CORE TERMS: membership,
business agent, appointment, murder, executive board, labor
organization, racketeering, convicted, appointed, conspiracy, indicted,
pattern of racketeering activity, intimidation, election, extortion,
peace, secretary-treasurer, counterfeiting, payoff, predicate,
indirectly, indictment, incumbent, salary, incarcerated, sentenced,
incarceration, climate, leader, disappearance
LexisNexis(R) Headnotes
Show
Headnotes
COUNSEL: W. Hunt Dumont, United States Attorney, for the
District of New Jersey, By: Robert C. Stewart, Thomas L. Weisenbeck,
Assistant U.S. Attorney, Leopold Laufer, Special Attorney, United States
Department of Justice, Newark, New Jersey, For Plaintiff.
Edward A. Cohen, Esq., Schneider, Cohen, Solomon & DiMarzio, Jersey
City, New Jersey, For defendants Local 560 and the Severance Pay Plan.
Harvey Weissbard, Esq., West Orange, New Jersey, For defendants
Provenzano, Sheridan, Dildine, Reynolds, Sciarra and Jaronko.
Herbert New, Esq., Brenner, New & Brenner, Livingston, New Jersey, For
defendant Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund.
Mr. Stephen Andretta and Mr. Gabriel Briguglio, Pro Se.
JUDGES: Ackerman, District Judge.
OPINIONBY: ACKERMAN
OPINION: [*282]
ACKERMAN, District Judge.
John L. Lewis, former president of the Congress of Industrial
Organizations and the United Mine Workers once said that "Labor, like
Israel, has many sorrows."
A careful review of the evidence in this unprecedented case reveals the
verity of that observation.
It is not a pretty story. Beneath the relatively sterile language of
[**2] a dry
legal opinion is a harrowing tale of how evil men, sponsored by and part
of organized criminal elements, infiltrated and ultimately captured
Local 560 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, one of the
largest local unions in the largest union in this country.
This group of gangsters, aided and abetted by their relatives and
sycophants, engaged in a multifaceted orgy of criminal activity. For
those that enthusiastically followed these arrogant mobsters in their
morally debased activity there were material rewards. For those who
accepted the side benefits of this perverted interpretation of business
unionism,
see J. Hutchinson,
The Imperfect Union p. 371,
(1970), there was presumably the rationalization of "I've got mine, why
shouldn't he get his." For those who attempted to fight, the message was
clear. Murder and other forms of intimidation would be utilized to
insure silence. To get along, one had to go along, or else.
It is important to state what the evidence in this case does and does
not show.
It shows that a trade union which is by origin and nature a voluntary
organization is susceptible to the malicious machinations of others, as
Congress perceived
[**3] in
enacting the Landrum-Griffin and RICO Acts.
It does not demonstrate that unions or union officials in general are
riddled with racketeering or corruption. Most authorities are convinced
that the overwhelming number of unions and union officials are
"untroubled by the problem of corruption."
Id. Crooks and
racketeers are anathema to a significant portion of the trade union
movement.
See id.; D. Dubinsky & A. Raskin, David Dubinsky:
A
Life With Labor (1977); P. Jacobs,
The State of the Unions
(1963).
See also "The RICO Civil Fraud Action in Context:
Reflections on
Bennett v. Berg",
58 Notre Dame L.Rev. 237, 303 n.170 (1982).
As Professor Hutchinson observed in his book
The Imperfect Union -- A
History of Corruption in American Trade Unions (1970) at p. 7-8:
Corruption owes little more to immoral union leaders than it does to
predatory employers who, throughout the history of American
business, have sought by cheating and violence to circumvent the
strictures of competition, unionization and the law. It is a
companion of the corruption in politics and law enforcement which
for generations has characterized some of the major cities of the
nation, [**4]
sheltering the guilty and embroiling the innocent in crime. It owes
a debt to the insanity of Prohibition and its enduring legacy of
organized defiance of the law. It thrives in the procedural jungle
of the American criminal law. It stems from the social conditions of
the cities -- from the tensions of an immigrant society, the customs
of racial discrimination and ethnic isolation, the miseries of the
slums and the frustrations of the underprivileged, the ignorance of
the poor and the indifference of the rich. It has, finally, drawn
strength from a public philosophy which, in electing for the
competitive society, has tended to trumpet only its virtues,
according either praise or tolerance to the victors in a battle
lightly burdened with rules."
Applying these precepts and the law applicable to this case I find that
the record clearly demonstrates that the Provenzano brothers (Anthony,
Nunzio and Salvatore) and their group betrayed the membership of Local
560.
[*283] David
Dubinsky, former President of the International Ladies Garment Workers
Union stated in his autobiography that "racketeering is the cancer that
almost destroyed the American trade-union movement."
D. Dubinsky [**5] & A. Raskin,
supra. The metaphor of disease is apt.
See P. Johnson,
Modern Times p. 102 (1983). For reasons set forth below, I have
determined in this case, in accordance with law and to secure justice,
to use a judicial scalpel to excise this malignancy from this union and
its members.
To do any less would be to ignore the laws of the land and do a
disservice to the thousands of labor leaders who earn their daily bread
by honestly striving to improve the wages, hours and working conditions
of their members.
This is an action brought pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organization Act (RICO),
18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. n1 Plaintiff United States alleges,
inter alia, that Local 560 of the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Local 560),
together with its Welfare and Pension Funds (Funds) and its Severance
Pay Plan (Plan), n2 has become, through the actions of the individual
defendants, a "captive labor organization." The United States seeks,
first, the appointment of a receiver or trustee to serve in the capacity
of the Local 560 Executive Board until such time as the membership can
freely nominate
[**6] and
elect new officers. The complaint also seeks injunctive relief against
defendants Salvatore Provenzano, Joseph Sheridan, Josephine Provenzano,
J. W. Dildine, Stanley Jaronko, Thomas Reynolds, Sr., and Michael
Sciarra,
inter alia barring them from union office until such
time as a democratic election of officers by the membership may be held.
Finally, the complaint seeks injunctive relief against defendants
Anthony Provenzano, Nunzio Provenzano, Stephen Andretta and Gabriel
Briguglio,
inter alia barring them from any further contacts with
Local 560.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 Chapter 96 of Title 18,
18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, was added to that title by Title IX of the
Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Pub.L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 941.
n2 The Funds have been merged and split several times, the two most
recent events being the March 1, 1974 separation of Locals 617 and 641
from the Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund (and Pension
Plan) and the May 4, 1977 merger of the North Jersey Fund and Plan with
that of the Trucking Employees of Passaic and Bergen Counties.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[**7]
The complaint charges that the "Local 560 Enterprise" n3 is an
enterprise within the meaning of
18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). n4 It further alleges that the individual
defendants are associated together under the leadership of defendant
Anthony Provenzano as the "Provenzano Group," and that this Group
conspired, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), n5 to violate, and actually did violate,
18 U.S.C. § 1962(b) and (c). n6
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n3 The complaint refers to the nominal defendants (Local 560, the Fund
and the Plan) collectively as the "Local 560 Enterprise".
n4
18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) provides:
"enterprise" includes any individual, partnership, corporations,
association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of
individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity . . . .
n5
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) provides:
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any
of the provisions of subsections (a), (b), or (c) of this section.
n6
18 U.S.C. § 1962(b) and (c) provide:
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of
racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to
acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or
control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of
which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.
