Hogan Passo Decision by IBT Independent Review Board

----------------x

In re:

Dane Passo and :
William T. Hogan. Jr. :

--------------- x

OPINION AND DECISION
OF THE INDEPENDENT
REVIEW BOARD

The Independent Review Board ("IRB") forwarded an investigative report
to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters ("IBT") General President James P. Hoffa
("Hoffa") on May 23, 2001. The report recommended that International Representatives
Dane Passo ("Passo") and William T. Hogan, Jr. ("Hogan") be charged with bringing
reproach upon the IBT. (IRB Ex. 1)¹ The charge was that Passo and Hogan colluded
with a labor broker to allow him to avoid the financial obligations under the governing
contract to the detriment of the members of Local 631 in violation of Article II, Section
2(a) and Article XIX, Section 7(b)(1) and (2) of the IBT Constitution. (IRB Ex. 1)² On

_______________________
1 "IRB Ex." refers to exhibits introduced by the IRB during the hearing; "Ex." refers to the Chief
Investigator's exhibits introduced during the hearing; "Tr." refers to the transcript of the hearing before the
IRB; "P. Ex." refers to exhibits Passo introduced at the hearing and "H. Ex." refers to exhibits Hogan
introduced at the hearing.

May 25, 2001, IBT General Secretary-Treasurer C. Thomas Keegel ("Keegel") filed
charges against Passo and Hogan. (IRB Ex. 2)³

By letter dated July 26, 2001, Keegel, on behalf of the IBT's Executive
Board, referred the charges against Passo and Hogan to the IRB for adjudication. (IRB
Ex. 4) On October 17 and 18, 2001, the IRB conducted an evidentiary hearing in Las
Vegas, Nevada.

Dane Passo was a member of Local 705 in Chicago. (Ex. 20 at 4) General
President Hoffa appointed Passo his Special Assistant and an International Representative
in March of 1999. (Ex. 11; Ex. 20 at 23-24) President Hoffa's Executive Assistant Carlos
Scalf ("Scalf") supervised Passo. (Ex. 12 at 47-48) Passo was Special Assistant until
October 1, 2000, when Hoffa removed his title. (Ex. 20 at 24-25; Ex. 11)⁴ After the IBT
filed the IRB-recommended charge against him, Passo took an unpaid leave of absence as
an International Representative. (IRB Ex. 3)

The only previous union position Passo held was for thirteen months as a
Local 705 business representative in Chicago. (Ex. 20 at 18-19) Passo had never
negotiated any collective bargaining agreements while employed at 705 or at the IBT.
(Ex. 21 at 290-91; Tr. 504-505)⁵

^{_________________________}
3    IBT General President Hoffa recused himself from this matter. (IRB Ex. 2)
4    Hoffa testified that Passo was removed as Special Assistant because some IBT Vice Presidents
told him that Passo "was very aggressive in putting forth his position. And they felt it would be better if he
didn't have that title." (Ex. 78 at 13-14) When asked why Passo was removed as Special Assistant, Scalf
testified, "[b]ecause of him pushing his weight around and telling people that he could get them fired and
being a little more outspoken than he should be and on the advice of counsel." (Ex. 12 at 197)
5    According to Passo, his only experience was when he observed negotiations Scalf conducted with
the New York, New York Casino in Las Vegas. (Ex. 21 at 290-91)

Passo had no experience in the convention industry. (Ex. 20 at 23; Tr.
455) The Local 631 collective bargaining agreement with the trade show contractors was
the first convention contract to which Passo had any exposure. (Tr. 471)

Mr. Hogan is President of Joint Council 25, Vice President of Local 179
and Organizing and Political Director for Local 714, all in Chicago. (Ex. 15 at 4)⁶ (1,
May 1, 2000, Hoffa appointed Hogan an International Representative. (Ex. 143) As
International Representative, Hogan was not assigned to a specific IBT department. He
reported to Mr. Scalf. (Ex. 12 at 47)

Mr. Hogan had substantial experience in the convention services industry
and is especially recognized as knowledgeable of Chicago trade shows and convention
center business. (Tr. 282-294)

Hogan had no International assignment in Las Vegas and no official
responsibilities with Local 631. (Ex. 12 at 60) Hogan took an unpaid leave of absence
from his position as an International Representative after the IBT filed the IRB-
recommended charge against him. (IRB Ex. 3 )

_____________________
6 In August 1996, based upon an IRB recommendation, the IBT placed Local 714 in Trusteeship.
The Local was placed in Trusteeship because of nepotism and conflicts of interest among Hogan and his
relatives who had ownership interests in companies that employed Teamster members. At that time, Hogan
was Secretary-Treasurer of Local 714 and President of Joint Council 25 in Chicago. (Ex. 162 at 4, 11)
After being removed as the Local 714 principal officer, Hogan continued as a Local 714 member until
approximately early 1997 when he retired. (Ex. 15 at 5) In early 1999, Hogan was appointed Vice
President of Local 714. (Ex. 15 at 10-11) On or about March 9, 2000, Hogan was appointed President of
Joint Council 25. (Ex. 15 at 4)

Ben Stein ("Stein") founded United Service Companies in Chicago
approximately forty years ago. (Ex. 27)⁷ Richard Simon ("Simon") is the current
Chairman of United. (Ex. 27; Ex. 171) Currently, there are at least three companies
under the United name: United Maintenance Company, Inc. ("United Maintenance"),
United National Maintenance, Inc. and United Temps of Nevada ("United Temps"). Exs.
19, 24 and 27)

United Maintenance was incorporated in Illinois on March 2, 1982 (Ex.
19), and United National Maintenance in Nevada in October 1984. (Ex. 19) Simon is the
President of United National Maintenance. (Ex. 19)⁸ Simon is a business friend of
Hogan's, of long standing. (Tr. 294-298)

United Temps of Nevada Inc. was incorporated in Nevada on March 1,
1999. (Ex. 24) The President is Simon and the Secretary is Carol D. Stein. (Ex. 24)⁹
According to its website, United Temps provides temporary labor for major events and

_________________________
7 Stein, who was convicted of bribing a union official in the 1960s, was reported to have ties to
organized crime figures including La Cosa Nostra member Dominic Senese ("Senese"), who was also a
local Teamster official. (Ex. 28) Simon also knew Senese well. (Ex. 30) The arrangement Passo, Hogan
and Simon proposed to Local 631 was similar to those Stein had reportedly been involved with in the past
where his employees were paid wages below a prevailing contract. (Ex. 28-31) In 1966, Stein was
convicted in federal court in Chicago for labor racketeering and bribery. (Ex. 28) Stein was sentenced to
eighteen months in federal prison and fined $2,000. (Ex. 28) In 1969, Stein's conviction was overturned on
the bribery counts. (Ex. 28) Stein subsequently pleaded guilty to bribing a film carriers union official and
was sentenced to one year in prison. (Ex. 28)

In the mid 1970s, Stein and Senese, an organized crime member and then the principal officer of
the IBT Local 703, obtained a loan of $5.25 million from the IBT Local 710 Pension Fund. (Ex. 28)
According to a news report, Stein and Senese used this money to invest in a building to provide a tax
shelter. (Ex. 28) Senese was subsequently barred from the IBT for being a member of organized crime.
(Ex. 29) Stein died in September 1996 (Ex. 28)

8 The Secretary-Treasurer of this company is Stein's daughter, Carol. (Ex. 19) According to the
United website, United National Maintenance "provides services to the trade show industry and major
stadiums on a national level. Currently in more than 25 major cities in 14 states." (Ex. 27)
9 On May 12, 2000, United Temps of Nevada was registered as a foreign corporation in Illinois.
(Ex. 24) Simon is the registered agent. (Ex. 24) In Illinois, United Temps of Nevada has the assumed
name United Temps. (Ex. 24)

institutions on local and national levels. (Ex. 27) It was incorporated shortly before
Simon and Michael Hogan approached Local 631 officers to permit United to supply
workers to the trade show contractor at rates below the existing Teamster' contract.¹⁰
United Temps is a labor broker. (Tr. 359, 463; Ex. 15 at 148; Ex. 32 at 26;
Ex. 26 at 49; Ex. 82 at 77) Passo knew that the United employees, who were not
members of any union, did not receive any health and welfare or pension benefits or
vacation time. (Tr. 508)

Michael P. Hogan, Sr. (" Michael Hogan"), a brother of William Hogan,
was Vice President of United. (Ex. 15 at 18-20; Ex. 18; Ex. 173 at 7, 19) ¹¹ In 1999,
Michael Hogan asked his brother William Hogan to introduce him and Simon to the
Local 631 officers. In 1996, Michael Hogan's son testified that his father worked for
United. (Ex. 173 at 19)

Michael Hogan was also the CEO of Show Biz USA ("Show Biz"), a trade
show contractor active at the Las Vegas Convention Center. (Exs. 11-23; Ex. 15 at 18)¹²
Show Biz was the general contractor for the Super Show that was held in Las Vegas in
January 2001. (Ex. 155 at 6-8, 19; Ex. 154; Ex. 147 at 20) During that show, Show Biz
attempted to use United employees to perform Teamster work. (Ex. 155 at 21, 25-26; Ex.

____________________
10 The United employees who performed Teamster bargaining unit work usually performed cleaning
work in the convention industry. (Ex. 6 at 68-75; Tr. 175)

11 Michael Hogan, Jr., a Local 714 member and son of Michael Hogan, explained that United
Maintenance handled empty crates at McCormick Place in Chicago. (Ex. 173 at 19) A "labor service,"
Readymen, Inc., provided workers to United Maintenance. (Ex. 173 at 22-23) William Hogan, head of
Joint Council 25, claimed that he did not know if the Chicago United employees who worked at
McCormick Place were members of any union and he acknowledged that he never tried to organize them.
(Ex. 15 at 30, 147)

12 Michael Hogan had been the Local 714 chief steward in the Chicago Local's trade show division
from the mid 1970s to 1978. (Ex. 174 at 10-11; Ex. 175 at 128; Ex. 176)

156 at 41-42; Ex. 154) Obviously, as a general contractor, any change in the governing
contract that allowed the use of cheaper labor, as Passo and William Hogan advocated,
would result in substantial financial benefit to Michael Hogan and Richard Simon.

Local 631 is in Las Vegas, Nevada. During the relevant time period it
had a collective bargaining agreement with trade show contractors there. This contract
was referred to as the "red book contract." (Ex. 4; Ex. 6 at 106) The major show
contractors were Greyhound Exposition Services ("GES") and Freeman Decorating
("Freeman"). (Ex. 6 at 108, 227-228) In Las Vegas the Teamsters had jurisdiction over
the majority of work in the trade show industry. (Tr. 182-83)

The agreement required the trade show contractors to contract the Local
631 dispatch office for workers. (Ex. 4 at 3) ¹³ The contract provided for an "A" dispatch
list and a Supplemental dispatch list, sometimes referred to as the "C" list. (Ex. 4 at 3-4)
Individuals who had not worked 1,000 hours in the convention industry comprised the
Supplemental "C" list. (Ex. 4 at 4) Every Thursday, individuals, including under the
contract non-union workers, would register at the dispatch office. (Ex. 2 at 102; Ex. 7 at
70-71) To be on the list, an individual had to complete registration forms, watch an
orientation video and pay either Local 631 dues or a monthly dispatch fee. (Ex. 7 at 70,

_______________________
13 Pursuant to Article 1, Section 3 of the red book contract,

87; Ex. 2 at 102) Thus, any dues paying Local 631 member could register for the
occasional convention work without paying any additional fee. (Ex. 6 at 77-78; Ex. 7 at
69, 87) Non-union workers paid a $40 per month dispatch fee. (Ex. 7 at 69-70, 80, 87;
Ex. 8 at 18)

The minimum hourly wage under the agreement was $12.49 for
Supplemental Workers with less than 150 hours work in the industry. (Ex. 4 at 11) After
more than 150 hours, the hourly rate, effective June 1, 2000, was $13.69. (Ex. 4 at 11) A
Supplemental Worker with more than 150 hours in the industry was sometimes referred
to as a "C Plus" worker. (Ex. 25 at 11; Ex. 4 at 11)

According to Article III, Section E of the contract, for work performed
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., all employees were paid one and one half
times the base rate of pay, except for Supplemental Workers who had not worked 150
hours. (Ex. 4 at 13) Effective June l, 2000, for every hour worked between 10:00 p.m.
and 6:00 a.m., a C Plus worker would have been paid $20.53 per hour. In addition, the
contractor also would have had benefit fund contributions on the worker's behalf. ¹⁴

Pursuant to the contract, the employer was required for each hour an
employee worked to make contributions of $3.75 to the Teamsters Local 631 Security Fund
for Southern Nevada ("Local 631 Security Fund") for health and welfare and dental and
vision coverage. (Ex. 4 at 26) Effective June 1, 2000, in addition, the employer was
required to make contributions for each employee totaling $4.15 per hour to the Western

________________
14 The base rate for a C Plus worker effective June 1, 2000 was $13.69. (Ex. 4 at 11)

Conference of Teamsters Pension Fund. (Ex. 4 at 26-27) Therefore, effective June l, 2000,
the minimum hourly cost to the employer for, wages and benefits for a worker dispatched
through Local 631 was $20.39. The minimum hourly cost for workers with over 150 hours
experience employed during the period from 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. was $28.43 per hour.
(Ex. 4 at 11, 13, 26-27)¹⁵

During large shows when one show was moving out and another show as
moving in, the dispatch office, from time to time, ran out of registered workers to send.
(Tr. 63, 189-190, 379, 386, 387; Ex. 6 at 89-90; Ex. 5 at 11-12; Ex. 7 at 84) These
"show" changes sometimes happened late at night or on weekends when the dispatch
office was closed. (Ex. 5 at 10-12; Ex. 82 at 44; Ex. 25 at 33-34) Once workers finished
working on the existing show, they were then available to work on the incoming show.
In those circumstances, individuals would have been "rolled over" from one show to
another. (Tr. 189-90; Ex. 25 at 32; Ex. 6 at 71-72, 236-237; Ex. 5 at 11-12; Ex. 2 at 192-
193)

Prior to the Trusteeship being imposed on Local 631 in April 2000, if the
dispatch office's list of registrants was exhausted, the dispatcher contacted IBT Locals 14
and 995 in Las Vegas and then the Carpenters and Electricians unions to see if they had
out-of-work members who wanted to work. (Tr. 132, 381; Ex. 5 at 14-15)¹⁶ All workers,
including members of other unions, who were dispatched from Local 631 received a

_________________
15 The hourly wage for a C Plus worker was $16.39. (Ex. 4 at 11) Time and one half for the night
hours was $20.53. The benefit fund contributions were $7.90 per hour. (Ex. 4 at 16-27)

16 In an effort to increase the number of registrants in the dispatch office, the Local before the
Trusteeship also placed ads in the newspaper seeking people to sign up in the dispatch office. The Local
also would allow people to register in the hiring hall every day, instead of only the usual sign up on
Thursday. (Tr. 132).

written dispatch form from the Local. (Tr. 62; Ex. 170)¹⁷ Local 631 complied with the
contract, controlled the employees sent to work and ensured that workers sent to the
tradeshow contractors were paid wages and benefits pursuant to the contract. The Local
officers had an agreement with the Carpenters that any Carpenter members dispatched
through Local 631 ". . . would be the last ones on the show floor and the first ones to be
laid off. So it didn't affect any of my hiring hall people, were they . . members or
nonmembers." (Tr. 133, 405)

Local 631 may have contacted the other unions between six and eight
times a year for the large shows prior to the Trusteeship. (Tr. 132) ¹⁸ After the
Trusteeship was imposed, Passo insisted that the dispatchers no longer contact other
unions to fill the call when the dispatch office exhausted its list (Ex. 26 at 78; Ex. 20 at
146; Ex. 9 at 15)

This contract provision eliminated the economic incentive for contractors
to attempt to use lower paid employees such as those of a labor broker, like United, not
dispatched through Local 631. Despite these terms, Passo and Hogan argued for an
agreement with United to permit it to pay its employees to perform Teamster bargaining
unit work at significantly below the contract rates and to be dispatched directly through

________________________
17 The Local provided dispatch records showing that in late 1999 and early 2000, the Local 631
dispatch office referred members of the Carpenters Union to work in the convention industry. (Ex. 170)

18 Breyman estimated that the Local 631 dispatch list was exhausted on the major shows between six
and eight times a year. (Tr. 380)

United. Passo and Hogan's proposed arrangement with United would have provided
contractors an incentive to circumvent the red book contract requirements and hire the
cheaper United workers, as GES repeatedly attempted and Michael Hogan attempted to
do on the Super Show in Las Vegas in 2001.

