
|
 |
H.E.A.R.D.
September
2000
PWBA
Field Office Press Release
PENSION
AND WELFARE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION
USDL New York 190
CONTACT:
OFFICE: |
Sharon
Morrissey
(202) 219-8921 |
FOR
RELEASE: IMMEDIATE
September 14, 2000 |
FORMER
TRUSTEES, SERVICE PROVIDERS TO PAY $750,000
TO NEW YORK HOTEL TRADES COUNCILS DENTAL FUND
Under
an agreement reached with the U.S. Department of Labor, former
trustees of and service providers to the New York Hotel Trades
Council and Hotel Association of the New York City, Inc. dental
fund agreed to pay the fund $750,000 by Sept. 29. This
settlement, reached after the case was tried but before the
court issued any decision, resolved the departments lawsuit
filed against these trustees and dental service providers for
alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).
With
the settlement agreement, the departments lawsuit was dismissed.
In the Sept. 7 settlement agreement, the defendants neither
admitted or implied any liability.
The
defendants that are former trustees are Jeffrey Flowers, Albert
A. Formicola, James OHara, Vito J. Pitta, Eva I.
Rodriguez, William T. Welsh and the estate of John Kelly. The
dental service provider defendants are PFC Facility of New York,
Inc., its owner Dr. Alex Bendersky and Dr. Robert Greenspan.
In
the departments lawsuit, the trustee defendants were charged
with causing the plan to pay unreasonably high prices for dental
services, thus violating fiduciary provisions of ERISA.
The
dental service provider defendants (who were not fiduciaries)
were parties in interest of the fund under ERISA and were
charged with having obtained excessive compensation from the
fund under a renewal contract for the dental services. The
defendants denied all allegations and defended the litigation
vigorously. The department filed this lawsuit in federal
district court in Manhattan in January 1989.
The
court action and settlement resulted from an investigation by
the New York Regional Office of the departments Pension and
Welfare Benefits Administration and PWBAs Office of Enforcement.
Herman
v. Flowers, et al
Civil Action #89 CIV 0224 (S.D.N.Y.)
August 1997
Monitor Airs Hotel Union's Dirty Linen
Published by the Association for Union Democracy
By Carl Biers
Kurt Muellenberg, the court-appointed monitor of the Hotel
Employees and Restaurant Employees Union (HERE) has issued a final
report on his activities during his three-year term investigating
the union for corruption and ties to organized crime. The 90-page
report paints a depressing picture of fraud, mismanagement, theft,
nepotism, cronyism, and connections to organized crime figures.
The report's colorful detail of sordid abuses of the membership by
some HERE officers, most notably former General President Edward
Hanley, who for 25 years presided over and shared in the theft,
waste, and misspending of tens of millions of dollars, is helpful
given Muellenberg's previous reluctance to disclose to union
members or the public the specifics of his investigations. The
report tells - belatedly - of the 18 expulsions and 5 suspensions
of officers ordered by the monitor.
In the end, however, the report falls short. It presents a
severe account of misdeeds and crimes in the past, but a sanitized
view of the present and a futile plan for reform that amounts to
little more than tinkering around the edges. Beginning as an
indictment, it ends as a feeble assortment of recommendations for
more effective bureaucracy.
Here are some, and only some, of the abuses listed by the
monitor: maintenance of a ghost local whose appointed trustee was
paid $48,000 per year although the local had fewer than 20
members, most of them restaurant owners; allowances of $4,000 to
Executive Board members, administrative aides and assistants for
attending board meetings and conventions, totaling $478,000 in one
year; consultants who receive high salaries, leased vehicles,
health insurance and pensions, but are unable to document having
performed any work and submitted no bills; exorbitant
"charitable donations" with no apparent benefit to the
membership" including, among many others, $450,000 to the
Irish American Sports Foundation, $95,000 to the Catholic Church
in one year, and thousands more to Guide Dogs for the Desert the
All-American Collegiate Golf Foundation, and the Headwaters
Classic Sled Dog Race in Land O' Lakes, Wisconsin; lack of audits
of locals in violation of the HERE constitution; a luxury
condominium maintained by union staff in Georgetown for General
President Hanley even though "he never spent more than 25
days per year in Washington, DC"; a motor home costing
$100,000 for the president's personal use; over 100 organizers on
the international payroll, many working without supervision; a
General Executive Board that acts as a rubber stamp;
"arbitrary and capricious" trusteeships; purchase of a
$2.5 million aircraft costing $442,000 per year to operate; and on
and on.
One of the most ludicrous: "Paul Burke", a retired
actor and neighbor of Mr. Hanley's in Palm Springs, California,
has been a consultant since 1980. He was paid $25,000 per year,
received health insurance, and a union leased Cadillac
Seville." Why? "to provide 'celebrity presence' to
General Executive Board Meetings." Spending so much for a
no-name actor might not seem so offensive if the union assigned
him a task that actually met a particular need, say, for example,
impersonating an honest union official.
