(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Investigation of improper activities in the labor or management field. Hearings before the Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field"

rE" 



cKo 



_p U, S. SUPT. OF DOCUMENTS 



"^ 




3^ 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT PIELD 

EIGHTY-SIXTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 
PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTION 44, 86TH CONGRESS 



JULY 1, 6, 7, 8, AND 9, 1959 



PART 55 



Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Improper Activities in the 
Labor or Management Field 




INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPROPEE ACTIVITIES IN THE 

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 

EIGHTY-SIXTH CONGKESS 

FIRST SESSION 
PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTION 44, 86TH CONGRESS 



JULY 1, 6, 7, 8, AND 9, 1959 



PART 55 



Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Improper Activities in the 
Labor or Management Field 




UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
36751 WASHINGTON : 1959 



Boston Public Library 
Superintendent of Documents 

DEC 1 4 1959 
DEPOSITORY 



SELECT COMMITTEE ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR OR 
MANAGEMENT FIELD 

JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman 
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota, Vice Chairman 
JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts BARRY GOLD WATER, Arizona 

SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska 

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho HOMER E. CAPEHART, Indiana 

Robert F. Kennedy, Chief Counsel 
Jebome S. Adlerman, Assistant Chief Ctunael 
RtJTH Young Watt, Chief Clerk 



CONTENTS 



James R. Hoffa and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America 

(Second Series) Page 

Appendix 19493 

Testimony of — 

Abatk, Dominic 19272 

Adelizzi, Joseph 1 9297 

Aporta, John A 19243, 19265, 19268 

Bender, George H 19420, 19427 

Blaustein, Frances 19222, 19225 

Castellito, Anthony 19269 

Clark, Cecil 19272 

Clark, Everett 19272 

Cohen, Raymond 1 9225 

Colling, Kenneth 19280 

Communale, Michael G 19286 

Curtis, Gilbert K 19462 

Daley, Theodore G 19339 

Dearwester, William 1 9483 

Dennis, R. I 19408, 19413 

Dorn, Walter A 19246 

Dranow, Benjamin 19270 

Eichhold, Louis A 19472 

Fagan, Thomas L 19403 

Frobe, Otto H 19472 

Furman, Arthur 19151, 19154 

Glimco, Joseph P 19280 

Gordon, Abe 19207, 19221 

Gotfredson, Robert B 19408, 19413 

Grabowski, Richard '- 19396 

Helm, Carl 19254 

Hinkley, Hershell S 19452 

Holt, Milton 19201,19204, 19205 

Hughes, J. William, Jr 19234 

Jacobson, William 1 9258 

Kaplan, Arthur G 19489 

Kopeckv, George M 19171, 19181, 19204 

Llovd, Joseph P 19147 

Luken, James T 19355, 19394 

- Martin, George H 19170, 19223 

Matheson, Carney D 19309, 19325 

Maxwell, George S 19485 

Mead, John W., Sr 19472 

O'Neill, Patrick J 19310, 19325 

Pickett, Scoti 19440 

Pitman, Arthur 19239 

Provenzano, Anthony 19264, 19268 

Roth, Harold 1 19184 

Salinger, Pierre E. G 19394 

Schneier, Arthur 19208 

Schultz, Walter 19472 

Sheridan, Walter J 19413, 19458, 19470 

m 



rv 



CONTENTS 



Testimony of — Continued ^*s® 

Sternberg, Herbert S 19184 

Tierney, Paul G 19146, 19154, 19157, 19205 

Topazio, Anthony 19332 

Willse, Sherman S 19218 

Wurms, Ivan 19160 

Yockey, Kirkwood 19440 

Young, James 19472 



(*) 
(*) 

19155 (*) 

19163 (*) 

(*) 
(*) 

19180 (*) 



EXHIBITS 

Introduced 
on page 

38. Telegram dated April 11, 1954, addressed to Dave Beck, 

international president, International Brotherhood of 
Teamsteis, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, 
Seattle, Wash., from .\rthur Furman, business mana- 
ger, local union 133, Middletown, N.Y 19153 

38A. Telegram dated April 11, 1954, addressed to President 
Dave Beck, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Seattle, Wash., 
from Russell T. Gardner, Building & Construction 
Trades Council 23, Middletown, N. Y 19153 

38B. Letter dated April 20, 1954, addressed to Arthur Fur- 
man, business manager. Local Union No. 133, IBEW, 
Middletown, N. Y., from David Kaplan 19154 

38C. Telegram dated April 23, 1954, addressed to David 
Kaplan, Washington, D.C., from Russell T. Gardner, 
president, Middletown Building Trades Council 23, 
Middletown, N.Y 

39. Application for motor car loan and agreement, dated 

January 20, 1956, made by Bernard Blaustein (in the 
name of Bernard B. Barton) 

40. Dues book No. 2396, of Local 649, United Auto Workers 

Union 19169 

41. Affidavit of Frank Abrams, New York, N.Y 19178 

42. Records and checks in bulk regarding the loan transac- 

tions of Milton Holt 

43. Letter dated November 3, 1958, addressed to James R. 

Hoffa, from Milton Holt, secretary-treasurer, local 
805 

44. Trust agreement, dated September 15, 1950, establishing 

local 805 welfare fund 

45. Records from the Concord Hotel, Kiamesha Lake, N.Y., 

showing charges for Mr. and Mrs. Tom Dioguardi 
and Mr. and Mrs. John Dioguardi 

46. Photograph of Mr. and Mrs. Raymond Cohen with the 

tuna catch 19229 

46A. Photograph of Raymond Cohen at the Tuna Club 19232 

47. Prescriptions wirtten by Dr. J. William Hughes, Jr., for 

Raymond Cohen 

48. Check No. 3053, dated December 20, 1954, payable to 

Cash in the amount of $2,500 drawn by J. Pitman Co., 
Inc 

49. Check in bulk of various dates, payable to Michael G. 

Communale, drawn by Dorn's Transportation, Inc., 
amounting to approximately $14,000 

50. Letter dated August 10, 1953, addressed to Mr. Michael 

G. Communale, from W. A. Dorn, vice president, 

Dorn's Transportation, Inc 19252 

51. Photograph of Everett Clarke 19278 

52. Copv of the Illinois Teamster News, special edition. 

May 1959 19279 

53. Envelope showing the handwriting of Orestes Ciccarelli_- 19294 
54A. Letter dated Fel)ruary 18, 1957, addressed to Michael 

Communale, attorney at law, from Walter A. Dorn, 
president, Dorn's Transportation, Inc 19294 

•May be found in the flics of the select committee. 



Appears 
on page 



(*) 



19205 
19212 



(*) 
(*) 



19217 (*) 



(*) 
(*) 



19237 (*) 



19242 19493 



19251 (*) 



19494 

(*) 

(*) 
(*) 



19495 



CONTENTS 



Introduced Appears 
on page on page 

54B. Letter dated February 25, 1957, addressed to Michael 
G. Communale, Esq., from Edward J. Patton, secre- 
tary of state. State of New Jersey 19294 19496 

54C. Letter dated February 21, 1957, addressed to Hon. E. J. 
Patton, secretary of state, re Dorn's Transportation, 
Inc., from Micha"el G. Commimale 19295 19497 

54D. Letter dated February 28, 1957, addressed to Dorn's 

Transportation, Inc., from Michael G. Communale 19295 19498 

55. Memorandum dated June 23, 1955, headed "Anchor 

Motor Freight — Labor, 1955, Eastern Conference 

of Teamsters (continued)" 19329 (*) 

56. Letter dated June 21, 1955, addressed to F. J. O'Neill, 

Anchor Motor Freight Corp., Cleveland, Ohio, from 
Thomas E. Flynn, chairman, Eastern Conference of 

Teamsters 19330 19499 

56 A. Contract dated June 16, 1955, between Ea.stern Area 
Truckawav & Driveaway Committee and Anchor 
Motor Freight Corp 19330 (*) 

57. Letter dated July 1, 1959, addressed to Mr. Anthony 

Topazio, from John F. English, general secretary- 
treasurer 19339 19500 

58. Note, "Call Mr. Stubarg, Lindner, RE. 2600, after meet- 

ing" 19374 (*) 

59. Proposal transmitted on behalf of Trans- American 

Frei2;ht Lines, signed by Richard Grabowski and 

James R. H off a 19410 (*) 

60. Minutes of meeting of Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs & 

Helpers Local Union 100, Cincinnati, Ohio, dated 
February 23, 1955, signed by Otto Frebe, secretarv- 
treasurer "., 19413 (*) 

61. Bulletin letter No. 12-176, dated July 25, 1955, to all 

dry freight terminal managers signed by R. J. Dennis, 

executive vice president 19415 (*) 

62. Records in bulk of votes on the IJ^-cent proposal 19416 (*) 

63. Subcommittee print, "Investigation of Racketeering in 

the Cleveland, Ohio Area, Report of the Special Anti- 
Racketeering Subcommittee of the Committee on 
Government Operations, 83d Congress, Pursuant to 
House Resolution 542" 19431 (*) 

64. Letter dated June 7, 1957, addressed to Mr. J. L. Totten 

Subject, request from Driver Dave Vanoy, tractor 
5231 in for transfer to Cincinnati Steel Terminal, 
Middletowm, Ohio, signed by H. S. Hinkley 19453 19501 

65. Penciled notations regarding resignation of G. K. Curtis, 19455 19502 

66. Letter dated January 14, 1957, to all terminal and re- 

gional managers, dry freight division, from R. I. 
Dennis, vice president, together with uniform rules 
and regulations 19457 (*) 

67. Letter dated March 5, 1956, addressed to Mr. R. A. 

Mueller, manager, Cincinnati, Ohio, from R. I. Dennis, 

executive vice president 19458 19503 

67A. Interoffice memorandum to R. I. Dennis from R. A. 
Mueller, manager, subject, grievance committee, joint, 
Cincinnati, Ohio, dated February 26, 1956 19458 19504 

68. Letter dated September 28, 1956, addressed to Mr. H. S. 

Hinkley, subject, deliveries in Noblesville, Ind.; from 

J. A. Klinger, regional manager 19459 19505 

69. Agreement, deadheading understanding of equipment, 

dated May 12, 1959 19471 19506 

70. Petition regarding over-the-road contracts 19477 (*) 

70 A. Letter dated January 13, 1958, addressed to Mr. James 

Hoffa, Truck Drivers Union Local No. 299, from 

James Young 19477 (*) 

70B. Letter dated January 27, 1958, addressed to James R. 
Hoffa, chairman, negotiating committee. Truck Drivers 
Local No. 299, from James Young 19477 (*) 

•May be foimd in the files of tbe select committee. 



yi 



CONTENTS 



Introduced Appears 
on page on page 

71. Letter dated February 4, 1958, addressed to local union 

No. 100, Cincinnati, re Transamerican Freight Lines, 
from Frank H. Fitzsimmons, vice president, local 

No. 299 19478 19507 

71 A. Telegram dated February 7, 1958, addressed to Otto H. 
Frobe, secretary-treasurer, local No. 100, from Einar 
O. Mohn 19479 19508 

72. Letter dated July 30, 1958, addressed to James R. Hoflfa 

from John W. Meade 19482 (*) 

72 A. Letter dated October 30, 1958, addressed to James R. 

Hoffa from John W. Meade 19482 (*) 

73. Memorandum, "Personal" to Mr. Jack Smythe, Glenn 

Cartage Co., re June 16 meeting of the joint area 
grievance committee, Chicago, from Sheldon B. 
Guren 19489 (*) 

74. Affidavit of Kenneth J. Fischer... 19491 (*) 

Proceedings of — 

July 1, 1959 19145 

July 6, 1959 19239 

July 7, 1959 19285 

July 8, 1959. 19355 

July 9, 1959 19427 

*May be found in the flies of the select committee. 



INVESTIGATIONS OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



WEDNESDAY, JULY 1, 1959 

U.S. Sen-ate, 
Select Coiumittee on Improper Activities 

IN the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ D.G. 

The select committee met at 10 :15 a. m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 44, agreed to February 2, 1959, in the caucus room. Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, of Arkansas; Sen- 
ator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, of North Carolina ; Senator Frank 
Church, Democrat, of Idaho; Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican, 
of xVrizona ; Senator Carl T. Curtis, Republican, of Nebraska. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Paul J. Tierney, 
assistant counsel; Arthur G. Kaplan, assistant counsel; George M. 
Kopecky, assistant counsel; George H. Martin, assistant counsel; 
Sherman S. Willse, investigator; Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the select committee present at the convening of the 
session were Senators McClellan, Church, and Goldwater.) 

The Chairman. I am advised by the chief counsel that certain testi- 
mony will be developed today in connection with two very important 
figures in the Teamsters Union, particularly local 805, and I have a 
statement here that I will have inserted in the record at this point. 
It is just a brief statement of the Chair. 

Among other things, it points out that in spite of previous revela- 
tions with respect to one Abe Gordon, who is now a vice president of 
local 805 and is also administrator of that local's welfare and pension 
fund, and also a Milton Holt, who is secretary-treasurer of that local, 
in spite of their criminal connections and criminal records and the 
exposures heretofore made, they still remain in office, Avhich further 
emphasizes in my mind that there is no intention on the part of Mr. 
Hoffa to clean up the union and to get rid of these elements that are 
a disgrace to decent unionism in this country. 

The statement will be entered in the record, and the press may have 
a copy if it likes. 

( The statement of the Chair follows :) 

Opening Remarks of Senator McClellan 

The record before the committee for 2^^ years emphasized the reluctance on 
the part of James R. Hoffa to clean up the Teamsters Union by removing from 
office certain officials who have been adjudged guilty of criminal offenses, or 
those known for their long association with top racketeers and hoodlums. 

19145 



19146 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The hearings today will involve another such case in point. The union con- 
cerned is local 805 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in New York. 

The vice president of local 805 is one Abe Gordon. Abe Gordon is also ad- 
ministrator of the local's welfare and pension funds. The manner in which he 
administers those funds will be developed in the testimony today. 

The committee is not, of course, fully aware of the scope of Mr. Gordon's ad- 
visory talents. We do know, however, that during the appearance of Mr. 
Hoffa before the committee last August, Mr. Gordon remained for 3 days in the 
Teamsters headquarters across the street. Mr. Hoffa so testified. 

Both before and since Mr. Hoffa's ascendancy to the presidency of the Team- 
sters' international, we find Mr. Gordon at Mr. Hoffa's side. He was with him, 
for instance, during both of Mr. Hoffa's trials in New York. He has been with 
him at conferences in Florida. When Hoffa was trying to get the "paper local" 
delegates seated in joint council 16 in New York to insure the election of Hoffa's 
friend John O'Rourke as president of the council, in the forefront of this activ- 
ity, as we expect to show in the testimony, were Abe Gordon and his long-time 
friend and associate, the notorious Johnny Dio. 

The committee expects to develop testimony which will show that the case of 
Abe Gordon is one of curious transformation from trucking company operator 
to union leader ; that his rise to eminence in the Hoffa hierarchy has occurred 
despite his known association with leading New York racketeers and hoodlums, 
including many in the most despicable of all criminal categories — the traffickers 
in narcotics. 

We expect to offer evidence that his business associates were men with crimi- 
nal records ; that his employees preponderantly were men with criminal records, 
and that the roster of local 805's officers includes men with criminal records. 
One of them, a trustee of the union, was before the committee last week. His 
record included a conviction for murder and convictions for violations of the 
narcotics laws. 

The secretary-treasurer of local 805, Milton Holt, has a criminal record. He 
took the fifth amendment in a previous appearance before the committee. 

When Mr. Hoffa was before the committee last August he admitted that he 
had made no effort to remove either Gordon or Holt. In Holt's case, Hoffa 
said no action had been taken because the case against him was still pending. 
Holt had been indicted for perjury in the same case in which Johnny Dio and 
John McNamara were convicted of extortion. Holt has since pleaded guilty, 
has been fined and has been given a suspended jail sentence but still has not 
been removed from office. 

The committee expects to develop additional evidence for the information and 
guidance of Mr. Hoffa — and for any other interested parties — in the cases of 
both Abe Gordon and Milton Holt. 

The Chairman. Let us proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Paul Tierney, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Have you been sworn ? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL J. TIERNEY— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Tierney 's testimony will be short. I just want 
to get the background of Mr. Abe Gordon as far as the welfare and 
pension funds are concerned. Later on we will go into it in more 
detail. 

Was Mr. Gordon the head of the pension fund in 1953 ? 

Mr. Tierney. He was. Mr. Abe Gordon was administrator of the 
local 805 welfare fund. 

The Ch.mrman. You say he was ? 

Mr. Tierney. And he is, sir. 

The Chairman. Pie was then and he is now ? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I wanted to get that clear. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19147 

Mr. Kennedy. We expect to have a witness who will go into more 
detail in analyzing these activities in the welfare fund ; is that correct? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is correct. 

(At this point Senator Gold water withdrew from the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. There is just one matter. 

Do we find that the welfare fund made a purchase of a plot of land 
and a camp back in 1953 ? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes, sir. On October 29, 1953, local 805 welfare fund 
entered into a contract to purchase and did purchase some 490 acres 
near Wurtsboro, N.Y., which was eventually used for a sununer camp 
for the local. 

The Chairman. That was purchased with welfare funds ? 

Mr. Tierney, It was purchased by the welfare fund, with welfare 
fund money. 

The Chairman. From whom was it purchased ? 

Mr. Tierney. From one Edward Kobbins, who was a cousin of Abe 
Gordon, the administrator of the local. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money was paid for the plot of land ? 

Mr. Tierney. A total of $85,000 was paid for the land. There 
was a down payment of $70,000^. 

The Chairman. How much was that ? 

Mr. Tierney. A down payment of $70,000, and they assumed a $15,- 
000 mortgage. 

Mr. Kennedy. So a total of $85,000 was paid ? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Wliere were these lands located ? 

Mr. Tierney. They were located at Wurtsboro, N.Y., or near the 
town of Wurtsboro, N.Y. 

The Chairman. How far is that from somewhere? 

Mr. Tierney. Wurtsboro, I judge, is about 90 miles from New York 
City, Senator, north of New York City, in the Catskill Mountains. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to call Mr. Joseph Lloyd, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Will you come around, please ? 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth- 
ing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Lloyd. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH P. LLOYD 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation, Mr. Lloyd. 

Mr. Lloyd. Joseph P. Lloyd, Bloomingburg, N.Y. My business is 
chairman of the board of assessors of tlie town of Mamakating. 

The Chairman. How long have you held that position ? 

Mr. Lloyd. Thirteen or fourteen years. 

The Chairman. The last 13 or 14 years? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Lloyd. I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are chairman of the board of assessors of the 
town of Mamakating ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is right. 



19148 lAIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And, as chairman of the board of assessors, you are 
responsible for assessing property ; is that right ? 
Mr. Lloyd. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Wurtsboro, N.Y., is within the jurisdiction of 
your board ? 

Mr. Lloyd. It is. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, were you a member of the board of assessors at 
the time local 805, or its welfare fund, purchased some 490 acres ? 
Mr. Lloyd. I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. For a resort, from Mr. Edward Robbins; is that 
right? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is right. 

The Chairman. How close is that to the town, this tract of land? 
Mr. Lloyd. I am sorry. Senator. 

The Chairman. How close is this tract of land to the town of Wurts- 
boro '^ 

INIr. Lloyd. Approximately 2 miles. 
The Chairman. How large a town is Wurtsboro ? 
Mr. Lloyd. Wurtsboro is a very small town; I really don't know 
exactly, but I should say 1,000 population. That is a guess, Senator. 
The Chairman. It is a kind of a village. 
Mr. Lloyd. Yes ; it is a village. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have been responsible for the assessment of the 
property, this piece of property ? 
Mr. Lloyd. Ihav^. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you held that position during the period of time 
in which this purchase was made, by the welfare fund ? 
Mr. Lloyd. I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, what was the value of the property at the time 
that local 805 made a purchase of it for $85,000? "What was your 
value, or what did you value the land at that time for ? 
Mr. Lloyd. Do you mean, sir, the assessment value ? 
Mr. Kennedy. No. What you would consider the value of the prop- 
erty. 

Tlie Chairman. What did you assess it for at the time ? 
Mr. Lloyd. It was assessed for some $10,000, and its retail value 
was certainly not over $20,000 or $25,000. 

The Chairiiian. "V\^iat is your yardstick there for assessment? 
Wliat do 3^ou undertake to use ? 

Mr. Lloyd. The New York State considers our figure of equaliza- 
tion to be 34 percent. 

The Chairman. In other words, you undertake to assess it at 34 
percent of its actual value ? 
Mr. Lloyd. Yes. 

The Chairman. And you had assessed this for $10,000 ? 
Mr. Lloyd. Approximately. Was it $10,000 or $10,500? 
Mr. Kennedy. It was $10,500. 
The Chairman. That was its assessed value ? 
Mr. Lloyd. Yes, sir. 
The Chairman. That is what year ? 
Mr. Kennedy. That was in 1952. 

Now I might point out, that was for 640 acres, and the purchase here 
by local 805 welfare fund was only for 490 acres. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19149 

The Chairman. This $10,500 was for 640 acres; is that correct? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Was it at that time all in the same tract ? 

Mr. IjLoyd. One parcel ; yes. 

The Chairman. In one parcel ? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And subsequently after this assessment for $10,500, 
this "welfare fund oi tliis union bought 490 of the 640 acres? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is right. 

The Chairman. In other words, 150 acres that were included in the 
$10,500 assessment were not sold ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is right. 

The Chairman. Are you familiar with the land, and would you 
compare the 150 acres per-acre value about the same as the 490 acres, 
per-acre value ? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes ; with the exception there were no improvements on 
that part of it. 

The Chairman. But there were some improvements on the 490 
acres ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is right. 

The Chairman. So that the 490 by reason of the improvements was 
a little more valuable ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is right. 

The Chairman. But you would say that the $10,500 that you had 
assessed it at, at that time, according to your best judgment, and 
based on your acquaintance in the community and in the exercise 
of your official duties, that $10,500 was a fair assessment vaiue under 
the laws of the State of New York and according to your duties and 
your experience in your official capacity? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is right. 

The Chairman. A^nd the actual market value of it at that time, the 
490 acres, in your opinion, would not exceed $20,000 ? 

INIr. Lloyd. I said $20,000 to $25,000. 

The Chairman. All right, say $25,000, and let us give it the 
maximum. 

That is, $25,000 would be the maximum retail price of it, assuming 
someone wanted to purchase and the owner wanted to sell ? 

Mr. Lloyd. In my opinion it would be very hard to find a buyer at 
that price, but that is the top. 

The Chairman. That would be the top. 

Mr. Kennedy. Actually it was assessed for the year 1952, 1953, 
and 19.54, at $10,500? 

Mr. Lloyd. I believe that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. After this purchase was made, were you approached, 
or was a representative of the Board approached, to try to up the 
assessment when tliere was some question raised as.to local 805 paying 
too much money for this piece of property ? 

Mr. Lloyd. I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us what happened? 

Mr. Lloyd. A gentleman named Ed Benson, who, I believe, was 
working for 805, came to me and said that "they" — who, I presume, 
were officials of the local — would like to have a higher assessment, and 
it would look better on the books. 



19150 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Wlio was that? What was his name? 

Mr. Lloyd. The man who contacted me was Mr. Benson, a con- 
tractor who was working for somebody in local 805. 

The Chairman. Mr. Benson ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is right. 

The Chairman. And they wanted to get the assessment increased? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is right. 

The Chairman. Is that an unusual happening? 

Mr. Lloyd. Rather unusual; yes. 

The Chairman. I never heard of it before. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the implication to you the fact that they felt 
that the whole transaction would look much better if the assessment 
was raised ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That was my impression, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you refuse to go along at that time ? 

Mr. Lloyd. Oh, no ; I accommodated them, and we don't mind col- 
lecting taxes. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the assessment was raised ? 

Mr. Lloyd. It was. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you raise the assessment to ? 

Mr. Lloyd. Sir, you have my notes, and I would like to be refreshed 
on it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it $25,000 ? 

Mr. Lloyd. I believe that is right. 

The Chairman. You more than doubled the assessment ? 

Mr. Lloyd. Let me say this in fairness, they had made some im- 
provements at that time. 

The Chairman. In the meantime, they had made some improve- 
ments ? 

Mr. Lloyd. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You understood that Mr. Robbins had had difficulty 
finding a purchaser for this property prior to the time 805 came in? 

Mr. Lloyd. I understood that to be so. 

Mr. Kennedy. And also the property itself was not the most valuable 
kind of land in that area ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Lloyd. No, much of it was vertical, and what wasn't vertical was 
in a swamp. 

Mr. Kennedy. Much of it was vertical and what was not vertical was 
in a swamp ; is that right ? 

Mr. Lloyd. That is right. 

Senator Church. What was the original purpose for this purchase 
by the welfare fund ? 

]Mr. Kennedy. For a summer resort camp. 

Senator Church. For a summer resort camp. This you wouldn't 
regard as suitable for that purpose, being familiar with the land? 

Mr. Lloyd. Well, that is a hard question to answer. Opinions might 
differ. Personally, it certainly wasn't a piece of land that I would 
have bought for that purpose. 

Senator Church. Do you know of any summer resort camps that 
are located on swamp ? 

Mr. Lloyd. I don't know of any along that valley. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Senator Church. Nothing further. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19151 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Arthur Furman. 

The CiiAiRMAN. You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give 
before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Furman. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR FURMAN 

The Chairman. State your name, your i^lace of residence, and your 
business or occupation, please, sir. 

Mr. Furman. Arthur Furman, E.D. 3, Middletown, N.Y., business 
manager. Local Union 133, International Brotherhood of Electrical 
Workers. 

The Chairman. No. 133? 

Mr. FuRJMAN. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel, do you, Mr. Furman ? 

Mr. Furman. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. How "long have you been with the International 
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Mr. Furman ? 

Mr. Furman. Thirty-eight years last January. 

Mr. Kennedy. And how long have you been an officer ? 

Mr. Furman. Twenty years. 

Mr. Kennedy. About 20 years ? 

Mr. Furman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You represent the International Brotherhood of 
Electrical Workers on the Building and Construction Trades Council 
of Middletown, N. Y. ? 

Mr. Furman. I did ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did in 1954? 

Mr. Furman. I do now. 

Mr. Kennedy. And in 1954 ? 

Mr. Furman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were conducting an organizational drive on 
behalf of local 133 of the IBEW in 1954 ? 

Mr. Furman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the course of your efforts, did you notice certain 
construction work being done at a resort at Wurtsboro, of local 805 
of the Teamsters, New York City ? 

Mr. Furman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you observe that there were 10 or 15 individuals 
working there, including laborers, carpenters, and painters ? 

Mr. Furman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you also learn that at least half of the individ- 
uals that were working there were working nonmiion ? 

Mr. Furman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you tell the committee what you did then ? 

Mr. Furman. I went to the site of the job several times and found 
out at last who was in charge, and found Abe Gordon was the man 
you had to see. Well, he was a hard man to locate. 



19152 IIVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. He was what ? 

Mr. FuRMAN. A hard man to locate. 

So we have a building trades council, the Middletown Building 
Trades Comicil. We also have an Orange and Sullivan County 
Building Trades. I took it up in both Oi' their meetings, and we had 
daytime meetings where we would go on job sites and try to organize 
them. 

I was stirring up quite a fuss. We had a meeting in Monticello, 
one moring, and it was decided to see if we couldn't locate this Abe 
Gordon. So we went over to Concord and called him. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was staying at the Concord Hotel ? 