Timothy Murphy ("Murphy") was elected Secretary-Treasurer in Local
6312s 1998 election (Ex. 25 at 5) and he rehired David Breyman ("Breyman") as
dispatcher. (Ex. 5 at 6)

Hogan's brother, Michael told Hogan that, ". . . Rich [Simon] has been
negotiating with the prior administration to do some things here for the labor problems
here in Las Vegas." (Ex. 15 at 24) The Local administration prior to Murphy's had
refused to enter into an agreement with United. (Ex. 15 at 24; Tr. 306, 307, 371)

Hogan agreed to introduce Michael to the newly elected Local 631
officials in order to again propose an arrangement between Local 631 and United. (Ex.
15 at 22-25) During a Western Delegates meeting in Las Vegas in June 1999, Hogan
introduced his brother to Breyman at Bally's hotel. (Tr. 384; Ex. 15 at 25-26; Ex. 5 at 22,

25) ¹⁹ Murphy attended the Western Region Delegates meeting during which he
introduced himself to Hoffa and Hogan. (Tr. 124; Ex. 25 at 15-17, 26, 41-43) Hogan
asked Murphy if he would be willing to meet with some people who were not identified.
(Tr. 135; Ex. 25 at 17-19; 25, 27-28) Murphy agreed. (Tr. 133-135; 308; Ex. 25 at 17)

In the summer or earl,,; fall of 1999, Murphy and Breyman met with
Michael Hogan and Simon at the Rio hotel in Las Vegas. (Tr. 135, 304, 305, 383) At
the time of this meeting, both Murphy and Breyman knew that Michael Hogan was
related to William Hogan. (Tr. 136, 392) Simon and Michael Hogan proposed that Local
631 enter into an agreement with United pursuant to which United would supply workers
to trade show companies after the Local 631 dispatch list was exhausted. (Tr. 387, 401-
402; Ex. 25 at 33-35) Breyman was concerned that United would take over the dispatch
function from Local 631. (Tr. 401-402; Ex. 5 at 30-39) Breyman would not surrender
Local 631's control of the dispatching. He believed control was necessary to ensure that
the workers were paid pursuant to the governing contract and to allow the union to
monitor workers' hours so that their pay would be increased at intervals pursuant to the
red book contract. (Tr. 402)

Under Michael Hogan and Simon's proposal, United would not have
entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the Local. (Tr. 387) Breyman
recalled:

_______________
19 The Western Regional Delegates meeting was held on June 28 and 29, 1999. (Exs. 185 and 186)

(Tr. 387) Michael Hogan and Simon also proposed paying the United employees
directly rather than the employees paid by the trade show contractor for which the work
was performed as would have been done under the existing contract. (Tr. 388) ²⁰
Breyman testified, ". . . [b]oth Tim and myself had suggested that would be inappropriate
without them being under a contract, that we felt the people that were working for the
general contractors should be paid by the general contractors." (Tr. 288)

Michael Hogan and Simon proposed that United would pay a fee of $7 or
$8 for each person dispatched rather than the $40 dispatch fee non-members paid to
Local 631. (Tr. 137, Ex. 5 at 29-30; Ex. 25 at 28) There was no intention for United
employees to become Teamsters. Union members would have paid dues instead of any
dispatch fee.

Murphy refused to agree to United's proposal (Tr. 137-38, 306-307, 371;
Ex. 25 at 35; Ex. 5 at 29-32) and Breyman also would not support any changes to the
economic obligations due employees under the current contract. (Tr. 388-389; Ex. 5 at
30) Breyman told Michael Hogan and Simon that United would have to pay the wage
rates under the contract then in effect. (Tr. 401) Michael Hogan or Simon informed
William Hogan that no agreement was reached with Local 631. (Tr. 309)

On September 15, 1999, Local 631 President Christian chaired a general
membership meeting in Murphy's absence at which a no confidence vote against

___________________
20 Workers dispatched from Local 63 I were paid by the trade show contractors at the red book
contract rate. (Ex. 5 at 32, 39)

Secretary-Treasurer Murphy was passed. (Ex. 196) On the date of this meeting, Passo
made three calls to Hogan; one for sixteen minutes. (Ex. 38) In a letter dated October 4,
1999, Christian informed General President Hoffa of this no confidence vote, noting that
Dudash made the motion and Locascio had seconded it. (Ex. 197)

Vito Locascio²¹ also became active in soliciting complaints from members
about Murphy. (Ex. 25 at 60) Passo brought the local 631 complaints to Hoffa's
attention. (Ex. 20 at 113-114; Ex. 21 at 256-60) Passo urged Hoffa to appoint him
Hoffa's Personal Representative to Local 631. (Ex. 20 at 113-114) On Friday,
November 5, 1999, Hoffa granted Passo's request. (Ex. 10)

Hoffa also appointed Santangelo and International Representatives Robert
Turner ("Turner") and John Kikes ("Kikes") to be Personal Representatives to the Local.
(Exs. 13-14; Ex. 32 at 16-17) Santangelo, Turner and Kikes conducted an investigation
into the complaints regarding Local 631. (Ex. 3)

In January 2000, IBT Vice President and Joint Council 42 President
Santangelo forwarded a report to General President Hoffa recommending the Local 631
be placed in Trusteeship based on the investigation that he and Personal Representatives
Kikes and Turner had conducted. (Ex. 3)

Passo and Hogan continued to keep in close contact throughout early
2000. From cellular telephone records, there were eleven calls between Passo and Hogan

_____________________
21 Vito Locascio was a former member of Hogan's local in Chicago and was a close confidant of
Passo. (Exs. 144 and 146) After Local 631 was placed in Trusteeship, Passo and Locascio talked every
day. (Ex. 147 at 33)

in January 2000, the month of Santangelo's report, twelve calls in February 2000 and 32
calls in March 2000. (Exs. 42-45, 54, 65-68 and 76)²²

On February 28, 2000, Hogan arrived in Las Vegas for a labor panel for
the Exhibitor Assisted Contractors Association that was then having a meeting in Las
Vegas. (Tr. 311; Ex. 15 at 83-84; Exs. 265-66) Passo arrived in Las Vegas the next day.
(Exs. 118-119) That day, the,,,. were five calls from Hogan's cellular telephone to
Passo's cellular telephone. (Ex:: . 68 and 76) The following day, on March 1, 2000,
Passo, Hogan, Santangelo and Turner went to Local 631 to confront Secretary-Treasurer
Murphy. (Tr. 141-142; Ex. 25 at 65-66; Ex. 20 at 116; Ex. 15 at 100; Ex. 32 at 13) At
the time Hogan went with Passo and Santangelo to Local 631, Hogan had no
International position. Nor did he have any assigned role with respect to Local 631. (Ex.
12 at 60)²³

On March 1, 2000, Passo dined with Hogan, Santangelo, Turner and
Christian, the Local 631 President whom Murphy had terminated as a business agent.
(Exs. 118-119) In addition, also on March 1, 2000, Passo and Hogan had a private
meeting to discuss Local 631. (Exs. 118-119)²⁴

Passo's March l, 2000 appearance at the Local was the first time Murphy
had seen Passo at Local 631. (Tr. 141; Ex. 25 at 22-24) During this meeting, Passo,
Hogan, Santangelo and Turner told Murphy that General President Hoffa recommended

____________________
22     On February 17, 2000, Passo and Hogan dined together in New Orleans during the AFL-CIO
Convention. (Ex. 15 at 81-82; Ex. 20 at 120; Exs. 116 and 117)

23     Scalf, Hoffa's Executive Assistant who supervised Hogan as an International Representative,
confirmed he had given Hogan no assignment in Las Vegas. (Ex. 12 at 60)

24     This meal was at Piero's Italian Cuisine. (Exs. 118-119) When asked why he discussed Local
631 business with Hogan at this dinner, Passo claimed, "[t]o tell you the truth, I don't know how he got
involved in that." (Ex. 20 at 128)

that he do three things: rehire business agent Christian and office employee Pam
Peabody and terminate Leslie Johnson. (Tr. 143-144; Ex 20 at 116; Ex. 15 at 100; Ex.
32 at 13; Ex. 25 at 65-66; Ex. 193) Murphy was given until March 3 to respond. (Tr.
145) The next day, March 2, 2000, Passo, Hogan and others met to discuss Local 631.
(Exs. 118-19; Ex. 147 at 34, 133-134; Ex. 20 at 129-1,31) Santangelo and Turner,
Hoffa's personal representatives to the Local, were absent from this meeting.

On the morning of March 3, Passo called Murphy demanding his
response. (Tr. 145) Murphy said he would respond to Hoffa in writing. (Tr. 145) Later
on March 3, Murphy telefaxed Hoffa a letter explaining his reasons for not complying
with Hoffa's requests. (Ex. 193; Ex. 25 at 66; Tr. 145) On March 3, 2000. Hogan called
Passo and spoke for ten minutes. (Ex. 67)

Between the March 1, 2000 meeting at Local 631 and April 5, 2000, when
Local 631 was placed in Trusteeship, there were at least 32 calls between Hogan's and
Passo's cellular telephones. (Exs. 44, 45, 54, 67, 68, 76)

On April 5, 2000, President Hoffa placed Local 631 in Trusteeship^.25 (Ex.
14) Hoffa appointed James Wilkerson ("Wilkerson"), the former principal officer of
_______________________
25 According to Hoffa's Trusteeship notice, Local 631 was placed in Trusteeship for the following
reasons:

Local 14 in Las Vegas, as Trustee. ²⁶ (Ex. 198) In addition, Hoffa appointed Marty
Frates ("Frates"), a business agent from Local 70 in Oakland. California and a Hoffa
appointee to a United Parcel Service ("UPS") National Grievance Panel, as Assistant
Trustee. (Ex. 198, Ex. 82 at 508, 20, 64)²⁷

The Trusteeship notice described the appointment of Santangelo, Turner
and Kikes as the General President's Personal Representatives to Local 631 and their
activities in that capacity. (Ex. 14) Passo also had been appointed a Personal
Representative to Local 631 but his involvement was not described and his activities not
listed in the notice to members. (Ex. 14)

On April 5, 2000, Passo was one of the group that went to Local 631 to
effect the Trusteeship. (Ex. 21 at 264-65) Secretary-Treasurer Murphy and the Local's
other officers were terminated. (Tr. 147, 400; Ex. 26 at 14)

Several other Local employees, including dispatcher Breyman, were fired.
(Tr. 391; Ex. 5 at 55-56)

On the day the Local was placed in Trusteeship, Passo called Hogan five
times. (Exs. 45, 55, 76; Tr. 319-320) In addition, there were two calls from Hogan to

____________________________

(Ex.14)

26 Between March 1965 and April 1995, Wilkerson had been employed at Local 14 in Las Vegas.
(Ex. 16 at 5-Local 631) He was the principal officer of Local 14 for 28 years. (Ex. 26 at 5-Local 631 )
Wilkerson had also been a Trustee and the Recording Secretary for Joint Council 42. (Ex. 26 at 6)

27 Frates was a business agent with Local 70 for twenty-three years. (Ex. 82 at 6) Frates had been a
Local 70 Trustee for approximately seven years in the 1970s. (Ex. 82 at 6)

Passo. (Exs. 69, 76) Passo continued the practice of informing Hogan of all events
regarding Local 631.

Passo chose Local 631 member Roberta Whitfield ("Whitfield") to be one
of the business agents for the convention industry. (Tr. 480; Ex. 26 at 40-41; Ex. 6 at 5)
She had worked in the convention industry for twenty-three years and had been a steward
in the convention industry since the 1980s. (Ex. 6 at 11) Wilkerson had not previously
known Whitfield. (Tr. 70)

After the Local was placed in Trusteeship, Chuck Benboe ("Benboe") was
also hired as a business agent for the convention industry. (Ex. 26 at 40) Benboe had
been a business agent with Local 222 in Salt Lake City and Local 190 in Billings,
Montana. (Ex. 149 at 6) Whitfield worked in the field. Benboe was responsible for
handling grievances. (Ex. 26 at 41-42)

After Local 631 was placed in Trusteeship, Passo was in Las Vegas
regularly over a period of several months. Of the 229 days between April 4 and
November 19, 2000, Passo was in Las Vegas for 156 days. (Ex. 201)²⁸

Hogan was frequently in Las Vegas during the same period. For at least
27 days between April 16 and October 27, 2000 Hogan was in Las Vegas. At the IRB
hearing Hogan claimed to be concerned with the Local's jurisdiction being infringed, but
he never once met with the IBT Trustee to let his concern be known. (Tr. 375-376) In
the eleven months from the Trusteeship to his request to Hoffa in March 2001 to be
permitted to negotiate the Local 631 contract, Hogan never called Wilkerson or his

_________________
28 The IBT paid approximately $18,501 in hotel bills; $11,522 in car rental bills, $8,653 in airfare
and $21,256 in meals and other expenses, including gasoline, for Passo's stays in Las Vegas. (Exs. 120-
135,201)

successor to express his views on the proposed agreement with United or problems at the
Convention Center. (Tr. 366-367, 375-376; Ex. 26 at 58; Ex. 15 at 92-93)

Hogan and Passo were both in Las Vegas at the same time on at least six
occasions in 2000. (Exs. 116-35, 166, 265-281)²⁹ (Exs. 118-119, 122, 123, 128, 129,
132, 133, 165)

After Local 631 was in Trusteeship, Hogan introduced Passo to Simon so
Passo would help Simon renew his effort to make a labor arrangement with Local 631.
(Tr. 306-307; Ex. 15 at 24-25) Hogan never introduced Simon to Trustee Wilkerson.
(Tr. 60) As a result of Hogan's introduction, Passo and Simon discussed an arrangement
for United with Local 631. (Tr. 444-447; Ex. 20 at 73-74)

During this time, Passo knew that trade show contractor GES was
"scabbing" by using United employees at rates substantially less than the Teamster
contract. (Tr. 464, 487-88) Passo discussed GES's "scabbing" with Hogan. (Tr. 487-88)
According to Passo, the United employees were paid $5.00 per hour. (Tr. 508) The
minimum hourly rate under the red book agreement was $12.40. In addition, under the
red book contract, United would have to pay an additional $7.90 per hour per employee
in benefit contributions. (Ex. 4 at 11, 26-27) Throughout this period, Passo knew that
the United employees had no health and welfare or pension benefits. (Tr. 508) Passo
took no action about the scabbing.
_______________________
29 Passo and Hogan were both in Las Vegas on the following dates: February 29-March 2, 2000;
May 7, May 19-21; August 13-17; September 19-24; October 23-27. (Exs. 118-120, 122-125, 128-133,
176, 265-267, 269, 271-273, 275-280)