(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated
with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect,
interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly
or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a
pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[**8]
Specifically, paragraph 12(a) of the complaint alleges that the
Provenzano Group, aided and abetted by past and present members of the
Executive Board of Local 560 (including defendants Salvatore Provenzano,
Joseph Sheridan, Josephine Provenzano, J. W. Dildine, Thomas Reynolds,
[*284] Sr.,
Michael Sciarra, and Stanley Jaronko) unlawfully acquired and
maintained, directly and indirectly, an interest in and control of the
Local 560 Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in
violation of § 1962(b) of the RICO Act. This racketeering activity was
alleged to have involved murder and the systematic use of extortion,
with the latter allegedly consisting of, according to the complaint,
"the wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence and fear of
physical and economic injury in order to create within Local 560 a
climate of intimidation which induced the members thereof to consent to
the surrender of certain valuable property in the form of their union
rights as guaranteed by the provisions of Sections 157 and 411 of Title
29 of the United States Code . . . ." n7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n7
29 U.S.C. § 157 is section 7 of the Taft-Hartley Act, while
29 U.S.C. § 411 was enacted as Title I of the Labor Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) and is referred to as the
"Bill of Rights of Members of Labor Organizations." Section 411
provides:
(a)(1) Equal rights. -- Every member of a labor organization shall
have equal rights and privileges within such organization to
nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the
labor organization, to attend membership meetings, and to
participate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of
such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such
organization's constitution and bylaws.
(2) Freedom of speech and assembly. -- Every member of any labor
organization shall have the right to meet and assemble freely with
other members; and to express any views, arguments, or opinions; and
to express at meetings of the labor organization his views, upon
candidates in an election of the labor organization or upon any
business properly before the meeting, subject to the organization's
established and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of
meetings: Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to
impair the right of a labor organization to adopt and enforce
reasonable rules as to the responsibility of every member toward the
organization as an institution and to his refraining from conduct
that would interfere with its performance of its legal or
contractual obligations.
(3) Dues, initiation fees, and assessments. -- Except in the case of
a federation of national or international labor organizations, the
rates of dues and initiation fees payable by members of any labor
organization in effect on September 14, 1959 shall not be increased,
and no general or special assessment shall be levied upon such
members, except --
(A) in the case of a local labor organization, (i) by majority vote
by secret ballot of the members in good standing voting at a general
or special membership meeting, after reasonable notice of the
intention to vote upon such question, or (ii) by majority vote of
the members in good standing voting in a membership referendum
conducted by secret ballot; or
(B) in the case of a labor organization, other than a local labor
organization or a federation of national or international labor
organizations, (i) by majority vote of the delegates voting at a
regular convention, or at a special convention of such labor
organization held upon not less than thirty days' written notice to
the principal office of each local or constituent labor organization
entitled to such notice, or (ii) by majority vote of the members in
good standing of such labor organization voting in a membership
referendum conducted by secret ballot, or (iii) by majority vote of
the members of the executive board or similar governing body of such
labor organization, pursuant to express authority contained in the
constitution and bylaws of such labor organization: Provided,
That such action on the part of the executive board or similar
governing body shall be effective only until the next regular
convention of such labor organization.
(4) Protection of the right to sue. -- No labor organization shall
limit the right of any member thereof to institute an action in any
court, or in a proceeding before any administrative agency,
irrespective of whether or not the labor organization or its
officers are named as defendants or respondents in such action or
proceeding, or the right of any member of a labor organization to
appear as a witness in any judicial, administrative, or legislative
proceeding, or to petition any legislature or to communicate with
any legislator: Provided, That any such member may be
required to exhaust reasonable hearing procedures (but not to exceed
a four-month lapse of time) within such organization, before
instituting legal or administrative proceedings against such
organizations or any officer thereof: And provided further,
That no interested employer or employer association shall directly
or indirectly finance, encourage, or participate in, except as a
party, any such action, proceeding, appearance, or petition.
(5) Safeguards against improper disciplinary action. -- No member of
any labor organization may be fined, suspended, expelled, or
otherwise disciplined except for nonpayment of dues by such
organization or by any officer thereof unless such member has been
(A) served with written specific charges; (B) given a reasonable
time to prepare his defense; (C) afforded a full and fair hearing.
(b) Any provision of the constitution and bylaws of any labor
organization which is inconsistent with the provisions of this
section shall be of no force or effect.
The Supreme Court has recently noted that the emphasis of § 411 is "on
the rights of union members to expression without fear of sanctions by
the union, which in many instances could mean loss of union membership
and in turn loss of livelihood."
Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U.S. 431, 102 S. Ct. 1867, 1870, 72 L. Ed.
2d 239 (1982).
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[**9]
The particular acts of the defendants which allegedly created the
climate of intimidation
[*285] which
in turn allegedly induced the surrender of the members' rights are set
out as subparagraphs (1) through (28) n8 of paragraph 12 (a). These
alleged acts are:
(1) the June 1961 murder of Anthony Castellitto; (2) the August 1961
appointment of Salvatore Provenzano to the position of Trustee
formerly occupied by Castellitto; (3) the September 1961 appointment
of Salvatore Briguglio -- the alleged murderer of Castellitto -- to
the position of Business Agent; (4) the February 1963 appointment of
Nunzio Provenzano to the position of Business Agent following his
January 1963 conviction for extortion; (5) the May 1963 murder of
Walter Glockner; (6) the 1964 appointment of Robert A. Luizzi to the
position of Business Agent in spite of a record of criminal
convictions; (7) the May 1967 appointment of Luizzi to the position
of Trustee; (8) the February 1969 appointment of Salvatore Briguglio
to position of Business Agent following completion of a term of
imprisonment for extortion; (9) the April 1969 appointment of Nunzio
Provenzano to the position of clerk following completion [**10] of a
term of imprisonment for extortion; (10) the 1970 appointment of
Nunzio Provenzano to the position of Business Agent; (11) the 1971
appointment of Thomas Reynolds, Sr. to the position of Business
Agent in spite of a record of criminal activity; (12) the 1972
appointment of Nunzio Provenzano to the position of Fund Trustee;
(13) the 1972 appointment of Salvatore Briguglio to the position of
Fund Trustee; (14) the allowance of frequent visitations by Armand
Faugno and Thomas Andretta to the offices of Local 560; (15) the
January 1963 appointment of Nunzio Provenzano to the position of
Secretary-Treasurer; (16) the 1973 appointment of Reynolds to the
position of Fund Trustee; (17) the 1974 resumption of duties as
Business Agent by Salvatore Briguglio following completion of a term
of imprisonment for counterfeiting; (18) the 1974 appointment of
Luizzi to the position of Fund Trustee; (19) the November 1975
appointments of Anthony and Nunzio Provenzano to the positions of
Secretary-Treasurer and President, respectively, in spite of a
record of convictions for extortion; (20) the February 1977
appointment of Reynolds to the position of Trustee; (21) the July
1978 appointment of Josephine [**11]
Provenzano to the position of Secretary-Treasurer following Anthony
Provenzano's conviction for the Castellitto murder; (22) the July
1981 appointment of Salvatore Provenzano to the position of
President following Nunzio Provenzano's forced resignation as a
condition of bail on a labor racketeering conviction; (23) the
Executive Board's failure to recover monies wrongfully converted by
Anthony Provenzano; (24) the retention of Marvin Zalk as Fund
Administrator in spite of payments accepted by him from an insurance
company representative during the 1950's; (25) the retention of
Ralph Torraco as the Fund's independent certified public accountant
in spite of his federal indictment for systematically overbilling
the Fund; (26) the extortion of contributions to the defense funds
of the Provenzanos and Michael Sciarra from union members; (27) the
1981 appointment of Luizzi to the position of Business Agent; and
(28) associations by some of the defendants with Frank "Funzi" Tieri
and Matteo Alfredo Ianniello, reputed to be organized crime members.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n8 Subparagraphs 12(a)(26), (27) and (28) were added to the complaint
upon application by the plaintiff for leave to file an amended complaint
pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), which application was granted on September 20,
1982.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[**12]
[*286]
Paragraph 12(b) of the complaint alleges that the Provenzano Group,
aided and abetted by various others of the individual defendants,
"unlawfully did conduct and participate, directly and indirectly, in the
conduct of the affairs of the Local 560 Enterprise through a pattern of
racketeering activity . . ." in violation of § 1962(c) of the RICO Act.
