United States v. Baker, Crim. No. 15892.

• Decision Date: 23 November 1960
• Docket Number: Crim. No. 15892.
• Citation: 189 F. Supp. 796
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Robert Benjamin BAKER.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

189 F. Supp. 796

UNITED STATES of America v. Robert Benjamin BAKER.

Crim. No. 15892.

United States District Court W. D. Pennsylvania.

November 23, 1960.

John Gavin, First Asst. U. S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., for United States.

M. Barney Cohen, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.

MARSH, District Judge.

The defendant, Baker,¹ was convicted on a three-count indictment which charged him with having violated the Taft-Hartley Act, § 186(b), Title 29 U.S.C.A.,² on three occasions. Thereafter, he presented motions for judgment of acquittal and, in the alternative, for a new trial. The reasons advanced in support of his motion for judgment of acquittal and a new trial may be summarized as follows:

1. There was insufficient evidence from which the jury could find that the money accepted by defendant was received other than as loans.

2. There was insufficient evidence from which the jury could find that the defendant was a representative of any employees of Exhibitors' Service Company (ESCO).

3. The testimony of the defendant before a Senate Committee (Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field) should be stricken as violative of Title 18 U.S.C. § 3486, and that said testimony was improperly received in evidence.

The court is of the opinion that both motions should be denied.

Since the defendant was found guilty as charged, the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom must be viewed in a light most favorable to the Government. Connelly v. United States, 8 Cir., 1957, 249 F.2d 576.³ Thus viewed, the evidence disclosed that during December, 1957, and January, 1958, ESCO was a corporation doing business as a common carrier and lawfully entitled to transport goods, inter alia, between points in Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio; that it employed members of Locals 211 and 249 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (International Union); that these employees were engaged in an industry affecting commerce; and that George F. Callahan, Jr. was president and treasurer of ESCO.

The International Union operated under a constitution⁴ which provides that the International Convention is the supreme governing authority; the Union consists of chartered Local Unions, Joint Councils and Area Conferences; the Locals are affiliated with a Joint Council and with an Area Conference; all these bodies are subordinate to the International Union which has jurisdiction over all member workers.

The officers of the International Union are a General President, General Secretary-Treasurer, and 13 Vice-Presidents, all of whom comprise a General Executive Board. Extensive supervisory power is given to the General President and the General Executive Board.

Defendant was an organizer and representative of the Central Conference (T., pp. 42-43). He took orders from James Hoffa and Harold Gibbons. Since 1952 to January 28, 1958, Hoffa was a Vice-President of the International Union, a member of the General Executive Board, and Chairman of the Central Conference, which includes eastern Ohio where some of ESCO's operations were conducted. ESCO also conducted operations in Pennsylvania where it had its principal place of business; Pennsylvania is included in the Eastern Conference. Hoffa had been elected General President in October, 1957, and took office on January 28, 1958. Gibbons was Secretary-Treasurer of the Central Conference; he had been elected Vice-President in the latter part of 1957 and took that office also on January 28, 1958.

In the latter part of 1957, Locals 211 and 249 were engaged in a jurisdictional dispute, and ESCO was trying to negotiate a new contract with Local 211, whose President was one Cozza. ESCO was threatened with a strike. ESCO's president, Callahan, and one Weinheimer, an ESCO salesman, consulted Hoffa about ESCO's troubles. As Vice-President and member of the General Executive Board, Hoffa discussed the strike "with everybody I could get hold of, to try to straighten it out" (T., p. 42). As Vice-President, Hoffa brought the jurisdictional matter to the General Executive Board (T., p. 45).

Hoffa discussed ESCO's troubles with defendant, who worked under Hoffa's personal supervision as Chairman of the Central Conference, because they "affected some part of ESCO's Ohio operation, which is Central Conference" (T., pp. 53, 54; see also T., p. 44).

It was stipulated that the General Executive Board in August, 1957, took action in regard to the jurisdictional dispute between Locals 211 and 249, which involved ESCO (T., p. 89).

On December 18, 1957, Local 211 went on strike against ESCO.