Passo gave Simon a copy of the Local's contract with GES. (Ex. 20 at
70)³⁰ Simon told Passo that he, Simon, should have concessions from that agreement.
(Ex. 20 at 75-77) Passo then pressed concessions for Simon on Local 631. (Ex. 20 at 84-
85; Tr. 59; Ex. 20 at 75-77; Ex. 26 at 45)

Local 631 officials did not participate in any of the discussions over terms
between Passo and Simon. (Ex. 20 at 52, 162-64) Rather, Passo made an agreement with
Simon that he then pushed the Local's officials to approve. (Tr. 65-66, 96, 120, 180-189;
Ex. 6 at 93-111; Ex. 26 at 44-49; Ex. 82 at 53-56, 72-73; Ex. 20 at 162-163)³¹

After Local 631 officials refused to endorse the Passo-Simon agreement,
Passo falsely represented that high-ranking IBT officials supported it and would look
favorably on the Local 631 officials approving it. (Ex. 26 at 88; Tr. 65) When the Local
631 officials continued to refuse to enter into his agreement with Simon (Ex. 82 at 49-56;
Ex. 6 at 94-111; Ex. 26 at 44-46), Passo caused Assistant Trustee Frates to be terminated.
(Ex. 26 at 111-112; Ex. 78 at 62; Ex. 12 at 214) Passo later caused Trustee Wilkerson to
be fired. (Ex. 20 at 242-243; Ex. 12 at 84-85, 127, 130, 151-152; Ex. 78 at 57-59)

_____________________
30 In August 2000 Passo submitted to the IBT Legal Department an agreement he had negotiated
with Simon with the following description, "The language in the enclosed paperwork is the amended
language to the contract. Everything else will remain the same as in the GES Exposition contract." (Ex.
84) In contrast, during the IRB hearing Passo testified ". . . They [United] did not have anything to do with
the GES contract. They were totally away from it . . . ." (Tr. 508)

31 Passo did not have authority to sign an agreement with United. (Tr. 95) Trustee Wilkerson had
that authority. (Tr. 95)

In April or early May 2000, shortly after the Trusteeship, Passo told
business agent Whitfield that he and Simon were working on an agreement under which
Simon's company would provide employees in the convention industry. (Tr. 177, Ex. 6 at
89-93) Subsequently Passo told Whitfield that Simon would be in Las Vegas and asked
her to dinner with Simon. (Tr. 179)

Whitfield requested Assistant Trustee Frates to attend this dinner with
Passo and Simon. (Ex. 6 at 93-95 Ex. 82 at 40) (Tr. 185) In attempting to justify why
he wanted the inexperienced Whitfield alone at a meeting on Local business with him and
Simon, Passo bluffed, telling Whitfield that ". . . he knew more about doing a contract
than Marty did ...... (Tr. 185) In fact, Passo had no experience negotiating collective
bargaining agreements. (Ex. 21 at 190-291; Tr. 504-505) Nor did he have any
experience in the convention industry. (Tr. 455; Ex. 20 at 23, 79) Passo's false
statements about his own experience were consistent with his attempts to convince others
to approve his agreement with Simon by falsely claiming other IBT officials favored it.

Whitfield and Frates met Passo and Simon for dinner. (Ex. 6 at 96; Ex. 82 at 49;
Ex. 20 at 89-90) Passo and Simon presented an agreement under which the Local would
make substantial concessions from the red book contract to Simon. (Ex. 82 at 53-54, 72
73; Ex. 6 at 94-104, Tr. 180) Passo and Simon's wage scale was $8.00 per hour, the
same figure Passo quoted to Wilkerson in his discussion with him. (Tr. 58, 60, 180-181)
At that time, the lowest wage scale under the governing contract was $12.40 per hour.
(Tr. 180)

In addition, Passo had agreed that Simon would not make benefit fund
contributions from the first hour an employee worked as the red book agreement
required. (Tr. 181; Ex. 6 at 101-102; Ex. 4 at 24, 27)

Passo urged Frates and Whitfield to approve Simon's terms. (Tr. 275-76;
Ex. 82 at 72) Whitfield testified,

Both Whitfield and Frates refused to agree to Passo's concessions for
Simon. (Tr. 183-185; Ex. 82 at 54)³² Assistant Trustee Frates stated:

_____________________
32 During his sworn examination, Passo testified that he did not recall Frates' or Whitfield's opinion
regarding the agreement. (Ex. 20 at 92) The claimed lack of memory is not credible.

Part of the reason for Frates' strong opposition to Passo's proposal to give significant
economic concessions to Simon was because he believed they would trigger the most
favored nations clause in the red book contract to the disadvantage of Local 631's
members in the convention industry. (Ex. 82 at 54) Frates also opposed the proposed
agreement with United because contract negotiations with the trade show contractors
were coming up in 2001, ". . . it would have been asinine to go in and negotiate
something less right before negotiations." (Ex. 82 at 55)

Whitfield asked Passo why Simon did not sign a "me too agreement to
the red book contract. (Ex. 6 at 124) Passo responded that Simon "doesn't like that
contract." (Ex. 6 at 124)

After Frates and Whitfield unequivocally rejected their proposal, Passo
and Simon stated that they would continue to work on the agreement. (Tr. 185, Ex. 82 at
56) Passo did not involve anyone else from the Local in his alleged continuing
negotiations with Simon.

Again, after the Trusteeship was imposed, Passo solicited Trustee
Wilkerson to approve an arrangement pursuant to which Local 631 would contact
Simon's company for workers after the Local 631 dispatch lists were exhausted. (Tr. 58,
62; Ex. 26 at 44-45)³³ Wilkerson recognized that the agreement Passo advocated for
Simon was substandard. He would not approve it. (Tr. 58, Ex. 26 at 44-50) The Passo-

____________
33 Wilkerson testified that Passo's proposal provided that if the Local could not fill the call with
people from the dispatch office,

Simon proposal presented to Wilkerson was much the same as the proposal presented to
Whitfield and Frates. (Tr. 59, Ex. 26 at 45)

Wilkerson also recalled under Passo's proposal that Simon's employees
would not immediately become members of Local 631, but in an elongated process. As
Wilkerson recounted, ". . . in reading his notes and listening to him [Passo], I said,
`You're wasting your time with me. You are not going to get anywhere with that piece of
crap with me'." (Ex. 26 at 46) ³⁴

Passo requested that the Local's attorney, Joseph Kaplon ("Kaplon"),
persuade Wilkerson to approve the agreement. (Tr. 59, Ex. 26 at 46) Wilkerson testified,
". . . So I got a hold of Joe Kaplon, had him come in and explained to Joe what I thought
the contract existed [sic] of, and he was absolutely in agreement with me that it should
not be a signed document by the local union." (T r. 59; Ex. 26 at 46) Wilkerson told
Passo, "I can't be a party to that. Period. You're breaking down conditions here......
(Ex. 26 at 52)

Passo claimed that he was unaware of the "most favored nations" clause in
the agreement until Wilkerson and the Local's attorney told him about it. (Tr. 47-71; Ex.
20 at 158-59) Hogan, who was Passo's regular advisor concerning United, testified that

he had never even read the then current Las Vegas agreement with trade show contractors
and was also unaware of the "most favored nations" clause in it. (Tr. 338)

After Wilkerson refused to enter into the substandard agreement because
of its terms, Passo falsely claimed to Wilkerson that high-ranking International officials
in addition to Hogan favored the contract. (Tr. 65, 91; Ex. 26 at 88, 92) Passo lied to
Wilkerson that both Santangelo and Scalf wanted Wilkerson to enter into Passo's
arrangement with Simon's company. (Tr. 65, Ex. 26 a5 88, 92)³⁵According to
Wilkerson,

(Tr. 65)
Both Santangelo and Scalf denied approving Passo's proposed agreement
with Simon's company. (Ex. 32 at 41-43); Ex. 12 at 98-101) Wilkerson told Passo that if

____________________________
35    During his sworn examination, Passo testified as follows:
Q:    Did you ever tell anyone that Mr. Santangelo wanted 631 to enter into an agreement with Mr.
Simon's company?
A:    I don't remember if I did.
Q:    Did you ever tell anyone that Mr. Scalf wanted Local 631 to enter into the agreement with Mr.
Simon's company?
A:    I don't remember if I did. If I did, it was probably to pump up the members or something, this
way it looks like we are getting new members.
Q:    Did Mr. Scalf want an agreement entered into with Mr. Simon's company?
A    I don't know if he wanted an agreement, he wanted teamsters.

(Ex. 20 at 187) Passo claimed not to recall whether he told Wilkerson that Santangelo approved the
agreement with Simon's company. He denied telling Wilkerson that Scalf approved the agreement. (Ex.
20 at 181-83) That Passo named Scalf as a supporter of the contract is supported by the transcript of the
September 10, 2000 conversation in which Passo told Whitfield that "Scalf's got it and they all went
through it and everything. . . ." (Ex. 128 at 33) Moreover, Simon told Frates that Scalf and Santangelo had
approved the contract. (Ex. 82 at 63)

Scalf wanted the agreement with Simon's company entered into, Scalf should sign the
agreement himself. (Ex. 26 at 92)

Frates and Whitfield informed Wilkerson that Passo tried to convince
them to support the agreement with Simon's company too. (Tr. 66, 96; Tr. 186) The
Trustee, Assistant Trustee and trade show business agent. all of whom did not know each
other prior to the Trusteeship (Tr. 70), saw Passo's proposal as substandard. (Tr. 92-93)
Only Simon, GES, and Hogan's brother, who was both a trade show contractor and
United Vice President, would have benefited from allowing Simon to profit through
supplying labor to GES and other contractors at below then current Teamster contract
rates.

Throughout the Trusteeship, Passo frequently reported to Hogan on the
progress of the arrangement with United. (Ex. 20 at 79) Passo, although not disclosing
to Scalf, his superior, the details of his arrangements with Simon, admitted he needed to
keep Hogan informed. (Ex. 12 at 65, 97-98; 100, 107; Ex. 20 at 67068; 80-81) Scalf was
not aware that Hogan, who reported to him as an International Representative, was
aligned with Passo to benefit United at the expense of Local 631 (Ex. 12 at 107)

Although Hogan was without any responsibility for Local 631, Passo said
he informed Hogan "[t]o let him [Hogan] know about the contract, how it was going, to
get some advice from him. I wasn't you know - never in the convention industry." (Ex.
20 at 79) When asked what he discussed with Hogan about the contract, Passo
responded, "[t]he language, what I need, probably some information with him, what does
he think." (Ex. 20 at 81)

The dinner among Passo, Simon, Whitfield and Frates occurred in May or
June 2000. (Tr. 179) During that period, Passo and Hogan had regular and frequent
contact. (Exs. 46-48, 57, 69-71) In May 2000, there were at least twenty-eight cellular
telex hone calls between Passo and Hogan. (Exs. 47-48, 57, 71) Hogan admitted that
Passo kept him updated on his conversations with Simon. (Ex. 15 at 93) In addition to
Pass,,,, Hogan also discussed the agreement with Simon. (Tr. 323, 370. Ex. 15 at 46, 95-
96) 'cased upon his discussions with Passo and Simon, Hogan described the agreement
with United as a "contract for services." (Ex. 311 at 4) Hogan claimed he did not know
what the wages were in the contract. (Tr. 363)

After the steakhouse meeting, Passo repeatedly urged business agent
Whitfield to endorse his arrangement with Simon's company. (Ex. 6 at 125) Passo
brought in Hogan to meet Whitfield during one of Hogan's trips to Las Vegas. (Ex. 6 at
232) At that time, Hogan instructed Whitfield that she "should listen to Dane Passo."
(Ex. 6 at 234)

In May 2000, Hogan introduced Simon to Joint Council 42 President
Santangelo in Las Vegas. (Ex. 32 at 24-25) Passo, Hogan, Santangelo and Simon met
for dinner at the Rio Hotel. (Ex. 32 at 24-25)

In May 2000, Hogan met with Barry Rappaport ("Rappaport"), the head of
Freeman's operations in Las Vegas. (Tr. 327-333, 502-503, Ex. 15 at 52; Ex. 20 at 199-
201) Hogan asserted the meeting was at the request of the Freeman representatives who
had concerns about the Local 631 Trusteeship. (Ex. 15 at 52-53, 120; Tr. 327-328)
Hogan asked Passo to attend the breakfast meeting in Las Vegas with Rappaport. (Tr.
327-28; Ex. 15 at 52, 55-56) Hogan did not invite the Trustee or inform the Trustee of

the meeting. (Ex. 15 at 122-123) Nor did Passo. (Tr. 57-58) Neither Hogan nor Passo
told Scalf about the meeting. (Ex. 12 at 146-147)

Passo, Hogan and Rappaport discussed the proposed arrangement with
Local 631 for Simon's company. (Tr. 332-333; Ex. 20 at 199-204) According to Passo,
Rappaport, an employer, explained to Passo that the concessions on wages ³⁶ and other
benefits were a bad idea because the contract negotiations for a new agreement were
coming up in 2001 and Passo's proposed arrangement would undermine the Local's
bargaining position. (Tr. 502-503; Ex. 20 at 203-04; Ex. 21 at 273) Neither Passo nor
Hogan suggested that United employees would be paid the prevailing contract rate.

Hogan was unconcerned with any impact the arrangements for Simon
would have on IBT members or United employees. (Tr. 332-333; Ex. 15 at 51-55) He
did not contradict Freeman's analysis that Passo and Hogan were damaging the Local's
bargaining position.

Neither Hogan nor Passo ever told Scalf, to whom they both reported,
about their meeting with a representative of Local 631 employer Freeman in Las Vegas.
(Ex. 12 at 145-146; Tr. 427-428) Scalf had never heard of Freeman. (Ex. 12 at 145-46)
Nor did Passo or Hogan ever tell the Trustee of their meeting with a Local 631 employer.
(Ex. 15 at 122-123; Tr. 376)

In addition to this meeting with Rappaport, Passo also met with other
Freeman representatives concerning United. (Tr. 195-96) Business agent Whitfield
testified that in approximately May or June 2000, Freeman management representative

________________
36 Passo testified that he may have told the Freeman representative, ". . that there was going to be a wage difference." (Ex. 20 at 204)

Dick Jamison informed her that Passo had spoken to him about using employees of
Simon's company. (Tr. 195-96; Ex. 6 at 195-97) Whitfield recalled that Jamison told
her:

(Tr. 196) Passo never told the Trustee, Assistant Trustee or convention industry business
agents about these discussions. (Ex. 6 at 196-198; Tr. 57-58)

In late July 2000, Frates had a telephone conversation with Simon during
which Simon described an agreement he had reached with Passo. (Ex. 82 at 56-57; 68-

(Ex. 82 at 68) Frates refused to provide Simon with such a list. (Ex. 82 at 68-69) A
major show, the MAGIC show, was booked for Las Vegas in August and thus, there was
a substantial opportunity in view for United to place its cheaper workers with GES. The
agreement with Simon that Passo submitted to the IBT Legal Department specifically
referred to employees hired after August l, 2000. (Ex. 84)

Shortly, after his call to Frates, while Hoffa was in Chicago for AFL-CIO
meetings in late July or early August 2000, Hogan arranged for himself, Hoffa, Passo and
Simon to have lunch at Harry Cary's restaurant. (Ex. 20 at 165-66; Ex. 15 at 66-71; Ex.
78 at 25-29) According to Passo, Hogan picked up Hoffa and Passo at the Drake Hotel

where Hoffa was staying. (Ex. 20 at 165-67) At the hearing, Hogan suggested that
meeting Simon at the restaurant was a coincidence. (Tr. 335-36)

According to Hogan, he, Passo and Simon gave Hoffa "a general overview
... that we were trying to do something with Rick . . . ." (Tr. 336, Ex. 15 at 69) Passo
claimed that the agreement between Simon's company and Local 631 was not discuss°d
at this lunch with the General President. (Ex. 20 at 168) Hoffa acknowledged that the
agreement was discussed. (Ex. 78 at 28) Hoffa did not understand that Passo had an y
role in it.