The "predicate acts" which are alleged to have constituted this pattern
of racketeering activity are set out as subparagraphs (1) through (5) or
paragraph 12(b). These alleged acts are: (1) the extortion of $17,100
from Walter Dorn and his company (Dorn Transport, Inc. of Rensselaer,
New York) in return for "labor peace; (2) the wrongful conversion by
defendant Anthony Provenzano, aided and abetted by successive defendant
members of the Local 560 Executive Board, of approximately $223,785 in
Local 560 funds "by means of false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations, and promises, and pursuant to a scheme and artifice to
defraud . . .;" (3) the wrongful receipt by Provenzano Group members of
payments, loans and other things of value from certain employers
(Interocean Services, Inc. and Di-Jub Leasing, Inc.) in exchange for
[**13] "labor
peace"; (4) the unlawful receipt by defendant Anthony Provenzano, aided
and abetted by Salvatore Briguglio, of certain fees, kickbacks, gifts or
things of value in the form of certain Florida real estate because of,
and with intent to be influenced with respect to, his actions and
decisions relating to the Benefit Fund; and (5) the wrongful receipt by
defendant Nunzio Provenzano, together with Irving Cotler and others, as
associates of the Provenzano Group, of "labor peace" payments by certain
employers, specifically Pacific Intermountain Express Company, Mason and
Dixon Lines, Inc., T.I.M.E. -- DC, Inc. and Helms Express.
Finally, the initial portion of paragraph 12 of the complaint contains
the government's § 1962(d) allegations. It charges that defendants
Anthony Provenzano, Nunzio Provenzano, Stephen Andretta, Thomas
Andretta, Gabriel Briguglio and others associated with the Provenzano
Group unlawfully did conspire together to violate § 1962(b) and (c) with
the end of infiltrating, dominating and exploiting the Local 560
Enterprise.
In its demand for relief, the government requests: (1) that the
Provenzano Group be enjoined from having any dealings, directly or
indirectly,
[**14] with
any officer or employee of the Local 560 Enterprise or of any labor
organization or employee benefit plan as defined in Title 29 about any
matter which relates directly or indirectly to the business affairs of
the Local 560 Enterprise or other such labor organization or benefit
plan; (2) that all current Local 560 Executive Board members --
Salvatore Provenzano, Joseph Sheridan, Josephine Provenzano, J. W.
Dildine, Thomas Reynolds, Sr., Michael Sciarra and Stanley Jaronko -- be
enjoined from acting in any official capacity for or on behalf of the
Local 560 Enterprise; (3) that the court appoint one or more trustees to
discharge all duties and responsibilities of the Executive Board of
Local 560 and such other tasks as the court may direct; (4) that at an
appropriate time the trustee be instructed to conduct, with the
assistance of the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice, a
general election in order to select officers for the Executive Board of
Local 560 -- the election to be structured in such a way as to ensure
that the nomination, primary and final selection processes will not be
vulnerable to forms of intimidation and will reflect the decision, the
government
[**15]
requests, of at least eighty percent of the members who are eligible to
vote; (5) that the court permanently enjoin all individual defendants
herein from having any future dealings of any nature whatsoever,
directly or indirectly, with any officer, agent, representative or
employee of the Local 560 Enterprise or any other labor organization.
There have been a number of proceedings in this matter prior to trial
which merit mention. First, a consent order was entered on June 15, 1982
approving the terms of a stipulation of settlement between the plaintiff
United States and defendant Anthony Provenzano,
inter alia
prohibiting the latter from "any form of
[*287]
association with any enterprise (within the meaning of Section 1961 of
Title 18 of the United States Code), which enterprise seeks, directly or
indirectly, to dominate, control, conduct or otherwise influence the
affairs of any labor organization or any employee benefit plan (within
the meaning of Title 29 of the United States Code)." A similar consent
order was entered on September 15, 1982 with regard to defendant Nunzio
Provenzano, and, on January 14, 1983, with regard to defendant Thomas
Andretta.
Finally, on November
[**16] 1,
1982 I denied a motion brought by defendant Local 560 pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) to dismiss paragraph 12(a) of the
complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
United States v. Local 560, 550 F. Supp. 511 (D.N.J. 1982).
Following a review of the legislative history of both the Hobbs Act,
18 U.S.C. 1951, and of the LMRDA, and relying on
United States v. Boffa, 688 F.2d 919 (3d Cir. 1982), I
concluded that the rights guaranteed to union members by the LMRDA's
Bill of Rights,
29 U.S.C. § 411, are intangible rights which fall within the ambit
of the Hobbs Act. I further concluded that the Hobbs Act as construed in
this manner was not impliedly repealed by the enactment of the LMRDA,
and that conduct which is regulated or proscribed by the LMRDA may also
violate RICO. n9 RICO, like the LMRDA, is, I determined, legislation
intended to supplement the panoply of remedies designed to reach
racketeering.
Id. at 524-25.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n9 I specifically determined that § 530 of the LMRDA does not prohibit
the same conduct prohibited under the Hobbs Act. Since allegations of
Hobbs Act violations serve as predicate offenses in this action, I found
no merit in defendant's argument that paragraph 12(a) in essence made §
530 a predicate crime under RICO in violation of that statute's express
definition of "racketeering activity".
550 F. Supp. at 524.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[**17]
By order dated March 25, 1982, my former colleague the Honorable H.
Curtis Meanor directed that the plaintiff's request for preliminary and
final injunctive relief be merged pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2), and that the case proceed to final
judgment. On May 20, 1982, this matter was reassigned to me from Judge
Meanor.
The non-jury trial of this case began on January 25, 1983. The trial
encompassed fifty-one days of testimony, lasting through May 17, 1983,
the testimony comprising nearly 8,000 pages in transcript form. I have
carefully considered the live testimony, the exhibits and deposition
testimony admitted at trial, and the arguments of counsel. This
memorandum constitutes the court's decision, and includes the court's
findings of fact and conclusion of law pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).
I.
THE PARTIES
Defendant Local 560 is an unincorporated labor association which was
originally chartered on May 11, 1911 by the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters. It has its offices at 707 Summit Avenue in Union City, New
Jersey. As of May, 1982, it had approximately 10,000 members employed by
approximately 425 companies in the metropolitan New Jersey -- New York
area. As
[**18] such
it is a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting interstate
commerce within the meaning of Section 402 of Title 29 of the United
States Code.
Under its constitution, seven elective officers are charged with
managing the day to day affairs of Local 560. These officers are: a
president, a vice-president; recording secretary; secretary-treasurer;
and three trustees. These seven officers together constitute Local 560's
Executive Board. This Executive Board is generally authorized and
empowered to conduct and manage the affairs of the organization between
membership meetings.
Defendant Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc. and its
Pension Account are located in Local 560's building in Union City. The
funds were and are today welfare and pension benefit plans within the
meaning of Section 1002 of Title 29 of the United States Code. As such
they are subject to the provisions of the
[*288]
Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act (prior to approximately
September 2, 1974) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(after approximately September 2, 1974).
As noted previously, two other benefit plan entities were merged into
the Funds during May
[**19] of
1977. These were formerly known as the Trucking Employees of Passaic and
Bergen Counties Welfare Fund and the Trucking Employees of Passaic and
Bergen Counties Pension Fund. Both of these benefit plans were subject
to the provision of the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act at the
time of their merger into the Funds.
The Funds are controlled by a governing body which is composed of four
trustees appointed by the Executive Board of Local 560 and four trustees
appointed by two employer associations whose member companies have
collective bargaining agreements with Local 560. The current employee
trustees include defendant Salvatore Provenzano, defendant Stanley
Jaronko, and defendant Joseph Sheridan. n10
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n10 Thomas Reynolds, Sr. was a trustee of the Fund as of the time this
litigation commenced and for a period after the trial began, but has
since resigned.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Local 560 Officers and Employees Severance Pay Plan is also operated
out of Local 560's offices. It is an employee benefit plan within the
meaning
[**20] of
Section 1002 of Title 29 of the United States Code in that it provides
severance pay benefits to the employees of Local 560. The current
trustees of the Plan are Salvatore Provenzano and Josephine Provenzano.
