23 other reasons that occurred after the combination of the two

24 locals happened.

25 At the first meeting of the two locals, Local 1456, I


(212) 805-0300



54

1CK5usaC conference

1 stood up, along with three other members, and put a motion on

2 the floor that nominations and elections be held for all

3 executive board members appointed by Mr. McCarron to take over

4 this new union. I venture to say somewhere around five times

5 my motion was refused to be heard.

6 At some point during that meeting Mr. Walsh, the R.O.,

7 took the podium, was speaking, and I posed a question to him

8 whether or not it was okay to have that motion not heard. He

9 turned to the acting president of 1556 and advised him that he

10 did not believe it was okay. After that took place again I

11 made the motion the nominations and elections take place and

12 the motion was accepted, seconded by at least 50 if not the

13 whole place. Members. I then wrote, by e-mail to Mr. Walsh

14 and to the president of the new 1556 asking him when this would

15 take place. Mr. Walsh responded to ask the president what his

16 intention was. I spoke to the president. He told me he had

17 written to Mr. McCarron and was waiting for a response. I

18 then, after four months received, after considerably a lot of

19 time asking him over and over and over again when this would20 take place, was told at a meeting -- read a letter from

21 Mr. McCarron saying that he recommended it take place in May.

22 I asked the president if that recommendation was what he was

23 going to follow or was he going to follow the recommendation or

24 the motion made by the members and he concluded that he was

25 going to file a recommendation of Mr. McCarron. This coupled


(212) 805-0300



55

1CK5usaC conference

1 with many other things such as the percentage of delegates such

2 as we had 14 delegates out of a hundred nominated and elected

3 by the membership to represent the dock builders and timbermen

4 so that means when our contract comes up we have 14 guys that

5 have anything to do with our contract, voting on it. The

6 membership has no chance to ratify it which, in my eyes, is

7 deplorable.

8 THE COURT: We have to wrap up.

9 MR. GUNDERSON: Yeah.

10 I just wanted to say, your Honor, that I have been

11 involved in this local union for 13 years. There have been a

12 lot of charges thrown around this place against presidents,

13 ESTs, so on and so forth, but the one thing that remains a

14 constant is the R.O's. office has been here the whole time I

15 have been here, Mr. McCarron has been here the whole time I

16 have been here, and no charges or any kind of responsibility

17 has fallen in their lap. For those reasons, the reasons I have

18 stated, the dock builders local union has decided to go create

19 our own union. We do not intend to in any way skirt any laws,20 we simply wanted to have a union built by the membership for

21 the membership with a ratification of our contracts by the

22 members and an election through the NLRB.

23 Thank you.

24 THE COURT: Got it. Last person.

25 MR. PASSERO: Good morning, your Honor. Joseph


(212) 805-0300



56

1CK5usaC conference

1 Passero, member of Local 1556, formerly of Union 1456.

2 In reference to the CBAs, the attorney for the BCA, an

3 example of my local, several of our delegates were vetoed, we

4 don't even have a full delegate body and the BCA agreement does

5 involve 1556. There is no way they're going to have enough

6 time to review everything, appoint, review and vote for the

7 January 5th vote that they want to have. That's just one

8 example. You can ask the current delegates that are there.

9 They still haven't reviewed the contract even though they've

10 been on line for two weeks.

11 THE COURT: Okay.

12 MR. PASSERO: Thank you.

13 THE COURT: Thanks very much.

14 So, anybody else?

15 So, Mr. Walsh, if you could just do me a favor and

16 meet and confer with the appropriate counsel and the

17 government? It just strikes me that this January 5th is an

18 awfully tight date and see whether or not it would be feasible

19 or possible to make it the 15th or 19th or some other date to20 give people more time to be able to digest these agreements.

21 MR. WALSH: Judge, I can ask, right now in open court,

22 if there is a pledge that the agreements, as they've been

23 agreed upon between the supervisor's office and the employer

24 associations, if it is a mere adjournment of two weeks

25 regardless of the fact that Mr. Bilello and the new officers


(212) 805-0300



57

1CK5usaC conference

1 are going to be installed on January 11th, if it is a mere two

2 week adjournment can the vote be adjourned until that date so

3 that we have January 19th, for instance, as the date that the

4 delegates, same delegates will be voting on the same contracts.

5 THE COURT: Makes sense to me. Why don't you meet and

6 confer and drop me a note and let me know if that turns out to

7 be feasible.

8 Thanks a lot. Nice to see you all.

9 Do we need another date, Mr. Walsh?

10 MR. WALSH: How about late January after the new

11 regime is installed?

12 THE COURT: I will look at the calendar and we will

13 call your office and see if we can come up with a good date.

14 MR. WALSH: Very good. Nice to see you all.

15 o0o

16

17

18

1920

21

22

23

24

25


(212) 805-0300



Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	latisha-walker
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

12.20.11 U.S. v. D.C. Status Conference

Documents