Shortly have this lunch meeting with Simon and Hoffa, on August 3,
2000, Passo returned to Las Vegas. (Exs. 128-29) Hogan arrived in Las Vegas on
August 13 and left on August 17, 2000. (Ex. 278) During that time Passo and Hogan
had at least two meals together, one on August 13 and the other on August 15. (Ex. 129)
While Hogan was in Las Vegas, there were seven calls from his cellular telephone to
Passo and eight calls from Passo's cellular telephone to Hogan. (Exs. 49 and 73)

During the month of August 2000, there were eighteen calls from Hogan's
cellular telephone to Passo and thirteen calls from Passo's cellular telephone to Hogan.
(Exs. 49, 72-73)³⁷

_________________
37 At 9:00 a.m. on August 15, 2000, Hogan called Passo. (Ex. 73) Hogan then called Simon at 9:08
a.m. and spoke for five minutes. (Ex. 73) The next call from Hogan's cellular telephone was at 9:25 a.m.
to the offices of GES's parent company, VIAD, in Phoenix, Arizona. (Ex. 73) Hogan knew GES had a
relationship with Simon's companies. (Ex. 15 at 51-55) Hogan then called Passo and spoke for eight
minutes. (Ex. 73) Hogan acknowledged that he "probably" spoke to Passo and Simon about the agreement
with United during these calls on August 15, 2000. (Ex. 15 at 107-111)

Approximately two weeks after the Hoffa lunch with Simon in Chicago,
and the same day as Hogan and Passo had dinner together in Las Vegas, on August 15,
2000, Hogan made a series of telephone calls to Simon, Passo and GES, the contractor
wanting to use Simon's company in Las Vegas, concerning the arrangement between
Local 631 and United. (Exs. 73, 129) Both Hogan and Passo were in Las Vegas on
August 15, 2000. (Exs. 128-29; 275-77) The MAGIC show, a major GES show, was to
begin on August 24, 2000 (Ex. 151)

On the same day as the series of telephone calls with Simon, Simon
purchased a ticket to the James R. Hoffa Memorial Scholarship Fund ("Hoffa Scholarship
Fund") golf outing in Las Vegas. (Ex. 85) Hogan was on the committee for this golf
outing. (Ex. 15 at 191) By check dated September 8, 2000, Simon's company, United
Maintenance Company, Inc., made a donation of $5,100 to the Hoffa Scholarship Fund.
(Ex. 85) This donation represented $300 for Simon's ticket to attend as a non-golfer and
golf fees of $1,200 each for Hogan's son, James Hogan; Hogan's friend, Bill Marovitz,
the Joint Council 25 lobbyist, and two other individuals. (Ex. 85, Ex. 86 at 32-33; Ex. 15
at 98) That night, Hogan and Passo had dinner together. (Ex. 129)

The activity among Passo and Hogan with Simon and GES increased as
the MAGIC show, one of the large trade shows in Las Vegas, drew near its dates, August
24 through September 3, 2000. (Ex. 215) During the MAGIC show, GES, the show's
general contractor, used United employees to perform Teamster work. (Tr. 66, 128-129,
191-194; Ex. 82 at 74-80; Ex. 26 at 60- 63; Ex. 6 at 88-89, Ex. 156 at 27, 47, 93-94; Ex.
149 at 59-62; Ex. 25 at 93-94; Ex. 203 at 19-20; Ex. 300 at 25-26) As a result, Local 631
filed grievances against GES. (Exs. 151 and 251)

On August 23, 2000, one day before the MAGIC show began, Hogan
called Passo from Chicago and spoke to him for sixteen minutes at 7:03 p.m. (EST) (Ex.
73) That same day, a few minutes later, at 5:23 p.m. (PST), there was a call from Passo's
cellular telephone to Simon's cellular telephone. (Ex. 49 at 57)

The next day, Passo left Las Vegas and returned to Chicago. (Ex. 128-
129) While there in Chicago, Passo contacted Simon, (Ex. 49 at 62) On Sunday, August
27, 2000 at 8:32 p.m. there was a call from Passo's cellular telephone to Simon. (Ex. 49
at 62) Two days later, Passo sent the agreement Simon drafted to Nicole Pollard
("Pollard"), an attorney in the IBT's General Counsel's office.

On August 29, 2000, Passo sent IBT attorney Pollard the agreement he
had reached with Simon. (Ex. 84) In his cover letter, Passo wrote:

(Ex. 84 at 2) On the same day Passo sent his agreement with Simon to Pollard, there was
a fifteen-minute call from Hogan's cellular telephone to Passo.³⁸ (Ex. 73)

When the proposal was described to International Vice President
Santangelo, and Wilkerson told Santangelo that he refused to approve the agreement,
Santangelo acknowledged he said, "I don't blame you. I mean, we would be all dead.
This would be crazy, you'd kill this whole industry." Passo did not disclose to Pollard
that Local 631 officials and the Local's attorney had rejected his arrangement with

________________
38 Simon would tell Frates the next day, August 30, that he and Passo had agreed to the contract.
(Ex. 82 at 57)

United. (Ex. 297 at 36-39) In addition, Passo never told Pollard that United was a labor
broker or a labor leasing company. (Ex. 297 at 23)

The memorialization of his arrangement with United that Passo submitted
to the IBT provided that all workers hired after August 1, 2000 would become "D" list
workers, a new class of employees. (Ex. 84)³⁹ Passo's and Simon's contract also
provided that, "[t]he `D' list workers shall supersede the placement of Supplemental
Workers." (Ex. 84)

(Ex. 84) In addition, Passo agreed that the protection for the Local against general
contractors hiring labor at less than contract rates from subcontractors such as United set
forth in the subcontracting provision in the red book agreement be eliminated. (Ex. 84)⁴⁰

According to the August 29, 2000 Passo-Simon arrangement, "D1"
workers were those that had less than 250 hours in the industry. (Ex. 84) The "D2"
workers were those that worked between 250 and 1,000 hours in the industry. (Ex. 84)

______________________
39 As noted, the red book contract had A list workers and Supplemental workers, who were
sometimes referred to as C Plus and C workers. (Ex. 4). The terms now provided:

(Ex. 84)

40 The agreement provided that Section B on page 12 of the red book agreement "does not apply."
(Ex. 84) Article 11, Section B(5) of the red book agreement is the subcontracting provision described. (Ex.
4 at 12)

Simon's D 1 workers would be paid $10.00 per hour "for the first 250 hrs in the industry.
During this training/trial period there shall be no payments to H + W or Pension Fund."
(Ex. 84) In contrast to Passo's concessions to Simon, under the red book agreement
Supplemental Workers who worked less than 150 hours in the industry were paid $12.49
per hour with benefit fund contributions of $7.90 per hour paid from the first hour
worked. (Ex. 4 at 11, 26, 27) Under Local 631's contract, effective June l, 2000,
Supplemental Workers who worked more than 150 hours were paid $13.69 per hour with
benefit fund contributions of $7.90 per hour. (Ex. 4 at 11; 26-27)

Under the submitted contract, Simon, and not the Local 631 dispatch
office, would control which of his employees worked. The agreement contained no
provisions for their selection and, due to the temporary nature of "United Temps"
workforce, Simon could ensure that none of his employees worked more than 250 hours
in the industry, thereby avoiding making any benefit fund contributions for his
employees. By not paying benefit contributions for the first 250 hours, Simon would
have saved more than $1,900 per employee. (Ex. 207)

In addition, pursuant to the Passo-Simon agreement, the "D2" workers
would be paid $11.00 per hour with benefit fund contributions. (Ex. 84) This was an
hourly wage $2.69 less than the red book agreement required Supplemental Workers with
only more than 150 hours in the industry to be paid. (Ex. 4)

Under the GES red book agreement then in effect, Local 631 had dispatch
records of all individuals referred to work and the Local 631 Security Fund had records
of benefit fund contributions for every hour worked. (Ex. 4 at 3, 26-27, Ex. 92 at 47) In
contrast, under the United agreement, Simon would control the dispatch and the benefit

fund contributions would not be required. (Ex. 84) Accordingly, Passo's agreement
undercut the Local's ability to ensure that the United employees received the pay
increases and that United made the benefit fund contributions required.

For all the "D 1" and "D2" workers, the contract eliminated time and one-
half pay for work performed between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (Ex. 84)
This was especially significant since the United d employees performed Teamster work at
night. (Ex. 6 at 236-37; Ex. 90 at 36) Under the red book agreement, for work
performed during the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., a Supplemental Worker with
less than 150 hours in the industry would be paid $12.49 per hour unless he had worked
more than eight hours in a day or 40 hours in a week at which point he could be paid time
and one half. (Ex. 4 at 11-13) It also provided that a Supplemental Worker with more
than 150 hours would have to have been paid time and one half, or $20.53 per hour, for
work performed between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (Ex. 4 at 11-13) Accordingly, Passo's
concession allowed United to pay its employees who worked more than 150 hours in the
industry at least $9.53 per hour less than the red book agreement provided for work
performed between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (Ex. 207)

In his arrangement with United, Passo also eliminated protections for
employees injured on the job. (Ex. 84) Passo, Hogan, and Simon ensured that this
section would "not apply to `D' list workers," i.e., United's employees. (Ex. 84)

On August 23, Passo called Simon. Passo called him again on August 27.
(Ex. 49 at 57, 62) On August 29, the day the contract was submitted to Pollard, Passo
spoke to Hogan for 15 minutes. (Ex. 73) He also spoke to Hogan on August 30, the day

Simon informed Frates again that he and Passo had reached an agreement. (Ex. 49) At
9:30 a.m. Frates returned a call to Simon. The call lasted fourteen minutes. (Ex. 214)
During this call, Simon again informed Frates that he and Passo had reached an
agreement that Simon and Passo wanted Frates to recognize. (Ex. 82 at 56--57)

Frates described the circumstances under which he made this call and the
call to Simon as follows:

(Ex. 82 at 56-57) Having met Santangelo and Scalf through Passo and Hogan, Simon
falsely told Frates that Santangelo and Scalf also had approved the agreement with
United. (Ex. 82 at 57, 63 )⁴¹ Santangelo and Scalf both denied approving the agreement
with Simon's company. (Ex. 32 at 41-43; Ex. 12 at 97-98)

Frates also testified that during this conversation he raised the most
favored nations clause in the governing contract with Simon. (Ex. 82 at 70) Simon, ". . .
indicated he talked to the GES and it was not a problem, which I strongly disagreed with.
And, if I remember correctly, he indicated GES would sign a waiver on the favored
nations clause."⁴² (Ex. 82 at 70) In response to Simon's claim of an agreement, Frates

__________________________
41 This was the same misrepresentation that Passo told Wilkerson. (Tr. 65, Ex. 26 at 88)
42 Simon did not claim United was outside the language of the clause.

told Simon, "to go pound salt." (Ex. 82 at 57) After Frates's telephone conversation
with Simon on August 30. 2000, there was a call from Passo's cellular telephone to
Hogan. (Exs. 49, 73) Nine days later, Frates was terminated as Assistant Trustee after he
contested the improper use of United employees by GES.

During the MAGIC show, GES, the general contractor, used United
employees to perform Teamster work. (Ex. 82 at 74-80, Ex. 26 at 60-63; Ex. 6 at 88-89;
Ex. 156 at 27, 47, 93; Ex. 149 at 59-62; Ex. 25 at 93; Ex. 203 at 19, Ex. 300 at 25-26)
This was done despite workers available to be dispatched through Local 631 to perform
this work. (Tr. 193-194; Ex. 26 at 63; Ex. 82 at 76; Ex. 6 at 72-73; Ex. 149 at 59-60)

Because she anticipated problems with GES, business agent Whitfield
requested Wilkerson and Frates to come to the Las Vegas Convention Center during the
MAGIC show. (Tr. 192-93; Ex. 6 at 72-73) Whitfield had "turned around" members
who worked on the show immediately prior to the MAGIC show so that they would be
available to work on the MAGIC show. (Ex. 6 at 73; Tr. 192) Whitfield had also
arranged to have members of the Stagehands union dispatched from Local 631 if the
Local 631 dispatch list was exhausted. (Ex. 6 at 89; Tr. 191-195)

In violation of the red book contract, GES brought in United employees to
do Teamsters work and refused to use the people Local 631 dispatched. (Ex. 6 at 73-74;
Tr. 192-194) Local member Alina Hernandez ("Hernandez"), a Spanish speaker,
approached some United employees who were doing Teamster work on the MAGIC
show. (Ex. 83 at 20) Hernandez explained:

United employees were also brought to the convention site in a United
van. (Ex. 6 at 82) The United supervisors would not allow Whitfield or the Local 631
steward to speak to the United employees (Ex. 6 at 87).

Wilkerson and Frates also observed United employees performing
Teamster work. (Tr. 66-67; Ex. 82 at 74-75, 79; Ex. 26 at 60-63). According to
Wilkerson, ". . . we speculated that Dane Passo and Simon or whoever they talked with
at GES, they worked a deal." (Ex. 26 at 63) Wilkerson knew workers were available to
be dispatched through Local 631 to do the work the United employees were performing.
(Ex. 26 at 63) Wilkerson explained, "[t]hat's why we ended up filing all those
grievances. Two reasons, anybody who was left on the list; two, we wanted the insurance
paid and the pension paid and the wages paid properly." (Ex. 26 at 63)

Whitfield testified that she and Frates argued with GES management
representatives about the use of the United employees on the MAGIC show. (Ex. 6 at 79-
80) The GES representatives informed them "we don't care" and stated that the Local
should file a grievance. (Ex. 6 at 79-80) Frates testified as follows:

At around the time of the MAGIC show, there were two calls, one on
August 23 and the other on August 27, from Passo's cellular telephone to Simon. (Ex. 49
at 57, 62) In addition, there were two calls, one on August 29, for fifteen minutes and the
second on September 1, for eleven minutes, from Hogan's cellular telephone to Passo.
(Ex. 73) During the MAGIC show, there was a call, on August 30, from Passo's cellular
telephone to Hogan. (Ex. 49 at 67)

Passo, who was in Chicago, kept in close contact with people at Local 631
during the MAGIC show. (Exs. 128-29) For example, on August 30, 2000, between
8:19 p.m. and 11:57 p.m., there were eight calls from Passo's cellular telephone to Local
631. (Ex. 49 at 67-68) These were after Passo's August 30 call to Hogan. (Ex. 4 at 67)
Vito Locascio had an office at the Local. (Ex. 147 at 101-103; Ex. 220 at 38-39)

Trustee Wilkerson and Assistant Trustee Frates directed the trade show
business agents to file grievances against GES for using employees of Simon's company
to perform bargaining unit work on the MAGIC show. (Tr. 66-67; Ex. 26 at 63-69; Ex.
82 at 80) The Local members were in an uproar over the contract violations. Business

agent Benboe received approximately thirty telephone calls from members complaining
about the United employees performing Teamster work on the MAGIC show. (Ex. 149
at 61-62) ⁴³ In connection with the MAGIC show, Benboe testified as follows:

On September 5, 2000, Local 631 sent a grievance to GES regarding the
United Employees performing bargaining unit work. (Ex. 152)⁴⁴ Frates stated: "I did
talk to Mr. Benboe about the grievance and told him, in my opinion, it was very, very
important that grievance be processed and very vigorously, and he was in total
agreement." (Ex. 82 at 83)⁴⁵ After the charges in this matter were filed, in September

44 It also appears that at least two additional grievances were filed against GES for the use of the
United employees on the MAGIC show. (Ex. 151)

45 When asked about the issues involved in the grievances filed against GES concerning the use of
the United employees, business agent Benboe testified as follows:

2000, the Local settled the MAGIC show grievances against GES concerning the use of
the United employees. (Tr. 194-195, 270-273)

After observing the United employees working on the MAGIC show,
Wilkerson told Passo that the Local was going to go after United. (Ex. 26 at 65)
Wilkerson also told Passo a grievance had been filed against GES. (Ex. 26 at 68) Three
days after Passo returned to Las Vegas, on September 8, 2000, based on Passo's urging,
Hoffa terminated Frates as Assistant Trustee. (Ex. 82 at 8)

When Hoffa terminated Frates as Assistant Trustee on September 8, 2000,
Trustee Wilkerson was out of town. (Ex. 26 at 111-112; 82 at 8) Hoffa made the
decision to remove Frates on information Passo provided. (Ex. 78 at 61; Ex. 12 at 214)
No one investigated Passo's claims regarding Frates before the termination. (Ex. 12 at
148-151; Ex. 78 at 61) Passo's claims were:

Hoffa testified that Frates was removed because Frates and Passo
conflicted on the approach to handling problems at the Las Vegas Convention Center.
(Ex. 78 at 61) Frates opposed Simon and Hogan's brother's company being able to pay
workers below the governing Teamster contract rate for wages and benefits. With
Hogan's concurrence and support, Passo advocated a contract with United with its host of
concessions to Simon.