A brief description of each of the remaining nine individual defendants
may be useful at this point. First, Salvatore "Sam" Provenzano has been
the President of Local 560 since approximately July of 1981, when the
Executive Board appointed him to that position. n11 Prior to that time
he had been employed by Local 560 as a Business Agent between
approximately November 10, 1959 and August 8, 1961; as a Trustee between
approximately August 8, 1961 and November of 1965, and again between
approximately January and May of 1966; as President between
approximately May of 1966 and November of 1975; and as the
Vice-President between approximately December of 1975 and July of 1981.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n11 This appointment was presumably made pursuant to the Executive
Board's authority to fill officer vacancies which occur during the term
of an office.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[**21]
Joseph Sheridan has been the Vice-President of Local 560 since
approximately July of 1981, when the Executive Board appointed him to
that position. Prior to that time he had been a Business Agent between
approximately July 7, 1972 and September 1, 1978, and thereafter a
Trustee between approximately September 1, 1978 and July of 1981.
Josephine Provenzano has been the Secretary-Treasurer of Local 560 since
approximately June of 1978, when the Executive Board appointed her to
that position. Prior to that time, she had been employed by Local 560 as
an office worker from 1976 until the time of her appointment. Josephine
Provenzano is the daughter of defendant Anthony Provenzano and the niece
of defendants Salvatore and Nunzio Provenzano.
J. W. Dildine has been the Recording Secretary of Local 560 since
approximately 1968, when the Executive Board appointed him to that
position. Prior to that time he had been employed by Local 560 as a
Business Agent between approximately 1963 and 1968.
Thomas Reynolds, Sr. has been a Trustee of Local 560 since February 9,
1977. Before that time, he was employed by Local 560 as a Business Agent
between September 24, 1970 and February 9, 1977.
[**22] He is
the brother-in-law of defendant Nunzio Provenzano and the father of
former Business Agent Andrew Reynolds.
Michael Sciarra has been a Trustee of Local 560 since May 28, 1981.
Prior to that time he was employed by Local 560 as a Business Agent
between July 7, 1972 and September 30, 1976, and again between December
of 1977 and May 28, 1981. Sciarra
[*289] has
been a member of Local 560 since approximately 1954.
Stanley Jaronko has been a Trustee of Local 560 since July 13, 1981.
Before that time, he served Local 560 in the capacity of Business Agent
between December 12, 1977 and February 19, 1981, and as a Trustee
between February 19 and May 28, 1981.
Stephen Andretta, who testified at trial pursuant to a grant of use
immunity under
18 U.S.C. §§ 6002 and 6003, was a Business Agent for Local 560
between approximately August of 1973 and October of 1976. His membership
in Local 560 dates from the early 1950's, and he held the position of
shop steward for Local 560 at Eazor Express Co. between the mid-1960's
and August of 1973, and again between approximately October of 1976 and
1980.
The evidence at trial indicated that Stephen Andretta had known
Salvatore Briguglio
[**23] for
over twenty years as of the early 1970's. Either through Salvatore
Briguglio or his brother Thomas, Stephen Andretta met Armand Faugno
sometime during the latter 1960's. Around 1971, notwithstanding his
position as a shop steward with Local 560, Stephen Andretta had an
ownership interest in West End Trucking Company, which was controlled at
least in part by Armand Faugno. Further, during the period between
approximately 1971 and late 1972, Stephen Andretta and Salvatore
Briguglio would not infrequently visit Armand Faugno at the latter's
place of business in Jersey City, New Jersey. During the early 1970's,
Stephen Andretta also knew Frederick Salvatore Furino, and was friendly
with Ralph Pellechia and Ralph Michael Picardo.
On February 22, 1979, Stephen Andretta was indicted in the District of
New Jersey, along with Anthony Provenzano, Thomas Andretta, Gabriel
Briguglio and Ralph Pelleccia, on RICO charges (specifically
18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d)) stemming
inter alia from the
demand for and receipt of "labor peace" payments from trucking companies
which serviced Seatrain Lines between 1969 and 1977 (Seatrain Labor
Peace Payoffs). On July 10, 1979, following his conviction,
[**24]
Stephen Andretta was sentenced to a ten-year term of imprisonment, which
he is currently serving.
See
United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 989 (3d Cir. 1980).
Gabriel Briguglio was a member and officer of Local 84 of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which has its offices at 1224
Anderson Avenue in Fort Lee, New Jersey, until March 31, 1980. Local 84
merged with Local 560 in May of 1980. n12
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n12 It should be noted that Gabriel Briguglio has as of yet not become a
member of Local 560 by virtue of or following the merger of these two
Locals.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gabriel Briguglio was indicted on February 22, 1979, in the District of
New Jersey, along with Anthony Provenzano and others, in the Seatrain
Labor Peace Payoffs case. On May 25, 1979, he was convicted of those
charges, and on July 10, 1979 he was sentenced to seven years of
imprisonment.
United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 989 (3d Cir. 1980).
As to the three individual defendants who have entered into consent
judgments in this matter, Anthony
[**25]
Provenzano was employed by Local 560 as a Business Agent between
approximately 1948 and 1958, as the President between approximately 1958
and May of 1966, and as Secretary-Treasurer between November 24, 1975
and June of 1978.
Anthony "Tony Pro" Provenzano's history is a long one. On November 15,
1960 he was indicted in the District of New Jersey on one count of Hobbs
Act Extortion
(18 U.S.C. § 1951) relating to the demand and receipt of what is
commonly known as "labor peace" payoffs from the Dorn Transportation
Company between 1952 and 1959. On July 12, 1963, having been convicted
on this count, Anthony Provenzano was sentenced to a term of seven
years. Between approximately May of 1966 and 1970 he was incarcerated on
that sentence.
During 1962, Anthony Provenzano was indicted again in the District of
New Jersey for Taft-Hartley violations
(28 U.S.C. § 186) relating to the wrongful receipt of a
[*290] house
from Eastern Freightways Company. These charges were, however, dismissed
during 1967.
In 1975, Anthony Provenzano was indicted in the Southern District of New
York for conspiracy to violate the anti-kickback statute
(18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1954) relating to a proposed
[**26] loan
from the Utica Teamsters Benefit Fund for the renovation of the
Woodstock Hotel. During July of 1978 he was convicted of these charges
and sentenced to a four year term of imprisonment.
On June 23, 1976, Provenzano was indicted in Ulster County, New York,
along with Salvatore Briguglio and Harold "K.O." Konigsberg, on charges
of conspiracy and murder (pursuant to New York Penal Law § 580-A and §
1044) relating to the 1961 death of Anthony Castellitto. On June 14,
1978, he was convicted on the murder count, while the conspiracy to
commit murder count was dismissed. On June 21, 1978, Anthony Provenzano
was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Finally, on February 22, 1979, Anthony Provenzano was indicted in the
District of New Jersey, along with Gabriel Briguglio, Stephen and Thomas
Andretta and Ralph Pellecchia on RICO charges in the Seatrain Labor
Peace Payoffs case. On May 25, 1977, he was convicted of these charges,
and, on July 10, 1979, he was sentenced to a twenty-year term of
imprisonment and remanded. He remains incarcerated on that conviction
today.
See
United States v. Provenzano, 605 F.2d 85 (3d Cir. 1979).
Nunzio Provenzano, the brother of Anthony and Salvatore
[**27]
Provenzano, was employed by Local 560 as a Business Agent between
approximately 1963 and August 6, 1966, as a clerk between approximately
1969 and 1970, again as a Business Agent between approximately 1970 and
January 25, 1973, as Secretary-Treasurer between approximately January
25, 1973 and November 24, 1975, and as President between approximately
November 24, 1975 and July of 1981.
