In the Matter of Local 1058 

Laborers’ International Union of North America

Independent Hearing Officer 

Docket No. 00-08T 

Decided March 9, 2001 

Order and Memorandum

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

This Order and Memorandum addresses the Complaint for Trusteeship filed by the General Executive Board Attorney (GEB Attorney) on March 21, 2000, against Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) Local Union 1058 (Local 1058) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  The Independent Hearing Officer (IHO) granted the GEB Attorney’s request to hold the hearing on July 10-13, 2000, and July 24-27, 2000.

 

Prior to the hearing, Local 1058 filed a Motion for Full Disclosure, a Motion for Full Disclosure of Documents, and a Motion for Witness List.  The IHO granted the motions in part and denied them in part.  See IHO Order of May 31, 2000.  Thereafter, Local 1058 filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to prohibit the GEB Attorney from proceeding with the hearing.  The Court denied the motion.  See Construction, Gen. Laborers and Material Handlers, Local Union 1058 v. Laborers Int’l Union North America, No. 00-934 (W.D. Pa. filed June 9, 2000). 

 

The GEB Attorney’s Complaint for Trusteeship sets forth, in 21 numbered paragraphs, the factual allegations surrounding the charges.  In the Complaint, the GEB Attorney sets out the alleged structure of the Pittsburgh La Cosa Nostra family and Local 1058’s association with that organization.  The factual allegations assert that most current and former officers of Local 1058 knowingly associate or associated with members of organized crime.  The GEB Attorney’s Complaint names the following as current Local 1058 officers: Joseph LaQuatra,[1] Louis Dennis Martire, Gerald Pecora Jr., John LaRocca Jr., Joseph Frydrych, Philip Ameris, and Michael LaQuatra.  The Complaint alleges that a trusteeship is necessary to eradicate Local 1058’s ties to organized crime and to restore democratic practices within the union.  The Complaint also alleges that the Local 1058 officers’ failure to investigate the alleged organized crime ties of its officers warrants a trusteeship. 

 

TRUSTEESHIP REQUIREMENTS

The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) gives a governing body, in this case LIUNA, discretion in placing its member organizations in trusteeship to correct certain problems.  See 29 U.S.C. §§ 461-466; LIUNA International Union Constitution (International Constitution), Article IX, Section 7.  Courts will only override this discretion if the union brings its complaint in bad faith or for an improper purpose.  See 29 U.S.C. § 464(c).  Permissible purposes for establishing a trusteeship include, inter alia, “correcting corruption or financial malpractice, . . . [and] restoring democratic procedures . . . .”  29 U.S.C. § 462.  In addition, the International Constitution and the Ethics and Disciplinary Procedure (EDP) permit LIUNA to impose a trusteeship over a subordinate body to correct mismanagement and corruption caused by the officers’ knowingly associating with organized crime.

 

A governing body seeking to impose a trusteeship upon its subsidiary must give the targeted entity a full and fair hearing.  See 29 U.S.C. § 464(c).  Under 29 U.S.C. § 462, the minimum requirements for a fair hearing are:  notice of the charges;  presentation of evidence and witnesses;  and an opportunity for cross-examination.  See Int’l Bhd. of Boilermakers v. Local Lodge D461, Cement, Lime, Gypsum and Allied Workers Div. of Int’l Bhd. of Boilermakers, 663 F. Supp. 1031, 1034 (M.D. Ga. 1987), aff’d, 667 F. Supp. 835 F.2d 1439 (11th Cir. 1987).  In this matter, Local 1058 received proper notice of the hearing.  The hearing consisted of ten days of testimony.  At the hearing, the GEB Attorney presented five witnesses and 123 exhibits.  The attorneys for Local 1058, a former United States Attorney and a former Assistant United States Attorney, engaged in extensive cross-examination.  Following the GEB Attorney’s presentation there was a recess of one week, after which Local 1058 presented its defense.  The union attorneys called 21 witnesses and entered eight exhibits into the record.  Each party filed extensive post-hearing briefs.

 

EVIDENTIARY CONSIDERATIONS

Burden of Proof

 

        The GEB Attorney must establish the grounds for a trusteeship by a preponderance of the evidence.  See In the Matter of Local 225, IHO Order and Memorandum, 97-54T (March 17, 1998), citing, In the Matter of Construction & Laborers’ District Council of Chicago and Vicinity (Chicago District Council), IHO Order and Memorandum, 97-30T (February 7, 1998).  In this case, the GEB Attorney avers that, inter alia, the current and former Local 1058 Executive Board members’ knowing association with organized crime figures warrants the imposition of a trusteeship.  Under the EDP, the term “knowingly associate” means that:  (a) an individual knew that the person with whom he or she was associating was a member or associate of the La Cosa Nostra (LCN);  (b) the association related directly or indirectly to the affairs of the union; and, (c) the association was more than fleeting or casual.  EDP Section 1.

 

The requirement that the knowing association be “directly or indirectly related to the affairs of the union” is liberally construed to effect the purpose of the EDP.  In the Matter of Rocco J. Napoli and Thomas J. Fallacara (Fallacara), IHO Order and Memorandum, 96-65D (September 25, 1997).  The major goal of the LUINA reform process is to rid the union of the influence of organized crime.[2]  Id.  The phrase “directly or indirectly related to the affairs of the union” encompasses any reasonable relationship to the affairs of the union, its members, or its officers.  Id.  The relationship to the affairs of the union need only reflect that the “knowing association” permits undesirable individuals to have easy access to the union officers.  Id.

 

Under the EDP, the GEB Attorney must demonstrate that the charged parties’ association was “more than fleeting or casual.”  EDP Section 1; Cf., United States v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters), 824 F. Supp. 410, 414 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); United Sates v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 745 F. Supp. 908, 909 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)(contact that was “knowing, purposeful and not fleeting” constituted “knowing association”) aff’d, 941 F.2d 1292 (2d Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1091 (1992).[3]  In order to establish knowing association, the GEB Attorney must first prove that the charged party knew that the person with whom they were associating was a member or an associate of the LCN.  EDP Section 1.  “Knowledge” can be established in three ways:  (1) the individual had actual knowledge that the person with whom they were associating was and LCN member;  (2) the individual reasonably should have known that the person with whom they were associating was an LCN member;  and, (3) the individual deliberately remained ignorant of facts that would demonstrate that the person with whom they were associating was an LCN member.  See Fallacara, 96-65D.

 

Actual knowledge may be established by drawing rational inferences from the facts and circumstances surrounding the case which support that the charged party knew that their conduct was unauthorized or illegal.  See, e.g., Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 434 (1985);  United States v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 764 F. Supp. 797, 801-02 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), aff’d without opinion, 956 F.2d 1161 (2d Cir. 1992).  In the absence of direct evidence of knowledge of a person’s organized crime ties, knowledge may be inferred from the duration and quality of the association.  See, e.g., Investigations Officer v. Senese, Decision of Independent Administrator (July 12, 1990), aff’d, United States v. International Bhd. of Teamsters (Senese and Talerico), aff’d, 941 F.2d 1292 (2d Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1091 (1992).  Facts establishing constructive knowledge sufficiently prove violations of the EDP.  See Fallacara, 96-65D.  Finally, intentional ignorance is the legal equivalent of knowledge.  See, e.g., United States v. Antzoulatos, 962 F.2d 720, 724 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 919 (1992); United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 700 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 951 (1976).  Intentional ignorance exists where a person “recognizing the likelihood of wrongdoing, nonetheless consciously refuses to take basic investigatory steps.”  United States v. Saint Michael’s Credit Union, 880 F.2d 579, 585 (1st Cir. 1989). 

Hearsay Evidence

GEB trusteeship proceedings are similar to administrative proceedings in which the “rules governing the admission of evidence . . . are considerably more relaxed.”  United States v. International Bhd. of Teamsters (Wilson, Dickens & Weber), 978 F.2d 68, 72 (2d Cir. 1992); Rocker v. Celebrezze, 358 F.2d 119, 122 (2d Cir. 1966) (footnote omitted).  Accordingly, reliable hearsay evidence is admissible in labor arbitration.  See, e.g., Associated Cleaning Consultants and International Bhd. of Printing and Allied Trades Local 327, 94 LA 1246 (1990); In the Matter of Joseph P. Crincoli (Crincoli), IHO Order and Memorandum, 97-04D (Oct. 27, 1997); Chicago District Council, 97-30T; Elkouri and Elkouri, How Arbitration Works (4^th ed. 1994).  The hearing officer in union disciplinary proceedings arising under the Teamsters Consent Decree regularly admits hearsay evidence.  See United States v. International Bhd. of Teamsters (Cimino), 964 F.2d 1308, 1312 (2d Cir. 1992) aff’g, 777 F. Supp. 1130 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); Senese & Talerico, 941 F.2d at 1297.  As is the practice and custom of labor arbitrators, the IHO bases hearsay evidence decisions on a thorough review of what is probative and reliable.  See Chicago District Council, 97-30T; see also Senese & Talerico, 941 F.2d at 1298, citing, Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 402 (1971).

 

Hearsay Information of Informants

 

In the past, the IHO accepted informant information under strict qualifications.  Those restrictions are repeated here.  Informant information will only be accepted if it serves as the basis of a qualified law enforcement person’s expert opinion.  Further, the informant must have provided the information to a professional law enforcement agency.  That law enforcement agency must have a formal system of evaluating and qualifying informant information.  Acceptance of informant information is not automatic; the IHO evaluates each law enforcement agency on a case by case basis.  See In the Matter of John Matassa Jr. (Matassa Jr.), IHO Order and Memorandum, 98-43D (May 12, 1999); In the Matter of Bruno Caruso, Frank Caruso, Leo Caruso (Caruso), IHO Order and Memorandum, 99-12D (January 10, 2001).  The IHO’s evaluation method is similar to the procedure employed by the Independent Administrator of the teamsters union.[4]  See Senese and Talerico, 745 F. Supp. 908 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).