The monitor expelled 18 officers, suspended 5, and has charges
pending against 11 others. Those expelled for "associating
with organized crime figures," include Vincent Gallo,
president of Local 122, Milwaukee; Robert Tate, vice-president,
Local 10, Cleveland, Louis Sanfilippo, president Local 57
Pittsburgh; Frank Riggio Secretary, Local 450; John Agathos,
President Local 69, Secaucus; Joseph Marino of Local 450, Chicago,
and a few others. The rest of the charges against individuals
range from embezzlement to conspiracy to "extort money from a
restaurant owner by use of threatened force."
Democracy Ignored
The report reflects the scant attention paid to union democracy
by the monitor in this three years. In two skimpy paragraphs
Muellenberg tells that he reviewed candidates in union elections
for connections to organized crime. That's it: nothing about
supervised elections, direct or otherwise, no mailings to the
membership encouraging them to exercise their rights to run for
office, no monthly updates on the progress of investigations.
There's nothing to report here because he did nothing.
Muellenberg confines himself mainly to abuses against union
money and property but not against union members. He omits any
mention of intimidation during elections, despite the existence of
at least one documented case with which he is familiar. In 1996,
an insurgent candidate for secretary-treasurer in New York Local 6
was threatened by the incumbent business manager, Peter Ward, and
by Ward's father-in-law, Vitto Pitta, the former business manager
who had been forced to resign from the General Executive Board,
presumably because of organized crime connections. The candidate
was trapped in an elevator which Ward and Pitta had stopped
between floors to warn her of the consequences if she persisted.
Terrified, she withdrew the next day. The threat was the basis of
a DOL supervised election rerun. It's not surprising that
Muellenberg failed to mention this kind of incident. Why tell of
problems for which you offer no solution?
In his conclusion, Muellenberg does pay lip service to
democracy: "Mr. Hanley's leadership of the HEREIU was not
democratic and not fair to the members . . . Democracy has to be
encouraged at the local union level; that is not happening."
But nowhere else in the report does Muellenberg mention the lack
of democracy as a problem worthy even of one of his pussyfooting
recommendations.
Toothless recommendations
And what solutions does Muellenberg propose? To understand his
approach, keep in mind that the problem, as he defines it, is a
union "that suffered from a management deficit and did not
subscribe to generally accepted business practices." He lists
48 recommendations ranging from the woefully inadequate, to the
toothless, to the ridiculous. Only one stands out as firm and
straightforward: "dispose of the luxury condominium in
Washington DC," he declares boldly. The rest are whimpers:
prepare budgets; adopt a policy of written evaluations for
employees; draw up an organizational chart defining lines of
authority; adopt a written procedure for imposing trusteeships and
monitoring trusteed locals; pick competent International officers
to be trustees; assign responsibility for review of credit card
expenditures to designated members of the General Executive Board
and ensure that they are familiar with Department of Labor and IRS
regulations; have expense forms reviewed by CPAs; train audit
staff on current auditing techniques to detect fraud and waste in
local unions; etc.,etc. Essentially, what Muellenberg has done is
prescribe "generally accepted business practices," as if
these are enough to deal with a union that the government
contended was under the thumb of racketeers.
Some of Muellenberg's suggestions are downright absurd when
considered in context of even his toned down portrayal of the
corruption and financial abuse. Seventeen officials were expelled
for associating with organized crime figures over the course of
the monitorship.
What measures, then, should the union adopt to prevent
reinfiltration by racketeers? Muellenberg recommends that it
"require all IU officers, local officers, and other persons
in positions of trust to certify annually that they have not
knowingly associated with members or associates of any organized
crime group." This recalls a college student, encountered
once by AUD, who researched racketeering in labor by asking union
officials if there was any corruption in their unions.
And what of the airplane that cost half half a million per year
so that General President Hanley could be flown from one urgent
meeting to another? Dispose of it like the luxury condo? Not so
fast. Although the monitor lays much of the blame on Hanley
himself, he concludes that "it was not possible to address
the overall cost effectiveness of the use of a union aircraft. . .
because Mr. Hanley - the primary user did not maintain an advance
planning calendar and traveled spontaneously or with minimal
advance notice." Huh? The monitor identifies Hanley as
bearing heavy responsibility for the corrupt system but can't
decide whether the union should have been flying him around in a
private jet.
The farce of trying to remedy racketeering and financial
mismanagement through more efficient bureaucracy is apparent from
Muellenberg's own report. At one point, he holds up Chicago Local
1 as a model because it requires BA's to "file weekly reports
describing their activities for each day. Such reports make it
more difficult for 'no-show' employees to defraud the
membership." But elsewhere in his report, that same Local 1
is blasted for fraud and mismanagement (despite receiving $2.5
million from the International, Local 1 is $951,000 in the red due
to financial manipulation and embezzlement and "should have
been trusteed a long time ago") and Muellenberg notes that
weekly reports did not prevent one BA from claiming he worked 70
days in one year organizing a riverboat casino when, in reality,
he spent the time gambling at the casino.
