US v. INTERNATIONAL BROTH. OF TEAMSTERS

• Decision Date: 10 December 1992
• Docket Number: No. 88 Civ. 4486 (DNE).,88 Civ. 4486 (DNE).
• Citation: 808 F. Supp. 279
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, et al., Defendants. In re APPLICATION XCI OF THE INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

808 F. Supp. 279

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, et al., Defendants.

In re APPLICATION XCI OF THE INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR.

No. 88 Civ. 4486 (DNE).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

December 10, 1992.

Charles M. Carberry, Investigations Officer of Intern. Broth. of Teamsters (Theodore L. Hecht, Celia A. Zahner, of counsel), Otto G. Obermaier, U.S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., New York City (Christine H. Chung, Asst. U.S. Atty., of counsel), for U.S.

Slotnick & Baker, New York City (Barry I. Slotnick, Michael Shapiro, of counsel), for respondent Bernard Adelstein.

OPINION & ORDER

EDELSTEIN, District Judge:

This opinion emanates from the voluntary settlement of an action commenced by plaintiff United States of America (the "Government") against defendants International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the "IBT" or the "Union") and the IBT's General Executive Board (the "GEB") embodied in the voluntary consent order entered March 14, 1989 (the "Consent Decree"). The Consent Decree provides for three Court-appointed officials: the Independent Administrator to oversee the Consent Decree's remedial provisions, the Investigations Officer to bring charges against corrupt IBT members, and the Election Officer to oversee the electoral process leading up to and including the 1991 election for International Officers. The goal of the Consent Decree is to rid the IBT of the hideous influence of organized crime through the election and disciplinary provisions.

Application XCI presents for this Court's review the decision of the Independent Administrator finding that the Investigations Officer had proven that Bernard Adelstein, Secretary-Treasurer of IBT Local 813, President of IBT Local 1034, and Secretary-Treasurer of the Executive Board of IBT Joint Council 16, brought reproach upon the Union by knowingly associating with a member of La Cosa Nostra.

BACKGROUND

The Investigations Officer alleges that Mr. Adelstein violated Article II, Section 2(a) and Article XIX, Section 6(b) of the IBT Constitution by knowingly associating with James ("Jimmy Brown") Failla, a member of La Cosa Nostra. Article II, Section 2(a) is the IBT membership oath, which provides in relevant part that every IBT member shall "conduct himself or herself in a manner so as not to bring reproach upon the Union." Article XIX, Section 6(b) is a non-exhaustive list of disciplinary charges that may be filed against IBT members. One such charge is violating the IBT membership oath. See Article XIX, § 6(b)(2).

Pursuant to paragraph F.12(C) of the Consent Decree, the Independent Administrator must decide disciplinary hearings using a "just cause" standard. The Investigations Officer has the burden of establishing just cause by a preponderance of the evidence. December 27, 1990 Opinion & Order, 754 F.Supp. 333, 337 (S.D.N.Y.1990). After receiving briefs from the parties to this action and conducting a hearing at which Mr. Adelstein was represented by counsel, the Independent Administrator issued a twenty-six page decision. The Independent Administrator found that the Investigations Officer had sustained his burden of proving that Mr. Adelstein "knowingly associated" with Mr. Failla.

As a penalty for this conduct, the Independent Administrator found that Mr. Adelstein should be permanently banished from the IBT,¹ stating that "Adelstein's associations with the underworld are repugnant. ... Only by cleansing the IBT of the likes of Adelstein can the Union ever hope to function as a corruption-free, democratic organization." Ind.Admin.Dec. at 23. Furthermore, the Independent Administrator exercised his authority to impose sanctions upon Mr. Adelstein's employee benefits. See December 28, 1990 Memorandum & Order, 753 F.Supp. 1181 (S.D.N.Y.1990), aff'd, 941 F.2d 1292 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 76, 116 L.Ed.2d 50 (1991). The Independent Administrator prohibited the IBT or any affiliate from contributing funds on Mr. Adelstein's behalf to any Third-Party plan of which Mr. Adelstein is a member. Moreover, the Independent Administrator directed that the IBT or IBT-affiliated entities not make payment of any benefits to Mr. Adelstein (including, bonuses and Local-controlled severance plans). Finally, the Independent Administrator ordered that the IBT and IBT-affiliated entities refrain from contributing to Mr. Adelstein's attorney's fees in connection with the instant disciplinary action.

Mr. Adelstein appeals to this Court the opinion of the Independent Administrator. This Court finds that the opinion of the Independent Administrator is fully supported by the evidence, and that Mr. Adelstein's arguments are devoid of merit. Accordingly, the opinion of the Independent Administrator is affirmed in all respects.