 

At the hearing, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Special Agent Greenbank explained how the FBI develops a confidential informant.  Initially, the FBI opens a “suitability inquiry” file, assigning the individual a number and a code name.  Hearing Transcript (Tr.) 65.  In the first three months, the handling agent and the agent’s immediate supervisor evaluate information received from the source.  Tr. 65-66.  During that time, any indication that the informant is providing false information prevents the FBI from converting the individual to “full informant” status.  Id.  Following a successful “suitability inquiry,” which can extend up to six months, the FBI deems an informant reliable and operates the informant on a continuing basis.  Id.  Special Agent Greenback added that, in the 1980s, the United States Attorney General issued specific guidelines for all federal agencies handling informants.  Id.  Federal agents give these guidelines to each informant and specifically explain every guideline.  Id.

WITNESSES

GEB Expert Witnesses

Special Agent Greenbank

 

Special Agent Greenbank (Agent Greenbank) began his FBI employment in 1975.  Tr. 31.  He was first assigned to the Philadelphia office for two years, and then assigned to the FBI’s Pittsburgh office in 1979.  Id.  Agent Greenbank primarily investigates organized crime and narcotics in the Pittsburgh area.  Id.  Agent Greenbank is fully knowledgeable about the various organized crime investigative techniques employed by the FBI.  During his 26 years of investigating organized crime, Agent Greenbank has been the case agent on numerous investigations.  Tr. 31-33.  He has executed search warrants, contributed to affidavits for search warrants and electronic surveillance, and testified numerous times in criminal prosecutions.[5]  Id.

 

Agent Greenbank’s knowledge of the Pittsburgh LCN prior to 1979 stems from working with other agents assigned to the office, reviewing FBI intelligence files, and talking to other state and local law enforcement agencies.  Tr. 35.  He has also interviewed cooperating witnesses with first hand knowledge of Pittsburgh’s organized crime activities.  Tr. 36.  Agent Greenbank offered his opinion as an expert on organized crime; the IHO accepted Agent Greenbank as an expert in this area.

 

Agent Greenback based his expert opinion, in part, on two informants set out below as Confidential Sources 12 and 13.

 

Confidential Source 12

Agent Greenbank identified Confidential Source 12 (Source 12) as an employee of the Allegheny Car Wash (Car Wash) from 1974 until 1977.  Tr. 64.  The Car Wash was owned by Pittsburgh LCN boss, John LaRocca Sr. (LaRocca Sr.).  Tr. 36, 63.  Source 12’s Car Wash employment began before Source 12 become an FBI informant.  Tr. 67.  At the time Source 12 began cooperating with the FBI, this informant had a criminal record.  Tr. 76.  Source 12 received some payments from the FBI for providing information.  Tr. 78.

 

Source 12 knew the Car Wash owner’s identity and many of the Car Wash visitors.  Id.  Source 12 reported information several times a month to FBI handling agents.[6]  Tr. 64.  The information Source 12 reported included:  all the license plate numbers of every car entering the Car Wash property, particularly any cars that entered for the sole purpose of seeing LaRocca Sr.,[7] and the subject matter of meetings that occurred between LaRocca Sr., various LCN members, associates, and Local 1058 officers.  Tr. 67-124.  Agent Greenbank reviewed Source 12’s file, which was replete with the handling agents’ verifications deeming Source 12 accurate and reliable.  Id. 

 

Confidential Source 13

During the 1970s and 1980s, the FBI penetrated the Pittsburgh LCN family with a confidential informant known as Confidential Source 13 (Source 13).  Tr. 125.  Source 13 was closely associated with the LaRocca LCN family since the 1950s.  Id.  Source 13 was a member of Local 1058 and held an executive position with the union at some point.  Id.  The FBI designated Source 13 as a top echelon informant.  Id.  Independent FBI surveillance corroborated Source 13’s information; Source 13 was often observed with LCN members.  Id.  Agent Greenbank never met this informant; he based his knowledge on information garnered by various agents that handled the individual.  Tr.  124-125.

 

        Professor Clyde Summers

 

Professor Clyde Summers (Professor Summers), a Professor of Labor and Employment Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School for the past 25 years, participated in drafting the LMRDA, and has authored numerous articles on the rights of union members.  Tr. 496-503.  Professor Summers testified generally about organized crime’s impact on union democratic practices.  Id.

 

In preparation for this hearing, Professor Summers reviewed all of the depositions taken by the GEB Attorney in the case, as well as a collection of minutes from the Executive Board and general membership meetings.  Tr. 506.  The minutes Professor Summers reviewed pertained specifically to the selection, nomination, and election of officers.  Id.  The IHO accepted Professor Summers as an expert witness in the field of democratic rights of union members and union democracy.  Tr. 505.  Professor Summers previously testified before the IHO in a similar capacity.  Tr. 494.

 

Other GEB Witnesses

 

Ronald Fino

 

Ronald Fino (Fino) was a member of LIUNA Local 210 Buffalo, New York (Local 210) from 1965 through 1988, and was Business Manager from 1973 until early 1988.  See In the Matter of Bifulco, IHO Order and Memorandum, 96-48D (March 17, 1998).  Fino became the Local 210 Business Manager in 1973 with the LCN’s assistance.  Tr. 573.  Fino is the son of Joe Fino, now deceased, who was the acting boss of the Buffalo LCN from 1968 through 1972.  Tr. 572; see also Bifulco, 96-48D.  Fino secretly cooperated with the FBI for 18 years, including the entire time he was Business Manager.  Tr. 576, 577.  The FBI interviewed Fino over a thousand times during that period.  See Bifulco, 96-48D. 

 

In the instant hearing, Fino testified about conversations he had with members of Local 1058 while attempting to bid jobs in Pittsburgh for his Buffalo based company, Hazardous Waste Management (HWM). Tr. 570, 581.  Fino stated that, in the fall of 1989, he traveled to Pittsburgh for a pre-bid walk through of a project at USX Steel.  Tr. 581.  Fino met with Joseph LaQuatra (Joe LaQuatra), Local 1058’s Business Manager, who he knew from conferences sponsored by the International Union.  Tr. 582.  Fino sought out Joe LaQuatra “because he [Joe LaQuatra] was the head of the Pittsburgh local and I [Fino] wanted to line up laborers for the job that I [Fino] was bidding.”  Id.  Fino testified that Victor Sansanese (Sansanese), Director of the Buffalo Training Center for LIUNA and a member of the Buffalo LCN, met him when he returned to Buffalo.  Tr. 583.  Sansanese purportedly told Fino that he had no authority to bid Pittsburgh jobs without the approval of the Buffalo LCN.  Id.  Consequently, Fino said that he did not bid the USX Steel job.  Tr. 584.  The GEB Attorney contends that this episode indicates that the LCN controls Local 1058.

 

The GEB Attorney previously offered Fino’s testimony in the disciplinary hearing of over 20 Buffalo LCN members and associates, including Sansanese. See Bifulco, 96-48D.  That hearing was directed toward, inter alia, proving that Sansanese was a LCN member.  Id.  Fino testified extensively about his interactions with Sansanese; however, his Bifulco testimony did not include any references to the alleged Pittsburgh meetings or to Sansanese’s admonition to obtain permission from Buffalo before bidding jobs in Pittsburgh.  Id.  In the Bifulco hearing, the IHO credited Fino’s testimony about his various LCN relationships.  Id.  The IHO did not credit Fino’s testimony regarding his HWM business ventures or his business ventures outside of Buffalo, New York;  the IHO was not impressed with Fino’s version of his dealings with Sansanese on these matters.

 

The IHO does not credit Fino’s testimony in this hearing, after comparing it to his Bifulco testimony on the same subject matter.  As mentioned, Fino omitted incidents from his Bifulco testimony, the Pittsburgh visit and his meeting with Sansanese, that would have been both memorable and factually pertinent to the Bifulco case.  In the instant hearing, Fino did not testify that anyone in Pittsburgh either asked him for a kickback for the work, or directed him to seek permission from the Buffalo LCN when he attempted to bid the USX Steel job.  While the Buffalo LCN may have had some interest in controlling Fino’s activities, Fino’s current testimony is not probative of any Local 1058 LCN affiliation.

 

Richard Marchese

 

Richard Marchese (Marchese) testified for the GEB Attorney via telephone.  Tr. 594.  Marchese is currently serving a 75-month federal prison sentence.  Marchese’s extensive criminal record includes convictions for drug trafficking, possession, and counterfeiting.  Tr. 597.

 

Marchese testified that he knew LaRocca Sr. and Michael Genovese (Genovese), LaRocca Sr.’s successor as LCN boss, from his East Liberty neighborhood.  Tr.  600-601.  Marchese stated that Genovese was the neighborhood contact for acquiring jobs with Local 1058.  Tr. 603.  At Marchese’s request, Genovese contacted Theodore R. Cozza (Teddy Cozza), President of Teamsters Local 211 at the time, to get Marchese a job as a Teamster.  Tr. 603-604.  Thereafter, Marchese began working for the Triangle News stocking shelves.  Id. Marchese wanted a more lucrative truck driving position with the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.  Id.  Marchese testified that Joe LaQuatra arranged for him to meet LaRocca Sr. at the Rosa Villa Restaurant to discuss Marchese getting the job he wanted.  Tr. 608.  One month later, Marchese got a job driving trucks.  Id.

 

Marchese’s testimony pertained to events that occurred sometime in the 1960s.  Tr. 603.  Marchese did not offer the names of any persons who received LIUNA jobs through the LCN, nor did he mention any particular construction sites that may have been LCN controlled.  Further, the bulk of Marchese’s testimony pertained to Teamsters’ Local 210.  Therefore, the IHO does not find Marchese’s testimony probative in this matter.

 

Other Confidential Informants

 

The GEB Attorney presented the hearsay testimony of two other confidential informants through Agent Greenbank’s testimony, designated Confidential Sources 1 and 9.  Tr. 178-181.  The IHO finds their testimony vague and uncorroborated.  Accordingly, the hearsay testimony of Confidential Sources 1 and 9 are given no weight.

 

The GEB Attorney also attempted to elicit the anonymous hearsay testimony of three individuals who “could have qualified as informants” through the testimony of John Poerstel, a LIUNA inspector.  Tr. 657-692.  This evidence did not meet the informant hearsay requirements discussed supra.  Id.  The IHO rejected the evidence as unreliable and it was not made of record.  Id.