On December 26, 1961, Nunzio Provenzano was indicted in New York County,
New York, along with Salvatore Briguglio and a third defendant, on
charges of conspiracy and Attempted Grand Larceny (New York Penal Law §
560 and 1294) flowing from a scheme to demand what might be
characterized as "labor peace" payments from the Braun Company and
Hubert J. Braun, Jr. during December of 1961 (Braun Payoff Demand). On
January 29, 1963, he was convicted of attempted grand larceny, and, on
March 5, 1963, he was sentenced to a term of two to four years. He
served this sentence in New York between approximately August of 1966
and February of 1969.
On September 4, 1980, Nunzio Provenzano was indicted in the District of
New Jersey, along with Irving Cotler, Salvatore Provenzano, and Michael
Sciarra, for RICO violations
[**28]
(specifically
18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d)) stemming from the wrongful demand and
receipt of "labor peace" payments from four trucking companies between
1971 and 1980, a series of incidents often referred to as the "City-Man
Labor Peace Payoffs." On May 5, 1981, Nunzio Provenzano was convicted on
these charges, and, on July 7, 1981, he was sentenced to a ten-year term
of imprisonment. He is presently incarcerated on this conviction.
Finally, Thomas Andretta, the brother of Stephen Andretta, has been a
member of Local 560 during several periods since 1955, including from
approximately August 30, 1955 through November 30, 1956; from October
29, 1959 through January 15, 1960; from January 10, 1962 through
November 29, 1965; and from February 27, 1978 through July of 1979.
On March 31, 1967, Thomas Andretta was indicted in Middlesex County, New
Jersey, along with Armand Faugno, for having used threats to injure in
the collection of a loan between March 13 and 23, 1967, in violation of
N.J.S.A. 2A:105-4 (Middlesex County Loansharking Transaction).
See
State v. Andretta, 61 N.J. 544, 545, 296 A.2d 644 (1972). On
May 17, 1973, Thomas Andretta pleaded guilty to that charge. On July
[**29] 10,
1973, he was sentenced to
[*291] serve
from one to two and a half years in prison.
During early 1968, while free on bail in the Middlesex County
Loansharking Transaction case, Thomas Andretta was indicted in the
District of New Jersey, along with Frederick Salvatore Furino, on
charges of Theft from Interstate Shipment, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 659, relating to the theft of Skil Tools at the Canny
Trucking terminal during January of 1968 (Skil Tools theft). Following
his guilty plea in that case he was, on or about April 17, 1969,
sentenced to a one year term of imprisonment and remanded.
On July 22, 1971, Thomas Andretta was indicted in the District of New
Jersey, along with Salvatore Briguglio, Armand Faugno and three others,
on counterfeiting charges under
18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 472 474 (Counterfeiting case). He later plead
guilty and, on July 10, 1973, was sentenced to fourteen months of
imprisonment.
During the early 1970's except when he was incarcerated, Thomas
Andretta, along with Ralph Picardo, was a regular and not infrequent
visitor to the Local 560 offices, where he and Ralph Picardo were hosted
by Salvatore Briguglio. During roughly this period -- between
[**30]
approximately 1970 and late 1972, Thomas Andretta was apparently
employed by Armand Faugno.
On February 22, 1979, Thomas Andretta was indicted in the District of
New Jersey, along with Anthony Provenzano and others, in the Seatrain
Labor Peace Payoffs case. Following his conviction in that matter, he
was sentenced on July 10, 1979 to a twenty-year term of imprisonment.
United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 989 (3d Cir. 1980).
He is currently incarcerated on this sentence.
The other individuals who figure in this matter, but who are not named
as defendants, include Robert A. Luizzi, who has been a Business Agent
for Local 560 since September of 1978. Prior to that time he was
employed by the Local as a clerk between approximately 1960 and 1963, as
a Business Agent between 1964 and 1967, and as a Trustee between May 15,
1967 and November of 1980. Luizzi also held the position of Trustee for
the Funds from March 12, 1974 until November of 1980.
Salvatore Briguglio had been a member of Local 560 since the 1950's and
was employed by it as a Business Agent from September of 1961 to August
5, 1966; from April 25, 1969 to June of 1973; and again from February of
1974 until
[**31] his
death on March 21, 1978. Salvatore Briguglio also held the position of
Trustee of the Passaic and Bergen Funds from 1972 until June of 1973 and
from early 1974 until January 25, 1975.
On December 26, 1961, Salvatore Briguglio was indicted in New York
County, New York, along with Nunzio Provenzano on the Braun Payoff
Demand scheme. He was convicted of Attempted Grand Larceny and was
incarcerated in New York between approximately August of 1966 and
February of 1969 on that conviction.
On July 22, 1971, Salvatore Briguglio was indicted in the District of
New Jersey, along with Thomas Andretta, Armand Faugno and three others,
in the counterfeiting case. Following his plea of guilty on these
charges, he was sentenced on July 10, 1973 to a term of fourteen months
of imprisonment. Salvatore Briguglio was incarcerated on this sentence
until approximately February of 1974.
Between the late 1960's and the mid-1970's, except during the periods
when he was incarcerated, Salvatore Briguglio often socialized at the
Chateau Renaissance Restaurant in Hudson County, New Jersey, a place
also frequented by Stephen and Thomas Andretta, Armand Faugno, Frederick
Salvatore Furino and Ralph Michael
[**32]
Picardo. Salvatore Briguglio's involvement with Picardo and the
Provenzano Group is also exemplified by the fact that during the period
of the Seatrain payoffs, Salvatore Briguglio promoted the interests of
Picardo by persuading Salvatore Provenzano to facilitate a meeting
between Picardo and Thomas Durkin (Seatrain's attorney) so that Picardo
could drum up additional
[*292]
business for Picardo's trucking company.
On June 23, 1976, Salvatore Briguglio was indicted in Ulster County, New
York, along with Anthony Provenzano and Harold Konigsberg for the 1961
Castellitto murder. On March 21, 1978, while under indictment in that
case, Salvatore Briguglio was shot to death on Mulberry Street in New
York, New York.
Armand Faugno was indicted on March 31, 1967, along with Thomas
Andretta, in the Middlesex County Loansharking Transaction case.
State v. Andretta, 61 N.J. 544, 545, 296 A.2d 644 (1972). On
July 22, 1971, Faugno was indicted in the District of New Jersey, along
with Salvatore Briguglio, Thomas Andretta and three others, in the
Counterfeiting case. n13 During December of 1972, while under indictment
in both of these cases, Armand Faugno "disappeared."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n13 While the exhibits relating to these two indictments may have
inadvertently or incorrectly been ruled inadmissible during the trial in
this matter, Salvatore Provenzano's testimony provides an alternative
basis for my findings of fact on these matters.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[**33]
Ralph Michael Picardo was a member of Local 560, as well as being the
principal operating officer of several trucking companies, including
Lift-Van Transport. Picardo was a friend and associate of Stephen
Andretta and had an affiliation with Seatrain Lines.
On February 22, 1979, Ralph Pellecchia was indicted, along with Anthony
Provenzano and others, in the Seatrain case. On April 26, 1979, he
pleaded guilty to related tax charges contained in that indictment. On
July 2, 1979, he was sentenced to two and a half years of imprisonment.
Frederick Salvatore Furino was, during the late 1960's and early 1970's,
a friend and associate of Stephen Andretta, Thomas Andretta, Salvatore
Briguglio, and Michael Sciarra, and knew Ralph Picardo. In March of
1968, Furino was indicted in the District of New Jersey in the Skil
Tools Case. Later, during the latter part of the 1970's, Furino operated
a trucking company which provided non-union labor to the Canny Trucking
operation which was under contract to Local 560. On June 11, 1982, the
body of Frederick Salvatore Furino was recovered. The crime has never
been solved.