Any potential in the report for effective reform is vitiated by
its absurd analysis of the causes of corruption and by the trivial
quality of its recommendations to assure integrity from now on.
H.E.R.E., according to Muellenberg the monitor, is a union whose
officers and staff were getting rich stealing and wasting union
money by the millions, an officialdom with ties to racketeers. The
report attributes these abuses to 11 apparent disregard for cost
effective management" and a lack of "understanding of
their fiduciary obligations to ensure that the local's funds are
spent solely in the best interests of the membership."
From this compassionate understanding of the corrupt system
flow a series of 48 innocuous recommendations, prescriptions for
evading sloppy management by avoiding lax accounting and ending
inadequate supervision of subordinate staff by top officials.
He even proposes what could be a crash course in ethics
sensitivity for union officials who presumably were never taught
that it's wrong to steal. Union officers, he concludes, need
"training about their fiduciary obligations to the local and
its membership, including the obligation to oppose salary
increases, bonuses, and the like when such expenditures are not in
the membership's best interest." Ed Hanley, the former
president who presided over the corrupt system, was permitted to
retire with honors. His replacement, John Wilhelm, sees no problem
with implementing every one of the monitor's gentle proposals.
Classified report; not available to members
After trivializing the problem, Muellenberg, hardly requires
much of a solution. This partially explains his refusal, during
his term, to inform the members of the results of his
investigations, his failure to call for supervised local and
international elections, his failure to encourage members to back
a reform effort. But Muellenberg's resistance to report to the
membership goes much deeper. Despite its flaws, the report could
be a powerful weapon in the hands of reformers, yet Muellenberg
refuses to distribute copies to members who request it.
He willingly takes $296,000 per year from the union treasury to
perform his duties, but says he can not ask the union to incur the
added expense (less than $10 per copy) of distributing the report
to members who request it, and, inexplicably, he refuses even to
sell copies to members at any cost. If even 1000 members requested
copies, the $10,000 would be money well spent - a trifling sum
compared to the $3 million he's already billed to the union.
Muellenberg says he made a deal with Wilhelm to have one copy
available at each local, and he will announce this in the union's
newsletter, but members must have the courage and time to go to
the union hall and read the it under the suspicious gaze of local
officials. The report was available on the web, (www.njusao.org)
but in a form that is virtually unreadable: 9' pages of text in
one block, a single paragraph, with no index or headings.
In its RICO suit, the government charged that corruption was a
systemic disease in the Hotel union and buttressed its case by
evidence of organized crime infiltration, charges that call for
drastic remedies. And the monitor's final report confirms the
validity of those charges; there is simply no connection between
his finding of facts and his conclusions.
Missed opportunity
Any effective long term reform of a union corrupted by
organized crime and betrayed by its officials depends upon its own
membership. No government agency, no monitor, can make a gift of
decent unionism to union members, but they can encourage members
and decent-minded leaders by providing the tools of democracy for
them to do the job. No union-wide reform movement has yet made its
appearance in the Hotel union and the monitor bears his share of
blame for missing the opportunity to encourage honest union
activists to come forward, to lay the groundwork for such a reform
movement.
Some union members are placing their hopes for a new day in the
leadership of General President John Wilhelm, architect of the Las
Vegas organizing campaign, who as an International Officer had
jurisdiction over the clean HERE locals, like Local 2 in San
Francisco and the New Haven locals. But even if Wilhelm is all
he's cracked up to be, he will have a difficult time making the
needed fundamental changes in the union with no base in the
membership for reform. If all he does is implement the monitor's
clerical recommendations, little will change.
The union needed, and still needs, elections supervised by an
impartial agency, a forum for discussion of elections issues, an
effective ethical practices committee, and regular detailed
reports on the clean-up process. Now that the monitor ship and its
meager powers are terminated, Muellenberg continues as one member
of a three-person oversight committee with limited authority. The
question is whether he will make it an effective reform
institution or a public relations facade. This "final"
report does not inspire much hope of a new beginning.
President's Commission on
Organized Crime
Report to the President
and the
Attorney General
THE EDGE:
Organized Crime,
Business, and Labor Unions
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON ORGANIZED CRIME
HONORABLE IRVING R. KAUFMAN,
CHAIRMAN
|
|
| Jesse
A. Brewer, Jr. |
Manuel J. Reyes
|
| Carol
Corrigan |
Honorable Peter
W. Rodino, Jr.* |
|
| Justin
J. Dintino |
Charles H.