 

Local 1058 Members and Officers Testifying for the Union

Shirley Kaczmarek

 

Shirley Kaczmarek (Kaczmarek) is the office manager of Local 1058.  Tr. 859.  Local 1058’s attorneys called Kaczmarek to testify about the election notice mailings that were regularly sent to all members, and about the regular process for dealing with member complaints.  Tr. 862, 863, 877; Defense Exhibits (Def. Exs.) 2-7.  Kaczmarek also testified that Philip Ameris worked for six months with no pay before being hired as a business agent.  Tr. 909.

 

Gerald J. Pecora Jr.

 

Current President, Gerald J. Pecora Jr. (Gerald Pecora), was Recording Secretary from 1975 to May 2000.  See Def. Ex.6; Tr. 1039, 1150.  In addition to his position as President, Gerald Pecora is a business agent in the public employee sector.  Tr. 1041-1042.  As business agent, Gerald Pecora, handles employee grievances and negotiates top contracts.  Tr. 1043-1044, 1051.  He serves the Zoological Society, the Convention Center, Water and Sewer Authority, and Kane Hospitals.  Tr. 1045-1046.  Gerald Pecora described Local 1058’s nomination process.  Tr. 1060-1066. 

 

Louis Dennis Martire

 

Louis Dennis Martire (Dennis Martire) became Local 1058’s Business Manager in May 2000.  See Def. Ex. 6; Tr. 1569.  Dennis Martire testified about Local 1058’s procedure for filling mid-term vacancies.  Tr. 1591.  He explained that the Business Manager always makes a recommendation to the Executive Board and the Executive Board votes on the recommendation.  Id.  The Executive Board members have never objected to any of the Business Manager’s suggestions because the recommended people are always well known to them.  Tr. 1591-1593.  During his Executive Board tenure, Dennis Martire has never personally recommended anyone for office.  Tr. 1610. 

 

When asked about his alleged association with LaRocca Sr., Dennis Martire testified that LaRocca Sr. knew his father, Dante Martire.  Tr. 1595.  However, Dennis Martire testified that he first met LaRocca Sr. with Thomas Pecora (Tom Pecora), then Local 1058’s Business Manager, when Tom Pecora introduced them at the Car Wash.  Id.  Following that introduction, Dennis Martire testified that he got his car washed once every two weeks at the Car Wash.  Id.  Dennis Martire disputes the GEB Attorney’s allegations that he went to the Car Wash more frequently and for any reason other than to get his car washed.  Tr. 1597. 

 

When questioned about other alleged LCN associations, Dennis Martire admitted that that he visited LaRocca Sr.’s home at Christmastime.  Tr. 1599.  He denied having any business meetings with Anthony A. “Wango” Capizzi (Wango Capizzi) at the Rose Ridge Country Club; Wango Capizzi was simply there playing golf.  Tr. 1604. 

 

                Clinton Wright, Richard Campbell, and Frank Braun

 

Clinton Wright, a Local 1058 member for 15 years, Richard Campbell, a Local 1058 member since 1983, and Frank Braun, a member of Local 1058 for 29 years, all testified on the union’s behalf.  Tr. 1288-1329.  These men testified that the officers are doing a good job, the membership is satisfied with their leadership, and that the membership feels no need to run opposition candidates.  Id.  In each witness’s opinion, the members’ satisfaction explains why there are no contested elections.  Id. 

 

                        Louis Elesie

 

Louis Elesie (Elesie) is a retired International Representative and formerly a Local 1058 business agent.  Tr. 1539-1543.  Elesie’s territory as an International Representative included parts of Pennsylvania and Delaware.  Id.  According to Elesie, a large number of local unions across the country do not have contested elections for long periods of time.  Tr. 1550.  Elesie estimated that twenty percent (20%) of the LIUNA locals have non-contested elections.  Tr. 1552.

 

Pittsburgh Attorneys Testifying on Behalf of Local 1058

                        Ralph Scalera

 

Ralph Scalera (Scalera), formerly an Assistant United States Attorney and Federal Judge, is senior counsel in the law firm of Thorpe, Reed & Armstrong.  Tr. 1094-1095.  Scalera sat on the Pennsylvania Labor Relation Board (PLRB) with Dennis Martire, Local 1058’s current Business Manager.  Tr. 1100.  Governor Thornburg appointed Dennis Martire to the PLRB in 1983.  Id.  Governor Ridge re-appointed Dennis Martire, and he continues to serve on the PLRB.  Id.  In Scalera’s opinion, Martire always displayed a high level of integrity in his position on the PLRB.  Tr. 1102.  

 

                        Thomas Sebastian Giotto

 

Thomas Sebastian Giotto (Giotto) specializes in labor law and is a shareholder in the law firm of Klett, Rooney, Lieber & Schorling.  Tr. 1252.  Giotto has represented many employers negotiating labor contracts with Local 1058.  Tr. 1253-1254.  Giotto testified that his dealings with Local 1058 are very professional; Local 1058 officers are always willing to meet, are prepared, are willing to negotiate for long hours, and represent their members very well.  Tr. 1255.  

Samuel Kamin

 

Samuel Kamin (Kamin) represents a number of municipalities that employ members of Local 1058.  Tr. 1271-1272.  Kamin has represented the municipalities in numerous job grievances with Local 1058.  Tr. 1273.  He also negotiated a number of contracts with Local 1058.  Id.  Kamin testified that the officers of Local 1058 are very professional and represent their members very well.  Tr. 1273-1276.

                       

Michael Healy

 

Michael Healy (Healy) concentrates his legal practice in the field of labor and employment law.  Tr. 1613.  Formerly a regional coordinator for the 1996 LIUNA International Election Officer, Healy holds a similar position in the 2001 International Election.[8]  Id.  Healy testified that grievance hot lines were set up during the 1996 International Election to field members’ election complaints.  Tr. 1622.  There were no hot line complaints about Local 1058’s election.  Tr. 1623.

 

Healy reasoned that Local 1058’s uncontested elections are the result of its craft union membership.  Tr. 1614-1616.  Unlike the membership of industrial unions who work together at the same plants or mines, craft union workers are scattered across numerous work sites.  Id.  Consequently, craft union workers do not associate with fellow union members beyond their work site.  Id.  The diversity in craft unions inhibits wide union interaction.  Id.  This lack of union interaction accounts for the deficiency of competing slates of election candidates.  Id.

 

Judge Frank Lucchino

 

The Honorable Frank Lucchino (Judge Lucchino), former Controller of Allegheny County, sits on the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas.  Tr. 1436, 1437.  Judge Lucchino and Dennis Martire are friends; they regularly play golf together at the Rose Ridge Country Club.  Tr. 1437.  When questioned about the presence of LCN associate Wango Capizzi during some of their golf outings, Judge Lucchino testified that Wango Capizzi is a fellow club member who occasionally rounded out their foursome when there was an opening.  Tr. 1441, 1442. 

 

Local 1058 Business Associates

Robert Gary Hecht

 

Robert Gary Hecht (Hecht) is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Trumbull Corporation; Executive Vice-President of P.J. Dick, Incorporated; President of Allegheny Asphalt; Executive Vide-President of Lindy Construction; and President of SynAggs.  Tr. 1123.  Hecht served on the Labor Committee of the Constructors’ Association of Western Pennsylvania.  Tr.  1125.  Hecht’s companies employ between 1500 and 2000 laborers and have annual sales topping $250,000.00.  Tr. 1124.  Hecht negotiates collective bargaining agreements with Local 1058.  Tr. 1127-1130.  In his opinion, Local 1058’s bargainers are always knowledgeable, responsible, and reliable.  Id.

 

                        Joseph Garland

 

Joseph Garland (Garland), a retired insurance agent, sold insurance to Local 1058.  Tr. 1861-1863.  Garland testified that he first met Tom Pecora at a political rally.  Tr. 1863.  Several years later, Tom Pecora contacted Garland about whole life insurance policies for union officers and business agents.  Tr. 1863-1864.  Garland sold Local 1058 insurance.  Id.  Garland approached the local about changing their existing policies when the insurance industry originated universal life policies.  Tr. 1865, 1866.  At that time, Local 1058 switched insurance companies from Massachusetts Mutual to Security Connecticut.  Tr. 1867.  Garland has never met John LaRocca Sr.  Tr. 1869.  Garland’s testimony directly contradicts Source 13’s information given to Agent Greenbank.

 

                        John Pinto

 

John Pinto (Pinto) is the Director of Mediation Services for the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.  Tr. 1720.  Pinto’s testimony pertained to his interactions with Local 1058 officers while he was a Local 66 field representative and a member of the Pittsburgh Joint Collective Bargaining Committee (PJCBC).  Tr. 1721-1734.  Pinto testified that he worked closely with Gerald Pecora on the PJCBC until 1988, that Gerald Pecora was extremely helpful to him, and that he considered Local 1058 a very stable union.  Id.  Pinto also dealt with other Local 1058 officers during contract negotiations and was generally impressed with Local 1058.  Id.

 

FINDINGS OF FACT

 

Structure of Organized Crime

1.        The LCN, sometimes referred to as the “Mob” or the “Mafia,” operates in various cities throughout the United States as a tightly structured criminal organization.  The LCN’s business is crime for profit.[9]

 

2.        The LCN has its origins in late 19^th century secret societies formed in Sicily and Southern Italy.  See Symposium – Perspectives on Organized Crime, 16 Rutgers L.J. 439 (1985) (Symposium).  Secret societies emerged in the United States toward the end of the 19^th century.  Id. at 440.  These secret societies were the antecedents of the present LCN.  Id. at 441.

 

3.        In the late 1920s, one criminal group attempted to form an alliance among all of the groups involved in boot legging.  See Symposium, supra at 441, citing, D. Cressey, Theft of the Nation: The Structure and Operations of Organized Crime in America (1969).  A power struggle erupted between Sicilian and non-Sicilian groups.  This power struggle led to a violent, private vendetta known as the Castellammarese War.  See id. at 441.

 

4.        The Castellammarese War lasted six months, from April 1931 until September 1931, in New York.  During three days in September 1931, forty Italian and Sicilian organized crime leaders were murdered.  See id. at 442.  A peace treaty ended the Castellammarese War and created the structure of the Italian/Sicilian organized crime organization in the United States today.  The resulting confederation became known as La Cosa Nostra.  See id.