DISCUSSION

In reviewing decisions of the Independent Administrator, it is well settled that the findings of the Independent Administrator "are entitled to great deference." United States v. IBT, 905 F.2d 610, 616 (2d Cir.1990), aff'g March 13, 1990 Opinion & Order, 743 F.Supp. 155 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). This Court will overturn the findings of the Independent Administrator when it determines that they are, on the basis of all the evidence, "arbitrary or capricious." United States v. IBT, 964 F.2d 1308, 1311 (2d Cir.1992); August 27, 1990 Opinion & Order, 745 F.Supp. 908, 911 (S.D.N.Y.1990), aff'd, 941 F.2d 1292 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 76, 116 L.Ed.2d 50 (1991); March 13, 1990 Opinion & Order, 743 F.Supp. 155, 165 (S.D.N.Y.1990), aff'd, 905 F.2d 610 (2d Cir. 1990); see July 14, 1992 Opinion & Order, 803 F.Supp. 748, 756-57 (S.D.N.Y.1992); July 13, 1992 Opinion & Order, 803 F.Supp. 740, 747-48 (S.D.N.Y.1992); July 9, 1992 Opinion & Order, slip opinion, at 6-8, 1992 WL 172229 (S.D.N.Y.1992); May 15, 1992 Opinion & Order, 792 F.Supp. 1346, 1352 (S.D.N.Y.1992); April 27, 1992 Memorandum & Order, 791 F.Supp. 421, 425-26 (S.D.N.Y.1992); February 11, 1992 Memorandum & Order, 787 F.Supp. 345, 350 (S.D.N.Y.1992); January 20, 1992 Memorandum & Order, 782 F.Supp. 256, 259 (S.D.N.Y.1992); January 16, 1992 Memorandum & Order, 782 F.Supp. 238, 241-42 (S.D.N.Y.1992); November 8, 1991 Memorandum & Order, 948 F.2d 1338, 1343-44 (S.D.N.Y.1991); October 29, 1991 Opinion & Order, 776 F.Supp. 144, 152-53 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), aff'd, 954 F.2d 801 (2d Cir.1992), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 2993, 120 L.Ed.2d 870 (1992); October 25, 1991, Order, slip opinion, at 4-5 (S.D.N.Y.1991); October 24, 1991 Memorandum & Order, 777 F.Supp. 1133, 1136 (S.D.N.Y.1991); October 16, 1991 Memorandum & Order, 777 F.Supp. 1130, 1132 (S.D.N.Y.1991), aff'd, 964 F.2d 1308 (2d Cir.1992); October 11, 1991 Memorandum & Order, 777 F.Supp. 1127, 1128 (S.D.N.Y.1991), aff'd, 956 F.2d 1161 (2d Cir.1992); October 9, 1991 Memorandum & Order, 777 F.Supp. 1123, 1125 (S.D.N.Y.1991); August 14, 1991 Memorandum & Order, slip opinion, at 4, 1991 WL 161084 (S.D.N.Y.1991); July 31, 1991 Memorandum & Order, slip opinion, at 3-4, 1991 WL 150226 (S.D.N.Y.1991), aff'd, No. 91-6200, 956 F.2d 1161, (Table) unpublished slip op. (2d Cir. Sep. 12, 1991); July 18, 1991 Memorandum & Order, slip opinion at 3-4, 1991 WL 136030 (S.D.N.Y.1991), aff'd, No. 91-6198, 956 F.2d 1161, (Table) unpublished slip op. (2d Cir. Sep. 12, 1991); July 16, 1991 Opinion & Order, slip opinion, at 3-4, 1991 WL 136029 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); June 6, 1991 Opinion & Order, 775 F.Supp. 90, 93 (S.D.N.Y.1991), aff'd in relevant part, 948 F.2d 1278 (2d Cir.1991); May 13, 1991 Memorandum & Order, 764 F.Supp. 817, 820-21 (S.D.N.Y.1991); May 9, 1991 Memorandum & Order, 764 F.Supp. 797, 800 (S.D.N.Y.1991) aff'd, No. 91-6144, 956 F.2d 1161, unpublished slip op. (2d Cir. Jan. 28, 1992); May 6, 1991 Opinion & Order, 764 F.Supp. 787, 789 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 940 F.2d 648 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 76, 116 L.Ed.2d 50 (1991); December 27, 1990 Opinion & Order, 754 F.Supp. 333, 337 (S.D.N.Y. 1990); September 18, 1990 Opinion & Order, 745 F.Supp. 189, 191-92 (S.D.N.Y. 1990); January 17, 1990 Opinion & Order, 728 F.Supp. 1032, 1045-57, aff'd, 907 F.2d 277 (2d Cir.1990).

Mr. Adelstein argues that the Independent Administrator's decision was arbitrary and capricious because the Independent Administrator considered hearsay evidence in reaching his decision. However, it is beyond reasonable dispute that "hearsay evidence, if reliable, is admissable in IBT disciplinary proceedings." United States v. IBT, 777 F.Supp. 1130, 1133 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (citing United States v. IBT, 745 F.Supp. 908, 914-15 (S.D.N.Y.1990), aff'd, 941 F.2d 1292, 1297 (2d Cir.1991)). The Independent Administrator carefully considered the hearsay statements in the instant case and found them reliable in that they corroborated each other. An examination of the relevant statements supports this finding. Accordingly, this Court finds that the Independent Administrator's admission of hearsay statements does not render his decision arbitrary and capricious.

Mr. Adelstein's next argument is wholly untenable. "Adelstein respectfully request sic reconsideration of the court's prior ruling in light of the Second Circuit's silence, even with ample opportunity, to uphold the notion that the Consent Decree binds non-signatory local affiliates...." Brief of Respondent Bernard Adelstein at 19. The Court can only speculate as to whether Mr. Adelstein's attorneys actually researched this point before incorporating it into their brief. Aside from the syntactical and grammatical flaws that permeate this section of Mr. Adelstein's brief, what is most incredible about Mr. Adelstein's argument is that the Second Circuit repeatedly has upheld this Court's finding that the Consent Decree does bind local affiliates of the IBT. See, e.g., United States v. IBT, 964 F.2d 180, 183 (2d Cir. 1992) ("We have previously recognized that some entities have sufficient...