U.S. v. International Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO
| Decision Date | 12 April 1991 |
| Docket Number | AFL-CI,AFL-CIO,833,834,D,Nos. 830,892,831,s. 830 |
| Citation | 931 F.2d 177 |
| Parties | 137 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2022, 120 Lab.Cas. P 10,969 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,; the Commission of La Cosa Nostra; Anthony Salerno; Matthew Ianniello; Anthony Provenzano; Nunzio Provenzano; Anthony Corallo; Salvatore Santoro; Christopher Furnari, Sr.; Frank Manzo; Carmine Persico; Gennaro Langella; Philip Rastelli; Nicholas Marangello; Joseph Massino; Anthony Ficarotta; Eugene Boffa, Sr.; Francis Sheeran; Milton Rockman; John Tronolone; Joseph John Aiuppa; John Phillip Cerone; Joseph Lombardo; Angelo Lapietra; Frank Balistrieri; Carl Angelo Deluna; Carl Civella; Anthony Thomas Civella; General Executive Board, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America; Jackie Presser, General President; Weldon Mathis, General Secretary-Treasurer; Joseph Trerotola, First Vice President; Robert Holmes, Sr., Second Vice President; William J. McCarthy, Third Vice President; Joseph W. Morgan, Fourth Vice President; Edward M. Lawson, Fifth Vice President; Arnold Weinmeister, Sixth Vice President; John H. Cleveland, Seventh Vice President; Maurice R. Schurr, Eighth Vice President; Donald Peters, Ninth Vice President; Walter J. Shea, Tenth Vice President; Harold Friedman, Eleventh Vice President; Jack D. Cox, Twelfth Vice President; Don L. West, Thirteenth Vice President; Michael J. Riley, Fourteenth Vice President; Theodore Cozza, Fifteenth Vice President; Daniel Ligurotis, Sixteenth Vice President; and Salvatore Provenzano, Former Vice President, Defendants, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,, Defendant-Appellant, Teamsters Locals 1, 15, 25, 42, 49, 55, 59, 63, 64, 70, 72, 78, 82, 85, 87, 122, 157, 166, 170, 182, 186, 208, 237, 259, 278, 287, 291, 296, 302, 340, 379, 380, 389, 399, 404, 432, 437, 490, 494, 495, 496, 504, 526, 588, 597, 598, 624, 630, 633, 653, 665, 686, 687, 692, 707, 82 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
James T. Grady, Gen. Counsel, Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C. (Jed S. Rakoff, Audrey Strauss, Walter P. Loughlin, Robert P. Knapp III, Ralph P. DeSanto, Vincent P. Esposito, Jr., Mudge Rose Guthrie Alexander & Ferdon, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant.
Duane B. Beeson, San Francisco, Cal. (Beeson, Tayer, Silbert, Bodine & Livingston, San Francisco, Cal., Richard Dorn, Seth M. Kupferberg, Sipser, Weinstock, Harper & Dorn, New York City, Robert D. Vogel, Wohlner, Kaplon, Phillips, Vogel, Shelley & Young, Encino, Cal., Daniel Engelstein, Vladeck, Waldman, Elias & Engelhard, New York City, of counsel), for appellants Joint Councils 7, 16 and 18, and Locals 15, 63, 70, 72, 78, 85, 87, 166, 182, 186, 208, 237, 278, 287, 291, 296, 302, 389, 399, 432, 490, 495, 588, 598, 624, 630, 665, 687, 692, 848, 853, 858, 860, 896, 911, 952, and 2707.
John R. Climaco, Cleveland, Ohio (Paul S. Lefkowitz, Thomas M. Wilson, Climaco, Climaco, Seminatore, Lefkowitz & Garofoli, Cleveland, Ohio, Roy Barnes, Wendell Sheperd, New York City, of counsel), for appellants Joint Council 41 and Its Thirty-Three Affiliated Local Unions.
Richard W. Mark, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City (Otto G. Obermaier, U.S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., Edward T. Ferguson, III, Asst. U.S. Atty., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.
Eugene S. Friedman, Jay P. Levy-Warren, Friedman & Levy-Warren, New York City, for appellant Highway and Local Motor Freight Drivers, Dockmen and Helpers, Local Union 707.
John J. Kenney, Jr., Grady and Dwyer, Boston, Mass., for appellants Joint Council 10 and Locals 1, 25, 42, 49, 55, 59, 64, 82, 122, 127, 157, 170, 259, 340, 379, 380, 404, 437, 494, 496, 504, 526, 597, 633, 653, 686, 829, and 841.
Laurence Gold, Walter Kamiat, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae American Federation of Labor and Congress of Indus. Organizations.
Susan M. Jennik, Clyde W. Summers, Judith R. Schneider, Brooklyn, N.Y., for amicus curiae Ass'n for Union Democracy.
Before VAN GRAAFEILAND, WINTER and WALKER, Circuit Judges.
In March 1989, the government and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters ("IBT") agreed to settle the instant litigation. The settlement agreement was embodied in an order ("Consent Decree") of the district court. These appeals are the latest installment in a series of disputes over the implementation of the Consent Decree.
Various IBT-affiliated joint councils and union locals (collectively "Affiliates") appeal from the order approving the election rules ("Election Rules Order") that are to govern the upcoming elections of delegates to the IBT Convention, the nomination process at the Convention, and the rank-and-file election of IBT officers. See United States v. IBT, 742 F.Supp. 94 (S.D.N.Y.1990) ("Election Rules Order "). They challenge the order on the ground that it provides methods for selecting delegates to the IBT Convention and for electing IBT officers that differ from those specified in the IBT Constitution. The Affiliates contend that, because they were not parties to the underlying civil RICO action or the Consent Decree, that Decree cannot alter the IBT Constitution without their consent.