 

5.        Although public reports of organized crime throughout the United States date as early as the 1920s, the existence of a national organized crime structure first gained national media attention in 1957.  That year, a number of individuals were arrested while attending a secret meeting in the small town of Apalachin, New York.  Sixty-two organized crime leaders from across the nation attended what appeared to be a national conference at the home of Joseph Barbara. Attendees included: Sam Giancana of Chicago; Joseph Bonanno and Vito Genovese of New York City; Antonio Magaddino of Buffalo, New York; Russell Bufalino of northeast Pennsylvania; Santos Trafficante of Tampa, Florida; LaRocca Sr. and Gabriel “Kelly” Mannarino (Kelly Mannarino) of Pittsburgh.  See Symposium, supra at 443, n. 21.  Subsequent investigations identified them as leaders of crime families across the country.  See FBI Organized Crime Report, 25 Years After Valachi (1988).

 

6.        The LCN consists of groups of people organized into entities called families.  The hierarchy of leadership in each LCN family consists of the head of a family, the boss; his assistant, the underboss; and, an advisor, the consigliere.  The boss, underboss, and consigliere oversee the activities of LCN members and their associates.  See United States v. Pungitore, 910 F.2d 1084, 1097 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 915 (1990).

 

7.        LCN members within the family operate in small groups called “crews,” which are headed by men called “capos.”  See id.

 

8.        A “made” member is inducted into an LCN family through an initiation ceremony that includes an oath, specific rituals, and formalities.  See, e.g., In the Matter of Miceli, IHO Order and Memorandum, 98-11D (May 27, 1999);  Pungitore, 910 F.2d 1084.  Members share in the organization’s profits.  See, e.g., Chicago District Council, 97-30T; Fallacara, 96-65D.  “Made” members are also known as “soldiers.”  See Miceli, 98-11D.  The fact that a member is “made” spreads quickly in the organized crime community because being “made” entitles a member to a certain amount of respect.  See id.

 

9.        Mob “associates” work for “made” members facilitating mob activities.  “Associates” either run day-to-day illegal operations for the mob or are in legitimate businesses under the influence and control of organized crime.  See, e.g., Chicago District Council, 97-30T; Fallacara, 96-65D.

 

10.     The LCN code of conduct dictates that members follow their superiors’ orders without question; refuse to give information or assistance to law enforcement; pay assessments imposed by superiors; respect other members regardless of personal feelings; and, refuse to information about the organization to outsiders.  See Pungitore, 910 F.2d at 1097.

 

11.     Part of the LCN criminal conduct involves the infiltration and control of numerous business organizations and labor unions.  In these ventures, “it employs illegitimate methods – monopolization, terrorism, extortion, tax evasion – to drive out or control lawful ownership and leadership and to exact illegal profits from the public.”  President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report:  Organized Crime (1967); Blakey & Goldstock, “On the Waterfront”:  RICO and Labor Racketeering,” 17 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 341 (1980).

 

12.     The LCN uses its control of labor unions to neutralize competitive bidding and to extort employers for maintaining labor peace.  “Sometimes control arises from members of La Cosa Nostra who are also labor officials.  Control includes the ability to direct the day-to-day affairs of a labor organization—such things as…who runs for office and who does not, who gets elected to union office…and the use of union power for corrupt purposes.”  President’s Commission on Organized Crime, Report to the President and the Attorney General, The Edge: Organized Crime, Business and the Labor Unions, President’s Commission on Organized Crime, 98th Congress, 1st and 2d Sess. 208 (1983-84).

 

13.     The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) provisions of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 empower federal prosecutors to bring criminal prosecutions and civil suits against organized crime syndicates.  See 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.

 

14.     In enacting the 1970 RICO statute, Congress principally aimed to prevent organized crime from infiltrating legitimate business.  See United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981).

 

15.     Following the passage of the RICO statute, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has embarked on a concentrated effort to rid the labor movement of organized crime.  The DOJ prosecutors have filed numerous RICO and civil complaints against international and local labor unions.

 

16.     These suits resulted in consent decrees that appointed independent monitors with the power to hear disciplinary charges against union members for misconduct, including associating with members of organized crime.  See United States v. Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union (Agathos), (D.N.J.) Civ. No. 95-4596 (GEB) Memorandum Opinion (May 8, 1997).

 

17.     In 1995, LIUNA entered a voluntary agreement with the DOJ, which required that LIUNA engage in self-policing and internal reform outside of the court system.  This voluntary process was designed “to ensure that all locals and other entities within LIUNA are rid of any corrupting influence of any member of organized crime.”  Agreement Between Laborers’ International Union of North America and the Department of Justice, (February 13, 1995).

 

18.     On January 18, 1995, LIUNA adopted the EDP to effect reform.  The EDP prohibits all current and future LIUNA officers, agents, representatives, employees, and members from engaging in “barred conduct.”  The definition of barred conduct includes: committing any act of racketeering; “knowingly associating” with members of an organized crime family, such as the LCN; knowingly allowing an LCN member or associate to influence a LIUNA officer;  and, interfering with or obstructing the efforts of the LIUNA Inspector General, the GEB Attorney or the IHO.  See EDP Section 1.

 

19.     By agreement, the DOJ terminated direct oversight of LIUNA on January 18, 2000; however, LIUNA is under an obligation to continue the reform effort.  The DOJ monitors LIUNA’s progress.  See Agreement Between Laborers’ International Union of North America and the Department of Justice, (January 18, 2000).

 

Structure of Organized Crime in Pittsburgh

20.     The Pittsburgh LCN family members operate in designated areas in Western Pennsylvania.  Prior to his death LaRocca Sr. operated in the city of Pittsburgh; Kelly Mannarino, and later Thomas “Sonny” Ciancutti (Sonny Ciancutti), controlled New Kensington; Joseph Sica, and later Louis Raucci Sr. (Raucci Sr.), operated in Penn Hills suburbs; and Frank D. Amato Jr., controlled the eastern suburbs such as Braddock and North Versailles. See GEB Exhibit (GEB Ex.) 92 (Pennsylvania Crime Commission, Organized Crime in Pennsylvania:  A Decade of Change, 1990 Report (1990 PA Crime Report) at 113); Tr. 49.

 

21.     The Pittsburgh family has fewer “made” members than most other LCN families.  See GEB Ex. 92 (1990 PA Crime Report at 117).  The Pittsburgh family has not “made” a new member since 1987.  Tr. 58-61.

 

Pittsburgh LCN Bosses

 

22.     LaRocca Sr. headed the Pittsburgh LCN from 1957 until his death in 1984.  Tr. 36.  LaRocca Sr. commanded a nationwide reputation.  See GEB Ex. 90 (Pennsylvania Crime Commission, 1985 Report (1985 PA Crime Report) at 33).  LaRocca Sr. attended the 1957 Apalachin, New York Summit of top organized crime figures.  Tr. 38.  LaRocca Sr. owned and operated the Car Wash located at 100 Sandusky Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where he frequently met with LCN associates.  Tr. 63.  In 1974, the FBI successfully penetrated LaRocca Sr.’s Car Wash operation using a confidential informant.  Tr. 64-67.

 

23.     When LaRocca Sr. died in 1984, Michael Genovese (Genovese) became the Pittsburgh family boss.  Tr. 38; see also GEB Ex. 90 (1985 PA Crime Report at 33).  Prior to 1984, Genovese served as a capo and controlled the numbers racket in the East Liberty section of Pittsburgh.  Genovese attended the Apalachin Summit with LaRocca Sr. and Kelly Mannarino.[10]  See GEB Ex. 92 (1990 PA Crime Report at 118).  The FBI reported that Genovese often met with LCN members and associates at L.A. Motors, a used car lot in Verona, Pennsylvania, where he was employed as a salesman.  See id.

 

Pittsburgh LCN Underbosses

 

24.     An LCN underboss acts as assistant to the boss of the crime family.

 

25.     Joseph “Jo-Jo” Pecora (Jo-Jo Pecora) was underboss of the Pittsburgh LCN.  At one time, Jo-Jo Pecora operated gambling enterprises in West Virginia for the LaRocca family. See GEB Ex. 89 (Pennsylvania Crime Commission, 1983 Report (1983 PA Crime Report) at 19).  In 1979, Jo-Jo Pecora was convicted of racketeering and sentenced to five years in federal prison.  See id.

 

26.     When Jo-Jo Pecora died in 1987, Charles “Chuckie” Porter (Porter) became underboss.  See id.  Porter worked closely with LaRocca Sr. to develop sources in New York, Chicago, and Florida.  See GEB Ex. 92 (1990 PA Crime Report at 118).  As a result of Western Pennsylvania’s largest organized crime prosecution, Porter and eight others were convicted of, inter alia, racketeering, narcotics and tax violations.  See GEB Exs. 92 (1990 PA Crime Report), 93 (Pennsylvania Crime Commission, 1991 Report (1991 PA Crime Report)).  Porter was sentenced to prison for 28 years.  See id.

 

27.     In 1999, Porter was purportedly still the Pittsburgh LCN underboss, but had been in jail for in nine years.  In December 2000, the DOJ successfully motioned for a 14-year reduction Porter’s sentence based on his significant cooperation while he was incarcerated.  These circumstances lead the IHO to question the reliability of the FBI’s classification of Porter as underboss in 1999.[11]

 

                        Pittsburgh LCN Consiglieres

 

28.     LCN consiglieres act as advisors to the boss and underbosses of the crime family.

 

29.     Pasquale Macri Ferrucci (Pat Ferrucci) controlled the video poker business in the Canton, Ohio area.  Pat Ferrucci met frequently with Kelly Mannarino in New Kensington to discuss vending machine business between Ohio and Pennsylvania.  See GEB Ex. 92 (1990 PA Crime Report).  In 1991, Pat Ferruccio was convicted on a RICO charge, sentenced to a thirty-month imprisonment, and ordered to forfeit $100,000.00.  See GEB Ex. 93 (1991 PA Crime Report).

 

30.     Joseph Sica (Sica) was convicted of violation of the Hobbs Act in 1975.  Sica, with a few exceptions, has been inactive in the Pittsburgh LCN since the mid-1980s.  See GEB Ex. 92 (1990 PA Crime Report).  Sica had been involved in gambling activities.  GEB Ex. 93 (1991 PA Crime Report).  Sica is the father-in-law of deceased LCN capo, Frank Rosa.  See GEB Ex. 92 (1990 PA Crime Report).  Sica died in 1991.  See GEB Ex. 93 (1991 PA Crime Report).