Rogovin
|
| William
J. Guste |
Barbara A. Rowan
|
|
| Judith
R. Hope |
Francis A.
Sclafani
|
| Philip
R. Manuel |
Samuel R.
Skinner
|
| Thomas
F.McBride |
Honorable Strom
Thurmond
|
| Eugene
H. Methvin |
Phyllis T.
Wunsche
|
| Edwin
L. Miller
|
James
D. Harmon, Jr.
Executive Director and Chief
Counsel |
|
* Commissioner Rodino, in view of his
position as Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the
United States House of Representatives, takes no position
concerning the recommendations included in Section Eleven of this
Report.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
| o |
Summary of
Recommendations
|
| o |
Foreword
|
| Section
One |
Overview and
Summary of Recommendations
|
| Section
Two |
A Look at Modern
Labor Racketeering: The Methods and Objectives of
Corruption
|
| Section
Three |
International
Longshoremen's Association
|
| Section
Four |
Hotel Employees
and Restaurant Employees International Union
|
| Section
Five |
International
Brotherhood of Teamsters
|
| Section
Six |
Laborers
International Union of North America
|
| Section
Seven |
The Independent Unions
|
|
| Section
Eight |
Organized Crime and
the Meat Industry: A Study in Competition
|
| Section
Nine |
Organized Crime and the Construction
Industry: A Study in Collusion |
|
| Section
Ten |
Current Laws and
Strategy
|
| Section
Eleven |
Recommendations for
a National Strategy
|
| Section
Twelve |
The Labor
Management Racketeering Act of 1986 |
SECTION FOUR:
THE HOTEL EMPLOYEES AND
RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION (HEREIU)
Someone else owns the
international.
-Paul Castellano, former boss
of the Gambino crime family.1
Aiuppa and Accardo [underboss and boss of
the Chicago Outfit, respectively]
continue to exert great influence over the
union and its president
.-Joseph Hauser.2
The Hotel Employees and Restaurant
Employees International Union (HEREIU) was founded in 1891 as the
Waiters and Bartenders Union. It quickly became the union of
choice for bartenders, waiters, maids, cooks, porters, busboys,
and related service workers in the United States and Canada.3
Almost 100 years later, HEREIU has a documented relationship with
the Chicago "Outfit" of La Cosa Nostra at the
international level and subject to the influence of the Gambino,
Colombo, and Philadelphia La Cosa Nostra families at the
local level.
During the union's early years internal
conflicts developed between a Chicago faction, headed by W.C.
Pomeroy, and the rest of the union, led by Jere Sullivan. At the
1896 convention Sullivan charged Pomeroy with misuse of funds;
when Sullivan was elected general secretary-treasurer in 1899 he
ousted Pomeroy from control in 1900 and embarked upon a program of
reorganization with the support of Samuel Gompers and the AFL.
Although the luxury hotel business boomed during the first two
Page 71
decades of the 1900's, opening numerous
jobs for service employees, HEREIU was not a force in the trade
because Sullivan refused to organize the unskilled and foreign
born. Moreover, HEREIU lost about one-third of its membership
almost immediately following the enactment of Prohibition in 1920.
With Sullivan's death in 1928 and the
ascent of the new president Edward Flore, HEREIU fully responded
to the demands for organizing the unskilled. By the early 1950's
union membership was near its present day figure of 400,000, and
key steps had been taken to centralize internal power - primarily
by allowing international officers to intervene directly in the
affairs of HEREIU locals.