As Passo admitted to Whitfield, he was actively assembling a slate to run
at the Local. He solicited her to run on it. (Ex. 218 at 41) Indeed in this respect, Passo
was assisting former Local 714 member Locascio to run for office at Local 631 and using
IBT resources to do so. Passo, who had a close relationship with Locascio, took repeated
steps to further Locascio's ambition.⁴⁶ Passo forced Wilkerson to hire Locascio, a felon
ineligible to vote in Nevada, for Get-Out-The-Vote ("GOTV") work and tried to force
Wilkerson to hire Locascio as a business agent. (Ex. 26 at 98-99, Exs. 145, 226) In
addition, after the Trusteeship was imposed on Local 631, Locascio became the head of
the Local 631 "strike force" which had an office and a telephone at the Local. (Ex. 147 at
101-103; Ex. 220 at 38-39)

Two days after Passo arranged for Frates to be fired, he continued
lobbying Whitfield to support his arrangement with Simon. On September 10, 2000, at
his request they met at the Country Inn. (Tr. 200, 469; Ex. 131; Ex. 6 at 157-158)
Whitfield taped his conversation. (Tr. 199, 205, 236)⁴⁷

During this conversation, Passo explained that he caused Frates to be
terminated. (Ex. 218 at 8) In addition, he repeatedly told Whitfield that if she listened to
him, he would ensure her an International position. (Ex. 218 at 10, 37; Tr. 201-202)⁴⁸
He also told Whitfield that he wanted her to run for office on the ticket he was putting

_____________________
46     During the 159 days that Passo was in Las Vegas between February 29, 2000 and November 19,
2000, Passo caused the IBT to pay for at least 87 meals where Locascio was present. (Exs. 118-135, 144)
At twenty-eight of these meals only Passo and Locascio were present. (Exs. 96-111, 144) In addition,
between May 2000 and February 2001, there were 97 calls from Passo's IBT cellular telephone to
Locascio's telephone. (Exs. 45-52, 55-60, 225, 282-84)

47     Whitfield testified that she taped this conversation with Passo because, "I got tired of fighting with
him." (Tr. 200)

48     In contrast to what Passo told Whitfield, Scalf testified that Passo frequently complained to him
about Whitfield. (Ex. 12 at 79-81) This was consistent with Scalf asking Wilkerson to terminate Whitfield
and other Local employees. (Tr. 100-102)

together for when an election was to be held for the Local to come out of Trusteeship.
(Ex. 218 at 41) During this conversation, among his promises of future benefits he would
arrange for her, Passo pressed Whitfield to support his agreement with Simon. (Ex. 2!8
at 34)

Passo misrepresented that the contract with Simon would be the same as
with GES, except for a brief delay in making benefits payments. (Ex. 218 at 33) There
was no basis for that claim. (Ex. 84 at 4) Passo further claimed Scalf went through the
contract. (Ex. 84 at 33) Scalf claimed he never saw any agreement with Simon and did
not know the terms of such agreement. (Ex. 12 at 98) The wages in that agreement were
substantially less than the wages required for C listers under the red book agreement (Ex.
84; Ex. 4 at 11)

(Ex. 26 at 86-87) Scalf told Wilkerson that Passo would leave Las Vegas. (Ex. 26 at 85-
87) Passo left Las Vegas on August 24 and returned on September 5, 2000 when the
Local was actively contesting GES's use of United on the MAGIC show. (Ex. 128-31;
Ex. 26 at 87-88)

Wilkerson had called Scalf to complain about Passo on other occasions,
including particularly objecting to Passo's proffered arrangement for Simon. (Tr. 65, 68-
69, 77-78; Ex. 26 at 86-88, 101-102; Ex. 12 at 134-135) Scalf acknowledged, "it seemed
like every time that Jim called, it was about Dane interfering." (Ex. 12 at 134) The end

result -- Trustee Wilkerson was removed and Passo was continued in place as monitor.
The given reasons for his removal (which was engineered by Passo) were specious.

In addition to informing Scalf about Passo's troubling agreement with
Simon (Ex. 12 at 101-103; Tr. 65, 78), Wilkerson, prior to the IBT's Unity Conference in
September, also complained to IBT Vice President and Joint Council 42 President
Santangelo about the agreement Passo was pressuring him to grant United. (Ex. 26 at 87-
92; Tr. 65)⁴⁹ Both Wilkerson and Santangelo thought it was inappropriate for the IBT to
enter Passo's proposed arrangement with a labor broker. (Ex. 26 at 88-91; Ex. 32 at 27-
28, 30-31) Of all the IBT personnel only Passo and Hogan professed to see the illusory
benefits to the Local agreeing to allow Simon to undercut the Teamsters red book
contract with the trade show contractors with a special United contract.

After Wilkerson contacted him about Passo's arrangement with United,
Santangelo, recognizing the agreement Passo was advocating for Simon's company was
troublesome, contacted Ed Stier from the IBT's RISE program and requested that he look
into Simon. (Ex. 32 at 30-31, 44-46) Subsequently, as Santangelo noted, "Ed [Stier] told
me to stay away from him and to tell the Teamsters to stay away from him." (Ex. 32 at
46)⁵⁰

____________________
49 The Unity Conference was held in Las Vegas from September 17 to 24, 2000. (Ex. 246)

50 Santangelo further testified that Stier stated, ". . . the guy is not a nice guy. He's a funny guy.
He's got all kinds of baggage." (Ex. 32 at 45)

After this warning, based upon conversations that Scalf had with IBT General Counsel
Syzmanski and General President Hoffa, on September 12, 2000, Scalf directed Passo to
stop all dealings with Simon. (Ex. 12 at 114; Ex. 20 at 218-219)

At a meeting in Las Vegas on or about September 17, 2000, Wilkerson
informed Hoffa and Scalf that Passo continued to interfere with his ability to run the
Local. (Ex. 26 at 117) Trustee Wilkerson also met with Hoffa and Scalf at Bally's Hotel
in September 2000. (Ex. 26 at 101-104) Wilkerson 'old them, "We need to talk about
running this local union." (Ex. 26 at 104) During this discussion, Scalf told Wilkerson to
terminate the following Local employees: business agents Whitfield, Ike Moses, D.C.
Cardwell, John Phillipenas and in-house attorney Dennis Quish. (Ex. 26 at 102)⁵¹ Scalf
acknowledged he asked Wilkerson to terminate Moses, Quish and Phillipenas; however,
he claimed that he did not ask Wilkerson to terminate Whitfield or Cardwell. (Ex. 12 at
137-140) Scalf's recommendations were based upon Passo's requests. (Ex. 12 at 138-
410) Wilkerson agreed that Moses and Quish should be terminated and he let them go.
(Ex. 26 at 101-105)

Also during the Unity Conference in Las Vegas, IBT Vice President
Santangelo met with Hoffa regarding the problems Passo was causing at Local 631. (Ex.

_____________________
51     Wilkerson was asked the following question and responded as follows:
Q:    And did Mr. Scalf tell you why he wanted these five people terminated?
A:    No. I am sure it had something to do with what Dane had told him because most all of those guys
were stand-up guys. I am sure they had told Dane no-they -they just told him to go to hell, that
they worked for me.

32 at 33-34) Santangelo invited other members of the IBT's General Executive Board
from the Western Region to attend this meeting. (Ex. 32 at 33-34)

The International Officers told Hoffa and Scalf that Trustee Wilkerson and
Frates had frequent arguments with Passo about running the Local. (Ex. 32 at 33)
Santangelo also told Scalf that the IBT should not enter into the agreement Passo was
advocating for Simon. (Ex. 12 a!.99-100)

The five IBT officers from the Western Region explained to Hoffa and
Scalf that, "the best way to handle this is if Dane would just leave for a while." (Ex. 32
at 34) Scalf testified that the IBT officials asked him to "keep [Passo] under control."
(Ex. 12 at 171-76)

In a change without apparent substance, effective October 1, 2000, Passo's
title as Special Assistant to tie General President was removed. (Ex. 12 at 197-199, Ex.
11) His duties remained the same as before. (Ex. 12 at 217-218) Passo continued to
monitor Local 631. (Ex. 12 at 66)

Since Passo was instructed to no longer deal with Simon (Ex. 20 at 218),
Hogan and Passo altered course. In October 2000, there were nine calls from Hogan's
cellular telephone to Passo's cellular telephone and twelve calls from Passo's cellular
telephone to Hogan. (Exs. 50, 51, 75) An arrangement beneficial to Simon could not be
reached as long as Wilkerson was Trustee. Moreover, it could no longer be a direct
arrangement with Simon. Changes would have to be made in the Local management and
in the Local 631 contract with the trade show contractors to indirectly assist Simon.
Hogan needed to thrust himself into the negotiations for the new Local 631 contract to be
negotiated.

Passo, who had been in Washington and Chicago between October 9 and
October 19, returned to Las Vegas on October 23, 2000. (Exs. 132-133) The next day,
there was a fifteen-minute call between Passo and Hogan. (Ex. 50) Hogan soon arrived
in Las Vegas. (Ex. 280) On the day Hogan arrived in Las Vegas, October 23, he
reported to Simon in an eight minute call.⁵² Later that day, there was a call from Passo to
Hogan. (Ex. 50)

The next day, October 24, 2000, Passo, Hogan, former Local 714 member
and Passo's protégé Locascio, Local 631 business agent Rick Knight ("Knight") and IBT
General Secretary-Treasurer Keegel all had breakfast at Bally's Hotel. (Ex. 133) Two
days later, on October 26, 2000, Passo, Hogan and Hogan's son Robert, the principal
officer of Local 714, had breakfast there. (Ex. 133)

Some time between October 27 and October 31, 2000, Passo persuaded
Hoffa and Scalf to remove Wilkerson as Trustee. Passo was the source of the
information and the reasons for removal. One of these reasons was Knight's report to
Passo that Wilkerson was involved in Local politics. (Tr. 411, 412, 479) Knight, who
had absolutely nothing to do with the convention center had met with Hogan and Passo
on October 24, 2000. (Ex. 133, Tr. 420) Shortly after this meeting, Knight asked
Wilkerson to dinner with some other business agents. (Tr. 123) Immediately after the
dinner, on October 31, Knight reported to Passo that Wilkerson planned to run for office
at Local 631, which was one of the reasons Passo gave for terminating Wilkerson. (Tr.
420)

_________________________
52 On that day, there was an eight minute call from Hogan's cellular telephone to the United offices
in Chicago. (Ex. 75 at 25) During his sworn examination, Hogan claimed that during this call he made

On October 31, 2000, Scalf contacted Ed Jacobson, the Secretary-
Treasurer of Local 252 in Centralia, WA, an International Representative in the Building
Trades Division and the Director of Building Trades for the Western Region, and asked
him to report to Las Vegas to replace Wilkerson as Local 631 Trustee. (Ex. 92 at 12)
The day before Scalf made this call to Jacobson, there were two calls, one lasting twenty-
one minutes, between Hogan and Passo. (Ex. 75) In addition, there were three calls from
Passo's cellular telephone to Hogan's cellular telephone. (Ex. 51)

Jacobson replaced Wilkerson on November 6 shortly after Wilkerson had
met with Michael Hogan and his labor coordinator Tex Kimberlin, a former Local 631
Business agent about Hogan's Super Show scheduled in January. (Ex. 26 at 55-57)

On or about November 3, 2000, three days after Scalf told Jacobson he
would replace Wilkerson as Trustee, GES again used United employees to perform
Teamster work. This was on the SEMA show while there were Teamsters available to do
that work. (Ex. 203 at 20-22; Ex. 25 at 92-93; Ex. 90 at 25-28) Local 631 steward
Charles Justice described what happened:

______________________________
from Las Vegas he spoke to Simon about matters other than the agreement between United and Local 631.
(Ex. 15 at 113)

(Ex. 90 at 25-26) On November 4, 2000, steward Michael Robertson ("Robertson") filed
a grievance against GES for the use of fifty-eight United employees. (Ex. 152)

Passo caused Trustee Wilkerson's firing. (Ex. 12 at 151-52; Ex. 20 at
242-43; Ex. 78 at 57) Indeed, Passo was the only person to recommend that Wilkerson
be terminated. (Ex. 12 at 152; Ex. 78 at 57-59) There was no investigation of Passo's
allegations about Wilkerson. (Ex. 12 at 131-132; Ex. 78 at 57-61) Santangelo, the
International Vice President, head of Joint Council 42 to which Local 631 belonged and
who also was Hoffa's personal representative to Local 631, was not informed until after
the decision was made. (Ex. 32 at 40-41)

Passo urged Scalf to have Wilkerson terminated for the following stated
reasons: Wilkerson purchased vehicles for the Local without prior IBT approval;
Wilkerson coded the practice of providing free soda at membership meetings and
installed a soda machine at the Local; Wilkerson planned to run for Local 631 office;
Wilkerson planned to dedicate the Local union hall to a former Local 631 officer without
the IBT's permission; Wilkerson planned to build a training center on an empty lot the
Local owned and Wilkerson generally did not stay in contact with the IBT and Hoffa.
(Ex. 12 at 84-85, 127-130; Ex. 20 at 242-243; Ex. 78 at 58)

According to Passo, he recommended that Wilkerson be terminated
because he "was getting political." (Ex. 20 at 242) This was the same charge he had
used against Frates. Hoffa, whose only information came from Passo, testified, "I had a
feeling that Mr. Wilkerson was trying to take over the Local for himself." (Ex. 78 at 57)

Wilkerson testified that although Local employees had asked him to run
for office, he told them he would not agree to do so unless Hoffa approved. (Tr. 123-

124) Indeed, under the IBT Constitution, absent a waiver from Hoffa, Wilkerson would
not have been eligible to run for office at Local 631 until he had been a member of the
Local for twenty-four consecutive months.

Hoffa also testified that Wilkerson "was an older man" and he thought
someone from the Local's rank and file should run the office. (Ex. 78 at 57)

Passo also claimed that Wilkerson's purchase of new cars for the Local
was a reason for his recommendation Wilkerson be fired. (Ex. 20 at 242-243) With
respect to Wilkerson's purchase of the cars, Scalf testified that Passo told him that Local
631's existing cars were in "fine shape." (Ex. 12 at 131-32) At the IRB hearing Passo
admitted what was clear from the cars' age and mileage: that the Local's cars "probably"
needed to be replaced. (Tr. 478) This was consistent with business agent Benboe, who
testified that the Local "absolutely" needed new cars. (Ex. 2 at 106-07)⁵³ In fact, the cars
all had considerable mileage on them.