 

31.     Charles Imburgia (Imburgia), also known as “Charles Murgie,” has been a Pittsburgh LCN consigliere since at least 1989.  See GEB Ex. 92 (1990 PA Crime Report at 120).  Like Sica, he is not active in the day-to-day activities of the Pittsburgh LCN, but is called in to mediate disputes.  See id.  His nephew, Anthony Murgie, is an LCN associate who is known to have met with Genovese at L.A. Motors.  See id.

 

                        Pittsburgh LCN Capos

 

32.     Sonny Ciancutti operates illegal gambling in New Kensington.  See GEB Ex. 92 (1990 PA Crime Report at 119).  He took control of Kelly Mannarino’s New Kensington gambling operations after his death.[12]  See Id.

 

33.     John Bazzano Jr. (Bazzano Jr.) is the son of Western Pennsylvania’s former crime leader and son-in law of Antonio Ripepi.[13]  See id.  Bazzano Jr. was released from federal prison early in 1981 after serving a sentence for a 1975 conviction on chargers of running a large-scale gambling operation.  See GEB Ex. 92 (1990 PA Crime Report at 119).  Upon his release, Bazzano Jr. was elevated from soldier to capo, filling the vacancy created by Kelly Mannarino’s death.  See GEB Ex. 89 (1983 PA Crime Report).

 

                        Pittsburgh LCN Soldiers

 

34.     A “made” member is a person inducted into an LCN family through an initiation ceremony; made members are also known as “soldiers.”  Soldiers share in the organization’s profits.  See District Council, 97-30T; Fallacara, 96-65D;  Miceli, 98-11D.

 

35.     Raucci Sr. is said to “sit on the left side” of Genovese.  See GEB Ex. 92 (1990 PA Crime Report at 118).  Raucci Sr. frequently worked in concert with Porter furthering the affairs of the Pittsburgh LCN.  See id.  In 1990, Raucci Sr. was convicted with Porter on racketeering, narcotics, and tax violations.  See GEB Ex. 93 (1991 PA Crime Report).  Raucci was sentenced to 27 years incarceration.  See id.

 

36.     Frank D. “Sonny” Amato Jr.  (Amato Jr.), whose father was the Pittsburgh LCN boss until 1956, gained control of his father’s East Pittsburgh illegal gambling operation.  See GEB Ex. 92 (1990 PA Crime Report).  Kelly Mannarino was Amato Jr.’s brother-in-law.  See id.

 

37.     Wango Capizzi frequently visited LaRocca Sr.'s Car Wash.  See GEB Ex. 91 (1989 PA Crime Report).  In the 1980s, he arranged gambling junkets to Las Vegas for the Bufalino crime family, and ran a Las Vegas credit fraud with “Jo-Jo” Pecora.  See id.

 

Pittsburgh LCN Associates

 

38.     Mob “associates” work for “made” members facilitating mob activities.  Associates either run day-to-day illegal operations for the mob or are in legitimate businesses under the influence and control of organized crime. See District Council, 97-30T; Fallacara, 96-65D.

 

39.     Henry A. “Zebo” Zottola (Zottola) was closely associated with “Jo-Jo” Pecora and involved in loan-sharking, gambling, and financing narcotics transactions.  See GEB Exs. 92 (Excerpts from: Organized Crime in Pennsylvania: A Decade of Change”, 1990 Report (Pennsylvania Crime Commission), 105 (PA Crime Commission March 1989 Pittsburgh LCN Family Chart); Tr. 53.  After Jo-Jo Pecora’s death, Zotolla associated with Porter.  See GEB Ex. 92 (1990 PA Crime Report).

 

40.     Lenine “Lennie” Strollo (Lennie Strollo) is associated with Pat Ferruccio.  See GEB Ex. 92 (1990 PA Crime Report at 122).  Lennie Strollo pled guilty to RICO charges in 1990; he was sentenced to 14 months incarceration and fined $20,000.00.  See GEB Ex. 92 (1990 PA Crime Report at 122).

 

Allegations of Local 1058 Members’ Ties to Organized Crime

(Complaint && 5-13)

41.     Charge I

Correcting Corruption and Eradicating the Influence of Organized Crime.

 

In light of the evidence developed by LIUNA’s Inspector General’s office and the facts set forth in paragraphs 1-21 and incorporated herein, the GEB Attorney has formed an opinion that it is necessary to place Local 1058 under trusteeship for the purpose of correcting corruption and eradicating the corrupt influence of organized crime. Because of longstanding influential relationships between members and associates of organized crime and the controlling members of the Executive Board; the complete failure of any of the officers or Executive Board members to take any action either to eradicate or to investigate the influence of organized crime within the union; and the absence of a single contested, democratic election in more than 30 years, a trusteeship is necessary to remove the influence of organized crime from Local 1058.

 

42.     The GEB Attorney’s Complaint alleges that the former and current members of Local 1058’s Executive Board have longstanding associations with members of the Pittsburgh LCN.  In support of these allegations, the GEB Attorney presented evidence spanning more than 30 years and garnered from a variety of sources.  The evidence pertains to the activities of the following named Local 1058 officials.

 

Joseph LaQuatra

 

43.     Joe LaQuatra was the President of Local 1058 for 16 years, from 1968 to 1984.  Thereafter, he served as Business Manager from 1985 until May 2000 when he retired.  See Def. Ex. 6.

 

44.     Between December 1974 and August 1976, Joe LaQuatra visited LaRocca Sr. at his Car Wash 38 times.  During those visits, Joe LaQuatra never purchased gas nor had his car washed.  On many occasions, Joe LaQuatra met with LaRocca Sr., John LaRocca Jr. (LaRocca Jr.), Dennis Martire, Teddy Cozza,[14] and Wango Capizzi.  See GEB Ex. 108 (Allegheny Car Wash Source/Surveillance Log).[15]

 

45.     Joe LaQuatra spent two hours at the Car Wash on June 9, 1980, without purchasing gas or having his car washed. See GEB Ex. 47 (Surveillance Log (FBI), Allegheny Car Wash, 6/9/80).  On September 12, 1984, Joe LaQuatra met LaRocca Sr. and Bazzano Jr. at the Car Wash; again, Joe LaQuatra did not purchase gas or have his car washed. See GEB Exs. 38M, N, O, and VV.

 

46.     In 1979, Joe LaQuatra attended the funeral of Louis Ciancutti (brother of Sonny Ciancutti).[16]  See GEB Exs. 45A, C.

 

47.     In 1980, Joe LaQuatra attended the funerals of Kelly Mannarino and Anthony LaRocca (LaRocca Sr.’s brother). See GEB Exs. 33N and O, (FBI Surveillance Log; GEB Ex. 47 (FBI Surveillance Log, Allegheny Car Wash, 6/9/80).

 

48.     In 1984, Joe LaQuatra attended the funeral of LaRocca Sr. See GEB Ex. 39D (Photographs:  John Larocca Funeral, 12/6/84).

 

49.     Joe LaQuatra attended the funeral of Louis Raucci Jr. (Raucci Jr.) on November 21, 1985. Joe Rosa, Zottola, Genovese, Porter, Joe Scoleri, Michael Rosenfeld and Dennis Martire were also present. See GEB Exs. 40A and B (Photographs:  Lou Raucci, Jr. Funeral, 11/21/85); and N (FBI Surveillance Log).

 

50.     In 1988, FBI surveillance observed Joe LaQuatra attending a meeting held at L.A. Motors in Verona, Pennsylvania with Genovese, Raucci Sr., Porter, Zottola, Bazzano Jr., and Charles Pecora.  See GEB Ex. 41A (Videotape:  L.A. Motors 12/24/88).

 

51.     During the 1990s, Joe LaQuatra was observed playing golf at Rose Ridge with Dennis Martire, Wango Capizzi, and Zottola.  T. 176-179.  The FBI observed Joe LaQuatra and Philip Ameris leaving a restaurant with Sonny Ciancutti in 1997.  See GEB Exs. 43A-K (Photographs:  Joseph N. Pecora Funeral, 3/7/87); 43L (FBI Surveillance Log).  In 1998, the FBI observed Joe LaQuatra and Mark Machi, then an Executive Board member, briefly meeting with Joseph Tobasco (Tobasco) near the Rosa Villa Restaurant.[17]  See GEB Ex. 110 (August 1998 FBI Surveillance Log, Rosa Villa); GEB Exs. 111-122 (Photographs:  1998 FBI surveillance photos of individuals standing in front of Rosa Villa Restaurant (Joe Laquatra, Tabasco, Mark Machi, unknown)); Tr. 822-823.  The FBI observed Joe LaQuatra meeting with Tobasco briefly near the Rosa Villa restaurant again in 1999.[18]  See GEB Ex. 123 (1999 FBI Surveillance Log of Local 1058 Union Hall on 8th Street (Laquatra, Ameris, Machi); Rosa Villa Restaurant (Joe Laquatra, Tabasco)).

 

Thomas Pecora

 

52.     Tom Pecora served as Local 1058’s Business Manager for sixteen (16) years, from 1968 until 1984.  See Def. Ex. 6.  Tom Pecora replaced Dante Martire, Dennis Martire’s father, as Business Manager.  Tr. 128.  Tom Pecora retired from his position as Local 1058’s Business Manager in 1984.  See Def. Ex. 6.

 

53.     Tom Pecora made 13 visits to LaRocca Sr.’s Car Wash in the 1970s.  See GEB Ex. 108 (Allegheny Car Wash Source/Surveillance Log).

 

54.     Agent Greenbank testified that Source 13 reported that LaRocca Sr. directed Tom Pecora to make LaRocca Jr. a business agent for Local 1058 in 1976.  Tr. 130.  The IHO credits this conversation because LaRocca Jr., became a business agent for Local 1058 shortly thereafter.

55.     Tom Pecora visited LaRocca Sr.’s Car Wash on June 8, 1981 and on September 12, 1984.  See GEB Exs. 34M, O, P (Photographs:  Allegheny Car Wash, 6/8/81); JJ (Report of Investigative Activity (Pennsylvania Crime Commission); 38P, Q, R, S, T, VV (Photographs:  Allegheny Car Wash, 9/10-9/12/84).