Criminal infiltration, which has
consistently plagued HEREIU, was exposed at the union's 1936
national convention, where Harry Koenig of Local 16 in New York
City was murdered. Subsequent investigation by the Special
Commission on Crime, headed by Thomas Dewey, revealed a
flourishing restaurant racketeering business in New York City. In
1937 three officials of the national were convicted of crimes,
Local 16 was suspended, and those members associated at the time
with criminal activities were expelled.4
In 1958 the McClellan Committee revealed
that organized crime had infiltrated the Chicago restaurant
industry through its control of three union locals. Business agent
John Lardino, who
Page 72
was believed to be one of the chief
lieutenants to Tony Accardo, the long-time boss of the Chicago
Outfit, controlled Local 593. Both Accardo and Lardino appeared
before the McClellan Committee and invoked their privilege against
self-incrimination. Chicago Outfit representative Louis Romano
then controlled Local 278. In 1935 the Outfit extended its power
to Chicago's suburbs by obtaining the charter of Local 450. Those
who influenced Local 450 were believed to be Frank "The
Enforcer" Nitti, Murray "The Camel" Humphreys, and
Louis Romano. Joseph Aiuppa, at that time a gunman for Al Capone,
was listed as the secretary of Local 450 on the application filed
with the international in 1935.5
For 40 years Joseph Aiuppa, now the
underboss of the Chicago Outfit, and boss Tony Accardo wielded
power in the Chicago area locals and the HEREIU joint executive
board. Their actions took on national proportions when Edward
Hanley, who began his career in Local 450 as a business agent in
1957, was elected to the HEREIU presidency in 1973.6
HEREIU Today
Joseph Hauser, a convicted defrauder of
union benefit funds, appeared before the Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations in April 1983 and testified that
Chicago crime boss Tony Accardo hand-picked Edward Hanley for the
HEREIU presidency.7
Hauser noted, "Aiuppa and Accardo continue to exert great
influence over the union and its president, Ed
Page 73
Hanley." According to the Senate
Report, the reign of Hanley has been surrounded by allegations of
organized crime's influence in the choice of international union
organizers, operation of benefit funds, and conduct of union
affairs.8
Since Hanley took office in 1973, union
assets dropped from $21.4 million to less than $14 million in
1982. Nearly $6 million of this money went into three loans
executed with private developers, one of whom was Morris Shenker,
an associate of the late Kansas City organized crime leader
Nicholas Civella. Shenker received the largest single loan from
the Teamsters Central States Pension Fund, a portion of which has
never been repaid.9
The Subcommittee found that the union's
assets have been used to enrich the top officers of HEREIU's
hierarchy. Base salaries augmented by expense accounts and
"allowances," lifetime employment contracts, and
increased expenditures of tangible items have resulted in
expenditures for HEREIU officers skyrocketing from $229,051 in
fiscal year 1973 to $1,689,370 in fiscal year 1983.10
Former HEREIU general secretary-treasurer John Gibson was found
guilty in May 1980 of misusing the union's airplane and of
conspiring to embezzle union funds. Gibson received concurrent
four-month sentences, which he served in 1983, while receiving his
lifetime contract checks from the union. 11
The list of employees and organizers hired after Hanley became
HEREIU president includes organized crime
Page 74
associates and numerous patronage jobs.12
In addition, one of Hanley's early moves was to hire the current
Teamsters president, Jackie Presser, as an international organizer
in 1973; Presser was already an officer of a HEREIU Local in
Cleveland. He resigned the HEREIU post in September 1976, when he
became an IBT international union vice-president.
Most troubling to the Subcommittee was the
unprecedented degree to which Hanley has been able to centralize
authority within HEREIU and to control local chapters through the
use of mergers, trusteeships, and personnel transfers, an action
which mocks the goals of local autonomy and members' rights as
embodied in the Landrum-Griffin Act. HEREIU's president has almost
absolute authority to effect mergers and has done so more than 136
times since 1973. Hanley has also consolidated 16 separate pension
funds with total assets of approximately $75 million and 35
separate health and welfare funds into single funds under the
control of the international union in Naperville, Illinois.
Hanley's Assertion of the Fifth
Amendment
The Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations sought Hanley's perspective on his union's
increasing identification with organized crime. He refused to
testify.l3 Hanley's
refusal to respond to questioning and his assertion of his Fifth
Amendment privilege before the Subcommittee deprived the Senate of
the opportunity to explore this steady movement of HEREIU money
and
Page 75
power to Chicago. Hanley declined to
answer a series of questions which focused on his understanding of
the obligation of trust imposed on union officials. He rejected
the opportunity to explain HEREIU's merger policy. Finally, Hanley
found no purpose to be served by responding to questions about his
relationship with the leadership of the Chicago outfit, murdered
racketeer Allen Dorfman, or attorney Sidney Korshak.
Atlantic City
HEREIU Local 54, which is located in the
Atlantic City, New Jersey area, came to prominence in 1978 after
the opening of Atlantic City casinos and the concomitant rise in
the demand for waitresses, waiters, and bartenders. With the
increase in potential union members came a struggle for control
between factions of the Philadelphia family of La Cosa Nostra.
Department of Labor Special Agent Ron Chance testified before the
Commission about Local 54 and its influence in Atlantic City:
Local 54, in Atlantic City, is a classic
case study in organized crime and labor racketeering. Several of
the officers of this union and its predecessor unions boast
convictions for murder, arson, extortion, drugs, bribes,
kickbacks and racketeering. Next to the ownership of the casino
itself, the control of Local 54 is the most important prize in
the Atlantic City sweepstakes. . . . In 1978, when the casinos
opened, Local 54 began to rise in stature and importance. Prior
to the casino gambling, they only had about 2,500 members and
most of them were employed in seasonal jobs in the hotel and
restaurant industry in the seashore. The opening of each casino,
though, brought between 1,500 and 2,000 new members into the
local, and they now have about 15,000 members.l4
Page 76
Indeed, the stakes were high for this
"most important prize." Membership increases contributed
so substantially to total dues collection that the local's annual
income swelled from $269,000 in 1979 to $1,389,000 in 1982, and
permitted the local to contribute more than $15 million a year to
the international's Health and Welfare Fund.