Mr, FuRMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What kind of a hotel is the Concord Hotel? 

Mr. FuRMAN. One of the best. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was staying there; is that correct? 

Mr. FuRMAN. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you located him there and then you went over 
to visit him ? 

Mr, FuRMAN, No. We went over to the hotel first and then called 
him. He was upstairs. He invited us up. We went up to see him, 
and after we had a discussion with him for a few minutes, he asked 
us to retire so he could get dressed and we would go down to the job 
site and straighten this job out immediately. 

So we went downstairs and on the veranda, where he asked us to 
meet him. In a few minutes he came down. In the meantime, since 
we had left, he had gotten an urgent telephone call and had to go 
to New York, 

So he made an appointment with us as soon as he got his business 
straightened up in New York; he would call us and we would meet 
at the job site and go over this job and iron it out and make it union. 

Well, I never heard of or saw Abe Gordon from then on. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you try to locate Abe Gordon? 

Mr. FuRMAN. Yes. I waited about a week, probably a little longer, 
and made several telephone calls on the local level, and nobody had 
heard from Abe Gordon, who was in the original package that went 
^lp to the room to visit him. I called 805, Newburgh office, but they 
didn't have a directory where 805 was located. But they gave a num- 
ber in Yonkers to call, so I called that. 

I asked about Abe Gordon in 805. They gave me his telephone 
number in Ne\A' York. I called that several times before I got any 
satisfaction at all. Then they said he had been called out of town and 
Mr. Holt, evidently 

Mr. Kennedy. Milton Holt? 

Mr. FuRMAN. Yes. He was handling his business while he was 
away. He said he would look after it as soon as he came back. In 
the meantime, the construction was continuing on. 

Mr. Kennedy. Still operating nonunion? 

Mr. FuRMAN. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to Milton Holt about it? 

Mr. FuRMAN. On the phone only. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he say ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19153 

Mr. FuRMAN. As soon as this Abe Gordon came back, we would 
make a meeting and that would be it, straighten it out immediately. 
But still Abe Gordon didn't come back and the job didn't get straight- 
ened out. 

So we gave him a final time to straighten it one time or another 
or we would have to go over his head. So we went to Beck. 

Mr. Kennedy. First, what else did Milton Holt say to you about 
your union? 

Mr. FuRMAN. Well, he didn't pay too much attention; we were a 
bunch of hillbillies up there, and so on and so forth. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he say that to you ? 

Mr. FuRMAN. That is the exact words he used, a bunch of hillbilly 
locals up there; that we didn't know what we were doing. He 
seemed to know it all. 

Mr. Kennedy. He said that you were a bunch of hillbilly locals 
up there and you didn't know what you were doing ? 

Mr. FuRMAN. That is right. 

The Chairman. I thought they only applied that term to folks 
down South. You have Dixie citizens and Yankee citizens but we 
have hillbillies in both directions. 

All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So then you got in touch with Dave Beck, did you ? 

Mr. FuRMAN. Yes. We sent a telegram, a night letter, to Dave 
Beck. We got an answer back in time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just one moment. 

The Chairman. I hand you here a telegram, apparently addressed 
and sent to Dave Beck. It seems to be the original telegram. 

Mr, Kennedy. Mr. Tierney can identify it. 

The Chairman. It is dated April 11. 

Mr. Tierney, what do you have before you ; what document ? 

Mr. Tierney. I have two telegrams, Senator, each dated April 11, 
1954, which were obtained by subpena from the international offices 
of the Teamsters. 

The first — both telegrams are to then President Dave Beck. The 
first it from Mr. Eussell Gardner, who at that time was secretary- 
treasurer of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Middle- 
town, N.Y. ; and the second one is from Mr. Furman, who is the 
witness. 

The Chairman. Let me have the one from Mr. Furman. 

Mr. Furman, I hand you herewith the telegram Mr. Tierney re- 
ferred to as being from you. I ask you to examine it and state if you 
identifj^ that as the message you sent to Mr. Beck. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Furman. Yes. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 38. 

(Telegram referred to was marked. "Exhibit No. 38" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Tlie Chairman. The other one, which you identified, Mr. Tierney, 
may be made exhibit No. 38-A. 

(The telegram referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 38-A" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I read the first one ? 



19154 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

It is to Dave Beck, International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

Dear Sir and Brother : Your local union 805, located at 1780 Broadway, New 
York, is building a summer resort at Wurtsboro, N.Y., which is in local union 
133, IBP]W, jurisdiction, and the job is 100 percent nonunion. I have spent 
considerable time contacting Abe Gordon, who is local union 805 local repre- 
sentative, without satisfactory results. Also, 805 secretary and treasurer, 
Milton Holt, and received a real runaround. I am bringing this to your atten- 
tion and would like an immediate reply before we take final action. 

It is signed — 

Arthur Furman, Business Manager, Local 133, IBEW. 

You received a letter on April 20, 1954 ; is that right ? 

Mr. Furman. That is right. 

Tlie Chairman. Do you recall receiving a reply to your wire, Mr. 
Furman ? 

Mr. Furman. Yes, sir. We received a wire from Mr. Beck to the 
effect that he was going to have 

The Chairman. Was it a wire or a letter ? 

Mr. Furman. I couldn't tell you at the present time. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL J. TIERNEY— Kesumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Tiemey, did you find any document as a fol- 
io wup to the wire of Mr. Furman to Mr. Beck ? 

Mr. Tierney. Yes ; I did, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. What have you before you ? 

Mr. Tierney. I have a letter dated April 20, 1954, which was ob- 
tained from the international files. 

The Chairman. Do you mean a carbon copy of a letter ? 

Mr. Tierney. A carbon copy of a letter. 

The Chairman. Which appears to be in reply to the wire of Mr. 
Furman ? 

Mr. Tierney. That is correct. 

(At this point. Senator Curtis entered the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. The letter will be made exhibit No. 38-B. 

(Letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 38-B" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

The Chairman. You may read excerpts from it into the record. 

Mr. Tierney. The letter reads : 

Mr. Dave Beck, general president of the International Brotherhood of Team- 
sters, referred the subject matter mentioned in your wire to me for investiga- 
tion. I communicated with officials of local union No. 805 and was informed 
that the matter was being satisfactorily adjusted. I have communicated this 
information to Mr. Beck. 

All we have are initials here. It is "D.K." and I think it was at 
that time David Kaplan. 

TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR FURMAN— Resumed 

The Chairman. Do you remember getting a letter? 
Mr. Furman. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Was it true what he had reported, that it was 
being satisfactorily adjusted? 
Mr. Furman. Strictly no. 
The Chairman. It never has been adjusted yet, has it? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19155 

Mr. FuRMAN, That is right. 

The Chairman. So they built their resort up there with nonunion 
hibor? 

Mr. FuRMAN. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. These great friends of hxbor ; is that right ? 

Mr. Ftjrman. I wouldn't say that. 

The Chairman. You wouldn't say they were friends of labor ? 

Mr. Furman. Not exactly. 

The Chairman. Sir? 

Mr. Furman. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You don't believe they are very friendly, then^ 
people who act that way ? 

Mr. Furman. I do not. 

The Chairman. You don't think they are loyal to the cause of 
labor, do you ? 

Mr. Furman. That is right. 

The Chairman. I hope every union man in the country feels the 
same way about it as you do. If we had that kind of sentiment back- 
ing this committee and backing Congress of the United States, we 
would clean up this mess pretty soon. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently, on April 23, there was another tele- 
gram, Mr. Chairman, that was sent from Russell T. Gardner, presi- 
dent, ]\Iiddletown Building Trades Council, 23 Lafayette Avenue, 
Middletown, N.Y., which stated : 

Dear Sir and Brothers : 

To Mr. David Kaplan — 

The project of your local union at Wurtsboro, N.Y., has not been satisfactorily- 
adjusted to the satisfaction of the Middletown Building Trades Council and is 
still operating as a nonunion project up to April 22, 1954. If not properly 
adjusted by April 26, 1954, pickets will walk at 1780 Broadway, New York. 

The Chairman. Did you send that wire ? 

Mr. Furman. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Let it be made exhibit No. 38-C. 

(Wire referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 38-C" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

Mr. Kennedy. So at that time you were threatening to picket 805 ? 

Mr. Furman. The New York office ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever picket them ? 

Mr. Furman. No, sir. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Why not ? 

Mr. Furman. We were a little bit out of order picketing them in 
New York, a secondary boycott. We could picket Wurtsboro. But 
we kept arguing with them back and forth and at last it wore itself 
out. They stopped the job, in fact. They finished up four bungalows. 

Mr. Kennedy. "WHien did they finish up ? 

Mr. Furman. Probably in June. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could they have obtained union workers if they 
had wanted to? 

Mr. Furman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How do you know that? 

86751— 59— pt. 55 2 



19156 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. FuRMAN. At that time there was plenty of workers, the same 
as there is at the present time, to cover all jobs. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there some union work going on in the sur- 
rounding area? 

Mr. FuKMAN, Yes ; there was union work going on in the surround- 
ing area. 

Mr. Kennedy. So there was no complication, no problem about it? 

Mr. FuRMAN. No problem, outside of hiring them. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis ? 

Senator Curtis. Do you know what these nonunion people were 
being paid? - 

Mr. FuRMAN. I haven't any idea. 

Senator Curtis. Is it against the law for a nonunion man to work? 

Mr. FuRMAN. I didn't hear your question. 

Senator Curtis. Is it against the law for a nonunion man to work ? 

Mr. FuRMAN. No, not that I ever heard of. 

Senator Curtis. It should be a matter of free choice, shouldn't it ? 

]Mr. FuRMAN. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. But you do not know whether or not there were 
substandard wages or working conditions involved in this situation ? 

Mr. FuRMAN. I do not. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Senator Church. Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Senator Church ? 

Senator Church. Mr. Furman, you were really seeking a very 
reasonable objective, don't you think? You, representing your union, 
endeavor to enlist private contractors who do construction work in 
your area to employ union labor, don't you ? 

Mr. Furman. Yes, sir. 

Senator Church. And you believe tliat in employing union labor, 
these workers are afforded benefits and protections, do you not? 

Mr. Furman. That is right. 

Senator Church. So it is not very unreasonable, then, to call upon 
another labor union to employ union labor in the construction work 
that that union is engaged in doing, is it? 

Mr. FuTiMAN. Union labor should be used without a doubt. 

Senator Church. In fact, if there is one place where union labor 
certainly should be used, it is by other unions engaged in building, is 
it not? 

Mr. Furman. That is right. 

Senator Church. And wouldn't you say that the failure of the 
Teamsters Union to employ union labor in that area for this work 
represents an affront to the union movement ? 

Mr. Furman. It sure does. 

Senator Church. I agree. 

The Chairiman. The point here is not whether a man has a right 
to belong to a union or not to belong to the union, as I see it, or the 
riglit, necessarily, to hire union labor or not to hire union labor ; but a 
union tliat has the authority or the power and exercises it to go out 
and strike an industry or a business because it will not employ union 
labor, ought to set an example and live up to the high standards of 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19157 

miionisni by employing union laborers when they have jobs to fill. 
"Wouldn't you think so i 

Mr. FuRMAN. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is the point here that I would emphasize. 
Here is a union that will go out and strike others to compel them to 
join a union, and yet when they go to construct a project of their own, 
they disregard even the appeals of other unions to hire union people m 
that particular trade. 

Mr. FuRMAN. The reason we didn't picket this job is because it 
caused enough dissention in the community at that time without any 
extra people. If you go in and try to organize them, they would go 
down and tell them to try to organize your own people first and then 
come back. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that they used the company of Spero 
& Spero? 

Mr. FuRMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the contractor that was nonunion. Isn't 
it a fact that they still use Spero & Spero for work there ? 

Mr. FuR3iAN. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So still, any jobs that they have to get done, they 
.are still using nonunion work ; is that right ? 

Mr. FuRMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And isn't it correct that there is a union electrical 
contractor in the same town that is available to do the work ? 

Mr. FuRMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think once again, Mr. Chairman, the point is that 
these people are not interested in the union members, but only inter- 
•ested in themselves. 

That is all. 

The Chairman. In other words, I certainly wouldn't attribute this 
to a general practice among union officials throughout the country and 
to different unions, but this does emphasize the exceptional characters 
who are operating this particular union, and how they operate it. 

Mr. FuRMAN. Very much so in that particular place, locality. 

(At this point Senator Church withdrew from the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. All right. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you very much, Mr. Furman ; you have been 
very, very helpful. 

I would like to call Mr. Tierney, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Furman testified that Mr. Gordon was staying at the Concord 
Hotel. I would like to have Mr. Tierney testify as to what the records 
•of the Concord Hotel show. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Tierney. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL J. TIERNEY— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. The Concord Hotel is an exclusive resort hotel, is it 
not? 

Mr. Tierney. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do we find that Mr. Abe Gordon, the official of local 
805 in New York City, had a year-round room at the Concord Hotel ? 

Mr. Tierney. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do the records reveal. he has been staying at the 
Concord Hotel since about 1954? 



19158 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. TiERNEY. Since about 1954 ; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. But their detailed records are only available for 195T 
and 1958? 

Mr. TiERNEY. From July 1957 forward. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do we find that he actually paid for his room up to 
the time we made our investigation, do we find that the Concord Hotel 
charged Mr. Gordon for his room ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. The records do not reflect any charge for the room- 
Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell what the records show ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. We obtained from tlie Concord Hotel a ledger card on 
an Abe Gordon. The ledger card, the initial card we obtained from 
them, ran from July 7, 1957 until May 9, 1959. The only charges re- 
flected on the card are for telephone calls. There are no charges for 
room and board. This is an American plan hotel and the usual 
charges are for room and board. There are none reflected on this- 
card at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much do you have to pay for your room ordi- 
narily at the Concord Hotel ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. An average of around $30 a day. With respect to 
Abe Gordon, the ledger shows that he made three $1,000 payments 
during that period of July 1957 to May 1959. Inasmuch as there are 
no room charges, in effect, when we first looked at these records, he 
had a credit of some $2,945.25. 

Wlien we attempted to get explanations we w^ere advised by the- 
manager of the hotel that he had made an oral special arrangement 
with Mr. Gordon whereby he lield a room all year around at a rate 
of $100 a week, and he could use the room continuously; it was at Ms 
disposal and he could use it whenever he wanted to. 

Mr. Kennedy. They said that instead of charging him perhaps $20(>' 
a week they would charge $100 a week ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. $100 a week. 

Mr. Kennedy. But we even found the $100 a week was not paid ?' 

Mr. TiERNEY. It was not paid. So, after pressing them, finally on 
May 13, as a matter of fact in our presence, when we pressed them 
for details as to why the payments were not made, they then entered 
room charges of $5,200 on May 13, 1959, for the period May 11, 1957,, 
through May 1, 1958, and another $5,200 on May 13, 1959, for the 
period May 1, 1958, to May 1, 1959. 

The Chairman. You mean those entries had not been made until 
after your investigation was underway ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. They made them as an afterthought? 

Mr. TiERNEY. At that time or as of that time ; then he had a balance 
of $7,454.75. 

Senator Curtis. Owing, you mean ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Was he the guest of the hotel, or did someone else 
pay this ? 

^Ir. TiERNEY. We have no evidence that anybody else paid it at all. 
Presumably he was a guest in the hotel. Do you mean in the sense 
he did not have to pay ? 

Senator Curtis. A nonpaying guest. 

Mr. TiERNEY. All we have is this record, Senator. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19159 

Senator Curtis. You have no evidence pointing to any reason why 
they should provide him room and board free ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. No, none at all; and no evidence of any services he 
performed. 

INIr. Kennedy. Except, of course, that he was an important union 
official, and we are going into the labor relations activities of the 
Concord Hotel? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is correct. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. In several weefe; is that not right? They also 
•employed the labor-management consulting firm of S.G.S. ? 

Mr. TiERNEY'. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. What does S.G.S. stand for ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That stands for Schiller, Gambino & Saltzstein. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are they labor-management consultants ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy'. Isn't it correct that Mr. Gambino attended the 
meeting at Apalachin ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. One of the three partners of S.G.S. attended the 
meeting at Apalachin ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is correct. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And they do labor-management consulting Avork in 
New York City? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. I\JENNEDY. And they were also on the payroll of the Concord 
Hotel? 

Mr. TiERNEY. They were. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee what S.G.S. was paid? 

]Mr. TiERNEY. They had a contract with the Concord Hotel eifective 
August 27, 1955, a 5-year contract, which called for a payment of 
$40,000 the first vear, and $25,000 each year for the succeeding -4 years. 

The Chairman. Is that $40,000, for what ? 

^Ir. TiERNEY. $40,000 for the first year and $25,000 for each of the 
succeeding 4 years. It was a 5-year contract. 

The Chairman. That would be $140,000 for 5 years for labor con- 
sultants ? 

Mr. TiERNEY'. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedys They broke off, after we began our investigation on 
that, they terminated this contract with S.G.S. ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How large a hotel is that ? 

]\Ir. TiERNEY'. A very large hotel. 

The Chairman. That would serve a chain of liotels, it would seem 
to me. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. Mr. Saltzstein also has a criminal record, does he 
not? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. One of the partners in S.G.S. attended the meeting 
at Apalachin, and one of the other two has a criminal record ? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they got paid $140,000 for labor-management 
consulting? 

Mr. TiERNEY. That is correct, yes. 



19160 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Tlie Chairman. I wonder if the employees of that hotel belong to a 
union. 

Mr. TiERNEY. They do. They belong to the Hotel & Restaurant 
Workei*s Union. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are going to go into that, Mr. Chairman, because 
we have a number of witnesses on that. 

The Chairman. They have a substandard contract? 

Mr. Kennedy. We will go into the whole thing. 

The Chairman. I thought it would lead to something. 

All right. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. The next witness, Mr. Chairman, at the request of 

Mr. Anslinger of the Bureau of Narcotics, asked that he not have his 
picture taken. 

The Chairman. The cameras, photographers, will please desist. 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth- 
ing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. WuRMS. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF IVAN WURMS 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation. 

Mr. WuRMS. Ivan Wurms. I am employed by the Federal Bureau 
of Narcotics, U.S. Treasui-y Department, 90 Church Street, New York. 

The Chairman. All right proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is another instance where we have received the 
cooperation and help of Mr. Anslinger and the Bureau of Narcotics. 

The Chairman. As I recall, Mr. Anslinger has been most helpful 
to this committee from its very inception, and we have received veiy 
excellent cooperation from his office. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

You Avere a Federal narcotics agent attached to the New York 
office, and you were working in an undercover capacity in 1956; is 
that right? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time, were you working on a man by the 
name of Bernard Blaustein ? 

Mr. Wurms. I was, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who also was known as Bernard Barton? 

Mr. Wurms. That is coiTect. 

Mr. Kennedy. And also known as Lou Bernie ? 

Mr. Wurms. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you establish a close intimate relationship with 
Mr. Blaustein from whom you made some purchases of narcotics, and 
Mr. :Milton Holt of local 805 ? 

Mr. Wurms. I did purchase narcotics from Blaustein. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. Did you establish a close relationship between Blau- 
stein and Mr. Milton Holt of local 805 ? 

Mr. Wur:ms. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy. Now, the Federal Narcotics Bureau became aware 
of Blaustein's activities in December of 1955 and January of 1956; 
is that correct? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19161 

Mr. WuKMS. Mr. Blaustein was first mentioned in our files back 
in 1948 and in December of 1955 the opportunity presented itself 
■whereby we could actively work on him. We received information 
from two separate sources which indicated that Blaustein was selling 
from 2 to 3 kilograms of cocaine every 10 days to 2 weeks. He was 
doing business with a number of Italians on the Lower East Side, and 
he was doing business with Negro dealers from Harlem, and he was 
closely associated with Isadore Shadalasky of Tampa, Fla. An asso- 
ciate of Shad is a person by the name of Salvatore Granello, who is 
affiliated with a union located at 1780 Broadway, too. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is ? 

]\Ir. WuRMS. Salvatore Granello. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the location of local 805 of the International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters? 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir. 

]Mr. Kennedy. What union Avas Granello associated with at that 
time? 

Mr. WuRMS. That was local 130, and his position was vice president 
of the Amalgamated Loca,l 130, Amalgamated Novelty Union Local 
130, CIO, located in room 1201, back in 1956, 1780 Broadway. 

Mr. Kennedy. That just gives some of his associates. Did you also 
find him associated with Mr. Milton Holt at that time? 

Mr. WuRMs. That came about after the first transaction I had with 
Mr. Blaustein. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you relate what happened in connection with 
that? 

Mr. WuRMS. Do you want the time Mr. Holt entered into the 
picture? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, first you established that Milton Holt and 
Blaustein went to Florida together in late 1955. 

Mr. WuRMS. On subsequent investigation it disclosed that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, just follow it through chronologically. 

Mr. WuRMS. That was back in November 26, 1955. Blaustein, who 
registered under the name of Lou Bernie at the Fontainebleau Plotel, 
was with Milton Harvey, who we have identified as Milton Holt. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. Milton Holt registered at the hotel with Blaustein^ 
and Holt used the name of Milton Harvey, and Blaustein used the 
name of Lou Bernie ; is that correct ? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was on November 26, 1955 ? 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir. 

During the time another guest who stayed with Blaustein and Holt 
was a Joseph Meglino, who gave his residence as 35 Ridge Street, 
New York City. 

Also in the party was Harry Shevitz, Irving Brown, Marvin Hodes, 
and on December 23, 1955, a William Rosen, and a Mac Chase, regis- 
tered at the hotel. 

On December 28, Bernie Barton and Milton Harvey — who was Mil- 
ton Holt — joined AYilliam Rosen and Mac Chase. 

Mr. Kennedy. Some of these other individuals are of less impor- 
tance to us, but he was there on November 26, 1955, and the two of 
them were there together, registered under aliases, and they were 
joined by certain other individuals at that time? 



19162 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then the next visit was on December 28, 1955 ; is 
that right? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time they joined two other individuals and 
again Holt registered under the name of Harvey ; is that right ? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then on January 6 and again on February 2, 1956, 
they registered at the hotel again ; is that right ? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, about this time did you have your initial 
meeting with Mr. Blaustein? 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you relate what happened in connecition with 
that? 

Mr. WuRMS. That was on February 4, 1956, and I met Bernard 
Blaustein, alias Lou Bernie, one and the same, at the Stage Delicatessen, 
832 Seventh Avenue, New York City. I had a conversation with Blau- 
stein, and he indicated that he could supply me with large quantities 
of cocaine. 

I finally effected a purchase of 402 grains of cocaine, for which I 
paid Blaustein $800, official U.S. Government advance funds. Ar- 
rangements were made with him for an additional purchase. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was transferred to him in the men's room at 
the Stage Restaurant ? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. At 832 Seventh Avenue ; is that right ? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Was he a union official at this time or a union 
employee ; do you know ? 

Mr. WuRMS. At that particular time. Senator, we had no knowledge 
of him being gainfully employed, and we had no idea who he was 
associated with, or with any unions at that time. It came out later. 

Senator Curtis. Wliat did you learn later? 

Mr. WuRMS. Later we learned that he purchased a car and ob- 
tained a chattel mortgage from the National City Bank, and on the 
application for the chattel mortgage he listed his occupation with 
local 805, receiving a salary of $10,000 per year, and his superior was 
Milton Holt. 

Senator Curtis. That is 805 of the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct, sir. And I believe it stated that he 
was employed there for a period of 10 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does the application further show in connection 
with this automobile that it was a Cadillac? 

Mr. WuRMS. 1956 Cadillac ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the purchase was made around January 20, 
1956? 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did it show that there was a telephone call 
made to the local union to verify as to whether he was an employee? 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir ; and an official of the bank did call the union 
with a notation that a Mr. Holt was contacted. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19163 

Mr. Kennedy. What was Mr. Holt's reply as to whether Mr. Blau- 
stein was actually employed at the union or not? 

Mr. WuRMS. He gave an affirmative reply. 

Mr. Kennedy. And so the car was sold; is that right? 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir. 

JNIr. Kennedy. I believe we have the document. 

The Chairman. This is along about February 1956, this car trans- 
action you are talking about? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is the chattel mortgage you have there, sir ? 

The Chairman. This is an application for motorcar loan and agree- 
ment. This is what I have here. 

Mr. Wurms. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are you familiar with it ? Could you identify it ? 

Mr. WuRMs. If I could see it, I could identify it. 

The Chairman. I will present to you a photostatic copy of a docu- 
ment. I ask you to examine it and state if you identify it. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir ; this is the application made out by Bernard 
Blaustein and the notation made by the National City Bank that Mr. 
Holt was contacted. He was listed as secretary and treasurer. 

The Chairman. Mr. Holt was secretary and treasurer ? 

Mr. Wurms. That is the notation. 

The Chairman. And, according to that, he certified that Blaustein 
was employed by the union ? 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir ; for a period of 10 years. 

The Chairman. And had been for a period of 10 years? 

Mr. WuRais. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Did it show what his salary was? Does this 
application show Blaustein's salai'y ? 

Mr. Wurms. $10,000 per year. 

The Chairman. So obviously, he and Holt, according to the rec- 
ords at least, were associated together as representatives of that 
union ? 

Mr. Wurms. Yes, sir, I might add that Blaustein listed his posi- 
tion as labor relations business agent. 

The Chairman. Labor relations business agent ? 

Mr. Wurms. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. That may be made exhibit No. 39. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 39" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis ? 

Senator Curtis. Was Holt directly connected with the narcotics 
traffic, too? 

Mr. WuRsis. We could never make a case against Mr. Holt. 

Senator Curtis. But it did appear that he had a knowledge of 
Blaustein's activities ? 

Mr. Wurms. It was our impression that he knew of Blaustein's 
activities. 

Senator Curits. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. You made that first purchase from Blaustein for 
some $800 ? 



19164 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then there was a second meeting with Blau- 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir ; on February 8. 
stein shortly afterward ? 

Mr. Kenni-:dy. That, again, was at the Stage Delicatessen ? 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that meeting was watched by other narcotics 
agents ? 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir. It was under the surveillance of other agents. 

Mr. Kennedy. After meeting there, you and Blaustein took a walk 
down the street ? 

Mr. WuRMS. Well, I would like to just interject one thing here. 
While I had a conversation at the Stage Delicatessen with Blaustein, 
he did say that he had to receive a phone call, and he subsequently 
did receive a phone call and shortly thereafter we left the Stage 
Delicatessen. He said he did contact his man. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the second meeting again for you to make a 
purchase ? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you make the purchase in the restaurant? 

Mr. WuRMS. No, sir; not at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was determined that you would meet later on 
that evening ? 

Mr. WuRMS. Later that evening ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you came out of the restaurant and what hap- 
pened then ? 

Mr. WuRMS. We walked south on 7th Avenue to 52d Street east on 
52d, and stood opposite the Hickory House and had a conversation. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what occurred at that time ? 

Mr. WuRMS. Blaustein was telling me that he expected a large ship- 
ment of cocaine which would be wrapped in fishskin in a few days. 
He began to question me about my identity. Then he asked me if I 
wanted a connection to check on people in various cities, such as Chi- 
cago, Baltimore, or Washington, and he could find out if these people 
were all right, if you could deal with them, or if I wanted to check up 
on somebody. 

I asked him who he knew in Washington. He mentioned a guy 
that just got out of jail, "and I am leery of him; he is big." I asked 
his name and he said his name was Bob Williams, that he was a big 
man, that he did a lot of business with him. He was big in "H", which 
is the terminology for heroin, and coke. 

