Berman v. LOCAL 107, INTERNATIONAL BRO. OF TEAMSTERS, ETC.
Decision Date | 09 December 1964 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 36924. |
Citation | 237 F. Supp. 767 |
Parties | Abraham D. BERMAN v. LOCAL 107, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
John Patrick Walsh, John Rogers Carroll, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Richard H. Markowitz, Richard Kirschner, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
Plaintiff, Abraham D. Berman, seeks an injunction which will order the defendant union to place his name on the ballot as a candidate for the office of Business Agent in the forthcoming elections to be held on and subsequent to December 12, 1964.
Defendant, Philadelphia Local 107 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, through its Executive Board, on November 12, 1964, "declared plaintiff ineligible to run for the position of Business Agent in the forthcoming election" by reason of plaintiff's conviction in 1963 for the offense of conspiracy to cheat and defraud Local 107, by a jury verdict and judgment of the Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County.1
Defendant admits that the basis of its Executive Board's decision of plaintiff's ineligibility was its interpretation of the prohibitions of Section 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C.A. § 504.2
Upon my review of the applicable law, I conclude that the Union properly declared plaintiff ineligible and thus the plaintiff is not entitled to the injunctive relief sought.
Abraham D. Berman and five other defendants were found guilty by a jury on June 3, 1963, for the crime of "conspiracy to cheat and defraud a union defendant, Local 107 of its money, goods and property." Commonwealth v. Cohen, et al., 203 Pa.Super. 34, 199 A.2d 139, 143 (1964).
Judge David L. Ullman, the distinguished Judge who presided, summarized the evidence of this ten-week trial as follows:
On March 17, 1964, the Superior Court affirmed the convictions of Berman and the other defendants, and held that "after a thorough consideration of the evidence in this case we are convinced that it was sufficient to sustain the convictions of each appellant." 199 A.2d 139 at 150, supra.
On June 2, 1964, Berman's petition for allowance of appeal was denied by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on November 9, 1964. 85 S.Ct. 191. Berman is presently incarcerated in a Pennsylvania prison and has pending before me a habeas corpus petition,3 filed on November 24, 1964, which alleges that the aforementioned State conviction was in violation of certain federal constitutional rights.
The pertinent provisions of the statute controlling the validity of defendant's exclusion of plaintiff from the Union ballot reads as follows:
The major thrust of plaintiff's argument is that since the statute does not specify "a conspiracy to cheat and defraud" his conviction is not covered by any of the statutorily specified terms such as grand larceny4 or embezzlement. Plaintiff further argues that the statute "* * * must be regarded as so penal in consequences" that the doctrine of "strict construction" of penal statutes must be applied in this civil injunctive case. Plaintiff's argument has been answered and rejected in every reported case on this Section. Serio v. Liss, 300 F.2d 386, (3rd Cir. 1961); Postma v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters etc., D.C., 229 F.Supp. 655; affirmed 2nd Cir., Oct. 2, 1964, 337 F.2d 609; United States v. Priore, 236 F.Supp. 542 (U.S. D.C., E.D.N.Y., 1964.)
Judge Brennan analyzed this issue with precision in Postma v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters etc., 229 F. Supp. 655 (1964) at 658, as follows:
For the issues presently pending in this civil matter, I need not decide whether under criminal prosecution for alleged violations of § 504, the terms of grand larceny or embezzlement should be read broadly. Nevertheless it should be noted that in the only reported case found involving similar problems in federal criminal prosecutions under this Section, Judge Mishler held that the Court should apply "The interpretation that will result in a rational scheme and give deminsion to the purging action of the Section 504." (Emphasis added.) And thus he concluded that § 504 "* * * includes convictions obtained under the conspiracy statutes of the several states, upon proof the conspiracy was entered into to commit the crime of extortion or any of the other crimes referred to."5
Thus, since in this civil action the statute should be interpreted liberally as a remedial statute, the ultimate issue in the instant matter is whether the Pennsylvania crime of conspiracy to cheat and defraud is within one of the prohibitions of either embezzlement and/or grand larceny of § 504. As to the definition and scope of these terms, we have been instructed that in construing § 504: Serio v. Liss, 300 F.2d 386, 390 (3rd Cir. 1961). (Emphasis added.)
Upon reviewing the very record on which plaintiff was convicted, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has held that: "It must be remembered that, while not on trial for the substantive crime of larceny or stealing of the union's funds, the record really reveals that the appellants could have been convicted of such crimes had criminal action been instituted within the period allowed by the statute of limitations."...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hodgson v. CHAIN SERVICE RESTAURANT, L. & SF EMP. U., L. 11
...a conviction for the crime of "conspiracy to cheat and defraud a union of its money, goods and property", Berman v. Teamsters Local 107, 237 F. Supp. 767, 768 (E.D.Pa.1964); and a conviction for "aiding and abetting in the willful misapplication of bank funds pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 656" ha......
-
Lippi v. Thomas, Civ. No. 68-336.
...not specifically pleaded) to grant the relief sought. Serio v. Liss, 300 F.2d 386 (3d Cir. 1961); Berman v. Local 107, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 237 F.Supp. 767 (E.D.Pa.1964). II Plaintiff filed his complaint on August 5, 1968. He alleged that nominations for President of Dist......
-
Illario v. Frawley
...v. Thomas, 298 F.Supp. 242 (M.D.Pa.1969) (misapplication of bank funds in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 656); Berman v. Local 107, I.B.T. etc., 237 F.Supp. 767 (E.D.Pa. 1964) ("conspiracy to defraud" a union under Pennsylvania law); and Postma v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc......
-
United States v. Romero
...prohibited payments from employer is equivalent to listed crime of "bribery" for purposes of Section 504(a)); Berman v. Teamsters Local 107, 237 F. Supp. 767 (E.D.Pa. 1964) (union official's state conviction of conspiracy to cheat and defraud union found to be the equivalent of grand larcen......