The IBT also appeals from the Election Rules Order, claiming that several provisions of the election rules are beyond the scope of the Consent Decree or contrary to federal labor law. In addition, the IBT appeals from an order approving the staffing requests of the court-appointed officer who is to supervise the elections ("Staffing Order").
We conclude that the Affiliates are bound by the Consent Decree's revision of the methods by which IBT Convention delegates and officers are selected because the IBT was an adequate representative of the collective IBT membership. We exclude "interested" employers from those non-IBT members who may aid candidates in obtaining accounting and legal services. However, the other election rules and the court-appointed officer's staffing request properly implement the terms of the Consent Decree.
In June 1988, the government brought suit under the civil remedies provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1964 (1988), naming as defendants the IBT, its General Executive Board ("GEB"), the individual members of the GEB, the Commission of La Cosa Nostra, and various reputed members and associates of La Cosa Nostra, a criminal organization. The 113-page complaint alleged a massive racketeering enterprise and a conspiracy to participate in that enterprise. In particular, it alleged that the GEB and its individual members had allowed principals of La Cosa Nostra to control and corrupt the IBT and various of its affiliated area conferences, joint councils, locals, and benefit funds. According to the complaint, La Cosa Nostra principals, aided and abetted by the GEB, had, by means of fraud, embezzlement, bribery and extortion, dominated the IBT. The government alleged that La Cosa Nostra selected and ensured the election of their own candidates for the position of IBT General President. In addition, La Cosa Nostra, aided and abetted by members of the GEB, allegedly used the procedure for selecting IBT officers to control the IBT and deprive its membership of free and fair elections.
The government sought broad relief. It asked the district court to: (i) enjoin members of La Cosa Nostra from associating with the IBT and its affiliates, (ii) enjoin present and future members of the GEB from associating with members of La Cosa Nostra, (iii) order individual defendants convicted of RICO violations to disgorge the proceeds from those violations and to refrain from contact with the IBT or any other labor organization, (iv) order a new election of GEB members under the supervision of a court-appointed trustee, (v) appoint a trustee who, until a fair election could be held, would assume the powers of the GEB whenever necessary to protect the rights of IBT members, (vi) enjoin all IBT members and affiliated entities from interfering with the trustee, (vii) issue a judgment declaring that the IBT has been controlled and exploited by La Cosa Nostra through multiple RICO violations, and (viii) award the government its costs of the suit.
The IBT moved to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, to require the joinder, as indispensable parties under Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a), of all IBT-affiliated local unions, joint councils, area conferences, and benefit funds that might be subject to an adverse fact determination or any form of relief affecting their interests. The district court denied the motion. It concluded that "[t]he relief requested relates to the IBT [and] does not directly affect the rights of the [affiliates]." United States v. IBT, 708 F.Supp. 1388, 1404 (S.D.N.Y.1989). In March 1989, the parties reached a settlement embodied in a Consent Decree entered by the district court.
Pursuant to the Consent Decree, the district court appointed three court officers to oversee certain aspects of the affairs of the IBT: the Investigations Officer, the Independent Administrator, and the Election Officer. The Investigations Officer has the authority to initiate disciplinary charges against officers, members, and employees of the IBT and its affiliates and to institute trusteeship proceedings with respect The Election Officer is responsible for supervising the election of IBT officers as provided by the Consent Decree. Under the pre-existing IBT Constitution, local...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Messier v. Southbury Training School
... ... didn't really have any meaning to us anymore. It is like asking people whether they ... Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 931 F.2d 177 (2d Cir.1991), involved the effect ... case cited by the plaintiffs, Yachts America, Inc. v. United States, 230 Ct.Cl. 26, 673 F.2d ... ...
-
US v. INTERNATIONAL BROTH. OF TEAMSTERS
... 803 F. Supp. 761 ... UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff ... INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, AUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, the Commission of La Cosa ... Board, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Jackie Presser, ... ...
-
US v. INTERN. BROTH. OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS
...902 F. Supp. 40 ... UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, ... INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, UFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, et al., Defendants ... In ... ...
-
Local 1814, Intern. Longshoremen's Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. New York Shipping Ass'n, Inc.
... ... LOCAL 1814, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, ... AFL-CIO, ... United STATES of America, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee ... No. 1338, ... by the government in the ubiquitous Teamsters litigation, which by now is well-chronicled in ... Local 1814 asks us to read this provision with breadth enough to ... ...
-
IMPOSING SILENCE THROUGH SETTLEMENT: A FIRST-AMENDMENT CASE STUDY OF THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL.
...Inc, 906 F.3d 253, 257 (2d Cir. 2018)). (113) See Leonard v. Clark, 12 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 931 F.2d 177 (2d Cir. 1991); Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507 (114) See Teamsters, 931 F.2d at 188. (115) See Leonard, 12 F.3d at 885. (116) See id.......
-
An Intervention Requirement Provides Greater Benefit to the Corporation When Nonparty Shareholders Appeal Derivative Action Settlements: Felzen v. Andreas, 134 F.3d 873 (7th Cir. 1998).
...192 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 1999). 154. See id. at 60. 155. See id. at 67. 156. Id. (quoting United States v. International Bd. of Teamsters, 931 F.2d 177, 183 84 (2d Cir. 1991)). 157. Id. 158. Id. at 67-68. 159. See id. at 68. For a discussion of Marino, see supra Part II.A.1. The court noted tha......