After the strike started, the defendant was in Pittsburgh on two occasions in December, 1957, and in the latter part of January, 1958. His expenses were paid by the Central Conference; the vouchers were approved by Hoffa and Gibbons.⁵

During the strike, Callahan was introduced to defendant by Weinheimer, and discussed ESCO's labor problems. Defendant promised to help Callahan get his labor problems settled and stated that he would " * * * endeavor and arrange a meeting with Mr. Cozza President of Local 211 who at that time would not talk to anybody from management * * *" (T., pp. 134-135). Callahan gave the defendant $100 to " * * * cover your expenses for such meeting or meetings * * *" (T., p. 135). Defendant accepted this money.

The following day, Callahan, Weinheimer, Cozza and defendant met at Local 211 headquarters. Several days later Callahan, accompanied by Weinheimer, again met the defendant at a bar in a Pittsburgh hotel. After a short discussion, defendant left the bar to check out of the hotel. Weinheimer also left and returned in a few minutes, at which time Callahan gave Weinheimer $50.⁶ Thereafter Callahan left the bar, met the defendant in front of the hotel, and gave the defendant $75 saying: "This will see you back to Detroit." Defendant accepted the $75.

In the latter part of January, 1958, Callahan again met defendant at a Pittsburgh hotel. The defendant "* * * brought up that he had been promised— or things weren't as good as they might be * * *" and said that "* * * he had been promised $300 by some party —he didn't say who * * *". Callahan offered the $300 to defendant who stated that he would "* * * accept it on a loan basis * * *".

The strike ended on February 4, 1958 (T., p. 100). Thereafter, on other occasions Callahan sent defendant other money totalling $600 "* * * as an act of a friend and on the basis of a loan * * *". The total money paid defendant was $1,125.⁷

Mr. Callahan testified that he considered all money given to defendant were loans, but that no note or other evidence of indebtedness was given him by defendant; that the money probably came from ESCO's funds; that the defendant had never repaid the money up to the time of trial.

Callahan did not request defendant to repay the money until after the appearance of both before the Senate Committee in 1958; the request was in writing and signed "Exhibitors' Service Company, G. F. Callahan, Jr., President". No loan account had ever been set up for defendant on ESCO's books as required of common carriers by the Interstate Commerce Commission (T., pp. 169-170).

After the foregoing evidence had been received, the Government offered to introduce the testimony given by defendant in 1958 to the Senate Committee. Defendant objected on the ground that the corpus delicti had not been proved. The objection was overruled (T., p. 182).

In the court's opinion, the circumstantial evidence tending to show that defendant was an authorized labor representative of ESCO's employees was sufficient to establish the trustworthiness of his admission to that effect given to the Senate Committee, and the circumstantial evidence plus the direct evidence that the defendant received money from Callahan, viewed in a light favorable to the prosecution, established independently the other necessary elements of the offenses charged. The corroboration sufficiently supported the essential facts admitted by defendant to justify the jury to infer that in truth he was a designated labor representative sent by his superiors to act on behalf of the ESCO teamster employees, and, in fact, did so act on their behalf. These facts plus the other evidence that he received money from their employer was sufficient to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. 147, 75 S.Ct. 194, 99 L.Ed. 192;⁸ Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 75 S.Ct. 158, 99 L.Ed. 101. We think the ruling was proper and defendant's testimony before the Senate Committee was properly received.

Defendant told the Senate Committee that he worked under the immediate direction of Harold Gibbons and James Hoffa; that he knew ESCO had a strike; that he "was sent * * * to try and arbitrate and get the contract signed and settled. We had a meeting with the proprietor and also with the union." (T., pp. 186-187.) He stated that he had discussed ESCO's labor problems with Callahan. He said: "It is my job to try and end strikes as well as organize them." (T., p. 190.)

When asked what he, as a Central Conference organizer, was doing in Pittsburgh, defendant replied: "It doesn't mean that I haven't left the area, if I have to go to another area and try to settle a strike difficulty, going to New York or anywhere in the country, if you can help a brother Teamster." (T., p. 190.)

Defendant admitted that he specifically went to Pittsburgh for the purpose of undertaking to settle the strike for ESCO. He also testified that he believed he had something to do with settling it.

In our opinion, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find as a fact that the defendant, as an organizer of the Teamsters' Union, was sent to represent ESCO's employees during a strike at the direction of Gibbons, an officer of the Central Conference, or by Hoffa, who not only was Chairman of the Central Conference but also...