 

56.     Source 13 reported that, sometime in the period between 1968 and 1984, Tom Pecora directed Dennis Martire to drive him to Jo-Jo Pecora’s (no relation) West Virginia home for a private meeting.[19]  Jo-Jo Pecora was a “made” member of the Pittsburgh Family.  See GEB Ex. 92 (1990 PA Crime Report).  Dennis Martire admitted that he drove Tom Pecora to Jo-Jo Pecora’s West Virginia home and waited at a nearby lake until they completed a private meeting.  Tr. 1683-1684. 

 

57.     Source 13 also reported that LaRocca Sr. told Tom Pecora to switch Local 1058’s insurance carrier to give the union’s business to LaRocca Sr.’s friend Garland.  Tr. 129.  According to Source 13, Tom Pecora motioned the Executive Board shortly thereafter and the policyholder was changed.  Id.  The GEB Attorney offered no corroborating evidence, such as board minutes, in support of Source 13’s testimony.  As noted supra, this testimony contradicts the testimony given by Garland.  The GEB Attorney has not proven this allegation by a preponderance of the evidence.

 

58.     In 1980, Tom Pecora attended the funeral of Kelly Mannarino.  See GEB Ex. 32K (Photographs:  Gabriel “Kelly” Mannarino Funeral, 7/14/80).

 

59.     In 1984, Tom Pecora attended LaRocca Sr.’s funeral.  See GEB Ex. 39I (Report of Investigative Activity (Pennsylvania Crime Commission), John S. Larocca Viewing and Funeral).

 

60.     Tom Pecora attended the wedding of Porter’s daughter on July 26, 1986.  See GEB Ex. 50 (FBI Surveillance Log), Charles Potter Family Wedding, 7/26/86).

 

61.     In February 1985, Tom Pecora attended a meeting of organized crime members at Sonken’s Gold Coast Restaurant in Florida; Paul “No Legs” Hankish (Hankish)[20] and Amato Jr. were also present.  See GEB Ex. 49 (Report of Investigative Activity (Pennsylvania Crime Commission) 2/14/85).

Louis Dennis Martire

 

62.     Dennis Martire served as Local 1058’s President from May 1985 until May 2000, when he succeeded Joe LaQuatra as Business Manager.  See Def. Ex. 6.  Prior to those positions, Dennis Martire served as Vice President from November 1984 until April 1985, and was an Executive Board member from April 1977 until November 1985.  See Def. Ex. 6; Tr. 1569.

 

63.     Dennis Martire visited the Car Wash on 56 occasions between November 1974 and November 1976.  Dennis Martire did not purchase gas or have his car washed.  See GEB Ex. 108.

 

64.     The FBI observed Dennis Martire at LaRocca Sr.’s Car Wash on April 11, 1980.  See GEB Ex. 46 (FBI Surveillance Log, Allegheny Car Wash, 6/9/80).  Dennis Martire visited the Car Wash on September 10, 1984.  During that visit, FBI surveillance viewed Dennis Martire greeting LaRocca Sr. with an embrace and kiss on the cheek.  Agent Greenbank testified that, through this behavior, Dennis Martire was showing his respect to LaRocca Sr.  Agent Greenbank stated that Dennis Martire’s behavior signified a very close association with LaRocca Sr.; LaRocca Sr. was someone Dennis Martire knew well.  GEB Ex. 38C, D (Photographs:  Allegheny Car Wash, 9/10-9/12/84); Tr. 161-62, 332.

 

65.     Dennis Martire attended the funeral of Raucci Jr. on November 25, 1985.  See GEB Ex. 40A, B (Photographs: Lou Raucci, Jr. Funeral, 11/21/85).  Dennis Martire testified that Local 1058’s Business Manager, Joe LaQuatra,  directed him to attend.  Tr. 1601.  Joe Rosa and Zottola were also present.  See GEB Ex. 40A-M (Photographs:  Allegheny Car Wash, 11/21/85); Tr. 1702-1704.

 

66.     In the summer of 1995, Source 9 allegedly observed Dennis Martire and other Local 1058 officers playing golf with Wango Capizzi and Zottola at the Rose Ridge Golf Club in Gibsonia, Pennsylvania.  Tr. 172-174.  Although the IHO rejected Source 9’s information supra as uncorroborated, Denise Martire and Judge Lucchino both acknowledge that Wango Capizzi may have completed their foursome at some point.  Tr. 1441-1442, 1604.  However, the IHO finds that evidence of an impromptu golf outing, if it occurred, is not probative in the current matter.

Gerald Pecora Jr.

 

67.     Gerald Pecora is the current President of Local 1058.  Tr. 1039.  Before becoming President in May 2000, Gerald Pecora was Local 1058’s Recording Secretary for 25 years.  Tr. 1072.

 

68.     In addition to these positions, Gerald Pecora has held positions as a public-sector business agent for 29 years; and as trustee to both Laborers’ Combined Funds for 25 years.  Tr. 1043, 1055.  Former Business Manager Tom Pecora recommended Gerald Pecora for those positions.[21]  Tr. 1049.

 

69.     Gerald Pecora testified that his father worked for LaRocca Sr. at the North Star Block Company for approximately ten years, and that he would accompany his father to LaRocca Sr.’s house at Christmas each year.  Tr. 1068-1070.  Gerald Pecora testified that Joe LaQuatra and Dennis Martire were present on these occasions.  Tr. 1072.

 

70.     Gerald Pecora made ten visits to the Car Wash between 1974 and 1976. See GEB Ex. 108 (Allegheny Car Wash Source/Surveillance Log).

 

                        John S. LaRocca Jr.

 

71.     LaRocca Jr. is the son of Pittsburgh LCN boss, LaRocca Sr.  Neither the FBI nor the PA Crime Commission have ever listed LaRocca Jr. as having any role in the Pittsburgh LCN.

 

72.     While serving as a Local 1058 business agent, LaRocca Jr. was involved in a video arcade business with Raucci Jr. and Zottola.  Tr. 710, 1346-1350.  LaRocca Jr. began the business at his father’s behest, which closed within eight months of opening. Tr. 1346-1350.

 

Michael LaQuatra

 

73.     Michael LaQuatra is the son of Joe LaQuatra.

 

74.     Michael LaQuatra has served on Local 1058’s Executive Board since his father appointed him in January 1999.  See Deposition of Michael LaQuatra at 14-15.  The practice of appointing family members to positions within the union is commonplace throughout all levels of LIUNA.  Standing alone, nepotism is not evidence of an act of barred conduct.

 

75.     The GEB Attorney included Michael LaQuatra on the list of Local 1058 officials who “knowingly associated” with the Pittsburgh LCN, but offered no evidence in support of the averment.

 

Philip Ameris

 

76.     Philip Ameris (Phil Ameris) served on Local 1058’s Executive Board from 1996 until 1998; and has been Recording Secretary since 2000.  See Def. Ex 6.  The GEB Attorney emphasizes that Phil Ameris was appointed to the Executive Board “less than two months after he was eligible for office.”  See GEB Complaint & 11.

 

77.     In 1997, the FBI observed Phil Ameris and Joe LaQuatra leaving a restaurant with Sonny Ciancutti.  See GEB Exs. 43A-K (Photographs:  Alexander’s Pasta Express, 10/9/97); 43L (FBI Surveillance Log); GEB Ex. 94 at 16, 59-60 (Deposition Transcript:  Philip Ameris, 6/11/99).

 

78.     The GEB Attorney included Phil Ameris in the list of Local 1058 officials who “knowingly associated” with the Pittsburgh LCN, but offered no evidence beyond the 1997 sighting in support of this averment.

 

Joseph Frydrych

 

79.     Joseph Frydrych (Frydrych) has been a member of Local 1058 since 1970.  Tr. 954-955.  In 1982, the Laborers’ District Council hired Frydrych as a staff representative.  Tr. 961.  In 1986, Joe LaQuatra, also the District Council Business Manager, appointed Frydrych as Auditor of Local 1058.  Tr. 967.  In 1989, Frydrych was appointed as business agent of Local 1058.  Tr. 969.  In 1994, Joe LaQuatra appointed Frydrych Local 1058’s Secretary/Treasurer, the position he currently holds.  Tr. 994.

 

80.     Frydrych testified that Joe LaQuatra appointed him as an auditor while he was serving as a paid field representative.  Tr. 971.  Later, Joe LaQuatra asked Frydrych to resign his position as auditor, a $75.00 a month job, to make room for someone else.  Id.

 

81.     The GEB Attorney included Frydrych in the list of Local 1058 officials who “knowingly associated” with the Pittsburgh LCN, but offered no evidence in support of this averment.

 

Mark Machi

 

82.     Mark Machi (Machi) has worked as a Laborers’ District Council of Western Pennsylvania staff representative since 1990.  See Deposition of Mark Machi (Machi Dep.) at 30.  Joe LaQuatra appointed Machi to Local 1058’s Executive Board in March 1995.  See Def. Ex. 6.

83.     Machi was convicted of federal narcotics distribution charges in 1976.  Machi was sentenced to two years imprisonment with five years of parole.  See GEB Ex. 106(A) (Charging documents for Mark Machi, Grand Jury Charge).  In 1980, Machi pled guilty to conspiracy to steal money from an armored car.  See GEB Ex. 106(B) (Charging documents for Mark Machi, Grand Jury Charge).  Under the terms of his plea agreement, Machi received a four-year prison sentence.  Id.  Machi was released after serving three years.  See Machi Dep. at 16.

 

84.     The GEB Attorney contends that Machi’s appointment violated 29 U.S.C. § 504, which prohibits certain persons from holding union office.  See Complaint & 11, n. 2.  Specifically, the prohibition states that a person may not hold office for thirteen years after conviction of an enumerated felony, or after the end of imprisonment, whichever is later.  See 29 U.S.C. ' 504.  Machi was appointed to the Executive Board in 1995.  See Def. Ex. 6.  The IHO notes that Joe LaQuatra appointed Machi to the Executive Board before he was eligible, but sought the advice of Local 1058’s attorney before formally installing Machi.  See Machi Dep. at 42.  It appears that there was a question about when Machi’s ' 504 prohibition period ended.  Id.  In any event, Machi’s service after 1996 was not in violation of the statute.  Further, Machi resigned in 1999.  See Def. Ex. 6.  The GEB Attorney contends that Machi’s appointment indicated Joe LaQuatra’s allegiance to the criminal element.  Local 1058 attorneys countered that Machi’s appointment indicated Joe LaQuatra’s commitment to rehabilitating Machi to the legitimate workforce.  The IHO does not deem it necessary to make a qualitative judgment on the point, as it does not affect the major issues in this matter.