He asked me if I knew him and I told him I did hear of him. Bob 
Williams has been known to Washington area for quite a number of 
years. He is now in Sing Sing, Ossining, N.Y., serving a term of 
2^ to 5 years, for an offense which was aiding and abetting a bail 
jumper in New York City, and there is a detainer lodged against him 
for a Federal narcotics violation. 

Mr. Kennedy. While the convei*sation was going on, did you notice 
that you were being scrutinized by three individuals ? 

Mr. WuRMS. I noticed there were three individuals standing by 
the Hickory House, but I did not pay too much attention to them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were these individuals or two of these individuals 
later identified? 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir ; they were. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 19165 

Mr. Kennedy. Who were they ? 

Mr. WuRMS. Milton Holt and Daniel Ornstein, who is a trustee for 
local 805. 

Mr. Kennedy. After Blaustein left you, did he join these three 
men ? 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir. He crossed the street and joined them. 
There was another unidentified person. They walked to the parking 
lot and entered a 1956 Cadillac coupe de ville, New York license 
WS-7050, which was listed to Milton Holt at Wurtsboro, N.Y. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did some of your other agents follow that car ? 

Mr. WuRMS. They followed the car to the vicinity of 56th Street and 
Broadway where they parked it in a parking garage. The four men 
proceeded to 1780 Broadway. 

Mr. Kennedy. 1780 Broadway was the headquarters of local 805 ? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct, sir. 

Holt, Ornstein, and the unidentified tliird man got in the elevator. 
Blaustein remained in the lobby. A few minutes later, Blaustein's 
Cadillac drove up and the person driving it was identified as Clarence 
Jackson, alias Mookie. He is a Negro interstate violator and a con- 
victed narcotic trafficker. 

Blaustein held a 15-minute conversation with Jackson and then re- 
turned to 1780 Broadway and entered the offices of local 805. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then did you meet Blaustein later on that evening ? 

Mr. WuRMS. I did, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the other narcotics agents who were 
keeping a surveilance on the union headquarters, Blaustein left there 
at 6 o'clock that evening ? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you mean he left union headquarters ? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct ; came out of 1780 Broadway. My meet- 
ing with him was at 7 o'clock that evening. 

Tlie Chairman. In other words, according to the evidence up to now, 
he was a representative of the union ? 

Mr. WuRMs. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. He was employed by the miion. He was operating 
out of the union hall ? 

]Mr. "WuRMS. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. That was in the course of making these narcotics 
deals. 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Incidentally, some of your agents followed the 
driver, and he went up to meet some other narcotics people further 
uptown in New York City, in Harlem ; is that connect ? 

!Mr. WuRMS. Clarence Jackson was followed and he went to the 
Harlem area where he was observed to meet Dillard Morrison alias 
Red Dillon, William A. Stafford, who is also a narcotic violator, and 
they then discontinued the surveillance of Mookie Jackson and re- 
turned to the area of 1780 Broadway. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, coming back to what happened to you person- 
ally, at 6 o'clock Blaustein left the headquarters and your agents fol- 
lowed him. "Wliat happened then ? 

Mr. WuRMS. Blaustein, I believe, walked toward 60th Street and 
Columbus Circle, and then he retraced his steps and appeared to be 



19166 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

looking at all the passers-by. It appeared to be that he was looking to 
see if he was being followed. The surveillance agents knew where I 
was to meet Blaustein and, rather than make him apprehensive, they 
discontinued their surveillance and proceeded to the area of York 
Avenue. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet with him then ? 

Mr. WuRMS. I did, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened ? 

Mr. WuRMS. At 7 o'clock I met Blaustein and we again had a con- 
versation concerning the narcotics. I was going to pick up 2 ounces. 
He was concerned about that he had a quantity of narcotics on hand 
that he wanted to dispose of before he left for Florida. 

We left the York Inn and we walked south on York Avenue. I 
believe it was 61st Street when Blaustein handed me a package which 
contained 2 ounces of cocaine. I handed him $1,600 official Govern- 
ment advance funds. 

Mr. Kennedy. The arrest of Blaustein was held off at that time, was 
it not, in the hopes that you could find out where the source of the 
narcotics was ? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it felt that it was coming in through Florida ? 

Mr. WuRMS. We received information that Blaustein was receiv- 
ing the narcotics from Isadore Shadalasky, alias Buddy Shad, who 
received it from Cuba. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Blaustein, in fact, go down to Florida and go 
to the Colonnades Hotel, from February 18 to March 5, 1956 ? 

Mr. WuRMS. He did, sir. 

The Chairman. Wlio was this fellow he was supposed to be receiv- 
ing it from in Florida ? 

Mr. WuRMS. Isadore Shadalasky, alias Isadore Shad. 

The Chairman. Had he been in the party that Holt and Blaustein 
had been meeting? 

Mr. WuRMS. Our investigation showed that Blaustein, Holt, and 
Shad knew each other. 

The Chairman. You said that they met with certain other people 
down there. You named some of them a while ago. Was he included 
in those names ? 

Mr. WuRMS. Not at the particular times that I mentioned, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time, when Blaustein went down to Florida, 
he met with Frankie Dioguardi ; is that right ? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is the brother of Johnny Dioguardi ; is that cor- 
rect? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Freddie Felice ? 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir ^-alias Freddie Franco. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time was there also a meeting at the Club 
Ciro, in Miami, Fla., in the office of the Club Ciro ? 

Mr. Wtjrms. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Weren't you able to determine that attending that 
meeting were Frank Dioguardi; his uncle, Jimmy Doyle alias James 
Plumeri; and George Baker? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19167 

Mr. WuRMS. They were with the same group as Blaustein and Holt 
at the hotel. They were all together. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Milton Holt also present ? 

Mr, AVuRMS. In the hotel ; yes, sir. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. At the same time that these people were ? 

Mr. WuRMS. No ; not at the Club Giro. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the hotel, then ? 

Mr. WuRMS. At the hotel there was Jimmy Doyle, James Plumeri 
alias Jimmy Doyle, Milton Holt, Allie Gordon, George Baker, Blau- 
stein, and Allen Smythe. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Who participated in the meeting at Giro's ? 

Mr. WuRMS. That was Frankie Dio and Freddie Felice and other 
people. 

Mr. Kennedy. Other people? 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir. 

(At this point Senator Gold water entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. The records at the hotel showed that Milton Holt 
joined Blaustein at the hotel on February 29 and registered under the 
name of Milton Harvey, do they not ? 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir. 

(At tliis point Senator McGlellan withdrew from the hearing 
room. ) 

Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently, on March 5 and March 12, Blaustein 
took a trip to Guba ? 

Mr. WuRMS. He did, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And at that time he was in contact with this gentle- 
man you mentioned earlier, Salvatore Granello ? 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir; who was associated with Buddy Shad. 

Mr. Kennedy. And at that time who was vice president of Amalga- 
mated Local 130 ? 

Mr. WtTRMS. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, subsequently, your agents saw Holt and 
Blaustein together, both in INIiami and in New York Gity; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were frequently in one another's company? 

Mr. WuRMS. Tliat is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive information — I will just go back on 
some of these names. There seems to be some difficulty. Buddy 
Shad; is that right? 

Mr. WtJRMS. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was supposed to have been the source of some 
of these narcotics ? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is the way we received the information. 

Mr. Kennedy. Closely associated with him was Salvatore Granello ? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And at that time, he was an associate of Blaustein 
and Shad, and at the same time was president of Amalgamated Local 
130? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which was located in room 1201, at 1780 Broadway? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. The same building that local 805 was in ? 



19168 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr.WuRMS. Tliat is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And as for the meeting down in Florida, where the^ 
group of people were all together, we had Jimmy Doyle, whose real, 
name is James Pliimeri ? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The uncle of Johnny Dioguardi. We also had. 
George Baker ? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. George Baker is a narcotics violator and was a wit- 
ness before this committee as an officer of one of the paper locals. 
I don't know if you know that. 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, and also at the time of Blaustein's arrest he had. 
a business card from George Baker. 

Mr. Kennedy. Frankie Dioguardi was there, and he is Johnny Dio- 
guardi 's brother ? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Milton Holt ? 

Mr. WuRMS. And another narcotic violator, Freddie Felice, alias- 
Freddie Franco. 

Mr. Kennedy. How do you spell Lou Bernie ? 

Mr. WuRMS. B-e-r-n-i-e. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Isadore Shadalasky ? 

Mr. WuRMS. S-h-a-d-a-1-a-s-k-y. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is known as Buddy Shad ? 

Mr. WuRMS. Buddy Shad. 

Mr. Kennedy. S-h-a-d? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct, sir. 

(At this point Senator McClellan entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. On October 1, you received information that Blau- 
stein and Holt were on their way to the west coast and believed to be- 
carrying narcotics ; is that right ? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. October 1, 1956 ? 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you find that when they arrived at the- 
west coast that they registered at the Beverly Hills Hotel ? 

Mr. WuRMS. They did, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was an arrest made at the time at the Beverly Hills. 
Hotel? 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir. 

(At this point Senator Curtis withdraw from the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. By representatives of the Bureau of Narcotics ? 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you find at that time? You did not find' 
any narcotics on either one of them ? 

Mr. WuRMS. No ; no narcotics were found. A search of Milton Holt: 
disclosed $3,500 in his pocket. 

Mr. Kennedy. $3,500 in cash ? 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Milton Holt had that? 

!Mr. WuRMS. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Blaustein, what did he have? 



IMPROPER ACTR^ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19169 

]Mr. WuRMS. He had in his possession a dues book, No. 2396, of 
local 649, United Auto Workers Union, which was Johnny Dio- 
guardi's locah 

The dues book indicated initiation date of January 1950 and dues 
paid to may 1955. During the interrogation by Mr. Martin and Mr. 
Willse and myself of Blaustein, he indicated that he was unempolyed 
and it was very hard for him to obtain any medical benefits from Blue 
Cross, and he wanted to be protected in some way. Therefore, he 
went to his good friend Johnny Dio, and obtained a dues book. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which entitled him to be in the welfare fund ; is that 
right? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He also had a business card of George Baker, secre- 
tary-treasurer of the local ? 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir. I have those documents here, if you wisht 
them. 

The Chairman. As I understand, he got these without being a 
worker or a laborer, without being in a union? They were just fur- 
nished him gratuitously so that he could participate in the welfare- 
fund ? 

]Mr. Wurms. Yes, sir. He was very friendly with Johnny Dio. 

The Chairman. You may present them, and they will be made 
exhibit No. 40. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 40" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

Mr. Kennedy. He also had an address book which contained a 
nonpublished telephone number of Holt ; is that right ? 

Mr. Wurms. Ttat is correct, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. The phone number of Studio Frocks, which is ac 
company that is owned by Harry Stromberg, alias Nig Rosen? 

Mr. Wurms. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is now ser\dng a sentence on the importation of 
narcotics ; is that right ? 

Mr. Wurms. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The phone number of Matt Forbes ? 

Mr. Wurms. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Holt had stated that the reason he was 
on the west coast was to have a meeting with Matt Forbes; is that 
right? 

Mr. Wurms. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Y]m was Matt Forbes? Did you ever find that 
out? 

Mr. Wurms. I don't believe we went into too much detail in our 
investigation, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Blaustein was subsequently convicted; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Wurms. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What sentence did he receive ? 

Mr. Wurms. He received the sentence of 3 years, and at the termi- 
nation of his sentence he was placed on 3 years' probation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you find Mr. Milton Holt's name, as well as Mr. 
"Abe Gordon's name, arising in the files of the Bureau of Narcotics in 
connection with frequent contacts with known narcotics violators? 



19170 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. WuRMS. They did, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. And that has been both prior and subsequent to the 
arrest of Blaustein ; is that right ? 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, Miltx)n Holt and Abe Gordon have been 
in contact with Mr. Joseph Fleitell ? 

Mr. WuRMS. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Fleitell is here in Washington, D.C., is that 
right ? 

Mr. WuRMS. He lists his residence as 2500 Q Street NW., Wash- 
ington, D.C. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have information that he was one of those 
who carried narcotics between Washington, D.C, and New York 
City? 

Mr. WuRMS. Our information was such. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is just one example. There are others, are 
there not, of other contacts by Milton Holt and Abe Gordon with 
known narcotics violators ? 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir ; especially Fleitell. 

Mr. Kennedy. And with other individuals also ? 

Mr. WuRMs. Well, their names did crop up ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me ? 

Mr. WuRMS. Their names did come up. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, I am thinking of Rocco Baera, Dominick 
Carminati, of the Bronx. 

Mr. WuRMS. Yes, sir. His father is now doing 10 years for nar- 
cotics. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions ? 

Thank you veiy much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could Mr. Martin put in Mr. Blaustein's record, Mr. 
Chairman ? 

The Chairman. You do soleimily swear the evidence you shall give 
before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Martin. Yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE H. MARTIN 

The Chairman. State your name. 

Mr. Martin. George Martin, member of the staff of this committee. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Have you made an investigation in connection with the subject mat- 
ter under inquiry ? 

I\Ir. Martin. Yes. Bernard Blaustein has New York City Police 
Department "B" No. 175178, and FBI No. 1723416. His record dis- 
closes arrests for attempted grand larceny, burglary tools, transporta- 
tion of untaxed liquor, possession of unpaid alcohol, on which the tax 
was not paid ; unlawful possession of liquor with unpaid tax ; assault 
and rape. He was held on one occasion for investigation of murder, 
but dismissed, and then, of course, the narcotics arrest. 

The Chairman. How many convictions did he have ? 

Mr. Martin. He has been convicted twice on the liquor cases. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19171 

The Chairman. And how many times for narcotics ? 

Mr. Martin. The two cases that agent Wurms testified to were 
treated as one. On January 2, 1957, he was sentenced to 3 years. 

The Chairman. He is now serving a penitentiary sentence ? 

Mr. Martin. He has been released. He is on a conditional release 
at the present time. 

The Chairman. Under probation ? 

Mr. JSIartin. He will start his probation in July of this year. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Mr. George Kopecky. 

The Chairman. Come forward, Mr. Kopecky. 

You haven't been previously sworn? 

Mr. Kopecky. No, sir ; not in this series. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give 
before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Kopecky. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE M. KOPECKY 

The Chairman. State your name, how long you have been with 
this committee, and in what capacity. 

Mr. Kopecky. Mr. Chairman, my name is George Kopecky. I have 
been with this committee for approximately 2^ years as a staff 
investigator. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kopecky, have you made an investigation of 
some of the financial records of Mr. Gordon and Mr. Milton Holt? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes, sir ; I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. And both of those individuals refused to turn over 
their financial records? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the investigation has been conducted of inde- 
pendent sources? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. As far as Mr. Abe Gordon is concerned, have we 
found that some of the money from the pension and welfare fund has 
ended up in his personal bank account? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you been able to trace it directly from the 
welfare fund to his personal bank account? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Will you give us the occasions where you have found 
that? 

Mr. Kopecky. On November 1, 1956, he received a check from the 
welfare fund of $2,092.99, and on another occasion on May 14, 1957, 
he received another check from local 805 welfare fund in the amount 
of $2,000. 

The Chairman. Were these checks made to him personally ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Out of the fund ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is there any voucher to support them ? 

36.751— 59— .pt. 55 3 



19172 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KopECKY. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Any indication on the record as to what the pay- 
mMits were made for ? • , . 

Mr. KoPECKY. There had been an earher entry with ]ust an ex- 
planation that this was money that he had paid out personally. 

The Chairman. In other words, claimed to be a reimbursement? 

Mr. KoPECKY. That is right. 

The Chairman. With no vouchers to substantiate it? 

Mr. KoPECKY. No, sir. 

The Chairman. What was the date of the first? 

Mr. KoPECKY. November 1, 1956. The second was May 14, 1957. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you find some other similar transactions? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes. There is another situation wherein he received 
an amount of $2,926.42 which, in effect, was paid by the welfare fund 
through a devious means or method, and, in addition, there is another 
check of $1,000 which he drew out of a special checking account, and 
which he deposited in his own personal cliecking account to cover an 
overdraft. 

The Chairman. ^Vliat fund did that come out of? 

Mr. KoPECKY. In efl'ect, it was paid by the welfare fund. 

The Chairman. This $1,000 was paid by the welfare fund? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He had an overdraft and he took it out of the wel- 
fare fund to cover the overdraft ? 

Mr. Kopecky. What happened was he had taken it out of a special 
bank account set up in his own name and that special bank account 
w^hich had been set up in his own name had been set up through the 
use of welfare funds. 

Mr. Kennedy. So what was the total amount that we can trace? 

Mr. Kopecky. There is a total amount of $8,019.41. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is $2,926.42, on February 21, 1956; and on No- 
vember 1, 1956, $2,092.99; November 26, 1956, $1,000; and May 14, 
1957, $2,000 ; is that right ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Have you interviewed him regarding this money? 

Mr. Kopecky. I have made an attempt to interview him. 

Tlie Chairman. You attempted. With what results ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Negative, He would not discuss the matter. 

The Chairman. He wouldn't give any explanation of it? 

Mr. Kopecky. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there any voucher's to support any of these 
funds? 

Mr. Kopecky. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you examine the books of the welfare fund? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is right. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gordon receives from the welfare fund a total, 
since September 15, 1950, a salary of $189,235.11 ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Wliat is his annual salary ? 

Mr. Kopecky. It varies. It is on a percentage basis of the income 
received by the welfare fund. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19173 

The Chairman. From what period of time ? 

Mr. KopECKY. September 15, 1950, is when the fmid was put into 
effect, and up to the present time 

The Chairman. The present time? AVliat is your cutoff date? 

Mr. KopECKY. May 31, 1959, which is the end of their fiscal year. 

Tlie Chairman. What is the total ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. SaLary, $189,235.11. 

The Chairman. $189,235.11. And expenses? 

Mr. KoPECKY. $36,561.95. 

The Chairman. So lie has received a grand total of what? 

Mr. KoPECKY. $225,797.06. 

The Chairman. That is in a period of approximately 814 years ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Eight and and a half years, a total of $225,000. But 
salary amounted to over $25,000 a year, and his expenses over $4,000 a 
year? 

Mr. KoPECKY. That is correct. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. He does not receive a salary from the union, as I 
understand it. 

Mr. Kopecky. That is right. 

The Chairman. He is the administrator of the union's pension and 
welfare fund ; that is his position ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

The Chairman. That is Gordon. The other one. Holt, is secretary- 
treasurer of 805 ? 

Mr. Kopecky. No. He is the secretary-treasurer of the local itself. 

The Chairman. I said of 805. 

Mr. Kopecky. I am sorry. I didn't hear you. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many members are there in 805? Do you 
know? 

Mr. Kopecky. Roughly, 2,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. And on the welfare fund, Mr. Gordon did not receive 
a set salary. He received a percentage of all that was collected; is 
that right? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct, 

Mr. Kennedy. It started out at 10 percent and then went down to 
9 percent last year and now it is 8 percent ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is salary ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then he receives what expenses ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Two percent of the income for expenses. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there are no vouchers for his expenses ? 

Mr. Kopecky. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In addition to that, he has a 1959 Cadillac Coupe de 
Ville ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliich is rented by the welfare fund for him for $238 
a month ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Is that part of this expense or is that in addition ? 

Mr. Kopecky. In addition. 

The Chairman. How lone; has he been ffettins: that ? 



19174 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KoPECKT. The rental of this 1959 Cadillac began in October 
of 1058. 

The Chairman. Had there been a comparable arrangement previous 
to that? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Prior to that he was getting a flat car-expense allow- 
ance. 

The Chairman. In addition to these other expenses ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What was the amount of that flat allowance prior 
to this? 

Mr. KoPECKY. I don't have that with me at this point. 

Mr. Kennedy. In what areas, Mr. Kopecky, does local 805 operate ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Bein^- the Tobacco Drivers and Confectionery Driv- 
ers Union, and in the cigarette and tobacco vending industry. 

Mr. Kennedy. What salary does Mr. Holt receive from the union ? 

The record shows, I believe, approximately $16,500. 

Mr. Kopecky. Approximately $16,000. There is a slight variance 
from year to year, but it is approximately $16,000 a year. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is secretary-treasurer of the local ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do we find that he has had any financial transac- 
tions with some of the employers with whom the union has contracts ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Specifically what company ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That would be the National Vending Corp., w^hich is 
now known as Continental Industries, Inc. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that one of the major companies in the country? 

Mr. Kopecky. It is. 

Mr. Kennedy. "What do they do ? 

Mr. Kopecky. They manufacture vending machines, principally 
cigarette vending machines, and in addition to that they service the 
routes where these machines are located. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that a nationwide company ? 

Mr. Kopecky. It is. ^r, 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is head of*fnat company ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Harold Roth is the president. 

Mr. Kennedy. R-o-t-h? 

Mr. Kopecky. R-o-t-h. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who are the other officers ? Is there one particular 
officer in whom we are interested ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Well, there is a Mr. Herbert Sternberg, who is the 
executive vice president of the Valley Commercial Corp. Mr. Roth 
is the president of Continental Industries and is also secretary of 
Valley Commercial, and for all intents and purposes, the two com- 
panies are affiliates. 

Mr. Kennedy. What does Valley Commercial do ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Valley Commercial is a factoring or finance company 
that discounts the notes obtained by the Continental Industries Co. in 
the course of its business. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Harold Roth has another position, does he? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes. Mr. Roth is also president of the U.S. Hoff- 
man Machinery Corp. 

Mr. Kennedy. H-o-f-f-m-a-n ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19175 

Mr. KopECKY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Hoffman Machinery Corp. ? 

Mr. KopECKY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is one of the biggest companies in the country ; 
is that correct ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. It is a major corporation, listed on the New York 
Stock Exchange. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Had. Mr. Roth been associated with the Herald 
Vending Corp. ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. In prior years he had been associated with the 
Herald Vending Corp., and withdrew approximately around 1950. 

Mr. Kennedy. And had Mr. Miltoii Holt been indicted with the 
Herald Vending Corp. in 195 — what year ? 

Mr. KoPEGKY. The indictment was tiled in 1954, and Mr. Holt, of 
local 805, the Herald Vending Corp., and others were indicted. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. The charge was violation of the Sherman Antitrust 
Act. 

Mr, Kennedy. Wliat was it found that they were doing? 

Mr. KoPECKY. The indictment charges generally that it was 

Mr. Kennedy. Control of trade ? 

Mr. KopECKY. Control of trade, locations, and competition. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the use of the union as an enforcement ai-m for 
this company ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. It specifies — 

members of local 805 refused to service vending machines of member operators 
of the association who failed to conform ; local 805 to boycott locations, local 805 
to carry out, enforce, and police the allocations of locations by persuading and 
compelling member operators who failed to conform. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were they found guilty on that ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Roth was not mentioned in that indictment, al- 
though some of the acts went back to the 1940's ; is that right ? 

Mr. KopECKY. The indictment spe^fies that these acts go back to 
1936. '; 

Mr. I^nnedy. Was Mr. Holt also indicted for perjury ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was found guilty of perjury ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he received a suspended sentence. That was 
just last year, was it not ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes, sir ; that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us what financial deals or dealings 
there have been between the Continental Industries and Valley Com- 
mercial with Mr. Milton Holt while he was an officer of this local ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Continental Industries and its officers ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr, KoPECKY. Beginning in October of 1957, certain officers of Con- 
tinental Industries have either loaned or made arrangements for per- 
sonal loans to jNIr. Holt, totaling eight in number for a total of known 
loans through the present date of $243,600. 

The Chairman. How are they secured? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Some were secured, others, Mr. Chairman, were un- 
secured and without interest. 



19176 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. All of them without interest ? 

Mr. KopECKY. Not all of them. Certain of them. 

The Chairman. Some are unsecured and without interest? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Give a breakdown of the amounts. Did you say 
there was a total of eight ? 

Mr. KopECKY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Give a breakdown of the amounts. This is within 
what period of time ? 

Mr. KopeckY. Beginning October 18, 1957, through the present 
date. 

The Chairman. From 1957 to the present? A little less than 2 
years' time? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Eight separate loans? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Give the amounts and the order. 

Mr. Kennedy. And how they were arranged and from whom. 

The Chairman. First give the amounts and we will see how they 
run. We will see the size of them. Then give the details. 

Mr. Kopecky. The first loan was October 18, 1957, $20,000; the 
second loan, October 18, 1957, $30,000 ; the third loan, April 10, 1959, 
$35,000; April 15, 1959, $54,600; May 1, 1959, $12,000; April 19, 
1959, $27,000; April 20, 1959, $55,000; and in May of 1956, $10,000. 

The Chairman. 1956? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes, sir. 

This is a recent loan which I learned about in the past day so I have 
to qualify that. All of the others begin in October 1957, with the 
exception of this one $10,000 loan. 

The Chairman. There is a $10,000 loan included in this that was 
in 1956? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Now, you may give detailed information with respect to the 
securities. 

First I will ask you : Have these loans been repaid ? Can you tell 
what is outstanding, the total outstanding and the amounts? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes, I can. 

The Chairman. Let us have the total outstanding indebtedness. 

Mr. Kopecky. At the present time there is a total of $117,000 which 
is still outstanding. 

The Chairman. Now give us that that is secured and unsecured and 
let's ascertain, if we can, how much of the outstanding indebtedness 
is unsecured. 

Mr. Kopecky. I can do that with regard to the $117,000 that is 
still outstanding. 

Sixty-two thousand dollars is unsecured. 

The Chairman. Just about half of it ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is right. And the other $55,000 loan, which 
was arranged through a bank, is secured. It is secured with stock put 
up in Continental Industries by Mr. Holt. 

The Chairman. What part of the outstanding indebtedness bears 
no interest ? Can you tell us that ? I assume it would be part of the 
unsecured. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19177 

Mr. KoPECKY. That is correct; $27,000. 

The Chairman. Is unsecured. In other words, about half of the 
unsecured indebtedness bears no interest ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can we go through them one by one, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. All right. Maybe I was a little ahead of the 
tiling, but I wanted to get that information. 

Mr. KoPECKY. The first loan, on October 18, 1957, for $20,000, was 
obtained by Mr. Holt from the Franklin National Bank, of Franklin 
Square, N.Y. This has since been repaid, and at the time Mr. Holt 
put up 7,000 shares of stock of Continental Industries, which he had 
owned. The bank representatives have indicated that someone at 
Continental had made the arrangements through the bank for this 
loan. 

At the same time 

]\Ir. Kennedy. That was at 6 percent interest ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that we get the record straight, these transac- 
tions are all with or on behalf of an employer who has contracts with 
this local ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

The Chairman. In other words, he is borrowing it as an officer of 
the local ; he is borrowing money from a business firm that he makes 
bargaining contracts with. 

Mr. Kopecky. That is right ; either borrowing it directly from the 
firm or through some intermediary with the help of the firm. 

The Chairman. We have passed legislation through the Senate that 
would take care of tliis very problem, if we can get the House to 
agree. 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes, sir. 

The second loan was made at the same time in the amount of $30,000, 
and this was obtained by Milton Holt from the Valley Commercial 
Corp. 

This was made through a rather devious means. The loan was • 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you point out the fact that on this $20,000 from 
the Franklin National Bank, the bank representatives have given us 
information that the loan was made because they had received a call 
from Continental Industries recommending that the loan be made ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy'. And at that time Holt purchased $20,000 worth of 
U.S. Hoffman Machinery Corp. stock; is that right? 