On December 15, 1980, John McCullough, the
president of Philadelphia Roofers Union Local 30, was shot to
death at his home by Willard E. Moran, allegedly due to his
attempts to organize the Bartenders in Atlantic City away from
HEREIU Local 54.15
After his conviction, Moran decided to cooperate with prosecutors
and testified that he was recruited, employed, and trained to kill
McCullough, an associate of Philadelphia LCN boss Angelo Bruno by
former HEREIU Local 54 vice-president Albert Diadone and Raymond
"Long John" Martorano, an associate of Atlantic City LCN
boss Nicodemo Scarfo. Moran testified that these two actually
escorted him to McCullough's home and drove him home after the
murder. Both Diadone and Martorano have been convicted and
sentenced to life imprisonment.
In 1979 Frank Gerace was appointed
president of Local 54 after the previous president, Ralph Natale
(another Bruno associate) was convicted and sentenced to 30 years'
imprisonment for a variety of offenses, including narcotics
trafficking.
Page 77
Local 54, under the presidency of Frank
Gerace, has been the focus of several investigations by law
enforcement agencies, as well as the U.S. Congress. Gerace has
been named in Senate testimony as a significant criminal associate
of the Scarfo crime family. The investigations have focused on
Local 54's benefit funds, mob ties, and corruption of public
officials. In 1980 the New Jersey Commission of Investigation
reported that Larry Smith, head of Rittenhouse Consulting
Enterprises, Inc. in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, profited handsomely
from Rittenhouse's consulting work to arrange dental care services
for HEREIU Local 33. Ultimately, HEREIU Local 33 was absorbed into
Local 54 of Atlantic City. In tracing Rittenhouse's and Local 54's
disbursements, New Jersey commission investigators determined that
$153,000 in cash from the Local's fund could not be accounted for.
After a three-year inquiry, the Senate
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said that Smith had
controlled Local 54's dental plan almost since its inception, for
the benefit of Philadelphia organized crime interests, and that
the nature of "consulting" services rendered by
Rittenhouse for substantial fees could not be determined.16
Subsequently Larry Smith was one of 41 individuals or entities
named in a Department of Labor civil suit. It charges that past
and present Local 54 trustees and the corporations formed to
administer the $1.2 million dental plan violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by failing to solicit bids
for a dental plan
Page 78
contract in 1980.17
Neither Local 54 itself nor its current officers are named in the
suit, which asks that the defendants pay all losses resulting from
their alleged actions and that new arrangements be made to provide
Local 54 employees with dental care.
Local 54 and Corruption of Public
Officials
Frank Lentino, a former business agent for
Local 54, recently pled guilty to one count of Hobbs Act
conspiracy and one count of obstruction of justice. During that
investigation Lentino bragged that he controlled labor for
Nicodemo Scarfo, the current head of the LCN faction in Atlantic
City and Philadelphia. Lentino also claimed that Local 54
officials helped the Scarfo group exercise a corrupt influence
over former Atlantic City Mayor Michael Matthews. Before his
election as mayor of Atlantic City, Matthews solicited an illegal
campaign contribution of $125,000 cash from Local 54's Frank
Gerace, Albert Diadone, and Frank Lentino. Matthews received the
cash in several installments with at least one payment being
picked up at the union hall. Matthews was ultimately convicted of
receiving bribes from a federal undercover agent.
When he was questioned about the $125,000
cash contribution, Matthews admitted that he approached the Local
54 officers to obtain money from the Scarfo La Cosa Nostra
group. In return Matthews agreed to assist the Scarfo family
obtain a tract of land partially owned by the city, where the
Scarfo's group would
Page 79
build a casino. Lentino described the
meetings and the purchasing of the election in conversations
intercepted by the FBI and DEA. Lentino stated:
[[W]e had Mike Matthews in here, the last
time I ate here with Gerace and Al Daidone . . . He [Matthews]
had his eyes on that uh, mayor's, mayor's job
...
If he wins it uh, you get favors. Some
guys put up a lot of money. . .[a] hundred and twenty five
[thousand]... That's a lot of money for an election down here. 18
The Efforts of the Casino Control
Commission
In 1981 the New Jersey Casino Control
Commission and the Division of Gaming Enforcement, state agencies
charged with regulating persons and entities began an
investigation of Local 54 to determine if the local was fit, under
state statute, to represent persons employed by the casinos. A
central focus of the state investigation was the allegation that
the Scarfo LCN group controlled the union. Based on its finding in
1982 that this control existed, the Casino Control Commission
ordered that, in the event Gerace and the two others were not
removed from their union posts, Local 54 would be prohibited from
collecting dues from any casino employee.