 

Summary of Charge 1 Findings

85.     Based upon the foregoing, the IHO finds that Local 1058 officers as a group had substantial contacts with Pittsburgh crime boss LaRocca Sr. at his Car Wash from the early 1970s until 1984.  In the early 1970s, Tom Pecora drove to West Virginia to meet with Pittsburgh LCN underboss “Jo-Jo” Pecora.  Joe LaQuatra met with the current Pittsburgh LCN boss Michael Genovese in 1987.  Since 1990, there have been three isolated contacts observed.

 

86.     Based upon the frequency and unusual context of the contacts, the IHO finds that the Car Wash meetings in the 1970s and 1980s were not fleeting or casual.  As there were no demonstrated union or business reasons for the meetings, their nature and frequency indicates that the officers were responding to LaRocca Sr.’s interest in the operation of the union.  Similarly, Joe LaQuatra’s meeting with Genovese and Tom Pecora’s meeting with “Jo-Jo” Pecora indicate knowledgeable association.

 

87.     During the 1970s and 1980s, Local 1058 officers as a group had an association with LCN members; the officers knew or should have known that the persons they were associating with were LCN members; the group’s associations were not fleeting or casual; and, these LCN associations directly or indirectly affected Local 1058, as the IHO construed that term in Fallacara.  See Fallacara, 96-65D.

 

88.     Since approximately 1987, there is little reported evidence of any association.  There are three isolated instances in the 1990s, which add little weight to the allegation that the associations of 14 or more years ago continue.

 

Allegations of Failure of Democratic Process in Local 1058

(Complaint && 14-21)

 

89.     Charge II of the GEB Attorney’s Complaint against Local 1058 reads as follows:

 

Charge II

Restoring Democratic Practices.  In light of the evidence developed by LIUNA’s Inspector General’s Office and the facts set forth above in paragraphs 1-21 and incorporated herein, the GEB Attorney has formed an opinion that it is necessary to place Local 1058 under trusteeship for the purpose of restoring democratic practices.  Because there has not been a single contested democratic election in Local 1058 for more than 30 years; every officer position or Executive Board position has been filled by appointment by the Business Manager for more than 30 years; and control of the union has remained in the hands of a few individuals with strong ties to organized crime, trusteeship is necessary to restore democratic practices. 

 

90.     The minutes of regular monthly meetings, special nomination meetings, and Executive Board meetings indicate that no opposition candidates or slates have run against the incumbents for over 30 years.  See GEB Exs. 1-30.  The records of Local 1058 establish that, from 1968 until the present, no single contested election of officers was held.  Id.  During this period, no opposition candidate has ever been nominated to run against an incumbent officer.  See GEB Exs. 1-30.  No vacancy has ever occurred at the end of a candidate’s term; all vacancies occur by resignation or retirement before a scheduled election[22], and the vacancies are then filled by a vote of the Executive Board.  The Executive Board vote is always unanimous.  Id.

 

91.     Clearly, the Executive Board has the authority under the Uniform Local Union Constitution to fill vacancies as they occur.  See Uniform Local Union Constitution, Article V, Section 3(m).  Here, however, for over 30 years, Local 1058's officers have filled vacancies shortly preceding each scheduled election.  See Def. Ex. 6.

 

92.     Local 1058 witnesses testified that dissenters have always had the opportunity to offer opposition candidates, but the spirit of unity within Local 1058 is so great that all of the Executive Board members agree with the Business Manager’s choices to fill the vacancies that occur.  See, e.g., Tr. 1483.

 

93.     In November 1984, Tom Pecora announced his plans to retire in January 1985, one year before elections.  Tr. 1589.  Tom Pecora appointed Joe LaQuatra to his position as Business Manager; appointed LaRocca Jr. to Joe LaQuatra’s position as President; and, appointed Dennis Martire Vice-President to replace LaRocca Jr.  Id.  In April of 1985, Dennis Martire and LaRocca Jr. switched positions.  Tr. 1660.  In May 2000, Joe LaQuatra retired.  Tr. 1661.  He recommended Dennis Martire take his place as Business Manager and Gerald Pecora succeeded Dennis Martire as President.  Id.

 

94.     Professor Summers said that, in his experience, a union may experience a five-year period of uncontested elections, but a 30-year period of uncontested elections is unusual.  Tr. 511.  He explained that certain factors must be at work to create the environment where a union goes through a 30-year period of uncontested  elections.  Id.   These  factors  include,  inter alia, members fearing 

“to raise their heads because of the hiring hall, they fear they won’t get jobs out of the hiring hall;” fearing their grievances will not be addressed; or giving up hope.  Tr. 511.  Professor Summers explained that the validity of the members’ fears is not an issue.  Id.  According to Professor Summers, once union members become aware that organized crime plays a role in their union, the members perceive an element of danger and this induces their silence.  Tr. 513.

 

95.     The IHO takes judicial notice that LIUNA has never placed any local union into trusteeship solely based on a record of uncontested elections.

 

Allegations of Failure to Acknowledge Corruption

 

96.     Charge III of the GEB Attorney’s Complaint against Local 1058 reads as follows:

 

Charge III

Carrying Out the Legitimate Objects of LIUNA and its Affiliates.  In light of the evidence developed by LIUNA’s Inspector General’s office and the facts set forth above in paragraphs 1-21 and incorporated herein, the GEB Attorney has formed an opinion that it is necessary to place Local 1058 under trusteeship for the purpose of carrying out the legitimate objects of LIUNA and its affiliates as expressed in the LIUNA International Constitution, the Ethical Practices Code and the Ethics and Disciplinary Procedure.  Due to the inability or unwillingness of the Executive Board to exercise independent judgment from the Business Manager and the complete failure of the Executive Board to acknowledge organized crime corruption within Local 1058 or to take any steps whatsoever to investigate and eradicate the influence of organized crime over the officers of Local 1058 in dereliction of its fiduciary obligation and duty of loyalty to the members, a trusteeship is necessary to enable Local 1058 to carry out the legitimate, constitutional objectives of a LIUNA affiliate.

 

97.     The GEB Attorney contends that the Executive Board failed to acknowledge organized crime corruption within Local 1058, or to take investigatory steps eradicate the influence of organized crime over the officers of Local 1058.  See Complaint && 3, 4.  In support of this allegation, the GEB Attorney submitted evidence of numerous local and national newspaper articles.  See GEB Ex. 60-87.  Five of the Pittsburgh newspaper articles were published between 1984 and 1989; they recount LaRocca Sr.’s death and his LCN position.  See GEB Ex. 79-83.  The bulk of the newspaper evidence, some 29 articles, relate to either the 1990 RICO case involving Porter and Raucci Sr., or the internal union disciplinary action against Teddy Cozza.  See GEB Exs. 60-78, 83-87.  According to the GEB Attorney, the extensive media coverage surrounding the RICO trial and Teddy Cozza’s union expulsion provided Local 1058 officers with notice of the Pittsburgh LCN’s close association with area unions.  See Complaint && 4, 5.

 

98.     The IHO is unclear whether the GEB Attorney is arguing that the officers of Local 1058 had an affirmative duty to investigate the past behavior of its officers.  Usually, the duty to investigate arises when media coverage alerts a local union to the possibility of current impropriety.  In this case, media coverage of the RICO case and Teddy Cozza’s union expulsion does not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Local 1058 officers failed to acknowledge or investigate evidence of current corruption in their own union.  By the time the first article introduced into evidence was published, LaRocca Sr. was dead.  The bulk of the newspaper articles were published at least six years after LaRocca Sr.’s death.  Within that timeframe, there is no record evidence of any material contacts between Local 1058 officers and organized crime.

 

99.     Following the passage of the EDP in 1995, Local 1058 instituted a public policy of avoiding contacts with any LCN figures.  Tr. 1608.  Dennis Martire, although related to former teamster official Teddy Cozza, did not attend his funeral because of the EDP prohibitions against associating with LCN figures.[23]  Id.

 

100.     The GEB Attorney’s post-hearing brief did not actively argue Charge III.

 

101.     Based upon the record, the IHO concludes that the GEB Attorney has not proven Charge III as grounds for imposing a trusteeship.

 

DISCUSSION

The IHO must determine whether the evidence and testimony presented justifies the imposition of a trusteeship over Local 1058 in 2001.  This determination must consider four factors:  (1) Local 1058 officers’ past associations with the Pittsburgh LCN; (2) more than 30 years history of uncontested elections and mid-term vacancies in Local 1058; (3) the contemporary presence of the same people who formerly associated with the Pittsburgh LCN in all the key Local 1058 elected officers’ positions; and, (4) the absence of any evidence of malfeasance in the daily operations of Local 1058’s affairs.

 

Evidence of Officers’ Past LCN Association

FBI surveillance and confidential informant information substantiate that beginning in 1974, as a group, present and past officers of Local 1058 associated with various Pittsburgh LCN members, including LCN boss LaRocca Sr. and underboss Jo-Jo Pecora.  Substantial evidence of the officers’ varied associations with the Pittsburgh LCN continued until 1984, the year LaRocca Sr. died.  After 1984, the evidence of association is isolated and sporadic.

 

Evidence from 1974 until 1984 substantially proves that Tom Pecora, Joe LaQuatra, Dennis Martire and Gerald Pecora regularly met with LaRocca Sr., the Pittsburgh LCN boss, at his Car Wash.  These Local 1058 officers did not have any union or business reasons for the meetings, yet they showed up regularly.  During these visits, the officers did not have their cars washed or gassed.  The IHO regards the Car Wash meetings as evidence of LaRocca Sr.’s influence over Local 1058 affairs during that period.

 

Additional evidence from the 1970s proves that Tom Pecora met with LCN underboss, Jo-Jo Pecora, at his home in West Virginia.  Dennis Martire, current Business Manager of Local 1058, testified that he drove Tom Pecora to this meeting and fished at a nearby lake while the two men talked.  At that time, Dennis Martire, was on Local 1058’s Executive Board and testified that he worked for Tom Pecora and drove to West Virginia in that capacity.