Finally, Salvatore Sinno played a prominent role at trial as one of the
[**34]
government's chief witnesses. Sinno, a self-described criminal, was an
early associate of the Provenzanos and their friends.
CREDIBILITY FINDINGS
Salvatore (Sam) Provenzano
During the course of his direct testimony Salvatore Sinno was asked
about Salvatore Provenzano:
Q Did you ever engage in any illegal activity with Salvatore
Provenzano?
A No.
Q Did you ever talk to Salvatore Provenzano about illegal activity?
A No.
Q Mr. Sinno, did you ever receive any instruction from Anthony
Provenzano about what you could or should talk to Salvatore
Provenzano about?
A Yeah, they -- he never wanted Salvatore Provenzano, to get
involved in anything illegal. We discussed that many a times, yes.
Q Can you tell us specifically what Mr. Anthony Provenzano's
instructions to you were?
A He wanted to keep him more or less clean. He didn't want to get
him involved in any way or other in illegal activities.
Q Did he give you the reason that, as you put it, he wanted to keep
Salvatore Provenzano clean?
A Well, I imagine --
MR. WEISSBARD: Objection.
THE COURT: Don't imagine. Objection sustained. Answer the question.
A Yes. He [**35]
mentioned that quite often, in regard, he didn't want Salvatore
Provenzano with any kind of a record or anything, but, for the
Union's sake.
[*293] Sam
Provenzano presently is an International Vice President of the Teamsters
Union, President of Joint Council #73, and President of Local 560. He
thus wields great power on a national as well as local level.
He is intelligent, affable and likeable. Had Sam Provenzano decided to
shed the company he has kept for at least 25 years, there is little
doubt in my mind that he would occupy a prominent place on labor's scene
today.
The evidence is highly persuasive that from the late 50's on into the
70's, Anthony (Tony Pro) Provenzano, ran this union with an iron hand
whether in or out of prison or office. Sam and Nunzio played musical
chairs in minding the store for Tony to satisfy the technical
requirements of the law.
At some point in the 70's Sam came into his own. With power at his
fingertips, he ran the show and still does. Did he stay "more or less"
clean as Sinno had testified? He did not. Most of the time he helped to
steer the ship the way Tony wanted it and made sure the same crew
remained on board.
I listened in
[**36]
amazement to him persistently proclaim his belief in the innocence of
his brothers and other members of this criminal syndicate with respect
to various crimes that they had been convicted of or pled guilty to.
Was he naive, blind or deaf? No. Salvatore Provenzano, in my judgment,
knows the truth and is oblivious to it.
Why? A revealing answer was provided on April 27, 1983 when he was asked
on cross examination:
Q Today, given all that has happened with Local 560 and all the
indictments and this civil complaint and everything like that, if
another indictment came down like the Seatrain indictment, would
you, today, think it a prudent thing as the president of the union
to make an inquiry to try and find out what the circumstances were
with respect to the union contract and the alleged violation of the
contract?
A To answer your question, yes. If I would have done it by reading
the indictment is something else. I think it is prudent. I thought I
answered that before, that I started to check out what was going on.
Q Okay.
A I never denied that. What I am saying is I didn't bother to read
the indictments. But I was interested in what took place.
Q [**37] All
right, sir.
Now, I think I understand you. You were interested then -- you were
interested at the time of Seatrain in what was going on?
A Yes. Because my brother was involved, and I couldn't see how he
was involved in the situation. That was my main concern.
Q Your brother?
A Yes, sir.
Q As opposed to the union?
A He comes first. I will say that.
(emphasis supplied)
He still does. For Sam Provenzano inherited a legacy of corruption which
has been preserved by him to this very day. In speaking of Tony in
partial response to my question he said: "He would never do anything to
hurt this membership."
The record is otherwise.
JOSEPHINE PROVENZANO
Miss Provenzano, daughter of Anthony Provenzano, has been the
Secretary-Treasurer of Local 560 since 1978 when she was elected to that
office at the age of 23 to succeed her father who had been convicted of
murder. She presently earns $64,000 per year plus perks.
She has an engaging personality and has no illusions as to why she was
appointed. She said:
A . . . what motivated them to do that, I have to say it is because
-- not only that I was a Provenzano, that counts for weight, but [**38] I was
Tony's daughter. See, [*294]
there is only one Tony to them. Now, there was a big issue in this
case as to what members believe, what they read in papers or don't
they believe, were they influenced by it? I have to tell you the
truth. I don't think they would have cared if it was true or not
true. Because they know what he did for them. To them, in their
minds, what did the press ever do for me? What did the government
ever do for me? They take my taxes and they go on about a whole
platform of things they disagree with the government. Look what Tony
did for me. He gave me pensions, eyeglasses, he gave me dental. I
have welfare payments. He saw me on the street and took me in the
bar. We had a drink. He remembered my wife's name. He asked me how
my daughter was, that had the concussion in the hospital. There is
something about my father, sir, -- not that you can't get mad at
him. You can get mad at him. There is something about the man. I
mean you can't understand until you're like one of the guys from
560. They just -- I would have never believed it, if I wasn't in
those meetings and I didn't hear those people go wild about him. I
mean they liked him, [**39] but
it is just incredible to me. It is just absolutely incredible to me.
And to them, I am Tony's daughter . . . .
There can be, to the members of Local 560, no higher recommendation
in this entire world. And if I don't believe that, well, I wouldn't
be here right now because I wouldn't be a member of the executive
board of Local 560.
It is -- I don't know how to put it into words. It is more like an
emotion you feel. He has an uncanny ability of making people relax,
and making them know he cares. He is not a big deal. He is not very
well-educated, book-wise. He might have gone to the fourth or fifth
grade. But you give him a contract, he can read it. I don't know how
he can read it. He just can. You put him in a room with 500 truck
drivers. Nobody in this world is going to talk to them that they
will understand more than my father. You put him in a room with
ladies, and you never see him. My girlfriends -- when my father --
there is articles in the papers or -- they cry. They call me on the
phone in tears. 'How could they say that about your father?'
I tell them, 'Hey, listen, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
You know better. Don't cry. Don't get upset. Don't [**40] read
it. That's all.'
He just commands such love and respect, and admiration and loyalty,
not only from his family, but from the members of Local 560. Anyone
that comes into contact with him. I don't know what else to say,
your Honor. I mean, I don't even know if I expressed myself properly
or adequately, but that is just how I feel. I am so proud to be my
father's daughter. [Emphasis supplied].
Whatever experience Miss Provenzano lacks, she makes up in candor. Her
understandable love for her father transcends everything else.
STANLEY JARONKO
As pointed out previously, Mr. Jaronko has been a member of the Local
since 1949 and a business agent since 1977. He was a shop steward for 17
years. He is a trustee of the union and a union representative to the
Trucking Employees of North Jersey Fund (TENJ).
He was asked:
Q Have you, to the best of your knowledge, ever done anything that a
member might think was designed to intimidate him from coming to
meetings or speaking out his mind?
A Nope, never did it. Never will.
He was asked:
Q Mr. Jaronko, if Nunzio Provenzano was able to come back to the
union tomorrow, you as one member of the Executive [**41] Board
would vote him on in a minute, I take it, right?
A Yeah. I believe there is a law that he can come back. But after he
does what is he supposed to do? Yes, I would.
[*295] Q
And if that law didn't exist and he could come back tomorrow, you
would take him back tomorrow, right?
A Yes. And I believe the members will, too.
Q And you would do the same thing with Anthony Provenzano, assuming
he could come back tomorrow, you would take him back tomorrow?
A Yes.
With respect to the Maislin Terminal incident involving Local 560 member
August Muller, described
infra, I find Mr. Jaronko's testimony
unconvincing and his version of the story unbelievable.