Following this order Local 54 sought a
Federal court injunction barring enforcement of the Commission's
order. After losing in the District Court, the union successfully
argued in
Page 80
New Jersey Superior Court that federal
labor law, specifically the National Labor Relations Act and ERISA,
preempted the field of labor relations. The state, however,
obtained a reversal in the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that the
state had the authority with some limitations to regulate in the
area.l9 The Supreme
Court noted in its decision that:
...Congress apparently has concluded that,
at least where the States are confronted with the public evils
of crime, corruption, and racketeering, more stringent state
regulations of the qualifications of union officials is not
incompatible with the national labor policy as embodied in §7
(of the National Labor Relations Act).20
Following the Supreme Court's decision, the
Casino Control Commission issued a new order, which directed
Gerace and the other officials to resign. After Gerace refused to
do so, the state sought enforcement of the order and a contempt
citation from the state courts. Gerace and the others then
resigned their posts. Rather than divorcing himself completely
from the union, however, Gerace now holds the post of consultant
in non-casino affairs, at an unknown salary.
The Supreme Court found that the casino
industry employees' freedom to select Local 54 to represent them
in collective bargaining was not affected by the qualification
criteria of New Jersey's Act. However, the Court left undecided
the issue of whether the dues collection sanction, imposed by New
Jersey's Act, will so incapacitate the union as to prevent it from
performing its functions as the employees' chosen bargaining
Page 81
agent, thus abridging members' rights
under the National Labor Relations Act. As a result, the decision
does not definitively resolve how to reconcile Federal efforts to
define labor rights with state efforts to regulate industries in
which labor racketeers flourish.
New York City
The New York HEREIU locals are also
influenced by organized crime. New locals have been chartered with
due consideration to La Cosa Nostra territorial needs.
Until January 1983 (when Local 100 was chartered), the main HEREIU
local under LCN control was Local 6. Local 6 retained jurisdiction
over those restaurants located in hotels and clubs, while Local
100 has a wide-ranging jurisdiction. Recent indictments have
focused on the leaders of HEREIU Locals 6 and 100: international
vice president and HEREIU Local 6 officer Vito Pitta, an associate
of the Colombo family, and John J. DeRoss, officer of HEREIU Local
6, officer of HEREIU Local 100, and a member of the Colombo
family.21 In a
conversation intercepted by the FBI at Paul Castellano's home,
Anthony Amodeo and John DeRoss complained to Paul Castellano about
the failure of Local 6, and Vito Pitta, to abide by the
agreed-upon jurisdictional allocation with Local 100:
Amodeo: He's not supposed to go into
another. . . In fact, that's a part of their agreement. When
they made the merger, from what I understand, they stay in
whatever they've been in. They
Page 82
have the hotels and restaurants and so
forth. Now, 2 months ago, we sat down, Vito [Pitta], me, and
Charlie, right? Sat down. He says, How about if I go organize on
Long Island? . ; . You stay with yours. Long Island is ours.
Hotels, restaurants, whatever.
Castellano: They're supposed to
stay.
DeRoss: Right. I know.22
In the same conversation, Castellano
subsequently described the limits of his influence over HEREIU.
Because the international was controlled by other organized crime
groups, Castellano's ability to remedy an apparent encroachment by
the Colombo family was not a simple matter:
Castellano: . . . You had the locals
and somebody else had the international. . . This is what I was
trying to tell Vito of. I said, Vito [Pitta], take it easy. You
know, I gotta, I gotta watch, like someone else owns the
international. See, I don't like these doing. . . something that
they have a right to do. In the meantime, the only reason why
they're doing it, because Vito is setting up something in my. .
. I don" do that.
. I was happy with the [international
union] elections, you know? They were happy about it, but Pitta
wasn't . . . I tell you what, what brought them over here. This
is with my local, and I don't want anybody to touch it. . . .23
HEREIU Locals 6 and 100 were used to dictate
the way in which restaurants could do business in New York. In
return for payoffs, restaurant owners could pay reduced wages and
pension and welfare fund contributions, or buy a lease on a
restaurant
Page 83
shut down because it owed money to the
union, or hire and fire without regard to grievance procedures, or
operate without regard to union work rules. What appeared to be a
jurisdictional split between two HEREIU locals was, in fact, a
market allocation of New York's entire restaurant business between
the Colombo and Gambino crime families.
The IPSSEU Merger: Building A Larger
Union
HEREIU used means other than forced merger
and the issuance of charters to the Gambino and Colombo crime
families to consolidate and expand the existing power of La
Cosa Nostra. In one instance HEREIU absorbed an independent
union, the International Production Service and Sales Employees
Union (IPSSEU), an organization influenced by organized crime.
In the mid-1950's IPSSEU was created by
the merger of several independent local unions. By 1978 IPSSEU had
organized some 25,000 members in eight locals employed in seasonal
work, usually in toy, plastic and candy factories. As Robert Rao,
IPSSEU's general president, once explained, the union organizes
anyone except the "building trades." At one point Rao
testified in court proceedings that between 25 and 40 percent of
IPSSEU's members were paid only the minimum wage. During its
history IPSSEU turned down merger overtures from several AFL-CIO
unions, the United Mine Workers, and the Teamsters Union.