Mr. Kopecky. Actually, he used the $20,000 to purchase $30,000 
worth, because the margin requirements permitted him to purchase 
more. He only needed $20,000 in cash to buy $30,000 worth of stock. 

The Chairman. To purchase it on margin ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes, sir. 

i\Ir. Kennedy. He has since sold that stock and received a net profit 
of $10,304.55 ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. He sold it in 8 months, June of 1958 ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the same company, U.S. Hoffman Machinery 
Corp., of which Mr. Roth is president? 



19178 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KoPECKY. Mr. Roth is also president of that corporation. 

There was a second loan in the amount of $30,000 obtained by Mr. 
Holt from the Valley Commercial Corp., on the same day. 

Mr. Kennedy, What was the Valley Commercial Corp. ? 

Mr. KopECKY. That is, for all intents and purposes, an affiliate- of 
Continental Industries. They share space at the same location, and 
it is a factoring organization. It is a finance organization. 

The Chairman. In other words, it finances the sales of the other, 
takes up the notes, and so forth. 

Mr. KoPECKY. That is correct. 

And JNIr. Holt obtained the loan from a firm known as Adams 
Associates. Adams Associates is a financial investment organization, 
and one of the principals of this Adams Associates is the CPA for 
Valley Commercial Corp. and Continental Industries. I liave an 
affidavit from the principal in that firm, and he indicated that the 
loans were made at the behest of Mr. Sternberg, and that 

Mr. Kennedy. Who is Mr. Sternberg? 

Mr. Kopecky. The executive vice president of Valley Conunercial 
and a business associate of Mr. Roth. 

The Chairman. The affidavit may be made exhibit No. 41. 

(Affidavit referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 41" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

Mr. Kennedy. So this loan was actually made from Adams Asso- 
ciates at the request of Mr. Sternberg, who is an executive vice presi- 
dent of Valley Commercial Corp ; is that right ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is con-ect. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what interest was paid on that ? 

Mr. Kopecky. No interest. 

The Chairman. Has it been repaid ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes, that one has been repaid. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that loan was personally guaranteed by Herbert 
Sternberg ; is that right ? 

Mr. Kopecky. It was guaranteed and then the loan was imme- 
diately reimbursed to Adams Associates by Valley Commercial Corp., 
so, in effect. Valley Commercial Corp. made the loan. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there was no security on that loan ? 

Mr. Kopecky. No security. 

Mr. Kennedy. Interest free and no security ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

Mr. I^nnedy. The same kind of procedure was used on the $54,600 
loan ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes. With regard to the second loan of $30,000, 
made at the same time as the first one, Mr. Holt again bought some 
additional stock of the U.S. Hoffman Machinery Corp. With this 
$30,000 he was able to buy $40,000 worth of stock of U.S. Hoffman 
Machinery. IVIr. Roth is the president of that. He has since sold 
all of that stock. 

Mr. Kennedy. What profit did he get on that ? 

Mr. Kopecky. In excess of $23,000. 

The Chairman. So on the two loans by the purchase of stock, he 
made in excess of $30,000 ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Over a period of what time ? 



IRIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19179 

Mr. KoPECKT. Over a period of 15 months. 

The Chairman. Fifteen montlis ? 

Mr. KoPECKT. With money he did not put up liimself . 

The Chairman. From money that he actually got by reason of liis 
official connection with the union and its business relations with the 
company ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. That is correct. 

The Chairman. In other words, he was actually getting the loans 
from management, with whom his union has bargaining contracts? 

Mr. KoPECKY. That is correct. And in the affidavit which I obtained 
from Adams Associates, they indicated that they did not know who 
Mr. Holt was, that they now know who Mr. Holt is, and had they 
known of the connection between Mr. Holt and Continental Indus- 
tries, that they would not have agreed to making such loans. 

Next we come to the third loan in the amount of $35,000, which was 
made April 10, 1959. Within a 5-day period there was an additional 
loan of $54,600, and within another 2-week period, on May 1, 1959, 
these was an additional loan of $12,000. 

These loans to Milton Holt were arranged by Herbert Sternberg, 
the executive vice president of Valley Commercial Corp. The $35,000 
loan is still outstanding. 

Mr. Kennedy. From whom was that loan made ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Mr. Holt obtained that from Adams Associates. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the same manner ? 

Mr. Kopecky. In the same manner as I described previously. 

Mr. Kennedy. No interest? 

Mr. Kopecky. On that particular loan, Adams Associates charged 
6-percent interest because they were not reimbursed by Valley Com- 
mercial. They felt since it was their own money that they were 
expending 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that secured ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is not secured, but the note is endorsed and 
personally guaranteed by Mr. Herbert Sternberg. 

Mr. Kennedy, l^^iat about the $54,000 ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That was a short-term loan which was unsecured 
and without interest and has been repaid. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Vliat about the $12,000 ? 

Mr. Kopecky. The $12,000 was also a short-term proposition. In 
that instance, Adams Associates loaned the money to Mr. Holt at the 
request of Herbert Sternberg of Valley Commercial, and Mr. Holt 
gave Adams Associates his personal post-dated check, approximately 
for a 3- week loan, and when the date of the check came due they put 
the check in for deposit and it cleared. 

Mr. Kennedy. How was he able to arrange the purchase of stock 
and the quick profit on the United States Hoffman International Corp. 
or Hoffman Machinery ? 

Mr. Kopecky. I didn't hear you. 

Mr. Kennedy. How was he able to arrange the quick profit on the 
purchase of the Hoffman stock ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Tlie price of the stock went up on the market. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that any arrangement between the two of them 
as far as we know ? 

Mr. Kopecky. No. 



19180 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. The stock just happened to go up ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. The stock just happened to go up. 

Mr. Kennedy. He didn't receive any stock rights, not given to the 
general public ? 

Mr. Kopecky. No. He made his purchase on the open market at 
the going price at the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. The next one is $27,000 ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes. Then in April 1959 there was a sixth loan. 
This was made over a short period of time by personal checks paid 
directly by Mr. Sternberg to Milton Holt, checks totaling $27,000. 
This loan is presently outstanding. It is unsecured and it is without 
interest. 

With regard to the purpose of this loan, all that is known is that 
during this period of time Mr. Holt made substantial investments, 
which he still owns in the stock of the United States Hoffman Inter- 
national Corp. This is separate from United States Hoffman Ma- 
chinery. But at one time it used to be part of the United States 
Hoffman Machinery Corp. 

Mr. Kennedy. And is Mr. Harold Koth the officer in that, also ? 

Mr. Kopecky. He has indicated that he is the principal stockholder 
but not an officer. He is on the board. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then $55,000 ? 

Mr. Kopecky. And loan No. 7, this loan was granted to Mr. Holt by 
the Franklin National Bank in the amount of $55,000. There are 
indications by correspondence from the Franklin National Bank that 
Mr. Roth made arrangements for this loan. This loan was secured. 

Mr. Holt put up 13,000 sliares of stock, which lie owned in Conti- 
nental Industries. At that time the stock was worth about $7 a share. 
He put this stock up as collateral for the loan. This loan is still 
outstanding. 

Mr. Kennedy. In addition, at the time of the loan being made, we 
received information from the bank officers that Holt promised the 
bank he would transfer some union funds to the Franklin National? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes. There is a memorandum on file at the bank to 
the effect that when Mr. Holt obtained the loan of $55,000, he would 
agree to transfer some union accounts to that particular bank. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can we have that made an exhibit, or can we have 
all the records made an exhibit at one time ? 

The Chairman. All of the documents you have, supporting the 
testimony you have given regarding these loan transactions, Mr. Holt, 
these employers and other financing agencies, may be made exhibit No. 
42, in bulk. The clerk is instructed where apparently they can be 
separated by lettering, to letter them in relation to the time you have 
testified to them. 

Mr. Kopecky. I have all of those documents, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. They may be submitted. 

(Documents were marked "Exhibit No. 42" for reference and may 
be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Wliat is this memorandum about ? You may refer 
to that specifically at this time, some memorandum where they agreed 
to deposit union funds in the bank in order for Holt to have this loan. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19181 

Mr. KoPECKY. I have it right here. It was prepared by the as- 
sistant cashier to the bank. I will read an excerpt from it: 

Mr. Holt was introduced to Mr. Clifford — 

who is the senior vice president of the bank — 

and the writer by Harold Roth of Continental Industries. Mr. Holt is treasurer 
of local 805 of the Teamster. 

It goes on, and then it ends : 

In the meantime, he has established his account with us and he has taken 
steps to transfer some union accounts over to our bank. 

The Chairman. Did you pursue it to find out whether any accounts 
of union funds were actually placed in the bank ? 

Mr. KopECKY. Yes, sir; I did. This is dated April 16, 1959. As 
yet, no transfer of accounts has been made. 

The Chairman. The agreement is there since April, but as of your 
last check no funds have been deposited ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. This agreement has not been carried out as yet. 

The Chairman. As yet. But the loan is in effect ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes, sir ; the loan was made. 

The Chairman. And the loan is outstanding? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes, sir. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Holt presently owns at least 23,000 shares of 
stock of the Continental Industries, Inc.; is that right? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the market value of that? 

Mr. Kopecky. Approximately $7 a share. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Or how much, totally ? 

Mr. Kopecky. A total of $161,000. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12 :15 p.m., the select committee recessed, to recon- 
vene at 2 p.m. the same day. ) 

(Members of the select committee present at the taking of the recess 
were Senators jMcClellan and Goldwater.) 

afternoon session 

(The select committee reconvened at 2 p.m.. Senator John L. Mc- 
Clellan (chairman of the select committee) presiding.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

(Members of the select committee present at time of reconvening: 
Senators McClellan and Ervin.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed. Mr. Kopecky 
has resumed the stand. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE M. KOPECKY— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you explain the last transaction that we 
have? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes. I will continue where I left off this morning. 
I was discussing loan No. 7 in the sequence. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the $55,000 one? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that with interest ? 



19182 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KoPECKY. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. "VVliat interest was paid on that one ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. There was an interest rate of 6 percent. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it secured? 

Mr. KoPECKY. It was secured at the time Mr. Holt got the loan. 
Pie put up 13,000 shares of stock in Continental Industries as collateral. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now we come to the transaction in May of 1956, 
which is somewhat different, and which is the last transaction. 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes. That is the last loan in the ones I described, 
and it goes back to May 1956. 

The Chairman. You speak of it as last. In terms of the calendar, 
it is actually the first ? 

Mr. KopECKY. Yes, sir. This was a loan which was arranged and 
given to Mr. Holt by Harold Roth, who is the president of Continental 
Industries. In May of 1956 the corporation decided to have a stock 
issue of some 400,000 shares of stock which would be sold to close 
friends, to relatives, to officers, and certain business associates. 

The Chairman. What corporation is that? 
, Mr. KopECKY. This was the predecessor corporation of Continental 
Industries. 

The Chairman. Wliat was the name of it ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. The National Vending Corp. 

The Chairman. Was it owned by the same people, primarily, who 
owned — what was the name of the other company ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Continental Industries. 

Yes, sir. There was just a change in the name at a later date. 

The Chairman. In other words, the National Vending Corp.'s name 
was later changed to Continental Industries, Inc., as it is now known 
today. 

The Chairman. And at tliat time, in 1956, it proposed to issue and 
sell stock? 

Mr. KoPECKY. 400,000 shares. 

The Chairman. Now proceed. 

Mr. KopECKY. This stock Avas allocated to a group of friends, busi- 
ness associates, relatives, and officers, and included among this group 
of some 30 people was Mr. Holt, who was allocated 12,000 shares. 

The Chairman. 12,000 out of how many ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. 12,000 shares, and it was out of 400,000. 

The Chairman. How was he listed, as a relative, a friend, or what? 

Mr. KoPECKY. That would be a presumption on my part. 

The Chairjnian. Well, he Avas unlisted. He just happened to be on 
the list? 

Mr. KoPECKY. That is correct. 

The Chairiman. But his relationship and his interest and the cause 
for favoring him Avith an opportunity to buy was not made note of? 

Mr. KoPECKY. That is riglit. When I questioned the people at the 
company and determined the identity of the other people, the other 
people Avere described to me as close friends, as relatives, as business 
associates, as officers, and Mr. Holt was described as a union official. 

The Chairman. Which is accurate. 

Mr. KoPECKY. That is correct. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. KoPECKY. This 12,000 shares allocated to Mr. Holt Avas sold to 
him or had a value of $30,000. It Avould appear from my examina- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19183 

tioii of tlie records that Mr. Holt personally paid for $14,000 worth. 

The Chairman. What was that? What was the stock listed at? 
What was it to sell for, the 400,000 shares ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. $2.50 a share. 

The Chairman. $2.50 a share? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Right. 

The Chairman. That would be $30,000 for 12,000 shares. That 
was allocated to Mr. Holt ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What happened with respect to it ? 

Mr. KopECKY. He paid, personally, $14,000, leaving a balance of 
$16,000 that lie did not pay for, according to the records. This was 
supposed to have been a transaction handled directly between the 
company and Mr. Holt. 

Mr. Kennedy. Finish what happened, please, Mr. Kopecky. 

Mr. Kopecky. Harold Eotli's personal cliecking accounts reflect 
tliat he loaned $10,000 to Milton Holt at this time to pay for part of 
the stock. There is unanswered at this time as to how the balance of 
$6,000 was paid for or was given. 

The Chairman. How much did Holt ])ut into it himself, in cash ? 

Mr. Kopecky. I determined that in May of 1956 he put in $14,000. 
There are indications in Mr. Roth's personal checking accounts that 
he received another $10,000 in May of 1957. 

The Chairman. So far as the records are concerned, then, there is 
$6,000 unaccounted for? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

The Chairman. We are not saying that he didn't pay the money. 
The records as of now do not show that it was paid ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was $30,000 worth of stock. He put up $14,- 
000. It would then appear that he received a loan of $10,000 from 
Roth at that time ? 

Mr. Kopecky. At that time ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Interest free ? 

Mr. Kopecky. I don't have that information. There has been na 
discussion. I have not received any answer to that question. 

Mr. Kennedy. There doesn't appear to be ? 

Mr. Kopecky. There doesn't appear to be any evidence or docu- 
ments. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has that $10,000 been repaid ? 

Mr. Kopecky. There are indications the $10,000 was received by- 
Mr. Roth in his personal checking accounts a year later and there is 
a notation that it was received from Milton Holt. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then at least from the records, and we will have 
Mr. Roth here, it would appear that he loaned the $10,000, because he 
paid the $10,000 a year later. 

Mr. Kopecky. A year later. 

Mr. Kennedy. But, from tlie records, again, it would appear that 
there was no interest paid on it ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the transaction was handled so that the rest of 
the money, after the $14,000 Holt personally put up, the rest of the 
money was to be supplied by the company itself ? 



19184 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KoPECKY. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy, And Mr. Koth did provide $10,000 which he charged 
as a debt from Milton Holt ? 

Mr. KoPECKY. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the other $6,000 which was to come from the 
company, on that we don't know whether Mr. Holt repaid that or 
not? 

Mr. Kopecky. All of that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The record shows that the money was to come from 
the company, and we know that $10,000 of the $16,000 which was to 
come from the company came from Mr. Roth ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And was repaid by Milton Holt subsequently ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is right. 

The Chairman. One other point : Did the National Vending Corp. 
at the time of issuing this stock have a bargainiaig contract with local 
805? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is right, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. In other words. Holt was the officer in local 805 ? 

Mr. Kopecky. He was the secretary-treasurer. 

The Chairman, He was buying the stock of this company with 
whom his union had a contract; he was borrowing money from the 
president of this company ; is that right ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

The Chairman. To help him finance the purcha.se of the stock. We 
have an accounting here of $24,000 out of the $30,000 purchase. 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

The Chairman. $6,000 as of now, at least, is unaccounted for ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who signed the contracts for this company ? 

Mr. Kopecky. All I have is an unsized contract and it was indi- 
cated by Mr. Holt that he was not certam as to whether he signed it — 
Mr. Roth indicated he is not certain whether he signed it or not, but he 
indicated that he negotiated the contract. 

Mr. Kennedy, And Mr. Milton Holt negotiates or helps negotiate 
the contracts for local 805 ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness, 

Mr, Kennedy, Mr. Roth and Mr, Sternberg, 

The Chairinian, The two witnesses, come forward. 

Counsel may arrange a seat in between them, if he likes. 

The witnesses will he sworn. 

Do you and each of you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give 
before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Roth. I do. 

^Ir. Sternberg. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HERBERT S. STERNBERG AND HAROLD ROTH. 
ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, ARTHUR N. FIELD 

The Chairman. The witness on my left, will you give your name, 
your place of residence, and your business or occupation, please, sir ? 



, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19185 

Mr. Sternberg. Herbert S. Sternberg, Syosset, Long Island. I am 
vice president of Valley Commercial Corp. 
The Chairman. Vice president. 
Mr. Sternberg. Of Valley Commercial Corp. 
The Chairman. Thank you. 

And on my right, will you give your name, please, and your busi- 
ness or profession ? 

Mr. EoTH. Harold Roth. I am the president of Continental In- 
dustries and U.S. Hotfman. 

The Chairman. President of Continental Industries? 
Mr. RoTH. Continental Industries and U.S. Hoffman. 
The Chairman. U.S. Hoffman ? 
Mr. Roth. Yes. Do you want my address ? 
The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Roth. My address, at the present time, is 195 Bay Boulevard, 
Atlantic Beach, N.Y. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Gentlemen, you have counsel. You 
each have the same counsel '? 
Mr. Roth. Yes. 
Mr. Sternberg. Yes. 

The Chairman. Will you identify yourself for the record? 
Mr. Field. Arthur N. Field, 39 Broadway, New York City. 
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Sternberg, how long have you been with this 
company ? 

Ml*. Sternberg. Since 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were you doing prior to that time ? 
Mr. Sternberg. I was an oiRcer of Standard Financial Corp., a 
large finance company. 
Mr. Kennedy. What is Valley Commercial Corp. ? 
Mr. Sternberg. It is a finance company. 

Mr. Kennedy. What relationship do they have with the Conti- 
nental Industries? 

Mr. Sternberg. They discount certain conditional sales contracts 
on behalf of Continental Industries, as they do with other companies. 
The Chairman. Let me ask you: Is this Valley Commercial Co. 
just servicing the paper of the Continental Industries ? Was it estab- 
lished for that purpose ? 

Mr. Sternberg. No, sir. At the time it was established. Conti- 
nental Industries wasn't in existence. 

The Chairman. Well, the predecessor to it was in existence, was 
it, the National Vending Corp. ? 

Mr. Sternberg. That is right, sir, but they didn't have any condi- 
tional sales contracts to discount, sir. 
The Chairman. They did not ? 
Mr. Sternberg. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. I am just trying to follow 
this. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Sternberg, what loans or financial transactions 
have been had with Valley Commercial Corp. and Mr. Milton Holt? 
Mr. Sternberg. Chronologically, sir ? 
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. I guess that would be the best way. 



19186 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Sternberg. All right, sir. On October 18, 1957, Mr. Holt had 
approached me for a loan which we had declined, unfortunately, and 
had suggested that he obtain it elsew^here. He tried and, unsuccess- 
fully, had come back to us. We had helped him secure the loan through 
the offices of another finance company, Adams Associates. 

Mr. Kennedy. He had conversations with you about obtaining that 
loan ? 

Mr. Sternberg. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. INIr. Koth, did he talk to you about obtaining the 
loan ? 

Mr. Koth. Yes, he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. At whose suggestion did he go to the Franklin 
National Bank? 

Mr. KoTii. On this particular loan he didn't go to the Franklin 
National Bank at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. What bank did he go to, Mr. Roth 'I 

Mr. Roth. I don't think he went to any bank. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you arrange for him to obtain the loan ? 

Mr, Roth. Adams Associates, another finance company. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did you talk to in Adams Associates, Mr. Roth ? 

Mr. Roth. A gentleman by the name of Mr. Frank Abrams. 

Mr. Kennedy. Frank? 

Mr. Roth. Abrams. 

Mr. Kennedy. Abrams. Does he have anything to do with your 
company ? 

Mr. Roth. He is on our board of directors. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he is a certified public accountant ? 

Mr, Roth. He is a certified public accountant. 

Mr. Kenndy. Is he a certified public accountant for your company? 

Mr. Roth. No, he is not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does he do any work for your company ? 

Mr. Roth. He does. 

Mr. Kennedy. What does he do ? 

Mr. Roth. Advisory work and whatever help we need. Our account- 
ants are Ly brand, Ross Bros. & Montgomery. 

Mr. Kennedy. He would be an internal accountant for you ? 

Mr. Roth. No. We have our own internal staff. He is just in an 
advisory capacity. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you contacted him about making this loan ? 

Mr. Roth. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was the loan to be ? 

Mr. Roth. $30,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they make the loan, Adams Associates ? 

Mr. Roth. They did. 

Mr, Kennedy. Did Mr. Holt pay interest ? 

Mr. RoTii, I don't believe he paid any interest on this particular 
loan at that time. 

Mr, Kennedy, Was the loan secured ? 
Mr. Roth. The loan was not secured. 

The Chairman. Let me inquire. This is a professional lending 
agency ? 

Mr, Roth. It is. 

The Chairman. Is that correct? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19187 

Mr. Roth. That is correct. 

The Chairman. It made a $30,000 loan to one that was not previ- 
ously a client ? 

Mr. Roth. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Made it on your recommendation ? 

Mr. RoTH. Our recommendation and our paying over to them of 
$30,000 through Valley Commercial. 

The Chairman. Your paying over to them ? 

Mr. RoTH. We actually made the loan indirectly. 

The Chairman. Indirectly you made the loan ? 

Mr. RoTH. That is correct. 

The Chairman. I see. And without interest ? 

Mr. RoTH. Without interest. 

The Chairman. Maybe we will get to the reason why or do you 
want to tell us now why you would make a $30,000 loan without 
interest ? 

Mr. RoTii. Supposing Mr. Sternberg who handled these loans and 
who is the vice president of Valley Commercial explain that aspect 
because it really wasn't without interest. There was full considera- 
tion paid for it. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Sternberg, if you will give us the 
story. 

Mr. Sternberg. Initially the loan was made with the intent of 
charging interest at the completion of the loan, the short-term loan. 
At the time the loan was made, however, Mr. Holt had loaned me 
personally $60,000. 

The Chairman. Let us get this now. You are an officer in this 
company ? 

Mr. Sternberg. That is correct. 

The Chairman. You loaned Holt $30,000 ? 

Mr. Sternberg. That is correct. 

The Chairman. He had to borrow $30,000 from your company? 

Mr. Sternberg. That is correct. 

The Chairman. I guess he needed to borrow it or he would not 
liave done it. He borrowed $30,000 from your company ? 

Mr. Sternberg. That is correct. 

The Chairman. You intended later to charge interest ? 

Mr. Sternberg. That is correct. 

The Chairman. In the meantime Holt loaned you $60,000 ? 

Mr. Sternberg. Not in the meantime, sir. At the time the loan 
was paid off, after he had paid the loan off. 

The Chairman. When he paid the loan off? How long after? 

Mr. Sternberg. Almost simultaneously he was paying the loan off. 

The Chairman. Wliat time did he pay the loan off? How long 
after he borrowed the money before he paid the loan off ? 

Mr. Sternberg. Mr. Holt paid the loan of $30,000 back approxi- 
mately 6 months later. 

The Chairman. He had $30,000 for 6 months without interest from 
a loaning company, the company in the business of loaning money 
to make money ; is that right ? 

Mr. Sternberg. For which we had substituted another check. 

Mr. Kennedy. The loan was made on October 18, 1957. It was 
repaid on June 18, 1958. 

36751—59- 



19188 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. June 18, 1958. That is 8 months. All right, he 
had had it for 8 months without interest. Then when he paid it off 
he loaned you $60,000 personally ? 

Mr. Sternberg. That is correct, sir, without interest. 

The Chairman. Without interest ? 

Mr. Sternberg. That is correct. 

The Chairman. That is a pretty nice arrangement. 

Senator Ervin. I wish we could arrange to transfer some of Ervin's 
outstanding 6 percent interest to him and handle it under the same 
arrangement. 

The Chairman. As an officer of the company unless you were prac- 
tically the sole owner of it why would you be authorized not to charge 
interest on a $30,000 loan simply because the fellow you loaned the 
company's money to in turn did you a favor and loaned you double 
that amount of money? Plow do the shareholders and the people 
interested in the corporation, how is their interest protected in such 
a transaction? 

Mr. Sternberg. The amount of interest was very nominal. 

The Chairman. Nominal ? 

Mr. Sternberg. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, the usual rate is 6 percent, is it not? Is 
that about the usual rate ? 

Mr. Sternberg. I beg your pardon, sir ? 

The Chairman. The usual rate of interest is about 6 percent ? 

Mr, Sternberg. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Sir? 

Mr. Sternberg. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, that would be $1,800. Two-thirds of it 
would be $1,200. For eight months that would be $100 a month actual 
value in accommodation, would it not ? 

Mr. Roth. This company is not a public company. It is a pri- 
vately owned financed company. 

The Chairman, Let us see. Wlio owns it ? 

Mr. Roth. Harold Roth — myself, Robert S, Hirsch, Arthur N. 
Feld, and Matthew Forbes. 

The Chairman. Is it a corporation? 

Mr. Roth. It is a corporation. 

The Chairman. Each owning equal interest? 

Mr. Roth, Not quite equal. But almost equal, 

Tlie Chairman. Who are the other stockholders, where do they 
live? 

Mr. Roth. Pardon me, I did not hear you, sir. 

The Chairman. You named the other three stockholders beside 
yourself. Where do they live? Give their names now and their 
addresses. 

Mr. Roth. Arthur N. Feld is right next to me. 

The Chairman. That is the counsel? 

Mr. Roth. Riglit. 

Robert, S. Hirsch lives in Hewlett Neck, Long Island. I don't know 
the exact number. 

Matthew Forbes lives in Rye, N.Y., I believe. Either Rye or Harri- 
son, N.Y. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19189 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the other stockholders know that you had made 
these financial arrangements with a union official? 

Mr. KoTii. They did. 

The Chairman. Did your attorney know that? 

Mr. Roth. Yes, he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he advise you that it was in violation of the 
law? 

Mr. Roth. It was not in violation of the law. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he advise you that it was in violation of the 
law? 

Mr. Roth. I say it was not in violation of the law. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he advise you ? 

Mr. Roth. He could not advise me if it was not. 

The Chairman. He could. He could make an error in his advice. 

Mr. Roth. He seldom makes errors. 

The Chairman. Did he advise you ? If he didn't, he didn't. 

Mr. Roth. He didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any discussions with him about giving 
something of value to a union official in violation of section 302 of the 
Taft-Hartley Act? 

Mr. Roth. We didn't have any discussion, but 60,000 is more value 
than 30,000. 

The Chairman. $60,000 was not a loan to the company, was it? 

Mr. Roth. Pardon me. Senator ? 

The Chairman. $60,000 was not a loan to the company, was it ? I 
understood it was loaned to Mr. Sternberg. 

Mr. Roth. This company has nothing whatsoever to do with Con- 
tinental. It is a private company owned by us. 

The Chairman. Was that loan made of $60,000 made to you indi- 
vidually or to the company? 

Mr. Sternberg. To me individually, sir. 

The Chairman. That is what I thought. Do you have an interest 
in this company ? 

Mr. Sternberg. No, sir; I do not. 

The Chairman. How did your company benefit from a loan to him 
individually ? 