A careful review of Mr. Jaronko's testimony reveals that, with one
exception, he steadfastly refused to accept a verdict of guilty
involving the Provenzanos. His rationale -- they were convicted on the
testimony of an informer.
Overall, I found Mr. Jaronko to be fiercely loyal to the Provenzanos,
completely indifferent to the history of criminal activity on the part
of various individuals, including Anthony and Nunzio Provenzano. Mr.
Jaronko's fealty to the present regime is steadfast beyond question.
[**42] His
testimony left much to be desired.
J. W. DILDINE
A business agent of Local 560 and Recording Secretary since 1968, Mr.
Dildine impressed me as an intelligent individual who in retrospect
"sold himself to the devil" twenty years ago when he agreed to come to
work for Anthony Provenzano as a business agent.
He testified in an extremely lucid manner when confronted with the
sordid history of the local and its leaders. He was calm and for a time
quite impressive and persuasive.
He testified as follows:
THE COURT: What is your feeling regarding all these involvements
affecting Mr. Nunzio Provenzano?
THE WITNESS: My personal feeling is that I would have to judge Nunzio
Provenzano as well as Salvatore Provenzano and Anthony Provenzano in my
personal contact with them and my personal relationship with them.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
THE WITNESS: It has always been one of a strict business, from the
office. Over the years we had grown, I guess, close because of our
business association, within that office.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
THE WITNESS: Outside of that office, we did no, how would I put it,
personal contact where we socialized or whatever. I came on the scene as
a, as,
[**43] the
expression, a new kid on the block. I had to prove myself. I came in
through the appointment of Mr. Anthony Provenzano. I dug in. I worked
hard. I tried to repay that appointment by dedication and hard work. So
my association with these gentlemen were always above board.
They never asked me to be involved in any kind of skullduggery, nor was
I ever aware that there was any skullduggery.
It was strictly, in that office, as even today, these people worked very
hard. They put in a lot of hours, and they really tried to do the job
for the membership.
So in answer to your question, your Honor, I don't know that there has
ever been a time that I, and I have had many conversations with Anthony
as well as Nunzio, when he was the President, and even today, Salvatore,
and their main concern was and is today getting the job done and beyond
that, I don't know what more I can say.
THE COURT: All right. Would it be fair then to conclude that, insofar as
Nunzio is concerned, Nunzio Provenzano, that you don't believe he was
ever involved in any skullduggery, to use your expression?
THE WITNESS: To my knowledge, no, sir.
THE COURT: And you believe in his innocence?
THE WITNESS:
[**44] Yes,
sir.
THE COURT: Okay, Now --
[*296] THE
WITNESS: That was in the June thing. The other one, that is another
matter.
THE COURT: Well, I presume that your opinion is the same with respect to
the union conviction?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: The most recent conviction?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. You were here when the government produced this
Professor Summers, were you not?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Were you in the room?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I was.
THE COURT: Do you recall him testifying one day that, and I am
paraphrasing it now, that, so you will forgive me, Mr. Dildine, that,
it's just not natural, based on his expertise in unions, particularly
after the state conviction, for nobody to come out and say, 'he done
wrong.' Forgive my English.
What is your reaction to that, to someone who is no longer the new kid
on the block?
THE WITNESS: My reaction, I was asked I think at the very beginning of
my testimony yesterday what my educational background was, and compared
to Professor Summers, I guess, my formal education is rather in remiss.
However, I guess, I have had 55 years at the school of hard knocks, and
it's
[**45] to --
to try to compare his analyzation from a classroom type of projection,
you have to live it, you have to be a part of it.
You have to be on the firing line. You have to be up front. You have to
deal with these problems on a daily situation. Mr. Anthony Provenzano is
a very unique personality. He has a charisma about him that he could
relate to those people sitting out there in the meetings, in the meeting
rooms. To try to dissect what the professor had to say about it, when
you asked him what he thought, in his learned position, would be the
remedy, his analyzation, without ever meeting me, without every talking
to me, knowing me and my background, my family, or any of the other
people that I work with, his immediate response was to remove everybody
from office, right now, and appoint a trustee, and through cross
examination by Mr. Briguglio, he brought out the fact that he had been
offered the job as that trustee by the government.
And I am sitting over there, your Honor, and I am a kid from the poor
side of the block, and it's for, for me, it's a frightening thing to be
confronted, and to be sitting in this seat here as a defendant and be
charged with violations of
[**46] the
Hobbs Act, where I extorted members, and to be in violation of
everything that is holy, as far as being a union representative goes.
And to be charged by the United States Government in this, it's
frightening, and I will tell you something, I have spent many hours on
this, and I could probably walk away tomorrow with a small retirement,
but I wouldn't do it under these conditions, because I have never, in my
past, have done anything to deserve this type of treatment, not from the
Government, or anyone else, or the members that I serve.
THE COURT: Do you feel it is a vendetta?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I do, to the 'nth' degree, I think. I have been
associated with the people in my office for some 20 years.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
THE WITNESS: And there have been convictions. There have been millions
of dollars spent, of taxpayers money. They have, they don't have to
answer to anyone for this, to my knowledge.
They have unlimited time. We are here today having to defend ourselves,
we have to pay for our own counsel fees, and there are those among us,
your Honor, that, we are in financially terrible shape.
Some of us may have to mortgage our homes in order to pay our legal
[**47] fees.
But even in the face of that, I can stand here
[*297] and I
can look at these three gentlemen, eyeball to eyeball. I can look at
Mr., what is his name, Dumont, and I can look at you, your Honor, and
tell you that I have not, nor have my associates, sitting here today,
since we have been in office, violated any law, federal or otherwise.
Anybody can sit back and Monday morning quarterback and say, why did you
appoint young Josephine or why did you do this. But these were done in
good faith, forthright, and whatever, and each one of these things, I
have partaken in it, I have participated in it, but I do not bow my head
to this court, from any actions that I have taken.
Anyone can say, well, look, here was Tony got convicted, Nunzio was
convicted, Sal Briguglio was convicted. You brought these people back to
work. Why did you do these things? Why was he given a raise in pay? Why
was he given a half pension? And all those things, your Honor, if you
had the luxury of time, if you could attend one of our meetings,
unannounced, and just sit in a corner where they won't know who you
were, you would see the response of those members.
It's not choreographed. Our people
[**48] stand
up for what they think they want. We are mandated by their actions. The
raise in pay came from them, the half salary came from them, and each
one of these items, it was not a frivolous type of action by the
executive board or whatever. All these items were checked out legally.
We got legal opinions as to whether or not we could do these things. All
these pay raises and whatever, or back pay that was owed. It was
reported on the tax report, the LM 2's or whatever.
This is not a secret, your Honor.
These people, they came in here and they try to, they bring in people to
testify that I have never met, I don't know anything about them, they
don't know anything about me, and yet they would try to sway this court,
and you are the judge, and you are the jury and the trier of fact in
this, and it will be your opinion, is what will weigh heavy to we as a
group, and I say to you, you Honor, that we, as a group, have not
indulged as a board, in any kind of violation of our members' rights.
Now, I was rather longwinded, but --
THE COURT: It's all right.
THE WITNESS: But I feel, your Honor, there are things that you must
know.
THE COURT: I am interested in this.
THE WITNESS:
[**49] I feel
that --
THE COURT: Tell me about the present President, Salvatore Provenzano.
Tell me about him. He is here in the Courtroom?
THE WITNESS: Salvatore Provenzano is the President of our Local Union.
He is also the President of the Joint Council for it, in the State of
New Jersey.
He has been the Secretary for the Eastern Conference of Teamsters, whose
main office is in Bethesda, Maryland and he is also an International
Vice President.
THE COURT: Of the International --
THE WITNESS: Of the International.
THE COURT: Right.
THE WITNESS: And he wears many hats, he has a wide variety of
responsibilities.