At no point over the five-month process of purchasing cars did Passo or
Scalf instruct Wilkerson to discontinue it. Passo did not claim he told Wilkerson that
there was anything wrong with the purchases. The IBT was involved in the decision to
purchase the cars and the cars were purchased months before the decision was made to
terminate him. (Tr. 103; Ex. 150)

With respect to the claim that Wilkerson did not communicate with the
IBT, Scalf himself acknowledged that Wilkerson often contacted the IBT when he
testified, "it seemed like every time that Jim called, it was about Dane interfering." (Ex.

______________________
53 For example, Benboe testified that the car business agent Whitfield drove broke down frequently.
(Ex. 2 at 106-07) One time her brakes did not work and another time the power steering on the car she
drove broke. (Ex. 2 at 106-07)

12 at 134) Scalf also acknowledged that Wilkerson alerted him about Passo's troubling
agreement with Simon's company. (Ex. 12 at 101-102) Moreover, Passo Informed
Wilkerson that he did not need to contact the IBT because Passo regularly spoke to Hoffa
about the Local. (Tr. 52)

On November 6, 2000, Jacobson became Trustee of Local 631. (Ex. 92 at
9, 12; Ex. 148) Local 631 was now being supervised by a part-time Trustee who
continued both to be the principal officer of his own Local and an International
Representative with other responsibilities. Jacobson was not given an Assistant Trustee.
He had no convention industry experience. Under these altered circumstances Hogan
could readily solicit, in due course, a role in negotiating Local 631's contract with the
convention industry.

On or about December 18, 2000, Jacobson met with Michael Hogan, the
CEO of Show Biz, the general contractor for the Super Show in Las Vegas. (Ex. 6 at
213-216; Ex. 92 at 61; Ex. 149 at 37-38) Jacobson excluded the trade show business
agents from this meeting. (Ex. 92 at 60-61)

(Ex. 154) ⁵⁴ During the Super Show Michael Hogan tried to use United employees to
perform Teamster bargaining unit work but Whitfield and the stewards prevented him
from doing so.

Almost contemporaneously with Hogan's letter regarding United received
in early January 2001, GES again used United employees to perform Teamster work.
(Ex. 205 a 23; Ex. 204 at 7-9; Ex. 247 at 14-16; Ex. 203 at 24-25; Ex. 155 at 9-11)
William Christian ("W. Christian"), a Local 631 member and former trade show industry
business agent, observed United employees performing Teamster work on the CES show.
(Ex. 203 at 25-26) One of the United employees on this show told W. Christian that he
was being paid $8.00 per hour. (Ex. 203 at 26)⁵⁵ W. Christian explained that on that
show, GES "sent our A listers home. They keep the people with a lesser monetary value
as far as having to pay them, and our people get screwed out of their money." (Ex. 203 at
25-26)

On January 9, 2001, steward Robinson filed a grievance against GES for
using 150 United employees to perform Teamster work on the CES show. (Ex. 153)
This grievance stated that there were members of other unions available to be dispatched
from Local 631. (Ex. 153)

After his meeting with Michael Hogan, Jacobson became involved in
selecting the stewards on the Super Show, for which Michael Hogan's company, Show
Biz, was the general contractor. (Ex. 92 at 45-47, 49-50) Locascio, ⁵⁶ whom Michael
Hogan had selected to work the show and who ho reported to Passo daily, was active in
attempting to have Jacobson remove Robertson, the steward who had filed three previous
grievances against GES for using United workers. Robertson had filed at least three
grievances against GES for the use of United employees on the MAGIC show in August
2000, the SEMA show in November 2000 and the CES show in January 2001. (Exs.
152-53) After talking with Locascio, Jacobson told business agent Whitfield that she was
showing favoritism toward Robertson and other members should be used as stewards.
(Ex. 92 at 47-48)

Jacobson then requested Locascio recommend stewards on the Super
Show. (Ex. 92 at 45-48) Locascio worked on the Super Show, having contacted William
Hogan to arrange this. (Ex. 147 at 20, 40-41)⁵⁷

____________________
56 In January 2001, he testified, "I talk to Dane almost every day. We're friends." (Ex. 247 at 29)
Locascio testified that he usually called Passo. (Ex. 147 at 147) Between November 19, 2000, when Passo
left Las Vegas, and February 25, 2001, the last date for which Passo's IBT telephone records were
obtained, there were 22 calls from Passo's cellular telephone to Locascio's telephone. (Exs. 51-52, 225,
282-84) In addition, when Locascio traveled to Chicago over Thanksgiving, he met with Passo two or
three times. (Ex. 147 at 29) Passo also called Locascio on Christmas day and spoke for thirty-four
minutes. (Exs. 52, 225) Hogan's son, Robert, the principal officer of Local 714, saw Locascio over the
Christmas holidays when Locascio visited his cousin who lived across the street from William Hogan. (Ex.
86 at 30-31) Locascio had six meeting with Hogan and Passo in Las Vegas.

57 In order to obtain work for himself on the Super Show, former Local 714 member Locascio called
Hogan in Chicago. (Ex. 147 at 39-40) According to Hogan, Passo may have given him a message about
Locascio seeking work on the Super Show. (Ex. 15 at 129) Hogan testified that he told Locascio to speak
to his brother, Michael Hogan. (Ex. 15 at 129) Locascio called Michael Hogan and told him that he had
been a member of Local 714. (Ex. 147 at 38-41) Locascio claimed he told Michael Hogan,

The stewards were Stephen "Skip" Geiger ("Geiger"), who was appointed
the number one steward, Robertson, Navara and Doug Manning ("Manning") (Ex. 92 at
46-47; Ex. 155 at 6)⁵⁸

In addition, Jacobson instructed the stewards for the Super Show that they
should not try to file grievances concerning the show. (Ex. 205 at 32-33; Ex. 156 at 52-
53; Ex. 247 at 7-8)⁵⁹

Locascio informed Passo that Geiger was going to be one of the stewards
on the Super Show. (Ex. 20 at 247-250) Locascio arranged for Passo to speak to Geiger,
the number one steward on the Super Show, on the telephone. (Ex. 20 at 247-50; Ex. 155
at 15-17; Ex. 147 at 88-90)

On the Super Show, Michael Hogan's company, Show Biz, tried to use
United employees to perform Teamster work when workers were available to be
dispatched through Local 631. (Ex. 155 at 21; Ex. 90 at 35-37; Ex. 156 at 41-42) The
Local 631 field employees and stewards would not ignore Michael Hogan's attempt to
use United employees in violation of the red book agreement. According to stewards
Geiger and Robertson, vans with United employees appeared at the show site during the
Super Show. (Ex. 155 at 21; Ex. 156 at 41-42) According to Geiger,

_____________________
58 Although he was "not happy" about the selection, Jacobson allowed business agent Whitfield to
appoint Robertson as steward. (Ex. 92 at 46-47)
59 Robertson testified that Jacobson repeatedly told the stewards that "good stewards don't write
paper. Good stewards handle things. . . ." (Ex. 156 at 52-53) Among stewards in the trade show industry
in Las Vegas to "write paper" refers to writing grievances. (Ex. 6 at 46)

During the week of January 29, 2001, Hogan met in Chicago with GES
representatives from Las Vegas. (Ex. 15 at 125-27) According to Hogan, the GES
representatives requested this meeting. (Ex. 15 at 125) This was despite Hogan
remaining without any role with respect to Local 631, ten months after the Trusteeship
was imposed. (Ex. 12 at 59-60) Thomas Acker, then the GES Labor Coordinator from
Las Vegas, and Pete Carroll, the regional representative from GES in Chicago, conferred
with Hogan and his son, Robert Hogan, the principal officer of Local 714, at a restaurant
in Chicago. (Ex. 15 at 125-27; Ex. 86 at 11-24) No one from Local 631 was present.

The GES representative complained to Hogan about the grievances Local 631 had
filed concerning the use of United employees. (Ex. 15 at 126; Ex. 86 at 11-18)
According to Hogan, the GES representatives had traveled from Las Vegas to ask him
what GES should do about the grievances and the Local's purported inability to supply
workers. Hogan alleged that he told them, "I don't have a clue. You figure that out on
your own." (Ex. 15 at 126) The upcoming new Las Vegas convention contract
negotiations were also discussed during this lunch meeting in Chicago. (Ex. 86 at 11-18;
Ex. 15 at 127-28; Tr. 365) Hogan had not been involved in those prior negotiations. (Ex.
12 at 195-96; Ex. 78 at 35, 98-99)

As with his earlier meeting in Las Vegas with the Freeman representative,
Hogan never told the Local 631 Trustee or any Local 631 employee or Scalf, his

supervisor at the IBT, about his discussions with GES representatives from Las Vegas
who traveled to Chicago to seek Hogan's guidance over grievances and a contract with a
Local he had no role in and which had been under the International Trusteeship for 10
months. (Tr. 366; Ex. 15 at 125-127, Ex. 12 at 47; 143-44; Ex. 1 at 186-87) Hogan did,
however, solicit Hoffa and Scalf to place him on the negotiating team for Local 631's
new contract with the trade show cont.-actors. (Ex. 78 at 98-99; Ex. 12 at 195-96)

Because a direct binding agreement for United with Local 631 was no
longer possible through Passo since he was barred from dealing with Simon, the changes
to benefit United would have to be made to the governing contract which was up for
negotiation in 2001. In March 2001, while General President Hoffa and Scalf were in
Chicago, Hogan requested that he be allowed to negotiate the collective bargaining
agreement with the trade show contractors in Las Vegas. (Ex. 78 at 98-99) The then
current contract expired on May 31, 2001. (Ex. 4) According to Hoffa, Hogan "said that
there could be a strike there and that I know all of those people and that I should
negotiate the contract." (Ex. 78 at 98-99) Hoffa concluded that, "[b]ecause of the
background of all the things that have happened with the IRB, I didn't think it was a good
idea for him to be negotiating that contract." (Ex. 78 at 98-99)

Hogan had also asked Scalf to let him negotiate Local 631's new contract
with the trade show contractors. (Ex. 12 at 144) Scalf refused Hogan's request. (Ex. 12
at 144) Hogan told Scalf that "[h]e just thought they needed help and that he knew
everybody in that industry and he would be able to help them." (Ex. 12 at 144-145)
Hogan did not disclose to either Hoffa or Scalf his brother's role as both a general

contractor and Vice President of United. (Ex. 78 at 30-31; Ex. 12 at 61-62, 97) Nor did
he disclose to them the urgent concerns he had claimed at the hearing that he had over
other unions poaching on Local 631's jurisdiction. (Ex. 15 at 122; Tr. 339; Ex. 26 at 58-
59) Moreover, in the almost year since the imposition of the Trusteeship Hogan had
never presented his alleged views to either of the Trustees.⁶⁰ He used his ally, Passo, but
he was in frequent discussion with Simon and Local 631 employers.

The standard of proof for establishing the charges against Passo and
Hogan is a preponderance of evidence.

The evidence supporting a charge may be direct or circumstantial. In re:
Brennan, et al., IRB Supp. Dec at 2 (August 3, 2001) ("The Chief Investigator may rely,
whether in whole or in part, on circumstantial evidence, and such evidence is of no less
value than direct evidence.") aff'd United States v. IBT, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11322
(S.D.N.Y. August 7, 2001) See, United States v. IBT [Salvatore], 754 F. Supp. 333, 339
(S.D.N.Y.1991)

Reliable hearsay is admissible in Consent Decree disciplinary hearings.
E.g., United States v. IBT [Adelstein], 998 F.32d 120 (2d Cir. 1993); United States v. IBT
[Wilson, Dickens and Weber] 978 F.2d 68, 72 (2d Cir. 1992). Indicia of reliability may

________________
60 Bumping into Wilkerson at one meeting, Hogan told Wilkerson that if he ever needed any
assistance, to call him. (Ex. 26 at 58) Hogan never discussed United with Wilkerson. (Ex. 26 at 58)

include other hearsay corroborating a hearsay statement. United States v. IBT [Cimino],
964 F.2d 1308, 1312 (2d Cir. 1992).

The preponderance of the evidence proved that Passo and Hogan brought
reproach upon the IBT by colluding with Simon in an attempt to allow him to avoid a
Teamster governing contract to the detriment of the Local 631 members in violation of
Article II, Section 2(a) and Article XIX, Section 7(b)(1) and (2) of the IBT Constitution.

The evidence established that Passo and Hogan colluded with Simon to
enable Simon to profit from paying his workers below the rates the governing Teamster
contract required. Passo's and Hogan's actions, which Local 631 officials fought, were
designed to benefit United and the trade show contractors, including Hogan's brother's
company. There was no benefit to Local 631, its members or the United employees. In
fact, they were repeatedly harmed. Passo's and Hogan's claimed reasons for advocating
the agreement with United are not believable.

After the prior Trusteeship, Hogan, previously having had arranged for his
brother and Simon to meet Murphy, introduced Simon to Passo to facilitate Simon's next
attempt to secure an arrangement with Local 631 and Murphy under which he could pay
his employees less than the governing contract. Once the introductions were made, Passo
and Simon both continued to have discussions with Hogan on progress. (Ex. 15 at 93,
103-103) Hogan met with the two major show contractors for Las Vegas convention
shows to discuss Local 631, even though he had no union role in Local 631 and claimed
he had never read the governing contract. (Tr. 324, 369; Ex. 15 at 119; 123-127) In
addition, as is clear from the timing of calls, Passo kept Hogan up to date on

developments within Local 631. When Passo was barred from dealing with Simon,
Hogan attempted to be appointed himself to negotiate Local 6312s entire new contract
with the trade show contractors.

There was no evidence of any organizing effort by either Hogan or Passo.
United employees did not sign any showing of interest cards for the Teamsters or any
Teamster membership applications. (Ex. 20 at 207, Ex. 26 at 53; Ex. 15 at 61) The
United employees never designated the IBT or Local 631 as their bargaining
representative. Given the absence of any discussion with United employees, Passo stated
the obvious, ". . . I wasn't representing anybody . . . ." (Tr. 508) Moreover, in his
affidavit submitted in support of his requested TRO, Hogan described the arrangement
with Simon's company as a "contract for services," not a collective bargaining
agreement. Regardless of its label, the arrangement was injurious to Local 631 and its
members. (Ex. 311 at 4) Passo's claims that this was the first stage of organizing United
employees are not credible.

Neither Passo nor Hogan nor anyone under their direction ever spoke to
any United employee. In Passo's oversight of Local 631 conducted with Hogan's
guidance, the Local never tried to organize the United employees. (Tr. 490-91; Ex. 20 at
109-110, 207; Ex. 6 at 103-104, Ex. 82 at 52-53 )⁶¹ The Local's organizer, Ray Isner

_____________________
61 William Hogan testified as follows:
Q: Have you ever been to the United Maintenance offices in Las Vegas?
A: No.
Q: Have any employees of Mr. Simon's company ever signed any "showing of interest" cards with
the Teamsters?

("Isner"), who was involved in all organizing efforts since the Trusteeship, and the two
other organizers assigned to Local 631 never tried to organize United. (Ex. 79 at 14-16,
19-22; Ex. 80 at 23: Ex. 81 at 29; Tr. 492-93) Passo, who was the International's point
man at Local 631, never requested any organizing help from the International. Indeed, he
did not even request help from Norman Bouley, the IBT organizer assigned to assist
Local 631. (Ex. 81 at 29-30; Ex. 20 at 51; Tr. 493; Tr. 360, 484-485; Ex. 20 at 109-110;
Ex. 15 at 60)

Passo and Hogan at Simon's request conspired to permit the employer to
choose his employees' bargaining representative in violation of Sections 7 and 8(a)(1) of
the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). (Tr. 491) See, in re Larry Stein, IRB Dec.
at 12-13 (October 18, 2000) aff'd United States v. IBT, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. December 7,
2000)⁶² The employer's choosing his employees' bargaining representative is an indicia
of a prohibited sweetheart deal between an employer and a union.