Mr. Roiti. You want me to answer ? 

The Chairman. Anybody who can answer it. 

Mr. Roth. I will answer it, if you don't mind. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Roth. Milton Holt is a friend of mine of long standing, over 
25 or 30 years. We made this loan to him originally with full in- 
tent to collect interest. When the $60,000 loan was made to Mr. 
Sternberg, Mr. Sternberg paid no interest to him in return. Mr. 
Sternberg is the executive vice president of Valley Commercial, and 
we felt as long as Milton Holt did not charge him any interest, we 
were in no position, as a private company, to cliaro;e him interest. 

The Chairman. Wliat kind of evidence was given of this $30,000 
obligation? 

Air. Sternberg. Mr. Holt gave Adams Associates a note, and we in 
turn gave Adams Associates a check simultaneously for that loan. 

The Chairman. Did the note provide for interest ? 

]Mr. Sternberg. No, sir; it did not. 



19190 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. So in the incipiency of it, prior to the time that you 
had any knowledge that you were going to borrow $60,000 from Mr. 
Holt, you did make a note and the note reflected no interest ? 

Mr. Sternberg. That is correct. I suggested to Adams Associates 
that I would be responsible for interest inclusive of the loan. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. lioth, why didn't you make the loan directly to 
Mr. Holt ? Why did you go through Adams Industries ? 

Mr. RoTii. A( lams Associates. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Adams Associates ? 

Mr. Roth. We felt there would be a faster repayment to Adams As- 
sociates than to ourselves and perhaps a stronger method of collecting 
than if we made it directly. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you were interested in obtaining interest why was 
not the interest stated on the note if it is true what you state, that you 
had planned and intended to collect interest ? 

Mr. RoTii. It is quite customary in our operations to collect in- 
terest in three ditferent ways, with a notice written and on the face 
of the note, on a series of notes, on each note or on the payment of the 
note, just like a bank might do. 

The Chairman. In this instance it wasn't done either way. 

Mr. Roth. No. Only a consideration for $60,000 was loaned with- 
out interest. 

The Chairman. That was an after consideration. That was when 
the time came to pay off. 

Mr. Roth. At which time he would have been charged for the in- 
terest if he had not made the $60,000 loan. 

The Chairman. Just one moment. You say he would have been 
charged interest ? 

Mr. Roth. He certainly would have been charged interest. 

The Chairman. He was not under any legal obligation to pay it. 
Your note didn't provide it. 

Mr. Roth. With many of my friends I find that I do not need a 
written contract. 

The Chairman. I am not arguing it, but I say legally he was not 
obligated to pay it. 

Mr. Roth. We were not concerned legally. We felt he would pay 
it. 

The Chairman. OK. 

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the pro- 
ceedings were Senators McClellan and Ervin.) 

Senator Ervin. You spoke about your custom of charging interest. 
I would like to ask you if your custom is to loan money in such 
enormous sums as that without charging interest. 

Mr, Roth. Valley Commercial has available around $31/2 million. 
Not only are we accustomed to loaning sums of this size, but we 
consider this a small loan. 

Senator Ervin. You haven't answered my question, whether you 
customarily make loans and refram from charging any interest on 
them. 

Mr, Roth. We didn't refrain from charging any interest except 
when value received was not. We would have charged interest. 

Senator Ervin. I didn't think you would be in the loan business 

Mr. Roth. No. We like to charge interest. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19191 

The Chairman. Mr. Sternberg, when was the $60,000 repaid that 
you borrowed? 

Mr. Sternberg. That was repaid over a period of approximately 6 
months, sir. 

The Chairman. Approximately 6 months? 

Mr. SiT^RXBERG. Yes, 6 or 8 months. 

The Chairman. Did you give a note for it? 

Mr. Sternberg. Yes. I believe your committee has a complete 
report. I furnished that report to the committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Roth, when was the next financial transaction 
that you had with Mr. Holt ? 

Mr. Roth. I don't have a record of it. Your man perhaps is in a 
better position to refresh my memory. Or Mr. Sternberg. 

Mr. Sternberg. I have a record of that. The next financial trans- 
action was one which was dated April 10, 1959. That was for 
$35,000 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't there one of $20,000 on October 18? 

Mr. Sternberg. I know nothing about a $20,000 loan on October 18. 
It is completely foreign to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know anything about that ? 

Mr. Roth. When Mr. Kopecky was testifying before, it was the 
first time that I heard of the 20. Now I am not denying that 31/^ 
years ago Mr. Holt may have gone to a bank and borrowed $20,000 on 
Continental stock. I might have even recommended him, and he 
probably paid interest. But this would be a matter that I wouldn't 
remember 3i/^ years later. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you telephone the bank to recommend that they 
make the loan to him ? 

Mr. Roth. The $20,000, 31/2 years earlier? 

Mr. Kennedy. You heard the question, Mr. Roth. 

Mr. Roth. I cannot remember if I did or I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your answer is what ? 

Mr. Roth. I cannot remember whether I did or I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have the records that indicate that a representa- 
tive of the company did call the bank and make arrangements for 
Mr. Holt to receive the loan ? 

Mr. Kopecky. On that loan there are no records, but the bank offi- 
cials, the bank representatives, have advised that the loan was initi- 
ated upon a call from Continental Industries. 

Mr. Roth. Continental Industries is quite a large company. I am 
not all of Continental Industries. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. And they have a bargaining agreement with local 
805? 

Mr, Roth. We have. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what I thought. 

You had another financial transaction with him that you were de- 
scribing on April 10, 1959 ? 

Mr. Sternberg. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was that ? 

Mr. Sternberg. That was for $35,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened on that ? 

Mr. Sternberg. On that particular loan, Mr. Holt had again re- 
quested if we could possibly intercede in his behalf, and I suggested 



19192 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

he again visit with Adams Associates. He obtained his loan from 
Adams Associates for $35,000 at that particular time. 

Contrary to the 

Mr. ICennedy. Did you contact Adams Associates in connection 
with that loan ? 

Mr. Sternberg. Yes ; I did, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. On that loan he did pay interest ? 

Mr. Sternberg. That loan was interest bearing, that is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. There you did not reimburse Adams Industries, as 

1 understand it. 

Mr. Sternberg. No. The loan, itself, bears interest on its face. 

Mr. Kennedy. But in that loan you did not reimburse Adams 
Associates? 

Mr. Sternberg. No, sir ; I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. So interest was charged in connection with that ? 

Mr. Sternberg. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. What was the next one after that ? 

Mr, Sternberg. The next loan was one of April 15 in the sum of 
$54,600. That was a very short-term loan. It lasted approximately 

2 days. 

Mr. Kennedy. $54,600? 

Mr. Sternberg. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it lasted how long? 

Mr. Sternberg. Two days, sir. It was repaid in 2 days. 

Mr. Kennedy. From whom was that loan made ? 

Mr. Sternberg. That loan was again made from Adams Associates. 
We reimbursed them at that time with a check which was repaid in 2 
days. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Roth, why didn't you make that loan directly ? 

Mr. Roth. For exactly the same reason. Wlien Milton Holt re- 
quested $54,000 for 2 days, we would like very much to get the money 
in 2 days, and when a third party makes the loan it is sometimes 
easier to get it in 2 days than if I gave it to him myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it the fact that the reason you did it that way 
was to hide the fact that the transaction was associated with you? 

Mr. Roth. It most certainly is not the fact. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the fact, is it not ? 

Mr. Roth. It is not the fact. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was any interest paid on that ? 

Mr. Sternberg. To the best of my knowledge, that loan is presently 
outstanding, I believe. I think it is just about due at this particular 
time. 

Mr. Roth. No ; that is paid. 

Mr. Sternberg. Are you referring to the 54.6 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Sternberg. That was repaid in 2 days. Thei*e was no interest 
on that at all. I am sorry. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the next loan after that ? 

Mr. Sternberg. The next loan after that was a loan of $12,000 on 
May 1 , 1959. I am reciting the same dates as Mr. Kopecky did. It was 
$12,000. That loan was, again handled in much the same way, except 
it was paid in approximately 5 or 6 days. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19193 

In this connection, Valley, however, did not pass a check over 
through Adams because by the time we got around to doing it, the 
loan had been repaid. 

Mr. Kennedy. No interest was charged on that ? 

Mr. Sternberg. No, sir, not the 6 days. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the next loan after that? 

Mr. Sternberg. The next loan were personal loans, aggregating the 
sum of $27,000, and those loans were made over a period of approxi- 
mately 3 to 4 weeks in varying sums, aggregating $27,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who were these loans from ? 

Mr. Sternberg. They were borrowed from me personally. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they pay interest? 

Mr. Sternberg. That loan is not due as yet, and I don't believe that 
is interest bearing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it secured ? 

Mr. Sternberg. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there a note ? 

Mr. Sternberg. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The note indicates no interest, does it not ? 

Mr. Sternberg. I believe that it right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It states on the face of it, "Value received, no inter- 
est." 

]\Ir. Sternberg. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kj;nnedy. Wliy did Mr. Holt wish to make these loans ? 

Mr. Sternberg. These were personal matters of Mr. Holt. I have 
no idea. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he indicate to you at that time the investments 
in the U.S. Hoifman International Corp. ? 

Mr. S'l^ERNBERG. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Roth, did you have conversations with him on 
that? 

Mr. Roth. No; I did not. I didn't know until 2 days ago that he 
had bought U.S. Hoffman stock or the Hoffman International stock. 
In fact, I am quite flattered that he did. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. What was the next loan after that ? 

Mr. Sternberg. You have a complete transcript of all the loans, to 
the best of my knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Roth, did you make arrangements at the Frank- 
line National Bank for the bank to loan Milton Holt $55,000? 

Mr. Roth. I didn't make arrangements for them to loan him $55,- 
000. As a friend of both Mr. Clifford and Mr. Holt 

Mr. Kennedy. 'Wlio as Mr. Clifford ? 

Mr. Roth. Mr. Clifford is the officer at the bank. 

I suggested that I was sending him a customer, and he made the 
loan on 13,000 shares of stock, I believe, which is fully secured. It 
was up to the bank either to make the loan or not make the loan. 
Nobody endorsed it or in any way guaranteed it. There was no rec- 
ommendation to make the loan. It was just a piece of business that 
I felt the bank might be interested in having. 

Mr. I^nnedy. Who is Mr. Clifford ? He is the officer at the bank? 

Mr. Roth. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does he have anything to do with your company ? 

Mr. Roth. No, he has nothing to do with our company. He is on 
our board of directors. 



19194 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. I^NNEDT. Of which company ? 

Mr. Roth. Both companies. 

Mr. Kennedy. Both companies ? 

Mr. Roth. That is correct. He is also a friend of mine. 

Mr. Kennedy. Continental 

Mr. Roth. Industries and U.S. Hoffman. 

I am not even sure, but he might be on the board of our third public 
company, which is Hoffman International. I am not sure of this. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat about the transaction that you had, Mr. Roth, 
with Milton Holt in 1956? 

Mr. Roth. Which transaction are we referring to ? 

Mr. Kennedy What financial transaction did you have with Mil- 
ton Holt in 1956? 

Mr. Roth. I think in order to answer that question you would have 
to be more specific. I don't know exactly what you are ref rerring to. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any financial transactions with him 
in 1956? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Roth. Are you referring to the stock purchase by Milton Holt? 

Mr. Kennedy. We can start with that ; yes. 

Mr. Roth. That is the only transaction I had with him at that time. 
Milton Holt, along with a large group of other people, subscribed to 
400,000 shares of stock, Milton Holt to 12,000 at a price of $2.50 a 
share, which was the exact price that we paid for the stock in the 
purchase of this company just prior to this period. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many other people, would you say? 

Mr. Roth. About 20. 

Mr. Kennedy. About 20 people? 

Mr. Roth. I am guessing at the number. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe there were 30 altogether. 

Mr. Roth. Well, 30. 

Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. 

Mr. Roth. We had purchased the company for $2.50 a share, and 
in order to raise an additional $1 million of capital we decided to 
sell 400,000 shares of stock. Milton Holt subscribed to 12,000 shares 
of this stock, along with all these other people, and you say there 
were 30, and paid in full for the 12,000 shares of stock. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did he pay for it ? 

Mr. Roth. That is a little bit of a problem right now. Mr. Ko- 
pecky came in Monday morning and started looking through our 
records. The first time I knew he was going to look through our 
records was late Friday afternoon. We put everyone at his disposal. 

When I came to this hearing this morning, we had traced every- 
thing but $11,000 of the payments. The committee was helpful in 
telling me they had found $5,000 more than we had found. But I 
can tell you and I am under oath, that he paid every single cent, just 
like everyboy else, and our records reflect that the money for these 
400,000 shares was paid for in full. 

The Chairman. The onlv question is you just have not been able 
to find $11,000 of it? 

INIr. Roth. That is correct. 

Tlie Chairman. And we found all but $6,000. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19195 

Mr. EoTiT. You did a better job than we did. You found $5,000, 
Mdiich I didn't find. We will find the other $6,000. 

The Chairman. You are confident that it was paid? 

Mr. RoTii. Not only am I confident, but I am positive. Every single 
share has been paid for. 

The Chairman. I am willing for you to be positive. I just thought 
while you haven't found it, within your own knowledge you know it 
was paid. 

Mr. Roth. I know from my own knowledge that it has been paid. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the records there were some $30,000 
of stock that Milton Holt received. He put up $14,000 himself. Then 
you had a transaction with him yourself ? 

Mr. Roth. That is correct. I loaned him $10,000. 

Mr. Kennedy, How much interest did he pay on that? 

Mr. Roth. He paid no interest. He paid me back 1 year later. 

Mr. Kennedy. What security did he put up ? 

Mr. Roth. Friends of mine don't have to give me any security. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much security did Milton Holt put up? 

Mr. Roth. None. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he paid you back a year later; is that right? 

Mr. Roth. Yes; but I held the stock until that $10,000 was paid. 
Tlie stock wasn't delivered. 

The Chairman. The stock was security. 

Mr. Kennedy. And do you know where the other $6,000 came from? 

Mr. Roth. I didn't know where $11,000 came from this morning. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know where the other $6,000 came from ? 

Mr. Roth. No, I do not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever had any other financial transactions 
with Mr. Milton Holt ? 

Mr. Roth. To the best of my knowledge, no. There may be. Milton 
Holt has been a friend of mine for almost 30 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any other union official included in these 
30 individuals ? 

Mr. Roth. So far as I know, no other union official. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, w^e have this affidavit this morning 
that was mentioned, an affivadit by Frank Abrams. He states : 

I am a principal in the firm of Adams Associates, located at 545 Madison Avenue, 
New York, N.Y., as well as the certified public accoimtant for certain exami- 
nations made of the accounts and records of Valley Commercial Corp. and Conti- 
nental Industries, Inc., both located at 956 Brush Hollow Road, Westbury, Long 
Island, N.Y. 

At the request of Mr. Herbert Sternberg, of the Valley Commercial Corp., I 
have made arrangements for a total of four loans to be granted by Adams Asso- 
ciates to Milton Holt. The amounts and dates of such loans are as follows : 

October 18, 1957, $30,000. 

April 15, 19.59, $54,600. 

May 1, 1959, $12,000. 

April 10, 1959, $.35,000. 

These loans were made at the recommendation and request of Mr. Sternberg. 
The first two loans aforelisted were immediately reimbursed to Adams Asso- 
ciates by Valley Commercial Corp. When these two loans were repaid by Mr. 
Holt, Adams Associates then reimbursed the Valley Commercial Corp. 

In connection with the last two loans aforelisted, the Valley Commercial Corp. 
did not reimburse Adams Associates. However, in connection with the last loan 
aforelisted, Mr. Herbert Sternberg personally guaranteed and endorsed the note 
which was obtained from Mr. Holt. 



19196 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Ilolt is not known to me, and at the time Adams Associates granted ttie 
aforementioned loans I liad no knowledge of Milton Holt's position or occupation. 
Had I known of the occupation and position of Mr. Holt and his relationship 
with Continental Industries, Inc., I would not have agreed to the loans as 
described above. 

Did yon, Mr. Roth, realize that there was something improper in 
what you were doing in making these loans ? 

Mr. RoTii. Not only did I realize it, there was nothing improper. 

(At this point Senator Ervin withdrew from the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. The committee is going to have to suspend for a 
few moments. Everyone may be at ease for the present. 

(After a short recess, the select committee reconvened with the fol- 
lowing members present: Senators McClellan and Curtis.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr, Roth, did you see anything improper or irreg- 
ular in the financial transactions that you were having with Mr. Holt ? 

Mr. Roth. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. And never have ; is that right ? 

Mr. Roth. Never have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you feel it was perfectly proper for a company 
to make these kind of loans to union officials? You can answer that. 
It is a question of fact. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr, Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, that can't be a legal question. 

The Chairman. Will you answer the question ? 

(The question was read by the reporter.) 

The Chairman. All right, 

Mr. Roth. I felt at the time that tlie loans were not made to a union 
official, but to a friend. In the light of the hearings today, I would 
not do it again. But I made these loans and many other loans to 
friends. 

The Chairman. The law does not apply to friends, but it applies to 
union officials. 

Mr. Roth. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Of course, a union official might be a friend, but 
that would not exclude him as being a union official if he is one. 

Mr. Roth. That is right. 

The Chairman. So you do see the connection now. 

Mr. Roth. I see the connection you are making. 

The Chairman. The law makes no exception, whether he is a friend 
or not a friend. I guess the more prevailing presumption would be 
that he is a friend if you make loans to him without interest. 

Mr, Roth. Especially if you liave known liim for 30 years. 

The Chairman. Yes. So that kind of friendship wixs not excluded 
under the law. You now recognize that it does not conform to the law. 

Mr. Roth. That is correct. 

The Chairman. At the time you say you did not think about it. 

Mr. Roth. At that time, no. At this point, in the light of what has 
developed, I probably would not make the loans again. 

The Chairman. Let us hope not. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. He had been a longtime friend of youre; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Roth. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy, You had perfect confidence in him ? 

Mr. Roth. I did. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19197 

Mr. Kennedy. Perfect confidence in his honesty and veracity ? 

Mr. RoTii. As a friend I had confidence in him. 

JNIr. Kennedy. If that is correct, wliy did you go through tliis 
Adams Associates? 

Mr. RoTii. Oh, you can have a lot of confidence in a friend, but I 
ihink an obligation is felt more keenly if it comes from someone else 
rather than if it comes directly from me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That does not make too much sense. You say in the 
first instance that you are making these loans only because he is a 
friend, and that it has nothing to do with union officials, and he has 
been a dear friend of yours for 25 or 30 years ; and then, in order to 
make sure you are going to get your money back, you do it through a 
third party. 

Mr. Roth. You might want to help a friend, but you don't want 
to lose your money. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not mind evidently losing your money to 
the pouit of losing interest on au}'^ of tliese loans. 

Mr. Roth. None of these loans have cost us any interest. The 
$60,000 that Mr. Sternberg borrowed without interest, through arith- 
metic you will find that the interest more than equals out. 

Mr. Kennedy. This loan originally was made for $10,000 in 1956. 
When you first made that $10,000 loan to Mr. Holt there was no dis- 
cussion at that time about the fact 2 years later he possibly was going 
to loan Mr. Sternberg $60,000 and that loan of $10,000 was made 
without interest. 

Mr. Roth. That is correct. That particular $10,000 loan I per- 
sonally made and I did not charge any interest; $500 was not a large 
sum for a longstanding friendship, $500. 

Mr. Kennedy. It does not say that in the law that you can give 
somebody something of value as long as it does not affect you, that 
you are a rich man and therefore you can give somebody $500. It 
does not say that. It prohibits this kind of activities. 

iSIr. Roth. I am not here to argue the law with you. If that is the 
law, that is the law. I am here to testify. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have been aware of the fact that you might have 
violated the law ? 

Mr. Roth. No ; I do not think I did violate the law. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why is it that you told our investigator yesterday 
that you were going to take the fifth amendment before this com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. Roth. I think that is against the law. You are not entitled 
to quote whether I am going to take the fifth amendment or not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell the investigator that you planned to 
take the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Roth. I think that is against the law. I refuse to answer that 
because it is against the law. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is against the law ? 

Mr. Roth. It is against the U.S. Constitution for you to question 
whether I take my privilege or not. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am just asking you that you said you never real- 
ized there was anything wrong with this. 

Mr. Roth. I restated that just now, that I feel there is nothing 
wrong. 



19198 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. In view of that statement, I am asking you if jou 
did not plan yesterday and told our investigator that you were going 
to take the fifth amendment before this committee. 

Mr. Roth. No ; I did not tell him that. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you say ? 

Mr. RoTii. I said to your investigator, who is sitting next to you, 
that I felt the way he acted, that we were going to be very cooperative 
witnesses and we wanted to testify, but that the way the committee 
handled the entire thing was very unethical and un-American and 
that your man handed me a subpena Friday. 

When I asked him, "Is this a subpena to appear?" he said, "No, 
don't worry about it. We just want to look at your books." I had 
a half dozen people make all our books available to him. On Monday, 
at 1 o'clock, I asked him, "Do I have to appear? He said, "Leave 
it be, I don't know. I will have to check." 

At 5 o'clock Monday night, "Be in Washington Tuesday morning 
at 9 o'clock in the morning." I got up 5 o'clock this morning to be 
here on time. I was annoyed and I told your investigator that was 
the reason I was not going to cooperate. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were going to take the fifth amendment? 

Mr. Roth. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell him that ? 

Mr. Roth. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you say anything about the fifth amendment? 

Mr. Roth. I may have considered it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you say anything to him ? 

Mr. Roth. I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never mentioned it ? 

Mr. Roth. I never mentioned the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you come down to my office and raise the 
question 

Mr. Roth. I might. 

Mr. Kennedy. You might take the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Roth. I might. I was very angry. 

Mr. Field. May I ask whether or not this question is proper ? We 
had a conference with Mr. Kennedy before we entered this hearing 
room. I assumed that whatever was said to Mr. Kennedy was confi- 
dential. I assume what he said to me is confidential. 

We are now being questioned about something where we tried to 
tell Mr. Kennedy that we were going to do our best to cooperate with 
him. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. I will tell you why I brought it up. 

The Chairman. Let us proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to make sure that the record is clear. If the 
witness had not stated in the manner that he did that he never saw 
anything wrong in this, that he never questioned the fact that it was 
entirely proper, I would never have brought this matter up and we 
would have just presented the facts. 

But the fact is that he did know there was something wrong with 
this. He did know there was something improper, and his conversa- 
tion with me this morning revealed that, and his conversation with 
the investigator. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19199 

That is the reason that this matter has been brought up. I think 
it is perfectly proper. I think statements to Mr. Kopecky the day 
before and to me this morning indicate that he knew there was some- 
thing improper and wrong. 

Mr. Field. Mr. Chairman, we turned over all private records to the 
investigator without question and without reservation. We co- 
operated completely and fully with the investigator at all times, at 
all hours of the day and night. 

The witnesses have appeared here and have not failed to answer a 
single question. They have answered every single question and not 
refused to answer any. 

The Chairman. Let us proceed and answer the question. He may 
have changed his mind. I don't know what he intended to do or not 
intended to do. I want to get the facts. 

Mr. Roth. Senator, I want to make one slight change. I want to 
say that I am not sure, on reflection. I may have in anger said to 
Mr. Kopecky that I may take the fifth amendment. I am not sure. 

The Chairman. Well, you are not taking it. 

Mr. Roth. No, I am not taking it. I am trying to cooperate and 
give you every single fact like we have done for the last few days. 

The Chairman. As long as you don't take it, we will not go into the 
matter further. We j ust want to get the facts. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

The question here is one of impropriety and also of illegality. As 
I interpret tlie testimony, the undisputed facts are that there was a 
violation of the spirit of the law. If there was not a violation, even 
if there wtis no law, there would have been implications, very strong 
implications, of impropriety. 

The thing about it is that we cannot serve two masters. A repre- 
sentative of a labor union, in my judgment, is exposing himself to 
justified criticism when he takes a favor from an employer with 
whom he contracts on behalf of men who work. 

That is the intent of the law to prohibit, insofar as it will prohibit. 
•Certainly it places a stamp of condemnation upon such practices. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't it concern you about Mr. Holt, Mr, Roth, the 
fact that he had been indicted for perjury? Didn't that concern you 
as to making loans, to ha^dng these financial transactions with a man 
of that kind ? 

Mr. Roth. Not particularly. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then the fact that he pled guilty to perjury 
in March of 1959? He was indicted in 1957. So most all of these 
transactions took place after he was indicted. He pled guilty in March 
of 1959, and a number of these transactions took place after that. 

Didn't that disturb you at all, having transactions of this kind with 
a person of Mr. Holt's character ? 

Mr. Roth. I didn't know he pled guilty. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you look into his activities at all ? 

Mr. Roth. Am I supposed to investigate my friends ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, once again, this man is a union official, Mr. 
Roth. You were having financial transactions for a considerable 
amount of money with him. I would think you would be slightly 
interested in it. 

Mr. Roth. I have known tlie man for 30 years. 



19200 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't he indicted and convicted in connection with 
another earlier case in 1955, for antitrust violation, with a company 
with whom you used to be associated ? 

Mr. Roth. Yes. I am glad you brought that up. I was out of 
that company for over 4 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. "V\^iat was the name of that company ? 

Mr. Roth. Herald Vending. 

Mr. Kennedy. Herald Vending? 

Mr. Roth. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did it disturb you about making loans to Milton Holt 
after he had been indicted and convicted for attempting to gain a 
monopoly for the Herald Vending Co. of this industry ? 

Mr. Roth. I don't think that is a true statement of the fact. That 
wasn't what he was convicted for. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was he convicted for ? 

Mr. Roth. I think the conviction, to the best of my knowledge, was 
for an association, not for the Herald Vending, and I was not indicted 
nor was I involved, and I was out of that company for over 4 years 
when this thing came to trial. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, it says that the activities of Mr. Holt go back 
to 1936. During that period of time you were associated with this 
company. 

Mr. Roth. And we committed no illegal act. Otherwise, perhaps 
I would have been indicted. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did that disturb you at all ? 

Mr. Roth. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. It did not. 

Matthew Forbes, is he one of your associates ? 

Mr. Roth. Matthew Forbes is a stockholder and on the board of 
directors of U.S. Hoffman, I believe. 

Mr. Kennedy. "V^Hiat is his relationship with Valley ? 

Mr. Roth. He is one of my associates in Valley Commercial. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he an investor in Valley ? 

Mr. Roth. Yes. He is one of my associates in Valley Commercial.. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he received a $10,000 fine and was given a 6- 
month suspended sentence in that other case. 

Mr. Roth. He was the head of the association at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. In connection with Mr. Milton Holt at that time.. 
Did that disturb you at all, Mr. Roth ? 

Mr. Roth. Again, I say, not particularly. This was a thing that 
didn't disturb me particularly. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have had union officials appear before the com- 
mittee and they don't se^m to be disturbed about improper activities,, 
and we have had some businessmen that equally don't seem to be- 
disturbe<l by improper or illegal activities, and certainly, Mr. Roth,, 
you fall into that latter cate^oi-y. 

Mr. Roth. I disagree with you. I don't believe I do. I am dis- 
turbed by improper activities. I think I have conducted my personal 
life in such a manner that I cannot be criticized. 