Page 84
At present IPSSEU's former
secretary-treasurer, Benjamin Ladmer, and Teamster official
Anthony Di Lapi are serving ten-year prison sentences for using
bribery and threats to obstruct an attempt by nonunion truck
drivers in a garment center trucking company to form their own
union. Di Lapi explained the conspiracy in these words:
. . . There's a million truck drivers, a
million warehouses. They'll get all new guys, new identity
completely, new corporation, new everything. . . Well this is
economics. . . There's no violence, there's no nothing. . . but
it's like a Family. . .24
IPSSEU, with its ties to the Luchese family,
was a prime candidate for merger with HEREIU. The merger occurred
with the creation of HEREIU Local 21S in 1983, and Robert Rao's
appointment as an international vice president of HEREIU. merger
has not harmed Rao. Rao received combined salary, allowances and
expenses amounting to $142,380 in 1984 from HEREIU.
Government Action Awaited
During the Commission's investigation it
became clear that legitimate trade unionists are aware of the mob
ties to HEREIU and await government action to oust the mob from
the union.
Page 85
FOOTNOTES
1Court
authorized electronic surveillance, June 3, 1983.
2Hotel
Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union: Hearings
before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate
Comm. on Governmental Affairs,
97th Cong., 2nd Sess., Part III, at 34 (1982).
3The union has
changed its name several times since its creation, most recently
in 1981 at the 39th general convention. For more details on the
history of HEREIU, and for a comprehensive analysis of the union
and its infiltration by organized crime today, see Hotel
Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union, a
report by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the
Committee on Governmental Affairs of the U.S. Senate, August 1984
[hereinafter referred to as HEREIU Report.] This section of
PCOC's report relies heavily on the excellent work recently
completed by that Subcommittee.
4HEREIU Report, supra
note 3, at 13.
5Id.. at 14-15.
6See Hotel
Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union: Hearings
be fore the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate
Comm. on Governmental Affairs, 97th Cong., 2nd Sess., Part I,
at 6 (1982) [hereinafter cited as HEREIU Hearings].
7Id.,
Part III, at 34.
8HEREIU
Reportsupra note 3, at 17.
9Id. at
25-32.
l0Id at
41.
llId.
at 44.
12Id.
at 33.
Page 86
13These are
some of the questions, posed mainly by Senator Roth, which Hanley
refused to answer, some in apparent violation of AFL-CIO ethical
practices policy:
Q: Are you president of the International
Union of Hotel Workers & Restaurant Employees?
Q: What is your occupation?
Q: Could you explain the international
union's basic policy concerning mergers of local unions?
Q: What sort of policy and criteria are
used by the International union in hiring?
Q: What do you believe are your
fiduciary responsibilities as president of the Hotel Employees
& Restaurant Employees International Union, both to the
union and its members?
Q: Have you ever told Jeff McColl, the
Las Vegas local union leader, you would "pull" the
Local 226 charter if he capitulated to demands that the health
and welfare funds return to Vegas for local control? [In 1977,
the health and welfare funds of Local 226 were returned to
Chicago only after the murder of union officer Al Bramlett in
Las Vegas. Bramlett was said to oppose moving the fund to
Illinois.]
Q: Mr. Hanley, did you, in fact, have a
conversation with Sidney Korshak about merging hotel workers
locals? [This question was based upon an electronically
intercepted conversation between Korshak and Dorfman in which
Korshak claims to have discussed with Hanley the merger of two
West Coast HEREIU locals.]
Q: Did you know Allen Dorfman before he
was murdered?
Q: As you know, Mr. Hanley, we have
heard evidence relating to a possible association between
yourself and Mr. Anthony Accardo and also Joseph Aiuppa of
Chicago. Let me ask you, do you know either of those gentlemen?
HEREIU Hearings, supra note
6, at 23.
14See
Organized Crime and Gambling: Hearings before the
President's Commission on Organized
Crime, June 1985, at 243-244.
15HEREIU
Report, supra note 3, at
65.
16Id.
at 110, 111, and 113.
Page 87
17 See
Brock v. Frank Gerace et al., U.S. District Court, District of
New Jersey, Civil Action No. 85-3669.
18 Court
authorized electronic surveillances, March, 1982.
19 Brown v.
Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union
Local 54, 52 U.S.L.W. 5042 (July 2, 1984).
20 Id.
21 See
U.S. v. Persico, 84 Cr. 809 (S.D.N.Y.
1984).
22 Court
authorized electronic surveillance, June 3, 1983.
23 Id.
24 Court
authorized electronic surveillance, April 24, 1978.
Page 88
(c)
All original work Copyright Laborers.org 1998. All rights
reserved.
|
 |
|