 

In December 1988, Joe LaQuatra, then Local 1058’s Business Manager, attended a 47 minute meeting in an office at L.A. Motors in Verona, Pennsylvania.  FBI surveillance identified this as the meeting spot of Genovese, LaRocca’s replacement as the head of the Pittsburgh LCN.  Agent Greenbank testified that Genovese, Porter, Charles Pecora, Tom Pecora, Raucci Jr., Zottola, and Bazzano Jr. were all observed at this meeting.  Joe LaQuatra embraced all the individuals before leaving.

 

Following these meetings, there is no reported evidence of any significant contacts between Local 1058 officers and LCN members. Although contending that LCN association continues, the GEB Attorney’s post-1990 evidence consists of only three very brief sightings outside a restaurant.  In October 1997, the FBI observed Joe LaQuatra, Phil Ameris, and Sonny Ciancutti exiting Alexander’s Restaurant.  See GEB Ex. 43A-L.  In 1998, the FBI observed Joe LaQuatra and Machi, then an Executive Board member, briefly meeting with Tobasco near the Rosa Villa restaurant.  See GEB Ex. 110-122; Tr. 822-823.  The FBI observed LaQuatra meeting with Tobasco briefly near the Rosa Villa restaurant again in 1999.  See GEB Ex. 123.

 

Local 1058’s History of Uncontested Elections

Throughout the time the aforementioned meetings occurred, Local 1058 never held a contested election.  Local 1058’s pattern of uncontested elections continues up until the present, a period of more than 30 years.  The GEB Attorney argues that evidence of uncontested elections establishes a lack of democratic practices, one of the statutorily recognized grounds for imposing a trusteeship.

 

Based upon experience presiding over LIUNA trusteeship hearings, the IHO is aware that the GEB Attorney has never brought a trusteeship complaint based solely on a lack of contested elections.  A history of uncontested elections standing alone does not establish undemocratic practices.  See In the Matter of Local 2, IHO Order and Memorandum, 99-25T (July 29, 1999).  However, the IHO has previously noted that, when demonstrated that the local union is influenced by organized crime, a series of uncontested elections is an indication of a breakdown of democratic procedures within a local union.  Id.  The presence of the LCN influence may be the reason for the uncontested elections.

 

Associating Officers’ Leadership Positions

Since Local 1058 officers’ association with the LCN began in the early 1970s, only four individuals:  Tom Pecora, Joe LaQuatra, Dennis Martire, and Gerald Pecora; have ever held office either as Business Manager or President.[24]  Tom Pecora held the Business Manager position for 17 years before retiring in 1985, a year before elections.  See Def. Ex. 6.  Tom Pecora appointed Joe LaQuatra, President at the time, as Business Manager.  Id.  Joe LaQuatra served as Business Manager for 14 years, retired a year before elections, and appointed President Dennis Martire as Business Manager in 2000.  Id.  With the exception of three months in 1985, Dennis Martire had held the position of President for 14 years.  Id.  Joe LaQuatra also appointed Gerald Pecora, who had been Recording Secretary since 1975, to fill Dennis Martire’s vacant Presidency.  Id.

 

Despite the lack of any recent evidence of LCN contact, LIUNA cannot ignore the troublesome fact that at least four key Local 1058 officers regularly met with the late Pittsburgh LCN boss in the late 1970s and early 1980s.  Joe LaQuatra and Tom Pecora met with high-ranking LCN figures on two other occasions in the 1980s.  None of the meetings was chance or fleeting;  they remain unexplained.  Those same officers have succeeded each other in the leadership of Local 1058 until the present.

 

Local 1058’s Business Practices

The attorneys for Local 1058 offered an impressive array of credible witnesses, including attorneys, business leaders, and contractors, who verified both the business acumen and integrity of Local 1058’s officers.  There is substantial evidence that all of these witnesses respect Local 1058 in their professional dealings with the union.  The GEB Attorney did not offer any evidence of improper activity at Local 1058.  Most strikingly, the record is devoid of any evidence of financial impropriety or no show jobs, which traditionally evidence organized crime influence.  Several Local 1058 members testified that the union provides substantial service to its members.

 

Analysis

 

The IHO must view the evidence from the perspective of LIUNA’s reform effort.  In 1995, LIUNA entered a voluntary consent agreement with the DOJ to rid itself of LCN influence.  Although released from formal DOJ oversight in 2000, LIUNA remains bound in good faith to adhere to the agreement’s goals.  The agreement requires LIUNA to pursue all credible reports of member association with the LCN or LCN union activity.  In this case, the GEB Attorney’s evidence suggests long-standing, substantial association between past and present Local 1058 officers and the Pittsburgh LCN with a record of more than 30 years of uncontested elections.  The union’s attorneys counter with evidence suggesting that any ties between Local 1058 officers and LCN members ended long ago; that the alleged ties were familial or community based; that the majority of the alleged associates are dead or incarcerated; that Local 1058 has an impeccable business record; and that the union members are very satisfied with their leadership.

 

Despite the unique favorable evidence regarding Local 1058, the IHO cannot ignore the evidence of the past LCN association of the current officers coupled with more than 30 years of uncontested elections. Organized crime influence may continue long after the association ceases to be public.  Due to the insidious nature of organized crime, once the LCN infiltrates a union it does not usually disappear on its own.  See Chicago District Council, 97-30T.  The mere absence of traditional organized crime contacts does not overcome the lingering perception of its influence among the union membership.  Despite a full consideration of Local 1058’s evidence of good performance and a lack of impropriety, there exists a bona fide concern that LCN influence or a perception of LCN influence remains today.  This concern is justified by the union officers’ past LCN association, the pervasive nature of the LCN, and over 30 years of uncontested elections.

 

The IHO concludes that the GEB Attorney has proven the need for some type of supervision over Local 1058’s affairs.  However, based upon this record, a trusteeship removing all Local 1058’s officers and assigning a trustee would be too intrusive a measure.[25]  Chief Judge Louis Bechtle’s opinion in United States v. Local 30 proves instructive in this matter.  See United States v. Local 30 United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers (Roofers Union), 686 F. Supp. 1139 (E.D. Pa. 1988); aff’d., 871 F.2d 401 (3rd Cir. 1989).  In that case, the DOJ brought a RICO suit to place Roofers’ Local Union 30 (Local 30) into trusteeship.  See id. The government’s proof included a long history of corruption and violence in Local 30; many officers and members were jailed.  See id.  In fashioning a remedy for Local 30, Judge Bechtle evaluated the purpose of the RICO statute:

 

The House Judiciary Committee’s final report states as follows:

 

[Section 1964(a)] contains broad provisions to allow for the reform of corrupted organizations.  Although certain remedies are set out, the list is not meant to be exhaustive, and the only limit on remedies is that they accomplish the aim set out of removing the corrupting influence and make due provisions for the rights of innocent persons.  (citations omitted.) RICO is to be read broadly.  This is the lesson not only of Congress’ self-consciously expansive language and overall approach . . . but also of its express admonition that RICO is to be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purpose . . . (citations omitted).

 

Roofers Union, 686 F. Supp. 1139, 1164.

 

Judge Bechtle decided that the union could succeed with a mechanism in place short of a trusteeship, which would allow both a degree of self-governance and development of union democracy.  See id.  Judge Bechtle appointed a court liaison officer with the power to monitor all aspects of the local’s activities, including the power to override officers’ actions violating the LMRDA or union constitution.  See id.  Judge Bechtle also provided for supervised elections.  See id.  The EDP has adopted the remedies of the RICO statute described by Judge Bechtle.  The EDP allows LIUNA to use the RICO remedies in a flexible manner, and the International Constitution provides procedures for implementing these remedies.

 

The IHO holds that a supervision of Local 1058 is necessary as provided by Article IX, Section 7 of the International Constitution.  The grounds for a supervision must be established by the same quantum of proof necessary to establish a trusteeship, a preponderance of the evidence.  The GEB Attorney has proven the need for supervision by a preponderance of the evidence.

 

The IHO requests that, under the peculiar facts of this case, the General President take the following steps to accomplish the goals of Local 1058’s supervision.  An experienced union person should serve as supervisor, aided by knowledgeable, local legal counsel hired specifically for the supervisor.  The supervisor should determine: whether past LCN association currently affects the union;  whether LCN influence in Local 1058 continues; and the reasons for Local 1058’s uncontested elections.  These determinations may be based on the supervisor’s examination of Local 1058’s operations, its relationships with contractors, its membership meetings, and confidential interviews of its members on and off the job.

 

The supervisor may override any decision made by the officers and remove any officers, if necessary.  However, the supervisor should seek the consensus of LIUNA’s General President before removing an officer.  The supervisor’s authority should also include the ability to negotiate the retirement of any officer, and the power to call for a general officer election outside of the normal cycle.  The supervisor is encouraged to foster the participation of the union’s diverse membership.

 

Under this supervision, Local 1058’s good relations with contractors, businessmen, and other professionals will not be disturbed.  The union will continue to operate, while the international union fulfills its obligation under the consent agreement of eradicating any vestiges of the influence of organized crime.

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

1.        The GEB Attorney has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that, as a group, current and former Local 1058 officers’ associations with LCN members existed and were more than fleeting or casual.

 

2.        The GEB Attorney has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the officers knew or should have known that the individuals with whom they associated were LCN members.

 

3.        The GEB Attorney has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the officers’ associations had a direct or indirect effect on the union.  The possibility remains that Local 1058 officers’ associations with the Pittsburgh LCN continues; uncontested elections may reflect a continued relationship with organized crime; and the perception of organized crime association may remain with the membership.

 

4.        Despite a dearth of recent evidence of any LCN association, the officers’ past LCN associations, and over 30 of uncontested elections give LIUNA a bona fide reason to ferret out evidence of organized crime because of its duty under the DOJ agreement.

 

5.        The imposition of a trusteeship would be too intrusive a procedure for oversight of Local 1058 based upon this record, which includes Local 1058’s current business performance and reputation, as well a lack of evidence suggesting improper activities traditionally found in a LCN dominated union. The IHO concludes that a supervision is the proper procedure for oversight.

 

6.        The GEB Attorney proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, the need for supervision under the conditions outlined above in the Discussion portion of this Order and Memorandum.

 

PETER F. VAIRA

 

INDEPENDENT

HEARING OFFICER