Mr. Kennedy. I just want to point out to you in the case where 
Mr. Dave Beck was just indicted some weeks ago, it was on a loan of 
$200,000 that he received from two companies, Associated Transport,, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19201 

Inc., and the Frueliauf Trailer Co. On the $200,000 Mr. Dave Beck 
paid interest. He was indicted, as were the two companies. 

That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions ? 

Senator Curtis. No questions. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Holt. 

You might want to stay for Milton Holt, if you like to, Mr. Koth. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn, please? 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senat^i select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Holt. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MILTON HOLT, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
JOSEPH E. BRILL 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation, please, sir. 

Mr. Holt. Milton Holt, 72-19 136th Street, Flushing, N.Y. 

The Chairman. Do you have any business or occupation, Mr. Holt? 

Mr. Holt. I must respectfully decline to answer under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. You have counsel ? 

Mr. Holt. Yes, sir ; I do. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, identify yourself. 

Mr. Brill. Joseph E. Brill, 165 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 

The Chairman. Mr. Holt, you declined to answer as to your busi- 
ness or occupation. The Chair would ask you : Have you been present 
here during the hearings today ? Have you been present here in this 
room? 

Mr. Holt. Yes. 

The Chairman. Then I assume you heard some of the testimony, 
if not all of it, that the committee heard this morning regarding some 
of your activities ? Did you hear it ? 

Mr. Holt. I may have heard some of it. I am not sure I heard all. 

The Chairman. If you heard some of it, I expect you heard some 
that was derogatory ; did you not ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Holt. I decline to answer that, respectfully, sir. I don't want 
to waive any of my rights. 

The Chairman. I am not asking you to waive any of your rights. 
I am giving you the opportunity, if you heard here this morning, or 
today, if you heard derogatory testimony with reference to you, your 
business, your activities, in any way that you could regard as deroga- 
tory, I am now giving you an opportunity to refute that testimony. 

Mr. Holt. I respectfully assert my privileges, as I previously stated. 

The Chairman. All right. I just wanted to be sure that you under- 
stood that if you desire you could refute it, explain it, or make any 
comment about it you wished to make. 



19202 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The testimony here showed this morning some associations and 
some contacts with people that are engaged in crime, beyond any doubt, 
who have been convicted of crime, and it shows a close association of 
you with them. I thought maybe if there was no truth in it, and this 
association was shown with you as a member or as an officer in this 
local 805, 1 thought if you felt that it reflected upon you and that it 
was not true, and the implications that might be associated with it are 
not true, that you would like to refute it, or give some explanation of it. 

If you do not wish to, that is your privilege, and the record will 
have to be left as it was made by those witnesses. 

All right, Mr. Counsel ; the witness says he doesn't want to respond. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Milton Holt has appeared before 
this committee once before in 1957, in the paper local case, and was 
specifically identified as one of the participants in the so-called gallop- 
ing charter, and also participated in the establishment of certain 
paper locals. 

He was identified as being an associate of Johnny Dio, and Anthony 
"Tony Ducks" Corallo, a friend of Dick Kaminetsky, had known Sam 
Berger for 12 years, had known Jimmy Doyle. According to testimony 
that we had, he also knew Joseph Stracci. 

Is that correct, Mr. Holt ? 

Mr. Holt. I am advised not to go beyond what I have already said 
might result in the waiver of my rights upon which I desire to stand. 

I therefore stand upon what I have said. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, he appeared before the committee and took 
the fifth amendment at that time, Mr. Chairman, in connection with 
those activities. 

Could you tell us in view of that, and the other notoriety you 
received at that time, why Mr. Roth would have those financial 
transactions with you thereafter ? 

Mr. Holt. Mr. Kennedy, I respectfully submit that my position 
has been stated very clearly. 

Mr. Kennedy. "VVliat was that ? "^ 

The Chairman. You stated your position, but if you wish to exer- 
cise the privilege of the fifth amendment you should invoke it properly 
so that the record will be clear on it. 

Mr. Holt. Then I reassert my privilege under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you tell us anything about the moneys, the loans 
that you received from Mr. Harold Roth ? 

Mr. Holt. I want to assert my privilege as I stated before. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now you also, according to the testimony before the 
committee, have been indicted and convicted for an antitrust offense in 
connection with some companies who were attempting to gain control 
of the industry in New York City. 

You were also indicted for perjury and ultimately pleaded guilty in 
early 1959 on a perjury count in connection with an operation of 
Johnny Dioguardi ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Holt. I respectfully decline to answer on the reasons I have 
stated before. 

The Chairman. Will you answer this question: Are you presently 
an officer in a labor union and particularly local 805 of the Teamsters? 

Mr. Holt. Mr. Senator, I respectfully again assert my privilege 
imder the fifth amendment. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19203 

The Chairman. Why? 

Mr. Holt. Because some of it might tend to incriminate me. 
The Chairman. You honestly believe that a truthful answer might 
tend to incriminate you ? 
Mr. Holt. It might. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have had the testimony before the committee by 
a representative of the Bureau of Narcotics that through your assist- 
ance local 805 was used as the headquarters for Mr. Blaustein who at 
that time was selling narcotics. Will you tell us about that ? 

Mr. Holt. I respectfully cannot go beyond what I have already 
said that might result in a waiver of my rights on which I desire to 
stand. 

The Chairman. Let me ask : Is Mr. Blaustein an officer, a represent- 
ative in any way of local 805 or any other union so far as you know? 
Mr. Holt. I most respectfully decline to answer for the reasons I 
have stated before. 

The Chairman. Other than that document we have here where he 
made application for a chattel mortgage on an automobile, may I ask 
the staff, do we have other evidence of his being a member of that local 
or representative of it in any capacity? I am talking about Mr. 
Blaustein. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have no other evidence that Mr. 
Blaustein was an officer of local 805, other than the testimony that we 
had this morning, the fact that he used the headquarters, No. 1 and 
No. 2, when he was purchasing a car he stated that he worked for the 
local, and when the bank called Mr. Milton Holt to find out if he was 
employed Mr. Milton Holt said he was, at some $10,000 a year. At 
least a voice describing himself as Milton Holt. 

The Chairman. I want to ask Mr. Holt about that specifically if he 
is willing to answer. If he is not he can exercise his privilege. 
Mr. Holt. Is that a question. Senator? 
The Chairman. I am going to ask you a question. 
The testimony was here that this man Blaustein and you were to- 
gether quite a bit, and he apparently operated out of local 805 head- 
quarters, and obviously he is a dope peddler. 

When he went to buy an automobile, he represented to the finance 
agency from whom he was securing a loan that he was an employee 
of local 805. The application shows that you were c^led and asked 
about it, and you reported to the finance company that he was an 
employee at a salary of $10,000 a year. 

Now, do you want to say you did or did not have such a telephone 
call, and whether you did or did not make such a report to the finance 
company ? 

Mr. Holt. I respectfully, sir, am advised that to go beyond what 
I have already said might result in a waiver of my rights upon which 
I desire to stand. 

The Chairman. In other words, because of possible self-incrimina- 
tion, you are unwilling to state whether you answered such a telephone 
call and whether you gave the information as reported on this appli- 
cation ? You can realize that if he was not an employee of the labor 
organization as stated on this application, that to so state would be a 
false representation, of course, do you not ? 

36751— 59— pt. 55 5 



19204 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Holt. I have stated my position as clearly as I could, Mr. 
Senator. 

The Chairman. All right. I will ask you one other question : 

You also realize, I am sure, that if he was a dope peddler operating 
out of the union hall, if that was within your knowledge and you per- 
mitted him to do that, that is beneath the dignity of decent unionism 
and that decent honest unionism would not tolerate such activity, 
do you not ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Holt. Again respectfully, Mr. Senator, I cannot go beyond 
what I have already said for fear it might result in a waiver of my 
rights. 

The Chairman. Well, I will leave that to you. I just cannot be- 
lieve, in fact, I know it is not true, that miionism in America, the 
great majority, the decent segment of it, would countenance such con- 
duct. I think for it to happen in a union, if it did happen, is very 
disgraceful. 

Is there anything further ? 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE M. KOPECKY— Kesumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kopecky, do we find that Mr. Holt received some 
money in 1955 and 1956, or 1956 and 1957 ? 

Mr. KoPECKT. He received dividends in 1956 and 1957 on stock of 
Continental Industries which we talked about earlier. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much were those dividends ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Total of $3,600 ; $1,256 and 2,400 in 1957. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he declare that ? 

Mr. Kopecky. He did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. He received the money and did not declare it ? 

Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. 

Tlie Chairman. Is that some of the stock he bought with this bor- 
rowed money ? 

Mr. Kopecky. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I might say, Mr. Chairman, in salaries and expenses 
according to the records he received some $21,220 in 1958, some $20,000 
in 1957. -* 

We also liave here a letter dated November 3, 1958, that Mr. Holt 
wrote to Mr. Hoffa which is of some interest. 

TESTIMONY OF MILTON HOLT, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
JOSEPH E. BRILL— Resumed 

The Chairman. Mr. Holt, I present to you what appears to be the 
original of a letter dated November 3, 1958, addressed to Mr. James K. 
Hoffa, general president, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
which appears to have the signature of Milton Holt. I will ask you 
to examine it and state if you recognize it and identify it as a letter 
written by you. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. You have examined the document, have you ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19205 

Mr. Holt. I a<rain respectfully, sir, state that to i?o beyond wliat I 
have already said might result in a waiver of my I'ights on which I 
desire to stand. 

The Chairman. Let the record show that in the presence of the 
official reporter, the members of the connnittee, his own counsel, and 
the ])ress, and all others present, that he did examine the letter and 
liad the o})portnnity to see it. 

The letter will be made exhibit No. 43. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 43" for reference 
and may be found in the hies of the select committee.) 

Afr. Kennedy. I Avant to read it. 

The Chairman, Might I incpiire further from any member of the 
statf who procured this letter under subpena ? 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL J. TIERNEY— Resumed 

Mr. TiEKNEY. Senator, I pi'ocured the letter. 

The Chairman. You have been previously sworn, and you procured 
this letter under subpena from the files of whom ? 

Mr. Tu:rney. From tlie International Brotherhood of Teamsters 
in Washington. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

November 3, 19.58. 
Mr. James R. Hoffa, 

General President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
Washington, B.C. 

Dear Sib and Brother : We are proud to inform you that at a general mem- 
bership meeting of local 805, International Brotherhood of Teamsters held on 
September 29, 1958, the members of local 805, International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters unanimously approved a resolution previously adopted by our execu- 
tive board and advisory committee, that a vote of confidence be given to Gen- 
eral President .James R. Hoffa and the general executive board. Be it 

Resolved, That the actions taken by you and the general executive board 
have been for the best interests of the rank and file membership of our inter- 
national union, and that the Senate committee is guilty of the most serious 
threat of the destruction of the labor movement by their unfair actions against 
you ; be it further 

Resolved, The membership of local 805, International Brotherhood of Team- 
sters, heartily endorse you, our general president, and the general executive board 
of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, for not succumbing to the atroci- 
ties performed against you by the Senate committee, and we are certain that 
after the air is cleared you will have established yourself as the champion of 
the entire labor movement, for it is you and you alone who has had the cour- 
age to withstand this tremendous onslaught against labor, where weaker leaders 
have failed. 

TESTIMONY OF MILTON HOLT, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
JOSEPH E. BRILL— Resumed 

The Chairman. Do you mean to use the term or the word "labor" 
as synonymous with crooks, hoodlums, gangsters, scoundrels of the 
lowest order? That is the question. 

Mr. Holt. I am advised that to go beyond what I have already 
said might result in a waiver of my rights, Mr. Senator. 

The CiiAiRMAjr. Well, this charge of destroying the labor move- 
ment, when we get people up here who are thieves and crooks, all 
kinds of law violators, narcotic agents, and that crowd^ and when we 
undertake to show what is going on in that area within certain seg- 



19206 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

ments, I hope considerably limited segments of organized labor, those 
who are guilty holler we are trying to destroy the labor movement in 
the country. 

Well, I know that isn't true because I know that all of tlie labor 
movement in this country, and a great majority of it, cannot come 
within tliat category. If we are trying to get some crooks and folks 
out of the labor movement by simply exposing their corruption and 
their misdeeds, if that is against unionism, then I don't know the 
meaning of decent unionism. 

Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. The last paragraph states : 

The entire membership of Local 805, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
have instructed me to wish you Godspeed, good health, and continued success. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Holt, are you acquainted with the man to whom 
you wrote this letter ? 

Mr. Holt. I have stated my position as clearly as I could before, 
Mr. Senator. 

Senator Curtis. Well, I w^ant you to answer that. 

Mr. Holt. I am advised that to go beyond what I have already said 
might result in a waiver of my rights, and I want to stand upon those 
rights. 

Senator Curtis. You looked at the letter. It is addressed to James 
R. Hoffa. Now, do you know him ? 

Mr. Holt. I have asserted my privilege, Mr. Senator, most respect- 
fully. 

The Chairman. What does he say about their destroying unionism? 
I didn't get the full impact. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Atrocities." 

Senator Curtis. Here it is. 

The Chairman. "Wliere you say this committee is guilty of the most 
serious threat of the destruction of the labor movement by their un- 
fair actions against you, you won't reflect upon it, no doubt, but I 
think the people of this country who are interested will. 

The greatest threat to the destruction of decent, honest unionism in 
this country emanates from sources that cannot testify to facts they 
know without possible self-incrimination, and from the evil practices 
that this committee has exposed. 

Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I might say, Mr. Chairman, Holt was identified by 
Mr. Furman, a union official who has been with the unions for some 28 
years, identified in the testimony this morning. When Mr. Furman 
called Mr. Holt and tried to get them to use union workers at the camp 
they purchased, in upstate New York, Mr. Holt finally said to him, 
''Why should we bother with you hillbilly union officials and you 
hillbilly locals?" 

Is that correct, Mr. Holt ? 

Mr. Holt. Mr. Kennedy, I have established my position as clearly 
as I could previously. I stand upon those rights. 

The Chairman. All right. You may stand aside. 

Senator Curtis. I want to ask a question. 

You are still an official in the Teamsters Union ? * 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19207 

Mr. IIoLT. Senator, I am advised that to go beyond what I have 
already said might result in the waiver of my rights, on which I de- 
sire to stand. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you. Stand aside. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. ^Mr. Abe Gordon. 

The Chairman. Come forward, please. Be sworn. 

You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this Sen- 
ate select committee shall be the truth, the whole tnith, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Gordon. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ABE GORDON, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
JOSEPH E. BRILL 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation. 

Mr. Gordon. My name is Abe Gordon. I live at 1011 Neilson Street, 
Far Rockaway. 

The Chairman. Would you give us your occupation or business, 
Mr. Gordon? 

Mr. Gordon. I respectfully decline to answer because my answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel ? 

Mr. Gordon. I do. 

The Chairman. Let the record show the same counsel appears for 
Mr. Gordon as appeared for Mr. Holt. 

Mr. Brill. Joseph E. Brill, 165 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gordon, you are vice president of local 805, In- 
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, and administrator of the wel- 
fare, and pension fund of local 805 ? 

Mr. Gordon. I respectfully decline to answer because my answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have been identified before this committee 
as making the purchase, with $85,000 of pension funds, the purchase 
of a piece of property from your counsin, Mr. Kobbins, property which 
was, according to the assessor, not worth more than $25,000. 

Can you explain that to us ? 

Mr. Gordon. I respectfully decline to answer because my answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have also been identified as taking some $8,000, 
at least, of union funds, pension funds, and depositing them in your 
own bank account. 

Would you explain that to us ? 

Mr. Gordon. I respectfully decline to answer because my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, could I call Mr. Arthur Schneier, of 
the New York State Insurance Department, who has made an in- 
vestigation of the situation? 

The Chairman. Let me ask Mr. Gordon a question while the next 
witness is coming forward. 



19208 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gordon, the real estate transaction gives rise to inquiry as to 
what actually went on there on the basis of this testimony. 

Would you like to clear it up, or do you prefer to leave the record 
as it is^ 

Mr. Gordon. I respectfully decline to answer because my answer 
miglit tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. There may be quite sufficient grounds on tlie basis 
of the testimony that has been given for belief that there was some 
fraud committed against this welfare fund, provided for the benefit 
of union members. Do you say that no fraud was committed against 
them ? 

Mr. Gordon. I respectfully decline to ansAver because my answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Well, if there wasn't, if you are sure there wasn't, 
I doubt if your answer would incriminate you. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Don't you ? 

Mr. Gordon. Is that a question, Senator ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Gordon. I respectfully decline to answer because my answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Be sworn. 

You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee shall be tlie truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. ScHNEEER. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF AETHUE SCHNEIER 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation, please, sir. 

Mr. ScHNEiER. My name is Arthur Schneier. I reside at 90-15 
197th Street, New York. I am an examiner for the State of New 
York Insurance Department. 

The Chairman. How long have you been in that position ? 

Mr. Schneier. I have worked for the State of New York in that 
capacity since February of 1946. 

The Chairman. Have you been there some 31/^ years ? 

Mr. Schneier. 1946, sir. Thirteen years, roughly. 

The Chairman. I see. More than 13 years. 

All right ; proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I might say that we are going into 
what the Department of Insurance of the State of New York has 
found in connection with this welfare fund. 

First, in understanding Mr. Abe Gordon, he is an extremely im- 
portant official in the Teamsters because of his close personal friend- 
ship with IMr. Iloffa, as you pointed out in your opening statement. 
He is one of Mr. Hoffa's closest associates in New York City. He 
has close ties with the major underworld figures in New York City. 

One of his closest associates was Mr. Johnny Dioguardi. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you at this point: If he makes any 
statement that is inaccurate and you wish to correct it, you are at 
liberty to do so under oath. 

Mr. Gordon. Thank vou. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19209 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, when the paper locals were being set 
up, it was established before our committee that Johnny Dioguardi 
used the office of Mr. Abe Gordon, local 805, to make all of the arrange- 
ments. There were telephone calls during the pertinent period of 
time between Mr. Abe Gordon and Mr. James Hoffa. 

Subsequently, when Mr. Hickey and Mr. Lacey challenged the 
seating of the delegates, there were telephone calls down to Florida 
to Mr. Abe Gordon, who was vacationing there at the time, and then 
immediately there were telephone calls to Mr. Owen Bert Brennan 
at his private telephone number. 

He has been linked, according to the testimony before our com- 
mittee, as I have stated, with the major underworld figures of New 
York. He is of far greater miportance in this investigation than 
merely the head of local 805, mostly because of the many contacts 
he has with the underworld. 

Again, as background, Mr. Lacey refused to allow, or objected to, 
his being seated m the joint council election in New York City in 
1956 on the ground that he was not a union official, that he was an 
employer, that he owned the Gordon Trucking Co. 

^Ve are going to go into that matter in a few minutes. It is of 
interest to note that the Gordon Trucking Co., of which Mr. Gordon is 
the owner, does not have a union contract; that the Gordon Truck- 
ing Co. operates nonunion. 

The Chairman. Mr. Gordon, do you want to make any comment be- 
fore we proceed with further testimony ? 

]Sfr. Gordon. I respectfully decline to answer because my answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. If you just say no, that wouldn't tend to incrim- 
inate you. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, he is the administrator of the welfare fund, 
Mr. Chairman. 

Once again, to determine whether these indi^dduals who have these 
backgrounds and these close associations with Mr. Hoffa are inter- 
ested in the union membership, are interested just in themselves, I 
would like Mr. Schneier to tell us how the welfare fund was set up 
and what the trust instrmiient provides for the operation of tins 
welfare fund. 

Mr. Schneier. The welfare fund was organized 



The Chairman. A little louder. 

Mr. Schneier. The welfare fmid was organized on September 15, 
1950. According to information that we have, Mr. Gordon was 
designated as administrator on October 3, 1950. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there unusual provisions in the trust instru- 
ments as far as the administrator is concerned ? 

Mr. Schneier. The trust agreement is unique in many respects. In 
the course of my employment I have seen a great number of trust 
agreements of welfare funds. This one stands out in its provisions. 

The Chairman. In its provisions or lack of provisions. 

Mr. Schneier. Well, in its specific provisions. 

The Chairman, Specific provisions? 

Senator Curtis. What, for instance? 



19210 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. ScHNEiER. The average trust agreement places the power in the 
hands of trustees, and some of them do provide that certain adminis- 
trative powers are designated to an administrator. 

In this specific trust agreement most of the powers are given 
directly to the administrator. 

Senator Curtis. Who is the administrator ? 
' Mr. ScHNEiER. Mr. Abe Gordon. 

The Chairman. The witness. 

Senator Curtis. How much money does he handle? Based upon 
your investigation, how much is involved ? 

Mr. ScHNEiER. The welfare fund has total contributions of ap- 
proximately $300,000 per year. That is contributions that come into 
the welfare fund ; yes. 

The Chairman. In other words, the fund has an income of $300,000 
a year ? 

Mr. ScHNEEER. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Over how wide a territory are the members scat- 
tered ? 

Mr. ScHNEiER. Mainly in the New York City area. The Greater 
Metropolitan New York area. 

Senator Curtis. He has sole charge of that ? 

Mr. ScHNEiER. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Gordon, have you taken good care of that 
money ? Is it all intact for the members ? 

Mr. Gordon. I respectfully decline to answer because my answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. The answer to that, of course, is one of the things we 
had this morning: They used $85,000 to buy a lot of land from his 
cousin which was worth $25,000 at the most. But let us go through, 
if we may, some of the provisions of this trust agreement. 

Article 3, section 3, provides that the administrator has sole and 
exclusive power to formulate, control, and regulate any and all wel- 
fare programs. 

Mr. Schneier. That is correct. 

The Chairman. You mean no one else has even the responsibility of 
counseling or advising or making any decision ? 

Mr. Schneier. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Once he makes the decision it is final, there is no 
appeal from it? 

Mr. Schneier. Yes, sir; that is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Who signed this trust agreement ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me go through these provisions. It is tlie most 
shocking instrument you can imagine. 

Section 3 provides he file an annual report, but unless the trustees 
submit written objections within 90 days it shall be considered adopted 
and approved in full. 

Is that right? 

Mr. Schneier. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And section 4 further provides that the adminis- 
trator is free from any liability or accountability to anyone with 
respect to the propriety of his action or transactions unless these 
objections are presented within that period of time, 

Mr. Schneier. That is correct. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19211 

The Chairman. Otherwise, if it developed after 3 months that he 
had stolen half of the money 

Mr. ScHNEiER. There is no recourse then. 

The Chairman. By the contract he could not even be prosecuted, 
could he? 

Mr. ScHNEiER. That is correct. 

The Chairman. If the contract was carried out? 

Mr. ScHNEiER. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. This is not a trust agreement; it is a bequest. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. There has never been any objections filed; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. ScHNEiER. That is correct, 

Mr. Kennedy. Section 6 confei*s on the administrator full au- 
thority to hire and fire. 

Section 7 provides that he alone shall sign all checks. 

Section 11 provides that the administrator shall have sole discre- 
tion on all investments. He shall not be restricted to securities com- 
monly known as legal investments for trust funds. 

Mr. ScHNEiER. Yes, sir. These are the specific provisions in the 
trust agreement. I have a copy of it here, sir. 

The Chairman. If you just nod to us that does not get in the 
record. Let us get the answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Article 5, section 1, provides that the administrator 
shall have complete and exclusive control over all the accounts, funds, 
property, investments, and financial affairs of the welfare fund; it 
that right? 

Mr. Schneier. Yes, sir. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Under the trust indenture the administrator fijxed 
his own compensation. 

Mr. Schneier. That he did, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he fixed it at 10 percent of all contributions. 

Mr. Schneier. It was set originally at 10 percent of all contribu- 
tions. 

Mr. Kennedy. With additional 2 percent for expenditures. 

Mr. Schneier. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the tenure of his position was for life. 

Is that right, Mr. Gordon ? 

Mr. Gordon. I respectfully decline to answer because my answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. In the interest of honor and decency, are you will- 
ing now to resign ? 

5lr. Gordon. I respectfully decline to answer because my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Wlio signed it ? 

Mr. Schneier, The four tinistees to the welfare fund. 

Senator Curtis. Wlio were they? 

Mr. Schneier. I have the signatures right here. Hyman Oriel 
and Jack Kaplan, employer trustees, and Albert Greenberg and Milton 
Holt, the union trustees. 

Senator Curtis. Who are those employer trustees ? 

Mr. Schneier. Mr. Hyman Oriel is an officer, I believe, in the 
Oriel Tobacco Co. I have that information here. The company's 
name is A. Oriel Co. 



19212 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. How do you spell that ? 

Mr. ScHNEiER. 0-r-i-e-l. Jack Kaplan is an officer in the M. Kap- 
lan Tobacco Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who are the employee trustees ? 

Mr. ScHNEiER. Albert Greenberg, who is the president of local 805, 
and Milton Holt, who, I believe, is secretary-treasurer. 

The Chairman. Do you have an extra copy of this agreement? 

Mr. ScHNEiER. Yes, I have. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 44. 

(Trust agreement referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 44" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Senator Curtis. One more question: Did somebody in the State 
government of New York have to approve that plan ? 

Mr. Schneier. No, not at that time, sir. The welfare fund was 
organized in 1950, as I stated previously, and we had no authority 
over welfare funds prior to September 1956. 

Senator Curtis. You have no authority over welfare funds that 
are being collected currently by reason of an agreement ? 

Mr. Schneier. Currently, if they come under the Taft-Hartley Act 
and are jointly administered funds, they have to register with our 
department and are subject to examination. 

The Chairman. It is my opinion that that contract would be set 
aside by a court of equity as a contract against public policy and of 
unconscionable provisions. 

If a union member as of now is prohibited from bringing a suit for 
that purpose, I am of the opinion that if the Kennedy-Ervin bill, 
which passed the Senate with the bill of rights amendment in it, is 
approved by the House of Representatives and becomes law, any mem- 
ber of this local could then institute suit successfully to cancel that 
contract. I hope that that will be done. 

Proceed. 

Senator Curtis. Is he bonded ? 

Mr. Schneier. I am not certain of that, Senator. 

The Chairman. Does that provide for any bond ? 

Mr. Schneier. The trust agreement I believe does not. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Gordon, who was your lawyer that drew that 
up? 

Mr. Gordon. I respectfully decline to answer because my answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. It might incriminate him, too. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might say he has been asked that question by the 
Insurance Commission during the various investigations they con- 
ducted of the fund, and he would never tell them the answer to that 
question either. 

Now just going through quickly, vou made investigation of 1954, 
1955 ? 

Mr. Schneier. Our department did, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You found in 1954 that the administrative expenses 
were 26 percent of contributions ? 

Mr. Schneier. Yes, sir. They were 26 percent in 1954. They aver- 
aged around that in the years nnmediately preceding 25, 26, 27, in 
that range. 

The Chairman. "What do vou mean bv tliat ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19213 

Mr. ScHNEiER. That is the ratio of expenses to contributions coming 
into the fund, or to put it differently, for each dollar that came in, 
26 cents was spent on expenses. 

The Chairman. On administration ? 

Mr. ScHNEiER. On administrative expenses. 

The Chairman. In other words, 26 percent of $300,000 a year is 
spent for administration ? 

Mr. ScHXEiER. Roughly. 

The Chairman. $75,000, $76,000, $80,000. 

Mr. ScHNEiER. Actually it was slightly less than that because in 
this period the contributions were a little less than $300,000. This is 
going back 3 years. They were about $270,000, 1 believe. But roughly 
a quarter of that went to administrative expenses. 

The Chairman. That includes his salary or commission out of it 
which is about $20,000 ? 

