September 13, 2004
BY ROBERT HERGUTH Staff Reporter
William Hogan Jr. was Chicago's most powerful Teamster when, two
years ago, he was booted out, accused of helping a nonunion company that
employed his brother try to secure Las Vegas convention jobs at the
expense of the labor group.
The 2002 decision by the Independent Review Board, established in the
late 1980s to root out corruption in the Teamsters, particularly
organized crime influence, was a wallop.
Hogan was permanently barred from the union (he once was in charge of
Local 714 and a consortium of nearly two dozen Chicago area Teamsters
units) and could no longer associate with members or officers.
Teamster-relatives were an exception, although he wasn't allowed to talk
to them about union affairs. Anyone violating those rules would get
kicked out, too.
Calling it a "horse---- case," Hogan has tried to end his ban ever
since. With few options remaining, the legal battle faces a crucial
hearing today in New York, where lawyers will argue before the U.S.
Court of Appeals.
A ruling probably won't come for months, but the process is being
monitored closely within union circles.
Hogan's case not only is unusual -- unlike many people barred, he's
not accused of mob-related wrong-doing, or of embezzling -- but review
board decisions are infrequently overturned, noted his attorney,
Matthias Lydon. And questions linger about whether Hogan, if he wins his
appeal, would try to return to a union post.
"I don't care to go back," Hogan, a northwest suburban resident, said
late last week. "I don't want to give them another shot at me."
Hogan said he wants to clear his name and be able to associate with
whom he wants.
The review board claimed Hogan and Dane Passo, an assistant to
Teamsters Union honcho James P. Hoffa, colluded with a nonunion Chicago
placement company that employed Hogan's brother to help the firm get
convention work in Las Vegas that should have gone to Local 631 members
in Nevada. Employees of the company would have gotten sub-standard wages
and benefits.
"Passo's and Hogan's actions, which Local 631 officials
fought, were designed to benefit" contractors, "including
Hogan's brother's company," United Services, said the review
board's decision. "There was no benefit to Local 631, its
members or the United employees. In fact, they were repeatedly
harmed."
The review board's chief investigator, Charles Carberry,
called the case "pretty routine," and said Hogan "was charged
with sabotaging the contract . . . so he could work a deal for
his brother and the employer -- that sort of goes to the heart
of what a union's about."
Lydon said Hogan proposed the arrangement "because he thought
it was good for the union." Even if others disagreed, "he should
not have been punished . . . for expressing his opinions on a
matter of union business," Lydon said.
Hogan previously was accused of steering well-paying union
jobs to family and friends, and running Local 714, which now is
run by his sons, undemocratically.