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 (4th 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).
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.
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.
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.
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 19th 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 19th
century. Id. at 440. These secret
societies were the antecedents of the present LCN. Id. at 441.
3.