Mr. ScHNEiER. That includes Mr. Gordon's salary and other union 
officials' salaries, also. 

There were various other union officials that were on the payroll. 

The Chairman. All of them ? 

Mr. Schneeer. Practically all of them. 

Senator Curtis. For how much salary ? 

Mr. ScHNEiER. The amounts varied, but I can give you an example. 
In one particular year two of the officers of local 805, Mr. D'Ewart got 
$5,200. 

The Chairman. What for ? "Wliat kind of work ? Does it say ? 

Mr. ScHNEiER. That was a little hard to establish. 

The Chairman. You have not been able to establish ? 

]Mr. Schneier. Mr. Holt also received $5,200. 

The Chairman. $5,200 ? 

Mr. Schneeer. Yes, sir, in 1 year's time. 

In addition, each of them got $1,300 as an expense allowance. 

The Chairman. $1,300 expense allowance ? 

Mr. Schneier. Two other unioai officials, Mr. Swilling and Mr. 
Greenberg, each received $1,820 salary and approximately $780 in 
expenses. Two employer trustees, Mr. Kaplan and IVIr. Oriel both re- 
ceived $3,800 in salary.* 

Tlie Chairman. What do they get ])aid for? They have no re- 
sponsibility. They caimot do anything about it. 

Mr. Schneier. This was rather unusual in any event to have em- 
ployer trustees on the payroll of the welfare fund. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then the legal fees were excessive. 

Mr. Schneier. The legal feels were quite high. 

The Cji airman. Let us get some ideas about tliat and who got them. 

]\Ir. Schneier. They were given to various members of the — it was 
not one particular lawyer that received it all. 

Mr. Kexxedy. Xot ^Ir. Brill. 

Mr. Schneilk. I have an item of $7,150 that was paid out in legal 
fees, but 1 don't have the details as to what particular counsel re- 
ceived them. 

Senator Curtis. Have you examined the corpus of the fund that 
existed? 

Mr. Schneier. The fund is in existence by all means. It has spent 
part of its money to ])rocure insured benefits for its members and also 
spent a good part on the summei' camp up at Wurtsboro, N.Y. 



19214 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Whose benefit is the camp for ? 

Mr. SciiNEiER. Theoretically for the members of the union. How- 
ever, there seems to be some question about that particular aspect. 
For one tiling tliei'e are somewhere between 1,800 and 2,000 members 
of the miion, and despite the fact that the union has or that the wel- 
fare fund has spent in the neighborhood of a quarter of a million 
dollars on this camp there are only 30 rental units available. 

Now, I had calculated that if each union member got 2 weeks stay at 
this camp, then one member would not get a chance of staying there 
more than once in 12 years. 

Senator Curtis. And a quarter of a million dollars was spent ^ 

Mr. SciiNEiER. A quarter of a million ; yes. 

Tlie Chairman. Of course, in the meantime, some of them would 
die and never get to go. 

Mr. ScHNEiER. Senator, I would like to make another statement on 
that. In going over the records of who was at the sunnner camp, I 
find that one of the cottages w^as rented to a Mrs. Xaomi Gordon, who 
I believe is the mother of Abe Gordon, for the entire season. So that 
one of the union membere never got a chance at occupying. 

Tlie Chairman. She may be a union member. Yon don't know? 

Mr. ScHNEiER. I don't know that, sir. 

There was another cottage rented to Nathan Gordon for the season. 

The Chairman. How many cottages were there? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the brother. 

The Chairman. How many did you say there were? 

Mr. Schneier. Thirty in all. 

The Chairman. Well, that leaves 28, now that some member might 
get a chance at it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nat Gordon is not a member of the union. 

Mr. Schneier. No, he isn't a member of the union. 

'J'he Chairman. He is not a member? 

Mr. Schneier. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Go ahead. 

Mr, Schneier. Several other union officials, Abe Greenberg, Ervin 
D'P^wart, and Daniel Ornstein, had occupied cottages for varying 
pei'iods from 4 to 8 weeks each summer. 

The Chairman. Any charge for them ? 

Mr. Schneier. The records show that they did pay a season rental 
on some of these cottages where they were rented for the entire season, 
or the regular rental where they were rented for periods of so many 
weeks. 

There is a David Ornstein who also rented a cottage for from .5 to 
8 weeks. I believe he is a relative of Daniel Ornstein, a junior officer. 
The funds accountant, Mr. Eisenberg, had rented a cottage up to 5 
weeks. And some other members of the union executive board ap- 
parently got them for varying periods. 

The Chairman, Did you find where any rank-and-file member was 
able to squeeze in for a day or two? 

Mr, Schneier. A few of them did, but many of the cottages, you 
can see by this, were not available. 

The Chairman. I know, but did one happen to get in occasionally ? 

Mr. Schneier. Yes, sir; some of them do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19215 

Actually, as you can see, because of the fact that some cottages are 
occupied by union officei-s, the members' chances were probably far 
lev^s than 1 in 12 ye^irs. He was lucky if it Avas 1 in 20. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's o:ive some other examples. Executives of the 
union and the trustees of the fund, the accountant and the attorney 
receive $11,000 insurance coverages; is that right? 

Mr, SciiNEiER. Yes. I might explain that, that the average mem- 
ber is covered for $3,000 of life insurance, but there are a select few 
\\ho are covered for $11,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the premiums of that are paid by the union? 

Mr. SciiNEiER. In the case of the union officers, the union pays it. 

Mr. Kennedy. And for the employer trustees, and the accountant 
and the attorney, the welfare fund pays it? 

Mr. Schneier. The welfare fund bore the cost. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you inquired of Mr. Gordon in 1954 and 1965, 
would he answer any questions about the operation ? 

Mr. Schneier. Mr. Gordon was called in before the New York 
departjnent for questioning, and at his first appearance, June 4, 1954, 
he was A'ery uncoopei-ative. He resorted to the fifth amendment on 
practically all questions that were put to him. We called him in 
again on June 17, 1954, and at that time he made a few statements but 
not many. 

In some cases he pleaded the fiftli amendment and in others his 
memoiy was exceedingly bad. However, one of the things that was 
jnit to him was as to who drafted this trust indenture, and Mr. Gordon 
claimed that he couldn't remember who drafted it. 

The Chairman. What drafted what ? 

Mr. Schneier. The trust agreement I quoted from earlier. 

The Chairman. He doesn't remember who drafted it ? 

Mr. Schneier. Yes. 

The Chairman. He testified to that under oath ? 

Mr. Schneier. Yes. 

Mr. Ivennedy. In the 1955 examination, it disclosed just one 
change. After you had been critical of the trust agreement in 1954, 
in your examination, the 1955 examination showed that he had made 
one change ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Schneier. I am not sure there was just one. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. One major change, Mr. Sclmeier. In 1955 the ex- 
amination showed that he had changed the administration of the 
welfare fund from a life term to 15 years ; is that right ? 

Mr. Schneier. Yes. That was after criticism by our department of 
his holding office for life. It was changed to 15 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. He reduced that to 15 years ? 

Mr. Schneier. Yes. 

The Chairman, There has been a modification of the contract? 

Mr. Schneier. Not of the trust agreement, but of his own em- 
ployment contract ; yes, 

Mr, Kennedy. Then his percentage was reduced in 1956 to 9 per- 
cent, and on September 1, 1956, and 8 percent in 1957; is that right? 

Mr. Schneier. That is correct. At the present time he is getting 
8 percent. He is still getting 2 percent additional for expenses. 

Mr. Kennedy. For which there are no vouchers ? 

Mr. Schneier. No vouchers. 



19216 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. In other words, he gets a total of 10 percent? 

Mr. ScHNEiER. I might add that in addition to the 2 percent flat 
expense allowance that he is receiving, the welfare fund has also paid 
sums to the Concord Hotel. I have a record of some $5,517.71 that 
was paid for his room rental at the Concord Hotel for the period 
June 1954 to September 1955. 

The Chairman. That was in addition to his commission of 8 per- 
cent and 2 percent for expenses ? 

Mr. ScHNEiER. That was in addition to that. 

The Chairman. He charged the fund $5,000 how much ? 

Mr. Schneier. $5,517.71. 

The Chairman. For a hotel bill ? 

Mr. Schneier. At the Concord Hotel, which is a summer resort, the 
hotel referred to earlier. 

The Chairman. Was he there with all of his family ? What does the 
record show ? 

Mr. Schneier. As far as I know, he holds the room alone. 

The Chairman. For what period of time was the $5,000 charged? 

Mr. Schneier. During the period between Jime 1951 and Septem- 
ber 1955, roughly 15 or 16 months. 

The Chairman. Is there anything else? Was he furnished a big 
car, too ? 

Mr. Schneier. Well, not during the period of my examination. 
However, the welfare fund did pay for a certain amount of telephone 
expenses. 

The Chairman. I think we had a car in it. Didn't we liave an auto- 
mobile in it ? 

Mr. Schneier. That was beyond the period of my examination. 

The Chairman. You may not know about it, but I was thinking we 
had a car rental in here this morning. 

Mr. Schneier. That was in late 1958-59, 1 believe, sir. My exami- 
nation only covered an earlier period. 

The Chairman. You didn't cover that period ? 

Mr. Schneier. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Does the staff have information, Mr. Chairman, 
whether or not he is on other union payrolls besides this one ? 

Mr. IvENNEDY. That is the only one that we know he is on. Senator. 

The Chairman. AVliat salary does he get from the local ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He does not. 

The Chairman. In other words, he is not an officer of the local ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He is an officer, but he does not receive any salary. 

The Chairman. He gets all of his money out of the pension and 
welfare ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

How much does he receive ? 

Mr. Schneier. Currently he is receiving 8 percent of contributions 
as salary and 2 percent expenses. 

J^r. Kennedy. What did that amomit to last year ? 

Mr. Schneier. The last period I had was from the period June 1, 
1956, to May 31, 1957, and at that period he had received $26,534 in 
salary, plus $5,851, and some odd cents in allowances, making a total 
of $32,386.32. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19217 

Incidentally, our records show that in a period of 5^/2 years Mr. 
Gordon had received approximately $174,947.09. 

JNIr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, just in reference to the Concord Hotel 
a^ain, we have the records of the Concord Hotel for Mr. and Mrs. 
Tom Dio<juardi, and the notation says: "Charge entire bill to room 
C-83, Abe Gordon. Do not collect any money at all." 

Then we have Mr. and Mrs. Johnny Dioguardi, with a notation at the 
bottom "Abe Gordon." 

The Chairman. Has anyone testified to those records? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Tierney can put them in. 

The Chairman. Mr. Tierney, you have already been sworn. Did 
you procure those records from where? 

INlr. Tierney. I ]irocured them by subpena from the Concord Hotel. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit No. 45. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 45" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. What do they show, that Mr. Gordon took the Dies 
and tlieir wives up there and put them up at the hotel and charged it 
to the welfare fund? 

Mr. Tierney. With respect to the records on Mr. and Mrs. Tom 
Dioguardi, the notation thereon is : "Charge entire bill to room C-83, 
Abe Gordon. Do not collect any money at all." 

These were part of the records we were unable to get from the hotel, 
so we cannot tell whether the money was actually paid. We can draw 
what conclusions we can from these facts. 

The Chairman. At any rate, from those records, it wasn't collected 
from the Dioguardis? 

Mr. Tierney. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Did Dioguardi pay his bill or did you arrange to 
handle all of that little detail? 

Mr. Gordon. I respectfully decline to answer because my answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Sclmeier, from your review and from the infor- 
mation that the insurance department has in New York, would you 
say that this is one of the worst administered funds of any insurance 
fund? 

Mr. Schneier. Yes, sir ; I would say it is one of the worst. 

Mr. Kennedy. As far as the administration ? 

Mr. Schneier. As far as the administration is concerned ; it is also 
high as far as expense ratios are concerned. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you recommended that they dispose of this 
property up there? 

]\Ir. Schneier. In my report, I recommended that the property be 
disposed of as soon as practicable. 

Mr. Kennedy. Because a large percentage of the surplus funds are 
in that property; is that right? 

Mr. ScHNEiiER. It is a constant drain on the fund. The resort owes 
the welfare fund some $20,647. 

Mr. I^JENNEDY. It runs at a deficit ? 

Mr. Schneier. It runs at a deficit. 

The Chairman. What runs at a deficit ? 

Mr. Schneier. The resort. The rentals that are brought in there 
do not meet the expenses. 



19218 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. How much deficit? 

Mr. ScHNEiER. $20,647.40, as of the date of my examination. 

The Chairman. Wlio pays the deficit ? 

Mr. ScHNEiER. Well, ultimately it comes back to the welfare fund. 

The Chairman. The welfare fund is paying the deficit? 

Mr. ScHNEiER. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, the Gordons, the Dios, and that 
gang that goes up there don't pay enough to cover their expenses ; is 
that right? 

Mr. ScHNETER. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, just to — we have finished with Mr. 
Schneier. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. You may stand aside. 

Mr. I^JENNEDY. We have had the testimony in connection with the 
background of some of the individuals, and we have also had some 
references to the Grordon Tmcking Co., the associates of JNIr, Gordon. 

I would like to call Mr. Sherman Willse to give some of the back- 
ground of some of those people who worked for Mr. Gordon. 

The Chairman. Have him come around. 

In tlie meantime, Mv. Gordon, you understand the testimony is being 
given in your presence. If there is any part of it that is inaccurate 
or untrue, you are invited and respectfully urged to refute or to give 
proper explanation of it. 

You don't have to answer; you don't have to take the fifth on it. 

You are just invited to do it, period. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you want to swear Mr. Willse ? 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give 
before this Senate Select Committee shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Willse. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF SHERMAN S. WILLSE 

The Chairman. State your name. 

Mr. Willse. My name is Sherman Willse. I am a member of the 
staff of this committee. I live in Long Island, N.Y. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Willse, from your investigation of Mr. Abe Gor- 
don's activities have you found that he is in contact and has associates 
with the major underworld figures in New York City ? 

Mr. Willse. Yes ; it starts out with his business associates. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do we find that a considerable number of these traffic 
in narcotics ? 

Mr. Willse. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did the individuals that he was associated with 
in Gordon Trucking Co. initially have police records ? 

Mr. Willse. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you summarize those ? 

Mr. Wn.LSE. All right. 

When the company was started it was started by Gordon 

The Chairman. When ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19219 

Mr. WiLLSE. In 1937, by a man named Nathan Rosen and William 
AVinters. At tliat time Nathan Rosen had already been aiTested six 
times, three of those for narcotics violations; one was a conviction. 
Subsequently, while associated with the company, Rosen was convicted 
of selling narotics. 

William Winters came with the company with one arrest for policy, 
and while with the company he also was convicted of the sale of 
narcotics. In 1947, one Phillip Kavolick, laiown as Spick Fai-vel 

Mr. Kennedy. How mtuiy arrests did he have? 

Mr. WiLLSE. Ten an-ests at the time he associated himself with 
A. & P. Cordage. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was also owned by Gordon ? 

Mr. WiLLSE. Yes, sir. We believe the "A" was for Abe and the 
"P" for Phil. They were associates. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened as far as he was concerned ? 

Mr. AViLLSE. Pie had 10 arrests at the time he came with the com- 
pany. One of those was in 1931 wlien he was arrested with Lepke 
Buchalter, who was subsequently executed; Jake Shapiro, who died 
in Sing Sing doing 15 years for garment extortion, and who had been 
an associate; Harry Greenberg, known as Big Greenie, was killed on 
the west coast, in which Fraiikie Carbo, Benjamin Siegel, Allen Tan- 
nenbaum, Ben Krakauer, and Harry Siegel, and all were involved; 
Joe Rosen, known as Joe Statelier, who had an interest in the Runyon 
Sales Co. ; Henry Teitelbaum, who was a chauffer for Shapiro and 
Buchalter, and also Nig Rosen, with whom he was convicted last year 
for narcotics traffic ; Lou Kravitz, who was also a chauffeur for Buch- 
alter, and in 1940 went away for a Federal narcotics violation ; and a 
Hyman Holtz. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now these individuals, the three individuals you 
name, were the people he started out in business with ; is that right ? 

Mr. WiLLSE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you have the employees ; do you have records 
of his employees ? . 

Mr. WiLLSE. Yes, sir; examining payroll records of the Gordon 
Trucking Co. which went from 1953 through 1958, plus the address in 
the telephone directory, we find Nicholas Palmiotto, w^ho has seven 
arrests and three convictions and is categorized in the gangster file of 
the New York City Police Department. 

On one arrest of his in 1947 two associates were Carmine Galante 
and Joseph DiPalermo, both of whom were convicted and sentenced 
in the Vito Genovese narcotics case. 

Ralph Donatelli, who was arrested six times and convicted four 
times. He was a close associate of Louie King, who took Lucky 
Luciano's place at Hester and Mulberry Streets in New York, which 
used to be his headquarters. 

Louie King appeared at the same table at the wedding of the daugh- 
ter of Michael Clemente, who was convicted of waterfront extortion, 
with Johnny Dio ; Tom Dio ; Jimmy Rush, who, with Jimmy Picca- 
relli, was regarded as Lucky Luciano's U.S. representative, and Mr. 
Joseph Schepani, also on the Federal narcotics list; Artie Donatelli, 
who is assumed to be a brother of Ralph, and who has two arrests with 
two con\dctions; Eddie Capra, two arrests and two convictions for 

Sft751 — 59 — pt. 56 6 



19220 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

grand larceny and robbery; Christopher Galluzzo, with two arrests, 
one conviction, that for robbery with a gTin. 

Mr. Kennedy. Christopher Galluzzo ? 

Mr. WiLLSE. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Alias "Christie" ? 

Mr. WiLLSE. Eight. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you sure of that ? He has six arrests with five 
convictions. 

Mr. WiLLSE. I am sorry ; that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. We don't want to mistreat him. Six arrests and five 
convictions ? 

Mr. WiLLSE. Yes. 

Joseph Scorezzese, four arrests with three convictions; Scorezzese 
was in an arrest in 1954 with Max Kaplan. Max Kaplan at that time 
was manager and employed by the Reed Shoulder Pad Co., and also 
connected with the United Sportswear. Both of those companies 
were Johnny Dio's. Charles Weiss, who was arrested 

Mr. Kennedy. How many arrests does he have ? 

Mr. WiLLSE. He has one arrest, possession of two guns. 

He was arrested when he fired a shot through the wall of the next 
apartment. 

Those are the employees. 

The Chairman. Those are the employees of the Gordon Trucking 
Co.? 

Mr. WiLLSE. Yes, sir ; so far as we can determine from the records. 

The Chairman. Recent employees ? 

Mr. WiLLSE. Some of them are. The records only went up to 1958. 

The Chairman. You don't have them since 1958 ? 

Mr. WiLLSE. No, sir. 

The Chairman. For this year ? 

Mr. WiLLSE. No, sir. 

The Chairman. But these are employees of the trucking company, 
Gordon Trucking Co., owned by this witness ? 

Mr. WiLLSE. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. May I inquire ? Was this a general trucking busi- 
ness or was it some specialty hauling or what was it? 

Mr. WiLLSE. Their specialty would seem to be picking up bonded 
merhcandise from the West Side piers. It was bonded under a cus- 
tomhouse license. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then we have the fact that a trustee of local 805, 
Mr. DeRoma, has a record of eight arrests, six convictions, including 
one on a murder charge, and two narcotics violations ? 

Mr. WiLLSE. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have here a list of about 20 indi- 
viduals who are close associates of Mr. Gordon, all who have serious 
criminal backgrounds. Isn't that correct, Mr. Willse ? 

Mr. WiLLSE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And have been associated with Mr. Gordon. I don't 
know if you want to put them in the record. 

The Chairman. Read off their names and let me ask Mr. Gordon if 
they are close associates of his. 

Mr. Willse. George Baker. 

Mr. Kennedy. Blaustein, Baker, Tillinger, Schwartz, Meglino, Lo- 
mars, Granello, Chase. Those are some of them. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 19221 

The Chairman. Do you know any of those parties ? 

Mr, Gordon. I respectfully decline to answer because my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. What about Mr. Lomars? He was an associate of 
Mr. Lomars as was Mr. Holt ; is that correct ? 

Mr. WiLLSE. Yes, sir; he came to our attention when Milton Holt 
applied for permission to visit him, classifying him as his friend in 
1943 when Lomars was in Sing Sing. Lomars had been arrested two 
times. The first time in 1937 for felonious assault, at which time he 
was a business agent of the AFL Confectionery & Tobacco Jobbers 
Union. 

In 1940, wliich is the time he was in Sing Sing, he held the same 
position, and he was involved in a jewel robbery with several other 
people when they took $78,000 worth of jewels from Mrs. Joseph 
Forrestal, that is, Mrs. James V. Forrestal, later he was Under Secre- 
tary of the Xavy. Tlie}' took that at the point of a gun. Lomars and 
two of the others were classed as the leaders of a million-dollar gang 
of jewel thieves. 

TESTIMONY OF ABE GOEDON, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
JOSEPH E. BEILL— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he a friend of yours, ]Mr. Gordon ? 

Mr. Gordon. I respectfully decline to answer because my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that your association, your power in 
the union and friendship with ]Mr. Holfa, is based on the fact that you 
have these close associates in the underworld ? 

Mr. Gordon. I respectfully decline to answer because my answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

]Mr. ICennedy. You have never done anything for the members of 
your union; have you? 

Mr. Gordon. I respectfully decline to answer because my answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is your trucking business unionized? Do your 
employees belong to a union ? 

Mr. Gordon. I respectfully decline to answer because my answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chair]man. I never knew it would incriminate anybody to be- 
long to a union or because his employees belonged to a union. 

Do you want to comment ? 

Mr. Gordon. I respectfully decline to answer because my answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gordon was with Mr. Hoffa in both the trials in 
New York. He was down here for at least part of the time during 
Mr. Holi'a's difficulties with the courts here. He was in the head- 
quarters of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters at least part 
of the time, as Mr. Hoffa admitted, when Mr. Hoffa appeared before 
this committee in 1958. 

As I have said, he is one of Mr. Hoffa's closest associates in New 
York City. Based on our investigation we find that it is because of 
Mr. Gordon's associations with the underworld of New York City. 

The Chairman. OK. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all for this gentleman. 



19222 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairmax. That is all for Mr. Gordon. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he is under subpena if we need him. 

The Chairman. You will remain under continuing subpena of the 
committee subject to being recalled, upon notice being given to you or 
your counsel. 

Do you agree ? 

Mr. Gordon. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Miss Frances Blaustein. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn, please ? 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Miss Blaustein. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF FRANCES BLAUSTEIN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
JACQUES M. SCHIFFER 

The Chairman. Be seated. 

State your name, your place of residence, and your business or 
occupation, please. 

Miss Blaustein. My name is Frances Blaustein. I live at 24 Fifth 
Avenue, New York City. 

The Chairman. Are you employed? 

Mr. ScHiFFER. May I request, Senator, I would like to put a bi'ief 
statement on the record in view of some of the testimony before your 
committee today. 

The Chairman. Just one moment. 

Are you employed ? 

Miss Blaustein. I respectfully decline to answer because it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel present ? 

Miss Blaustein. Yes. 

The Chairman. Counsel, identify yourself for the record. 

Mr. ScHiFFEE. Jacques M. Schiffer, 32' Broadway, New York. 

The Chairman. The Chair will aj-k the witness again whether you 
are employed or if you have a business or occupation. 

Miss Blaustein. I respectfully decline to answer because it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Attorney, you may make your request. 

Mr. Schiffer. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, there has been refer- 
ence to a name similar to this witness named Blaustein. I believe 
his first name was Ben or Benjamin. 

We should like the committee to know that there was a consultation 
between the staff and myself for the purpose of that particular indi- 
vidual and that it was made known to the committee. The only rela- 
tive this witness had was a Blaustein wiiich was killed in the Second 
World War in the Battle of the Bulge. 

The Chairman. Your statement will not be regarded as evidence. 
It is not a question; we have not asked anything about her relation- 
ship. Witnesses who cannot come in here to state whether they are 
employed, if they have a business or profession without possible self- 
incrimination, will not be permitted to get something in the record by 
indirection that they are not willing to testify to on direct examina- 
tion. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19223 

All rio:ht. Any further questions? 

Mv. Kennedy. Yes. 

Miss Blaustein, you now operate the Gordon Trucking Co., the 
A. & P. Cordaoje Co. ; is that correct ? 

Miss Blai'stein. I respectfully decline to answer because it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you tell us why Mr. Gordon turned over the 
operation of those two companies to you ? 

Miss Blaustein. I respectfully decline to answer because it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that you are operating them for Mr. 
Abe Gordon ? 

Miss Blaustein. I respectfully decline to answer because it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it not correct that these companies operate non- 
union ? 

Miss Blaustein. I i-espectfully decline to answer because it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. How many employees have you? "Will you tell us 
how many people are employed by these companies ? 

Miss Blaustein. I respectfully decline to answer because it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I would like to know for the record if the staff 
has it. 

Have you been sworn, Mr. Martin ? 

Mr. Martin. Yes. 

TESTIMONY OF GEOEGE H. MAETIN— Resumed 

The Chairman. Have you made some inquiry { 

]Mr. ^Martin. Yes. We have examined the payroll books covering 
the period from ]May 1953 through 1958. The number of employees 
vai-ies from 5 to G up to as liigh as 10 or 12, according to the periods. 

The Chairman. Is that for both companies ? 

Mr. Martin. No; just the Gordon Trucking Co. 

The Chairman. How about the other one ? 

Mr. Martin. The A. & P. Cordage Co. apparently has only one or 
two employees. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Martin, we find that the last contract that this 
company had was dated October 17, 1916, with a labor union? 

Mr. Martin. The only contract we have been able to find, of course, 
when the subpena was served on JNIiss Blaustein^ — her attornej' stated 
tliat there were no other labor contracts, but we did find one back in 
1947. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have we found from a comparison of the payroll 
books for the past 6 years that the rates in the standard contract of 
the Teamsters in the Xew York City area are higher than the rates 
that are being paid to the individuals who work for Gordon Trucking 
Co.? 

Mr. Martin. That is correct. There is only one exception to the 
rule. For the most part the salaries being paid are anywhere from $3 
to $5 a week less than the union scale. 

The Chairman. You mean these companies that this witness is 
operating for Gordon, according to our information, are paying sub- 



19224 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

standard wages to the employees; that is, less than the going wage, 
contract wage, by labor ? 

Mr. Martin. That is correct, Senator, with one exception : There is 
one name on the payroll — you are talking about Gordon Trucking 
now? 

The Chairman. I am talking about the two trucking companies. 

Mr. Martin. There is only one trucking company. The other, the 
A. & P. Cordage Co., deals in twine and paper. 

The Chairman. I am talking about any trucking company. This 
is the Teamsters Union official who is operating and managing ap- 
parently a pension and welfare fund for a labor organization and for 
the Teamsters. 

They are always very anxious apparently to get everybody organ- 
ized and I am trying to ascertain whether if these folks are not 
organized, wliy, and wliether they are paying the standard wages, 
contract wages paid by others, or if they keep them out of the organ- 
ization, make no contract so that they can pay substandard wages. 

Mr. Martin. Tlie payroll book. Senator, shows that for the last 
three Teamster contracts, including the current one which is effective 
as of September 1, 1958, the employees are receiving from $3 to $5 
less than the scale called foi'. 

The Chairman. Per week ? 

Mr. Martin. Per week. 