_____________________________
A:     Not that I'm aware of.
Q:     How many employees are there of Mr. Simon's company?
A:     I have no idea.
Q:     Do you know what they are paid?
A:     I have no idea.
Q:     Do they receive benefits?
A:     I have no idea.
(Ex. 15 at 61)
62     Section 7 of the NLRA provides in pertinent part:

Passo's and Hogan's actions also failed to comply with the Local's
Bylaws and IBT's procedures for negotiating first contracts. Section 27 of the Local 631
Bylaws required a meeting of the affected members to be held to formulate bargaining
demands whenever a contract was to be negotiated. (Ex. 296) Passo and Hogan did not
inquire of any United employee of their concerns, let alone hold any such meeting prior
to discussing a contract with Simon and advocating that Local 631 officials permit Simon
dramatic concessions from the governing contract. (Ex. 20 at 109-110); Ex. 15 at 60)
Before discussing any agreement with United CEO Simon, Passo acknowledged that he
did not even know what terms the United employees might want. (Tr. 490-491)

Passo's and Hogan's actions to get an agreement for United conflicted
with the provisions of the IBT's Organizing Guide. (Ex. 293) The IBT's Organizing
Guide emphasized communication with employees and provided for five steps when
negotiating a first contract. (Ex. 293 at 49) Passo, who had been an organizer at Local
705 and was Special Assistant to the General President, and Hogan, an experienced labor
official who was the head of the Joint Council in Chicago, took none of these steps.

Passo's excuse for having no contact with the United employees was that
they spoke Spanish and only worked sporadically. (Tr. 484)⁶³ However, Passo never
sought out the IBT employed bilingual organizers. He never asked for their assistance in
speaking to the United employees. (Tr. 491-92)⁶⁴

^{_______________________________}
63 Most of Simon's employees appeared to speak only Spanish. (Tr. 484, 491-492; Ex. 90 at 9-11;
Ex. 6 at 90, 97; Ex. 156 at 27-28; Ex. 82 at 74; Ex. 84 at 6-7; Ex. 203 at 25; Ex. 26 at 67; Ex. 204 at 8; Ex.
155 at 13)
64 Instead, in July 2000, Passo arranged for Billy Cooper, who did not speak Spanish, to be hired as
an organizer at Local 631. (Tr. 53, Ex. 80 at 9-11) At a Local 631 membership meeting, Local 631
member Alina Hernandez proposed that the red book contract be translated into Spanish. (Ex. 83 at 12-13)
According to Hernandez, Passo had her escorted out of this meeting. (Ex. 83 at 12-13)

(Tr. 484) Passo claimed he was relying on Simon to bring them together for him when
Simon believed the time was ripe. (Tr. 484) ⁶⁵ The claim is not credible. Neither Simon
nor Michael Hogan even expressed the slightest interest in paying Teamster wages and
benefits.

If the United workers had been organized as Teamsters in their normal
jobs, they would have been able to have been dispatched through the Local 631 dispatch
office without the payment of any dispatch fees. There would have been no need to make
any concessions in the wage and benefit provisions of the governing contract. Passo and
Hogan never pursued that course because it would have been of no benefit to either
Simon or Michael Hogan.

Passo and Hogan's main claim is that their proposed agreement with
United would bring more members into Local 631. (Tr. 310, 324-25, 444-448) They
suggested "top down" organizing as permitted in the construction industry exception.
There was no credible evidence to support these contentions. Hogan described the
agreement with United as a "contract for services." (Ex. 311 at 4)⁶⁶ But a "contract for
services" would hardly result in union members. For example, in their meeting with
Murphy and Breyman, Simon and Michael Hogan stated that United would pay a service

______________________
65 According to Passo, he told Simon that ". . . if we get this done, that we're going to have - You're
going to get these people together, and we're going to have to have a meeting eventually somewhere down
the line. . . ." (Tr. 484-85)
66 Breyman also testified that United did not want to enter into a collective bargaining agreement
with Local 63 I . (Tr. 387, 401)

fee to Local 631 for each employee referred to work. (Tr. 137, Ex. 25 at 28; Ex. 5 at 29-

30) Union members did not pay dispatch or service fees, they paid union dues. (Exs. 77,
296; Ex. 7 at 70) Only non-members paid dispatch fees. There is no credible evidence
that Simon or Michael Hogan ever intended to unionize United or Show Biz workers as
Teamsters at any time.

Hogan's description of the United arrangement during his sworn
examination made no sense. Hogan testified,

... Rick Simon would establish a legitimate work force. Okay.

So now we got, say, 300 good solid people committed; that when the
Union opened their doors to add people, they would take them from
Rick's company and they would be - go over to the Union. So they would
be on the Union.

Now Rick would then lose control of that ability to supply these people.
They would then become Union people, strictly as their lists open up.

Because I guess they have some rules, or something, about how many
people are on their lists. There is something about hours, or something.
That whole thing is a little vague to me. I'm not really sure.....

(Ex. 15 at 79-80 (emphasis added))

In the then governing contract there were no limits on the number of
individuals who could register with the Local's dispatch office for work in the convention
industry. (Ex. 7 at 68-70; Ex. 2 at 190-191) They need not join the union. ⁶⁷ There is no

_______________________
67    Whitfield explained Passo's proposal as being:
Q:    Now, would the people who worked for Mr. Simon's company, would they become members
        of the Teamsters?
A:    Eventually, not, right off the bat. But what he assured me was by the time that they had worked
        enough hours in the industry to become either a C or A or whatever, then he would give them
        option, and he would take it out of their check, Mr. Simon.

Q:    So the employer would give them the option of joining the union?
A:    Right, which that didn't make sense to me, but that's what he said.

(Ex. 6 at 99-100)

credible evidence that Passo and Hogan took any steps to organize the United workers in
any way for their regular cleaning work or for Teamsters work.

Passo and Hogan excluded Local 631 officials from their meetings with
Simon and trade show contractors about Local 631. Passo did not involve any Local
officials in his alleged negotiations with Simon.

After the Local 631 Trustee, Assistant Trustee, trade show business agent
and Local attorney pointed out the serious problems in the agreement he proposed, Passo
involved no Local 631 official in "renegotiating" with Simon (Tr. 88-89; Ex. 26 at 44
54) Instead, Passo conferred solely with Hogan, who claimed not to even have read the
governing contract. (Tr. 324, 326, 333, 363, 367, 369) Whether he was familiar with it or
not, his real interest was in obtaining an agreement to benefit his brother, an officer in
Simon's company and a trade show contractor, and Simon, 'Luis Chicago business friend.

Hogan claimed at the hearing that he had serious concerns over the IBT
losing ground in Las Vegas. (Tr. 310) But Hogan never voiced those concerns and never
advocated his remedies or the alleged merits of the United proposal to attempt to
persuade its opponents. Instead, he continuously worked surreptitiously with Passo and
with the Local's employers to get a substandard and detrimental contract with United.

Passo and Hogan also failed to disclose to their superiors at the IBT their
activities concerning Local 631 employers. Scalf, to whom Hogan reported, did not
know Hogan was involved in trying to obtain the agreement for United. (Ex. 12 at 107)

________________________________
Q: And were the employees of United going to become members of Local 63 I?
A: No. They would pay the $40 hiring hall fee, but in an elongated process, eventually they would
probably become members.
(Ex. 26 at 46)

Hogan failed to disclose to Hoffa and Scalf that his brother was an officer of United who
had tried to persuade Local 631 officials to give economic concessions to United. (Ex.
78 at 30-31; Ex. 12 at 61-62; 196) In his efforts to convince others to approve a contract,
that was without merit, Passo resorted to misrepresenting that important International
executives favored the contract. He lied to Trustee Wilkerson, falsely claiming that high-
ranking IBT officials including Santangelo and Scalf had approved the substandard
agreement when they had not. (Tr. 65, Ex. 26 at 88, 92; Ex. 32 at 41-43; Ex. 12 at 98-
101) Similarly Passo falsely told Whitfield that Scalf was reviewing the agreement
carefully (Ex. 218 at 33), when he was not. (Ex. 12 at 98)⁶⁸ Simon also lied to Frates
claiming that Santangelo and Scalf approved the agreement he made with Passo. (Ex. 82
at 60-62) To lend credence to his false allegations, Passo and Hogan had arranged for
Simon to be seen with Santangelo, Scalf and Hoffa in public places.

When his charades didn't work, Passo used false reasons to cause Frates,
and then Wilkerson, to be terminated. Passo concealed the extent of his substantial
concessions to United during his conversations with Scalf. (Ex. 12 at 100-112)

During the hearing before the IRB, Passo claimed for the first time that he
". . . was nowhere near signing a contract . . . ." (Tr. 466, 507) Passo also claimed that
when he was told to stop dealing with Simon on September 12, 2000, he ". . . was at the

________________________
68     Scalf testified as follows:
Q:     Have you ever reviewed a draft of any agreement between Mr. Simon's Company and the
Teamsters?
A:     No, I have not.
(Ex. 12 at 98)

beginning of the negotiations." (Tr. 475, Ex. 12 at 114) These late claims were contrary
to the great preponderance of the evidence.

Even on August 29, 2000, when Passo submitted to IBT attorney Pollard a
handwritten agreement with United, in his cover letter Passo explained: "[t]he language
on the enclosed paperwork is the amended language to the contract. Everything else will
remain the same as in the GES Exposition contract." (Ex. 84 at 2) The agreement
submitted specifically tied into the existing GES contract. One day after Passo submitted
the agreement to the IBT, Simon informed Frates on August 30 that he had reached an
agreement with Passo. (Ex. 82 at 71) Moreover, in his recorded conversation with
Whitfield on September 10, Passo told her that Scalf and the IBT were reviewing the
agreement made with Simon. (Ex. 218 at 33) The only version submitted to the
International was the contract of August 29.

The evidence showed that Passo's arrangement could not be put into place
because Wilkerson, the only one with authority to approve the agreement, advised by
Frates, would not adopt it. The same or very similar terms of the agreement were
repeatedly presented by Passo but rejected by Local 631 representatives. For months,
Passo pressured Wilkerson, Frates and Whitfield to agree to the terms with United.
(Ex. 6 at 89-93, 125-126; Tr. 179) ⁶⁹ Over this time there were only minor changes in
detail. The basic agreement remained the same. Simon would receive substantial and
numerous concessions from the governing contract.

_____________________________
69 Frates testified as follows:
Q: And was Mr. Passo advocating the Local entering into the agreement with Mr. Simon's company?
A: Oh yeah, there's no question about it.
(Ex. 82 at 72)

Wilkerson also reasonably believed that Passo was advocating a final
agreement. Wilkerson explained, "I really don't know anything other than that Dane
Passo had come to me with a contract and asked me to agree to a contract with this guy,
and I refused to do that." (Ex. 26 at 44) Moreover, that Wilkerson believed Passo had
reached an agreement was shown in September 2000, when Wilkerson told Santangelo
about Passo's agreement with United. (Ex. 26 at 90-91; Ex. 32 at 29-30)⁷⁰

Simon's core proposal that Passo accepted remained constant from the
beginning. He would not be bound by the economic terms of the red book contract and
United, not Local 631, would dispatch his workers.

Passo relied on some changes he made to the agreement as evidence that
he was in the beginning process of negotiating a better agreement. (Tr. 451-454) But the
evidence showed that the reason Passo toyed with the agreement was to attempt to make
it more attractive to the Local officials who had rejected the agreement he had reached
with Simon, not to renegotiate its substance. (Ex. 26 at 43-59; Ex. 82 at 34; Tr. 58, 185)

During the IRB hearing, Passo claimed that he had not agreed to the
provisions of the agreement he submitted to Pollard. (Tr. 496) This was inconsistent
with all other relevant evidence.

To support his claim of only the beginning of negotiations, at the hearing,
Passo also suggested that in the 15 days between August 29, when he sent the letter, and
September 12, when the IBT prohibited him from having further dealings with Simon, he
had additional conversations with Simon about the proposed agreement. (Tr. 497-500)

________________________
70 Wilkerson testified that he told Santangelo, ". . . `Let me tell you what else he [Passo) is trying to
get me to do.' And then I brought up about that. I said, `I want you to know I'm not signing the damn

There was no evidence to support this claim. Passo seemed to suggest that he and Simon
met in that period. (Tr. 500) However, his previous sworn examination testimony, as
well as his hearing testimony, asserted that he had four face-to-face meetings with Simon.
(Ex. 21 at 268; Tr. 467),⁷¹ none of which was in this time frame. On September 10, two
days before he was told to stop dealing with Simon, Passo told Whitfield that he had
submitted an agreement he had reached with Simon to the IBT for review. (Ex. 218 at
33)⁷² The only document he ever submitted was the August 29 agreement. Even if the
proof of an agreement had not been as weighty and convincing as it is, there is absolutely
clear and convincing evidence that Passo and Hogan attempted to get Local 631 to agree
to a contract with United that was substandard and injurious to Local 631 and the charges
are proven.

In an effort to justify their conduct, Passo and Hogan claimed their
motivation for dealing with United was concern over other unions infringing upon the
IBT's jurisdiction. (Tr. 309-310, 314-315, 324, 438-442, 445-446, 465) But their course
of action with United did little, if anything, to resolve that alleged concern. In fact, the
evidence showed their proposal created strong economic incentives for the trade show
contractors to use the cheaper United employees for Teamster work rather than workers

_______________________________
thing even though he used your name as supporting this." And boy, he got infuriated real quick ...... (Ex.
26 at 91)

71 These four meetings were the steakhouse meal with Frates and Whitfield, the Rio Hotel meeting
with Santangelo and Hogan, the Indigo Lounge meeting with Scalf and the Harry Cary's meeting with
Hogan and Hoffa. (Ex. 21 at 268) Each of these meetings was described above and took place before
August 29, 2000 when he sent the handwritten agreement to Pollard.
72 Passo never showed Whitfield his submission to Pollard. (Tr. 237-239) This allowed him to lie to
Whitfield about its contents. For example, Passo told Whitfield that "we're going to bring the wages back
up to what C listers make. They're not going to get no cut in pay." (Ex. 218 at 34) This was not reflected
in the handwritten agreement, nor was there any evidence that Simon had agreed to pay that rate.

dispatched through Local 631 and the jurisdiction of Local 631 and the IBT was eroded
by those efforts.

Passo and Hogan alleged that there was a problem with members of other
unions performing Teamster work in the trade show industry. (Tr. 371, 433, 438-440)
As in any multi-union industry, it did happen that members of other unions attempted to
perform Teamster work without a dispatch from Local 631.