And through the years that Mr. Salvatore Provenzano has been delegated
to these authorities, of course, his knowledge, has expended immensely
because he has been exposed to many more things on a national level and
the conference level than those of us in the local, of course, are not
exposed to.
He has been on the firing line through negotiations, top level. So all
these experiences that he has acquired over the years, he has been there
I guess since the early 1960 or 1961, so he has had twenty some years as
an officer and he was also a member prior to that as
[**50] a
driver, and his expertise has come over the so-called road of hard
knocks, too.
He has earned disappointments. He has earned his way.
And those in the higher authority have evidently seen things that his
leadership
[*298]
ability and they have appointed him into those offices, originally as a
Vice President, International, and since that time, he has also run in
elections and he has been re-elected.
So my appraisal of Mr. Provenzano, not because he is sitting here,
because over the 20 years we have not always agreed on things.
But we argue these things out at board meetings and we come to a
conclusion. He has been one that has always, in my, to my knowledge, has
requested the members to take a part, an active part. He even tells us
in the board meetings, if you got something to say, say it.
So my association with him has been, as with Anthony and Nunzio, has
been always with a great deal of respect, and I hope that the respect is
a two-way street.
THE COURT: Is he popular?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, he is very popular.
* * *
THE COURT: Okay.
Have you observed any political dissidence insofar as his tenure as a
union office holder is concerned?
THE WITNESS:
[**51] No,
sir, I think that over the years, of course, when Anthony Provenzano was
first taken away from the membership, and then Salvatore, we call him
Sam, so I will refer to him as Sam.
THE COURT: Sam, I gathered that. I am observing the formalities.
THE WITNESS: Sam took over the reins. I think there was a period of time
that the members, well, they were, you know -- he was Sammy's -- Tony's
brother, but in a very short time, I think that they recognized his
ability and his zeal for the job, and as time went on, of course, he
went, he was appointed a general organizer, and then from that, of
course, he was made an international vice-president, and of course, this
gave our local a great deal of recognition to the rest of the Country.
He was a part of that recognition, because of his dedication to the job,
and I think that Sam probably puts as much energy into this job as, and
maybe more, than most international vice-presidents.
THE COURT: So what you are telling the Court is he has earned his own
spurs?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, without question, and I don't say it because he
is sitting here.
I did not get the impression that Mr. Dildine was completely comfortable
with the role
[**52] he
assumed. History teaches us that every so often those that keep their
mouths shut, and eyes and ears closed in the face of evil are called to
account. In a way his culpability is greater than most others. He really
should have known better. By his inaction he facilitated the spread of
the disease. As Edmund Burke stated in a letter to William Smith dated
January 19, 1795, "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is
for good men to do nothing."
Mr. Dildine spoke glowingly of his father's role in labor's struggles
against the Ford Motor Company in the 30's. When he decided to leave his
job as a terminal manager in 1963 and accept Tony Provenzano's offer he
reflected:
Q When did your next discussion take place and what did you do about
it in the meantime, if anything?
A Well, in the meantime, of course, I had a lot of sleepless nights,
I guess you would call it, because I had worked pretty hard at what
I was doing, and I was trying to get ahead in life, I guess you
would call it, and I felt that there was a future for me in that
job, although I was being underpaid, I felt that the pay would come
eventually if I really proved myself out. With the title [**53] comes
the pay, I guess, but I felt that, well, I would like to get
involved in this, and I did a lot of thinking about this, because my
history as a young kid, I go back, back in the thirties during the
Depression years, and my father, he worked for Ford Motor Company in
Detroit, and he was one of the first three men to be fired for union
activities back during that period.
[*299] And
I recalled it and I relived that over and over again, and the fact
that he was almost killed several times leading the pickets against,
at that time, a company that was so big you just could never beat
it. And he was one of the leaders of that strike. He was part of the
so-called walkway, where they drop buckets with lead in the bottom
on the pickets, when they brought in strike breakers and whatever.
And I recall during those days as a kid walking picket lines with my
father, and those were hard days, when unions were starting. I never
forgot those days.
So that had a lot to do, I think, with my decision, and I thought
deeply and I talked with my family about it, and whatever, and it is
going to be a whole new change of life, lifestyle, and I also felt
that, hey, my father would have been [**54] proud
of me. So that had a lot to do with it.
It is difficult to reconcile his professed idealism with the record.
SALVATORE SINNO
Mr. Sinno is a former racketeer, one of the murderers of Anthony
Castellitto, and was the chief witness against Tony Provenzano and
others at the murder trial. In this case he also assumed a prominent
role in furnishing the court with a graphic account of how it all began.
His testimony linking Anthony and Nunzio Provenzano to one of the most
notorious crime families in New York, and his recitation of a pattern of
intimidation and criminal activity which accompanied the takeover of
Local 560 had the stamp of credibility. Sinno, a huge man, seemed right
out of central casting. As I listened to his tale, it was obvious that
this was the real life version of that cinematic presentation "On the
Waterfront."
Sam Provenzano in the course of his testimony in exculpating his
brother, spoke of various stupid mistakes Tony had made in various
criminal entanglements which had landed him in prison. The biggest
mistake Tony ever made may have been to initiate Sinno into his criminal
fraternity. Sinno's testimony in this case was extremely valuable.
[**55] The
past is truly prologue.
JOSEPH SHERIDAN
Shop Steward since 1965, Business Agent since 1972, Trustee since 1978,
and Vice President of 560 since 1981. Mr. Sheridan presented a picture
of an individual whose family had taken an active role in the union in
the pre-Provenzano period and who had inherited the mantle. The other
business agents, Mr. Sheridan appeared to me to feel very comfortable
with his earnings of $995 per week. He is not a boat rocker. When asked
about Nunzio Provenzano he said:
A Sir, if you know Mr. Provenzano, Nunzio Provenzano like I know him,
and I know him quite a few years, I don't believe those allegations.
I know him to be an excellent labor leader for his people, a good family
man and a man I would be very proud to recognize in the morning. I don't
believe them.
Q And if he were eligible to serve tomorrow, you, as trustee and
vice-president of the Local, would bring him back tomorrow?
A I would be happy to.
When asked about Anthony Provenzano he said:
A Sir, let me go back. I only served a couple of years with Mr. Anthony
Provenzano. I believe he came back in '75 to '78. I was on '72, he
wasn't there. So my experience with Anthony
[**56]
Provenzano is only as a member of Local 560 for that period of time.
I know the men idolized him and I can see why they idolized him. He was
a man, he come off the trucks the hard way. I don't think that is
something, I think I said in my testimony, I said the man has charisma
that I wish I had. I don't have it. He is the type of man that can walk
in a room with 5,000 hard hats could be in there, and he is
well-respected no matter where he goes, because I don't think there is a
man in our union, or in the labor
[*300]
movement, that can say anything against him, about this man.
He is a fighter. He fights hard. And I will give you an example like I
respect him for. I think he just was incarcerated and he come out for a
short time. I think it was a two-week period.
Q Which incarceration?
A I think, I don't know if it is on the murder one or on the Seatrain.
He was out for about -- a couple of weeks. And with all on that man's
mind, and any conversation I had with Mr. Provenzano was hello, how are
you, and nothing other than that.
I am telling this Court today, your Honor, just the way I feel about
this man. I am choked up about it, that is the type of guy
[**57] he
was. He would come down to my desk. He says 'Joey, how are you? I am
sorry to hear your wife has cancer.' He says, 'Anything I can do to help
you, let me know.' I said, 'I appreciate it, Mr. Provenzano.' He says,
'Hang in there and do the best you can.'
That's the type of guy he is, with all that is on his mind, somebody
else might not even think of it, but he thought, just a little something
like that, that little charisma like that man has. Tomorrow morning, if
you let him out of jail he would win the election overwhelmingly, with
all the supervision you want to put up, he would walk away with the
election.
THE COURT: If you felt he murdered Castellitto, would you still feel the
same way?
THE WITNESS: No, I wouldn't.