Trustee Wilkerson testified that prior to the Trusteeship, members of the
Carpenters performed Teamster bargaining unit work without being dispatched from
Local 631 and the Local 631 business agents were not challenging it. (Tr. 112-113) This
poaching was a different issue from the occasional use of Carpenters through Local 631
dispatch to meet Local 631's call obligations. After the Trusteeship under Wilkerson's
direction, the Local's business agents began to firmly police, the Local's jurisdiction.
(Tr. 80-82; Ex. 20 at 145-146, 150; Ex. 6 at 6-9) Indeed, at the outset of the Trusteeship,
Whitfield came to Passo's attention when she strongly objected after members of another
union tried to perform Teamster work. (Tr. 203-204, 480-481) As Passo testified,
Whitfield notified the Local and was aggressive in preventing the members of the other
unions from performing IBT work. (Tr. 480-481)

It was not a jurisdictional issue when members of other unions performed
Teamster work as a result of being dispatched through the Local 631 dispatch office
when it ran out of registrants to refer to work.⁷³ Local 631 controlled who worked and
ensured that all workers were paid, at least, the contract rates. This prevented the

_________________________
73 Registrants in the Local 631 dispatch office could be Teamster members, non-members who paid
a dispatch fee or members of other unions. (Ex. 77)

employers under the contract from going to other sources such as United. When
members of the non-IBT unions were dispatched from Local 631, they had clearance
from the Teamsters to work and they were, in effect, acting as Teamsters. (Tr. 60-61,
113-115, 125, 197, 212-213) As Wilkerson explained:

Passo's and Hogan's alleged objection to the practice was to the effect that
a "psychological" bond would be developed between the members of the other unions
such as the Carpenters and the trade show contractors. (Tr. 314-315, 324-325, 440)
Passo and Hogan testified that this would lead the other unions to infringe upon the IBT's
Jurisdiction. The more compelling and significant bond was the economic incentive
Passo and Hogan's agreement with Simon would have created for the contractors to use
United employees, not Teamsters. It also ignored the fact that through surrendering the
dispatch function to United the Local would lose its ability to police the contractors and
provide any mechanism for curing contract violations. Breyman well understood this and
it was one of the reasons he opposed Simon's proposal. (Tr. 401-402) When the
contractors used the Carpenters dispatched from Local 631, they had to pay, at least, the
Teamster contract wage, which at the time was $12.49 per hour. (Tr. 401, Ex. 4)⁷⁴
Under Passo and Hogan's solution, instead of having members of other unions dispatched

________________________
74 Members of some unions were paid even more than the Teamster rate. (Tr. 275)

from Local 631, Simon would send United employees directly to the contractors. These
workers would be paid significantly less than the Local 631 contract. (Ex. 84 at 5)
According to Passo's August 29, 2000 submission to Pollard, the United employees
would have been paid $10 per hour for the first 250 hours in the industry. (Ex. 84 at 5)
As a result, Passo and Hogan created a strong economic incentive to use United's lower
paid workers and also eliminated the mechanism to ensure no United workers would be
dispatched before the Local 631 list was exhausted. When Passo and Simon reached
their agreement, it was vans of cheaper United Workers that GES and Michael Hogan
tried to use to perform Teamster work and not Stagehands and Carpenters just when the
call was not filled.

Passo knew that GES used United employees at "scab rates" and told
Hogan about this. (Tr. 487-488) They took no steps to stop it. Rather, they joined with
Simon, against the Local, to legitimize under pay. Hogan discussed the Local's
grievances against GES with the contractor without telling the Local Trustee. (Ex. 15 at
125-127; Ex. 1 at 186-187) Hogan and Passo lobbied the other significant trade show
contractor to accept the reduced terms and special consideration for United. (Tr. 195-
196, 327-333, 502-503; See, Ex. 82 at 71)

Passo and Hogan's alleged solution to the "problem" of Local 631 running
out of people registered in the union hall was to cede control of the dispatch function to
Simon. (Ex. 6 at 102, 108; Tr. 181-82; Exs. 20, 70, 81; Ex. 6 at 108) Passo and Hogan
did not and could not explain how it would be beneficial to allow the trade show
contractors to use United's non-union low paid workers totally under United's control.

Passo was aware that the roll over sometimes happened in the middle of
the night. Yet, Passo still opposed the business agents dispatching anyone to work. (Ex.
82 at 45-46) Only Simon and GES, who could use United's cheaper labor, benefited
from Passo's position. Local 631 was harmed.

It is undisputed that the LMRDA provides and protects every Union
member's right to free speech and advocacy. Sheet Metal Workers, Int'l Ass'n v. Lynn,
488 U.S. 347 (1988). But neither the statute nor the case law shields conduct and
advocacy which violates fiduciary duties, brings reproach on the IBT and undercuts its
existing contracts, all of which greatly injure the IBT. The post conduct argument for the
protection of free speech here is a thin guise for illegal actions in breach of the IBT
Constitution and, as such, avails Hogan and Passo nothing.

Hogan claimed that his conduct was designed to assist Local 631 and the
Teamsters (Tr. 310, 315). The evidence does not support his claim. For more than a
year, Hogan did not inform anyone at the International about his alleged grave concerns
regarding Local 631. He never advocated his alleged solution to a significant problem at
the Local to International's appointed Trustees or other Local 631 officials or to anyone
else.⁷⁵ Knowing that two prior Local 631 administrations had rejected the arrangement

_____________________________
75 Hogan's alleged concerns about non-IBT unions infringing upon Local 631's jurisdiction ignored
the far greater economic incentive he and Passo would have created for the contractors to use Simon's
cheaper labor.

with United, Hogan arranged for his friend Passo to be the sole contact with Simon. In
addition, Hogan, who had no official role concerning Local 631 (Tr. 369), met with Local
631 employers to discuss Local 631 issues and kept his meetings secret from the Local
and from his superior at the International. (Ex. 15 at 122-123; Ex. 12 at 146-147)

Hogan, who spent at least 27 days in Las Vegas during the relevant time
period (Ex. 166, 265-280), never met or even spoke with any Local 631 official about the
alleged critical jurisdiction problem and how the United arrangement could provide a
solution. (Ex. 15 at 92-93) Even after meeting Trustee Wilkerson in May 2000 at the
IBT's Women's Conference (Ex. 15 at 53), Hogan never discussed with him the alleged
infringement upon the IBT's jurisdiction by other unions and his alleged solution. (Ex.
15 at 92-93)

In terms of union personnel, as opposes: to the employers Simon, Freeman
and GES, Hogan elected to remain largely clandestine, acting primarily through Passo.
Hogan also remained in frequent contact with Simon about the arrangement for United.
(Ex. 15 at 102-103) Hogan then proceeded to give Passo contracting advice despite
swearing never to have read the governing collective bargaining agreement in Las Vegas.
(Tr. 324, 330, 344, 362-3, 371, 374-75) ⁷⁶ Hogan knew that the convention industry in
Las Vegas differed substantially from Chicago. (Tr. 281-82) Either his testimony is false
or he didn't care about the red book contract but only the best arrangement for Simon.

Even after Local officials refused to approve the arrangement with United,
Hogan, who claimed at the hearing that the United arrangement would be beneficial to

_____________________
76 Hogan testified that he spoke to Passo approximately a dozen times about the arrangement with
United. (Ex. 15 at 102-103)

the Local and that Simon was an outstanding citizen of Chicago, never contacted anyone
at the Local to persuade them on his alleged views. (Ex. 15 at 117-118; Ex. 1 at 186-187;
Tr. 298) Hogan spoke to the Local's attorney only after the IRB's report was issued
about the United contract. He never spoke to the attorney to try to persuade him of the
merits of the arrangement.

At the hearing, Hogan claimed that the most favored nations clause in the
convention industry contract was not applicable because United was not a general
contractor. (Tr. 342) However, even though Passo had told Hogan that Trustee
Wilkerson was concerned about the United arrangement in light of the most favored
nations clause (Ex. 15 at 50, 117-118), Hogan never informed Wilkerson of his view of
that clause. (Ex. 15 at 118)⁷⁷ Even Simon did not claim Hogan's interpretation of non-
applicability Instead, he told Frates in a phone call that he and Passo had reached an
agreement that GES would waive its rights under the clause. (Ex. 82 at 70-71)

Contrary to Hogan's claim to have been a concerned union official trying
to be of assistance, Hogan's pattern of conduct showed that his interest was to help
United, Simon and his general contractor brother and not Local 631, its members or the
employees of United.⁷⁸

^{____________________________________}
77 It also appears that Hogan's claim during the hearing to have been unaware of the most favored
nations clause in the Las Vegas convention contract was false given Passo's discussion with him regarding
Wilkerson' concerns about that clause. (Tr. 338)
78 During his February 2001 sworn examination, Hogan claimed, ". . . I don't know what's wrong
with helping my family, but apparently somebody has got a problem with that." (Ex. 15 at 58-59) In
addition, even though his brother, through Show Biz USA which did trade show work in Las Vegas, had a
direct interest in the convention industry contract negotiations, Hogan tried to participate in those
negotiations. (Ex. 78 at 97-99; Ex. 12 at 144)

Passo's testimony concerning his arrangement with United changed over
time. In significant respects, his hearing testimony differed from his prior sworn
testimony. In addition, documents, his prior statements and the corroborated testimony
of others contradicted his hearing explanations of his arrangement with United. Passo
lied to and concealed information from other Teamsters officials in his effort to obtain
approval of his arrangement for Simon ⁷⁹

During the hearing, Passo asserted that he planned to have Simon agree to
the wages in the red book contract. (Tr. 467, 502) In his prior testimony, Passo, in fact,
admitted he was prepared to grant Simon wage concessions from the governing contract.
(Ex. 20 at 81-82)

Passo also admitted that he also told Frates and Whitfield that he was
willing to agree to a wage for the United employees less than the prevailing agreement.
(Ex. 20 at 91-92, 163) There was no indication Passo was in the preliminary stages of
negotiations and planned to have Simon really pay the governing contract wages. Passo
presented both to Wilkerson and Whitfield for approval an arrangement under which the
United employees would be paid $8.00 per hour, $4.49 less than the prevailing contract
hourly salary. (Tr. 58, 60, 180-181)

At the hearing, Passo claimed that there would be a seniority list for the
United employees. (Tr. 498; 509-510) There was no evidence of such a list. In his prior
testimony, Passo never mentioned a seniority list. Moreover, in the arrangement he

_____________________
79 The evidence did not support Passo's contention at the hearing that the agreement was in a
preliminary stage.

submitted to Pollard, there was no reference to any seniority list. (Ex. 84) The submitted
arrangement provided that Simon would select which employees would work. (Ex. 84)

Passo also claimed at the hearing that he did not tell the Freeman
representative that his arrangement with United provided for lower wages than those
required in the governing contract. (Tr. 502-503)⁸⁰ This is a direct conflict with his prior
testimony. During his sworn examination on February 2, 2001, Passo testified as
follows:

Q: Why was it that the representatives of the company [Freeman] thought it was a
bad idea?
A: I might have told him that there was going to be a wage difference.

(Ex. 20 at 203-204)

Passo's testimony that he told Freeman he was going to allow United to
pay less than contract wages is corroborated by the statement Freeman made to Whitfield
about Passo. According to Whitfield, Freeman official Jamison, ". . . was very adamantly
opposed that Dane would come on his property unannounced and speak to higher
management about people that they had never used in the past, were not interested in
using, and did not want to mess with the Teamster jurisdiction." (Tr. 196)

Passo repeatedly misrepresented in his attempts to persuade Local 631
officials to bless the arrangement with Simon. He falsely represented to Wilkerson that

____________________________
80     Passo testified as follows at the hearing:
Q:     Did you tell them [the Freeman representatives] that you were going to allow United to be paid less than the contract rate?

A:     I didn't tell them that I was going to allow them to be paid less than the contract rate.
I told them that 1 was negotiating, and, that if I do a contract with him, he wanted, Rick Simon
wanted, a lesser rate on the contract.
(Tr. 502-503 )

Santangelo and Scalf approved his arrangement with United. (Tr. 65, 91; Ex. 26 at 88,
92; Ex. 32 at 41-43; Ex. 12 at 98-101) He falsely told Whitfield that Scalf reviewed the
arrangement with Simon. (Ex. 218 at 33, Ex. 12 at 98-101)

Passo claimed that he could not recall Frates's and Whitfield's opinions of
his proposed arrangement with United. (Ex. 20 at 92-94, 162-63)⁸¹ Passo had repeated
conversations with both Frates and Whitfield during which he tried to persuade them to
approve his arrangement with United. (Ex. 6 at 97-105; 111-112, 124; Ex. 82 at 54-57,
70-73; Ex. 20 at 92, 177) During these conversations, Frates and Whitfield objected
strongly to allowing United concessions from the governing contract and pointed out to
Passo the deficiencies in the arrangement he was promoting. (Ex. 6 at 99-105, 111-112,
124-125; Ex. 82 54-57, 70, 234) They both told Passo that Simon should sign the
governing contract. (Ex. 6 at 124-25; Ex. 82 at 54) In addition, their opposition to
Passo's arrangement was known to others. Business agent Benboe recalled Whitfield

______________________
81    At his February 2, 2001 sworn examination, Passo testified:
Q:    Did you tell [Frates] you thought it was a good idea for Local 631 to enter into this agreement with
Mr. Simon's company?
A:    Yes, I'm sure I did, yes.
Q:    And what was Mr. Frates' response?
A:    He wasn't really - I don't think he had too much to say either way.

Q    And did you tell (Whitfield] you thought it was a good idea for 631 to enter into the agreement
with Mr. Simon's company that had some concessions off the GES contract?

A:    I'm sure I did, yes.
Q:    What was her view of that?
A:    I don't remember her view. I don't remember which way she was going with it.
Q:    Did she ever tell you that she didn't think it was a good idea?
A:    I can't remember.
(Ex. 20 at 162-163)

telling him that what Simon and Passo ". . . tentatively agreed to was substandard, and
we'd just be opening a Pandora's box." (Ex. 149 at 49-50)

A simple but obvious example of Passo's lack of credibility was his denial
that he knew Michael Hogan was involved with United. (Ex. 20 at 68-69) Passo had
known Michael Hogan since 1996 or 1997. He knew that he owned a company in the
trade show industry. (Ex. 20 at 66-67) ⁸² In contrast, William Hogan, with whom Passo
had "a very close relationship" and who stated Passo was "almost like another son to
him," acknowledged that he "probably" told Passo that his brother was involved with
United. (Ex. 15 at 39, 76; Tr. 313, 443) During the seven months between April and
November 2000, when Passo was in Las Vegas trying to work out an arrangement to
benefit United, there were, at least, 152 calls between Passo's and Hogan's cellular
telephones. (Ex. 44-51, 54-60, 68-76) They spoke frequently about United. (Ex. 20 at
79; Ex. 15 at 93)

Moreover, after the Trusteeship, Passo had discussions about United with
Breyman, who had met with Simon and Michael Hogan. (Tr. 396-397; Ex. 25 at 41; Ex.

________________________
82    Passo testified as follows:
Q:    Does Michael Hogan have any position with Rick Simon's company?
A:    I don't know.
Q:    Did you ever hear Michael Hogan was the Vice President of Rick Simon's company?
A:    No.
Q:    Did you ever hear that Mike Hogan had any contact with Rick Simon' company?
A:    No.
Q:    Bill Hogan never mentioned that to you when he talked to you about Rick Simon's company?
A::    No, he didn't.
(Ex. 20 at 68-69)

5 at 21, 27, 33) Indeed, Michael Hogan's involvement with United was known even to
Local members on the convention floor. (Ex. 205 at 15-16; Ex. 156 at 36) Given the
ongoing talks and meetings between Passo, Simon and William Hogan concerning
United, Passo's claim that he was unaware that his close friend's brother was involved in
the company was not credible.

Generally, Passo's testimony was conveniently self-serving and contrary
to his own prior statements.

In summary, both Passo and Hogan's relevant testimony is internally
contradictory and against the weight of the documentary and testimonial evidence and is,
therefore, not credible.

The evidence has established that Dane Passo and William T. Hogan, Jr.
brought reproach upon the IBT, violated the IBT Constitution and the Consent Decree as
charged. Therefore, they are both permanently barred from holding membership in or
any position with the IBT or any IBT-affiliated entity. Furthermore, Dane Passo and
William T. Hogan, Jr. may not hereafter obtain employment, consulting or other work,
directly or indirectly, with the IBT or any IBT-affiliated entity.

Jim McGough, Director
Laborers for JUSTICE
2615 W Peterson Av
Chicago, Il 60659
773-878-1002(tel)
773-409-1503(fax)