Senator Curtis. Is the witness on the payroll of this company ? 

Mr. Martin. She is on the payroll of this company. 

Senator Curtis. For how much ? 

Mr. Martin. I believe the figure was $75 a week. 

For the week December 31, 1958, she was on tlie payroll for $90. 
That seems to be the present rate. 

The Chairman. Is that correct ? 

Miss Blaustein. I respectfully decline to answer because it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do we find that with one or two isolated excepl ions, 
no overtime has been paid to these employees ? 

Mr. Martin. That is correct. There are one or two instances in 
here where there is an indication of payment of overtime. 

The Chairman. Do you find indications of overtime woil:^ 

Mr. Martin. There liave l)een. I have been advised by oiiicials of 
two Teamster Unions up tliere that they have received complaints, that 
Gordon Trucking has been permitted to operate tlieir people overtime, 
and other truckers have made comphiints. 

Mr. Kennedy. There have been complaints from ti-uckers tliat this 
company is receiving favorite treatment from the Teamstei's!' 

Mr. Martin. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gordon was supposed to wi{lidraw fi-om this 
company in what period of time ? 

Mr. Martin. According to various statements that he has made 
to investigative bodies, he lias claimed to have witlidi-awn in 1951. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have we found that he lias had financial trans- 
actions in connection with this company after 1951 ? 

Mr. Martin. He has used the facilities of A. & P. Cordage for per- 
sonal loans as late as 1954. He is also receiving $50 a month from 
Goi'don Trucking and has down tlirouali tlie vears. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19225 

Mr. Kennedy. From our investigation, does it appear that Mr. Abe 
Gordon is still in control of this company ? 
Mr. ]\Iartin. That would seem to be a logical conclusion. 

TESTIMONY OF FRANCES BLAUSTEIN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
JACQUES M. SCHIFFER— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us anything about that ? 

Miss Blaustein. I respectfully decline to answer because it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. AVhat was the reason that Mr. Gordon allowed you 
to run the company for him ? 

Miss Blaustein. I respectfully decline to answer because it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Curtis. Did you get any money out of this welfare fund ? 

Miss Blaustein. I respectfully decline to answer because it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might say that the records don't show anywhere, 
that we have received, that Miss Blaustein ever paid for this company, 
ever put up any money to gain control of this company. Of course, 
she refuses to give any information as to how she obtained control, 
so it would ai^pear from the records and from our investigation that 
the company is still controlled by Mr. Gordon, and it was this reason 
that, as I say, Mr. Lacey and Mr. Hickey opposed the votes of Mr. 
Gordon in the election of 1956 in the joint council. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Do you want to correct any statement that has been made here? 
- Miss Blaustein. I respectfully decline to answer because it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You can say no. That wouldn't incriminate you. 

Miss Blaustein. No. 

The Chairman. You are excused. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have a different matter to go into now, Mr. 
Chairman, and that is dealing with Mr. Raymond Cohen. As you 
remember, we subpenaed Mr. Cohen to appear before the committee. 
You might want to call him. 

The Chairman. Mr. Raymond Cohen, come forward. 

Be sworn, please. 

You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this Senate 
select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help 3^ou God ? 

Mr. Cohen. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND COHEN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

SAMUEL DASH 

The Chairman. Mr. Cohen, you have previously testified before 
the committee, have you ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yas. 

The Chairman. Will you state your present business or occupation, 
please, sir ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 



19226 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Cohen, Secretary-treasurer and business manager of Team- 
sters Local 107, Philadelphia. 

The Chairman. I forgot to ask you to state your name. That is 
Raymond Cohen? 

Mr. Cohen. My name is Raymond Cohen, and I live in Brigantine, 
N.J. 

The Chairman. Counsel, will you identify yourself for the record ? 

Mr. Dash. Samuel Dash, 1328 Land Title Building, Philadelphia, 
Pa. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. I^nnedy. Mr. Cohen, before I get into the matter that arose 
the other day, you appeared before this committee, I believe, in 1958, 
and there were established certain irregularities in the use of union 
funds on your part. 

Has Mr. Ploffa taken anv action to remove you from office, Mr. 
Cohen? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you returned to the union any of the money 
you took from the union ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

The Chairman. How much was shown ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Some $250,000 that was misused and some $500,000 
that was more questionable. 

Is that correct, Mr. Cohen ? Are my figures correct ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis? 

Senator Curtis. Do you hold the same position in this union now 
that you did when this matter was presented in public hearing before ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. Has there been any move to remove you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Actually, Senator, he has been promoted. After 
we showed that he had misused $500,000, he was taken down to Miami 
and on Mr. Hoffa's slate he was promoted to trustee for the whole 
international union. He is one of the three trustees in charge of all 
of the funds of the international union. 

Evidently Mr. Hoffa felt he did such a good job with local 107's 
funds that he wanted to put him in charge of all of the money of the 
union. 

The Chairman. Is that correct, Mr. Cohen ? You have been pro- 
moted ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, Senator. 

The Chairman. And what is the position that you now hold in the 
international ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19227 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I am a trustee of the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters. 

The Chairman. What are your duties and responsibilities in tliat 
connection ? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

The Chairman. Well, they are honest, aren't they? There is noth- 
ing dishonest about your duties and responsibilities, is there? 

(Tlie witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

The Chairman. If they are honest, I don't see how it could incrim- 
inate you. Are you implying or leaving the inference tliat your duties 
there are dishonest? Counsel just said, after showing about the $250,- 
000 and $500,000 as an officer of the local with no explanation, with 
the matter not cleared up, that you got this promotion, which you 
acknowledged you received. 

Is that an added qualification for being entrusted with greater 
responsibility ? 

Mr. Cohen. Is that a question. Senator? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

The Chairman. Are we actually confronted here with a situation 
where the bigger the thief is the more responsibility and opportunity 
is afforded him? Are you going to leave that implication? 

Mr. Cohen. I decline to answer the question under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Tlie Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cohen was subpenaed to appear 
here last week, I believe on Tuesday or Wednesday 

Mr. Dash. Wednesday, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And we 

Mr. Dash. On Thursday he was subpenaed to apj^ear, to be here on 
Thursday. 

Mr. Kennedy. We received notification, I believe on Wednesday, 
that he was ill and that there was to be a doctor's certificate forwarded 
to the committee. Am L correct on the date ? 

Mr. Dash. Yes, Mr. Kennedy, that is true. I called you on the 
telephone. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think we talked about it. 

Mr. Dash. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Dasli said he was representing Mr. Cohen, and 
Mr. Cohen was ill. and tliat he had talked to him on the telephone 
and had sounded ill; that he would not be able to appear; that he 
was getting a doctor's certificate, which ultimately arrived, from a 
Dr. William Hughes, saying that Mr. Cohen was too ill to appear. 

I believe we discussed at that time the fact that it would take a 
week or so before Mr. Cohen would be able to come. I belicA^e that 
we set up Wednesday morning as to the time that he would appeal'. 

Mr. Dash. That is correct, Mr. Kennedy. 



19228 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. "We went through our hearings on Thursday. On 
Friday, Senator, we received a message from Philadelphia that Mr. 
Cohen was tishing and was participating in the tuna tournament in 
Atlantic City. 

So during the noon hour, having full contidence in Mr. Dash and 
the reputation which he enjoys, the finest reputation in Philadelphia, 
I made a telephone call to him. I stated that we had received informa- 
tion that Mr. Cohen was not ill but that he was out, away from his 
home. 

Mr. Dash was concerned. We discussed it, and he said he would 
make a call to Mr. Cohen's home to find out about the situation. We 
discussed the fact that I would like to send an investigator up to see 
Mr. Cohen and visit him, that it wouldn't be necessary to talk to 
him, but just to see that he was still in his liouse and was ill. 

Mr. Dash called me back some 10 minutes later and said that he had 
just talked to Mr. Cohen, that Mr. Cohen sounded very ill, that he 
had awakened Mr. Cohen up from a sleep or that liis mother-in-law 
had gone up and awakened Mi-. Cohen, who had been asleep, that Mr. 
Cohen sounded very ill. 

We discussed at that time the fact that we might still send an investi- 
gator up to Mr. Cohen's home. I believe that was the termination of 
the conversation. 

Mr. Dash. That is true, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then I sent an investigator, as we had heard that 
Mr. Cohen was participating in the tuna tournament. I sent an inves- 
tigator to the dock in Atlantic City, and he went there with a camera. 
He took a picture of Mr. Cohen at around 5 :80 Friday evening, or 
around 5 o'clock, I believe. I am not sure of the time. It was Friday. 

So Mr. Cohen was requested to come down to the committee. He 
came down. He was first requested to come down on Saturday, because 
our investigator subpenaed him when he met him on the dock on Fri- 
day and took his picture. He subpenaed him to come down on Satur- 
day. He and Mr. Dash came down. It was postponed until today. 
He is here under those subpenas today. 

The Chairman. Have we a calendar here so I can get my bearings? 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that a fair recitation of the facts ? 

Mr. Dash. Yes, it is, Mr. Kennedy. 

The Chairman. The statement of the doctor was given on the 
24th day of June, which would be Thursday of last week. Is that 
cori-ect ? 

Mr. Dash. No ; the affidavit M^as given on Wednesday of last w^eek, 
Senator. 

The Chairman. It would be Wednesday of last week. 

Mr. Dash. Tliat is true, sir. 

Tlie Chairman. Wednesdaj^ of last week. 

Tlie affidavit will be printed in the record at this point, the affidavit 
from tlie pliysician. Among other things, it says : 

Your deponent further states that it is his professional opinion that Mr. Cohen 
cannot leave his bed to attend to any matters of business or to appear before the 
U.S. Senate Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field 
for at least 1 week without seriously endangering his health. 

Tlie affidavit was given by Dr. J. William Hughes, Jr., of 8002 
Brigantine Avenue, Brigantine, N.J. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19229 

('riie affidiiA-it referred to follows:) 

Affidavit 
State of New Jersey, 
County of Atlantic, ss: 

J. William Hughes, Jr., of 3002 Brigantine Avenue, Brigaiitiue, N.J., being 
duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is a physician duly 
licensed by the State of New Jersey to practice medicine and that he has ex- 
amined Kaymond Cohen, lUO-") Brigantine Avenue, Brigantine, N.J., on June 23, 
1959, and has on the basis of this examination determined that the said Raymond 
Cohen has a severe virus infection and must be confined to bed for about 1 week. 
Your deponent further states that it is his professional opinion that Mr. Cohen 
cannot leave his bed to attend to any matters of business or to appear before 
the U.S. Senate Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management 
Field for at least 1 week without seriously endangering his health. 

J. Wm. Hughes, Jr., M.D. 
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 24th day of June A.D. 1959. 

Bertha O'Neill, 
Xotary Puhlic of New Jersey. 
My commission expires August 20, 1902. 

Mr. Dash. Senator, the doctor has voluntarily come to Washington 
and is present in this room as a voluntary witness. 

The CiiAiRMAX. That is fine. All right. We will be glad to 
hear him. 

As I understand you, counsel, this was given on Wednesday. On 
Friday — who was the investigator that went up there? 

Mr. Kexxedv. '\^'e sent somebody from our Philadelphia office, Mr. 
Chairman. 

The Chairmax. Is he present? 

Mr. Kex-^xedy. He is not. It was George Xash who went up. 

The Chairmax". We may have to have him. 

Mr. Kex'X'edy. We have pictures that he took at that time. 

The Chairmax'. Unless these folks can identify them, we may have 
to send for the investigator to have him here. 

Mr. Cohen, I present to you a photograph which shows a dozen 
fish and four people. I ask you to examine it and state if there is 
anything in that photograph that you identify, particularly the people 
present shown in it. 

(The photograph was handed to the witness.) 

(The Avitness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairmax. Do you identify that photograph ? 

Mr. CoiiEX . Yes. 

The Chairmax. Do you know when it was taken ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohex^. Yes. 

The CHAiRiMAX". The photograph may be made exhibit No. 46. 

(Photo referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 46" for reference and 
may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairmax". Do you recognize anyone in the photograph? 

Mr. CoHEX". Yes, sir. 

The Chairmax'. Are you in that photograph ? 

Mr. CoHEx. Yes ; I am. 

The Chairmax'. Where and when was the photograph taken? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoHEX". The photograph was taken on the dock at the tuna 
toui-nament in Atlantic City, X.J. 



19230 IIVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. When? 

Mr. Cohen. Did you say when, Senator ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Cohen. Friday afternoon, around 20 minutes after 5, last 
Friday. 

The Chairman, Would that be on the Friday following the 24th 
day of June 1959 ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How long had you been at the dock when that pic- 
ture was taken ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I would say approximately 30 minutes; maybe 35. 

Tlie Chairman. What had you been doing previous to that, that 
day? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. I was home in bed. 

The Chairman. How come you were able to get out of bed and go 
down to the dock? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. My wife had called me around 3 : 30 this afternoon to 
tell me that she had been fortunate enough to catch a lot of tuna fish, 
and asked me if the doctor would permit me to come over to the dock 
to help to share in some of her honors when she arrived in Atlantic 
City. 

The Chairman. Slie had been in a fishing contest? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes. 

The Chairman. And in the course of that contest had won some 
prize? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do the fish in this picture represent her catch ;' 

Mr. Cohen. Her catch and her catch alone. 

The Chairman. And that catch did win a prize in tlie contest '. 

Mr. Cohen. It won several prizes. 

The Chairman. All right ; it won prizes in the contest ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And tlie fish were being exhibited tlioi-o us n part 
of that contest and as a prize-winning exliibit ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you left your sick bed to go down to be present 
and have your picture made w^ith the fisli that were taking the prize? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. Yes : I did, against the doctor's orders. 

The Chairman. The doctor, when you called liim, told vou not to 
go? 

Mr. CoiiEN. No, sir; I didn't cull the doctor. The doctor came to 
my house at 4 :30 to give me another treatment that same afternoon. 

The Chairman. The doctor actually appeared at your house and 
gave you a treatment at 4 :30 ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

The CiiAiRiNiAN. At 5 :.'>0 you were down on the dock with your pic- 
ture being made ? 

Ml-. CoiiEX. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19231 

The CiiAiRMAx. According to some information the Chair has 
about this, you had been at the dock for quite some time, and we got 
that information. I don't know how our man could have gotten the 
information and gotten down there so quickly. We will go into that 
further. I just wanted you to give your explanation on it now. . 

Is there any further statement you wish to make about it ? 

(The witnass conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Cohen. Well, Senator, I became ill on the 21st, which was on a 
Sunday. I was confined in bed on a Sunday night with chills and 
fever, and the doctor came on Monday, the 22 d, and gave me some 
capsules, and told me that I would have to stay in bed, that I had a 
serious virus infection, and that if I left the bed I might turn into 
pneumonia, and I stayed in bed all last week until 4:30 on Friday 
afternoon, and after the doctor left the house I left the house. 

The Chairman. You were in bed when the doctor came ? 

Mr. Cohen. When the doctor came, I was sitting in a chair. I 
got up to try to exercise my legs a little bit. 

The Chairman. You had been in bed ? 

]\Ir. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And the minute the doctor left, you went to the 
docks? 

Mr. Cohen. Well, I would say 5 minutes after the doctor left. 

The Chairman. Sir? 

jSIr. Cohen. I would say 5 minutes after the doctor left I had some- 
body drive me over to the docks. 

The Chairman. All right, 5 minutes after the doctor left you drove 
to the docks. 

How long did you stay at the docks ? 

Mr. Cohen. From approximately 20 minutes to 5 to about 24 or 25 
minutes after 5. 

The Chairman. And where did you go when you left the docks at 
5 :24 or 5 :25 ? 

Mr. Cohen. I rushed to my home. 

The Chairman. Then what did you do ? 

Mr. Cohen. Sat around the house talking to my two sons about the 
tuna tournament where their mother won some prizes. 

The Chairman. Did you feel any ill effects from your journey to 
the docks ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes. 

The Chairman. How did you respond to that ? What did you do 
about it? 

ISIr. Cohen. Just kept taking those pills which were prescribed. 

The Chairman. Did you go back to bed ? 

Mr. Cohen. I think I laid down on the couch after I had a light 
dimier. 

The Chairman. You had a light dinner and lay down a while. 
Then what did you do? 

Mr. Cohen. Well, before I had left the dock to go home I was 
handed a subpena. 

The Chairman. You were handed what? 

Mr. Cohen. A subpena to appear in front of this committee on 
Saturday morning. After I had my light dinner and sat around a 
while I started making some phone calls and arrangements to get 
transportation to get here on Saturday morning. 



19232 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Did you go out anywhere that night ? 

Mr. Cohen. I could have walked around the block or down the 
street. 

The Chahiman. I hand you another photograph and ask you to 
examine it and see if you identify yourself in it. Do you recognize 
your picture in that photograph? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes; I do. 

The Chairman. When was it made? 

Mr. Cohen. Sometime Saturday evening. 

I am sorry — sometime Friday evening. Saturday evening I was 
on my way home from here. 

The Chairman. So, Friday evening, after you had been to the 
docks and after you had gone home and felt some bad reaction from 
it and after you had dinner and lay down for a while and after 
you made some telephone calls, this picture was made of you — where? 

Mr. Cohen. At the Tuna Club. 

The Chairman. You had gone down to the Tuna Club? 

Mr. Cohen. Sir? 

The Chairman. You had gone to the Tuna Club ? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. 

Tlie Chairman. Did you get any bad reaction from that? 

Mr. Cohen. I was pretty weak, but I still felt it was my duty to 
be there. 

The Chairman. You still felt it was your duty to be at the Tuna 
Club? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. Incidentally I saw the doctor while I was 
there, also. 

The Chairman. The next day you came to Washington ? 

Mr. Cohen. The next morning. 

The ChairMx\n. The picture may be made exhibit 46-A. 

(Photograph referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 46-A" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Is there anything further, Mr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. 

Mr. Dash. Senator, the doctor. Dr. Hughes, has been involved in a 
statement. His affidavit has been entered in the record. It cer- 
tainly is his statement, his sworn statement. He has come down to 
Washington voluntarily. I respectfully request that he be given per- 
mission to appear before you and answer questions concerning Mr. 
Cohen's illness. 

The Chairman. The Chair intends to hear Dr. Hughes. I won't 
ask any more questions of this witness at the present. 

Yes, Dr. Hughes should be heard, and we welcome the opportunity 
for him to testify. 

Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. It is just one of the great coincidences of all 
times that we received the information that you were down fishing and 
we sent an investigator down there and he happens to find you on the 
docks. 

The Chairman. I want to get that nailed down just a little now. 

You say you did not go to the docks until about 4 :30, sometime after 
4:30? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19233 

Mr. Cohen. I am sorry. I was asking my attorney for some advice. 

The Chairman. I understood your testimony, and I want to get it 
accurately. I am glad you are well, if you were sick, of course, or 
that your health is improved. I don't like to see anybody sick. 

At the same time neither do I like to do this work, and it is arduous, 
you know that; this is not pleasant. The job this committee has is 
trying to ferret out these things in the hope that we might get some 
laws enacted to prohibit some of these things that are going on ; but it 
certainly goes against the grain when people, if they undertake to 
impose upon the committee, whether they succeed or whether they 
don't, and make its burden much greater by reason of such imposition. 

Now I want you to state positively mider oath whether you had not 
gone to the docks that day at any time until after the doctor visited 
you at 4 :30 Friday afternoon. 

Had you been to the docks before that, that day ? 

Mr. Cohen. No, sir, I did not leave my house from the time I came 
home sick on Sunday, the 21st, until 4:30 on last Friday afternoon 
when the doctor left. 

The Chairman. At what time did you go down to the Tmia Club 
that night? 

Mr. Kennedy. "Was that a dance that night ? 

Mr. Cohen. No; that was the awarding of the prize to the 
participants. 

The Chairman. What time that night did you go down there? 

Mr. Cohen. Approximately 6 :45, 6 :50. 

The Chairman. In the meantime, prior to that you had gone home 
at 5 :30 from the docks when this picture was made ; 3^ou had had 
your dinner; you had lain down awhile and rested, walked around 
some and made some telephone calls, and got down to the Tuna Club 
by 6:30; is that right? 

Mr. Cohen. Yes ; that is right. 

The Chairman. Pretty fast. 

Mr. Cohen. I thought it was a great honor to go down and par- 
ticipate with my wife. 

The Chairman. I thought that was pretty fast action for a sick 
man. How far is it from your house down to the docks? 

Mr. Cohen. About 5 minutes. 

The Chairman. All right, 5 minutes down to the docks. How far 
is it from your house to the Tuna Club ? 

ISIr. Cohen. Another minute and a half. 

The Chairman. Another minute and a half. You mean 61^ minutes 
from your house ? 

Mr. Cohen. Approximately 6 or 7 minutes. 

The Chairman. How many telephone calls did you make? 

Mr. Cohen. I made two or three, I think. 

The Chairman. How long a nap or rest did you take after dinner? 

Mr. Cohen. Maybe just a few minutes, to stretch out. 

The Chairman. How long did you talk to your sons ? 

Mr. Cohen. Not very long, because they were on their way out to 
their girl friends. 

The Chairman. How long did it take you to get your dinner? 

Mr. Cohen. I don't know how long it would take to eat a bowl of 
soup. That is all I had. 



19234 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. How long a walk did you take ? How long a time 
did you walk around ? 

Mr. Cohen. Maybe less than a half block. 

The Chairman. Let us hear the doctor for a moment. 

All right, you may stand aside for the present. You may be re- 
called. 

Mr. Kennedy. Doctor Hughes. 

The Chairman, You may just sit there behind him if you like. 

Doctor, will you be sworn ? 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give shall be 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God? 

Dr. Hughes. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF DE. J. WILLIAM HUGHES, JR., ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, JACaUES M. SCHIITEE 

The Chairman. All right, Doctor, be seated. State your name. 

Dr. Hughes, J, William Hughes, Jr., M.D. 

The Chairman. According to the affidavit that the Chair has 
ordered printed in the record and which you submitted with regard 
to your patient, Mr. Raymond Cohen, you live at 3002 Brigantine 
Avenue, Brigantine, N.J. ; is that correct ? 

Dr. Hughes, That is correct. 

The Chairman. You are a duly licensed and practl<^ing physician? 

Dr. Hughes. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How long have you been practicing? 

Dr. Hughes. Twenty-seven years. 

The Chairman. Doctor, we have your affidavit. Any statement 
you wish to make in addition to it we will be glad to hear. 

Dr. Hughes. Well, the affidavit I gave is a flexible affidavit. I 
mean by that a prognosis of recovery is an approximate period of 
time. Some recover far more quickly than others. 

The Chairman. The affidavit was given on the 24th ? 

Dr. Hughes. My original note was on the 23d. 

The Chairman. I note here you say on June 23, 1959. 

Dr. Hughes. Yes. 

The Chairman. On the basis of the examination you made that 
day on the 23d you determined that he had a severe virus infection and 
must — must — be confined to bed for about a week. 

Dr. Hughes. About 1 week, yes. 

The Chairman. Now the next day did you see him again ? 

Dr. Hughes. I saw him every day from June 22, 1959; June 23, 
1959 ; June 24 ; June 25 ; and June 26, 1959. 

The Chairman. Did you see him on the afternoon of the 24th 
or 25th? 

Dr. Hughes. Yes, approximately around 4 :15. 

The Chairman. He said 4 :30. It was some after 4 o'clock ? 

Dr. Hughes. Yes, my office hours are 2 to 4. As soon as I am 
through with office hours I make house calls. 

The Chairman. You went by to see him ? 

Dr. Hughes. Yes. 

The Chairman. Was that in response to a call from his or just 
routine on checking up ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19235 

Dr. Hughes. On the 22d I examined him and he had a severe virus 
infection, temperature 103°. 

The Chairman. On the 22d ? 

Dr. Hughes. That is right. 

The Chairman. You first examined him on the 22d ? 

Dr. Hughes. That is right. 

Tlie Chairman. On the 23d you made another examination ? 

Dr. Hughes. Yes. 

The Chairman. That is the one you had made, the last examination 
you had made before giving your affidavit? 

Dr. Hughes. Yes. His temperature was still elevated. 

The Chairman. You had examined him twice before you made 
the affidavit, once on the 22d and once on the 23d ? 

Dr. Hughes. That is right. 

The Chairman. When you examined him on the 25th what was his 
condition when you went by to see him that afternoon ? 

Dr. Hughes. He had general muscular aching and temperature of 
99°. I told him to continue with the prescription of aureomycin. 

The Chairman. Was he able then to be out and around ? 

Dr. Hughes. He was still in bed. 

The Chairman. When you saw him he was in bed ? 

Dr. Hughes. That is right. 

The Chairman. I thought he testified a few moments ago he was 
sitting up in the chair. 

Dr. Hughes. That was the 26th. 

The Chairman. So he was mistaken ? 

Dr. Hughes. Yes. He was in bed until the 26th. 

The Chairman. He was in bed until the 26th ? 

Dr. Hughes. That is right. 

The Chairman. So when you went to see him on the 25th, that is 
the day after you gave the affidavit 

Dr. Hughes. That is right. 

The Chairman. The day after you gave the affidavit he was in bed 
when you arrived? 

Dr. Hughes. That is right. 

The Chairman. Did he remain in bed until you left ? 

Dr. Hughes. Oh, sure. 

The Chairman. Was he undressed, was he properly dressed for bed 
or dressed f oi' the street ? 

Dr. Hughes. Pajamas. 

The Chairman. What time did you leave ? 

Dr. Hughes. About 4 : 15, 4 : 20. 

The Chairman. You got there about 4 :15, didn't you ? 

Dr. Hughes. Yes. It is only about 13 blocks to his house from my 
house. 

The Chairman. I wasn't talking about the distance. I mean how 
long did you stay and visit with him? 

Dr. Hughes. Approximately 10 or 15 minutes. 

The Chairman. So you left him in bed when you left? 

Dr. Hughes. That is right. 

The Chairman. If he was down at the docks that afternoon a little 
while after you left, he had to dress pretty hurriedly. 

36751 — 59 — pt. 55 7 



19236 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Dr. Hughes. Not on the 24th. On the 26th, the date of my last 
visit. He was up in the chair at that time. 

Mr. Dash. I think there was a misunderstanding by the witness as 
to the date. He has been testifying as to the 25th, and I think your 
questions are aimed at the 26th. 

The Chairman. Well, Friday the 26th; yes. 

All right. Did you see him on the 26th? 

Dr. Hughes. Yes. 

The Chairman. On the 25th, then he was in bed ? 

Dr. Hughes. That is right. 

The Chairman. You saw him again on the 26th ? 

Dr. Hughes. That is right. 

The Chairman. About what time? 

Dr. Hughes. About 4 :20 or 4 :25. 

The Chairman. Somewhere about 4 :20 or 4 :25 ? 

Dr. Hughes. Yes. 

The Chairman. Was he in bed then ? 

Dr. Hughes. No. He was up in a chair. 

The Chairman. So it was the 26th, the day he was down on the 
docks. He was in a chair on the 26th ? 

Dr. Hughes. That is right. His temperature was normal and I ad- 
vised him to remain indoors for 24 to 48 hours, and continue medica- 
tion until they were all taken. He had a few capsules left over. 

The Chairman. When you left him, was he dressed then in street 
dress? 

Dr. Hughes. He was in slacks; yes. 

The Chairman. Had you advised him to stay in, as you say ? 

Dr. Hughes. That is right. 

The Chairman. When did you next see him, Doctor ? 

Dr. Hughes. I didn't see him after that. His temperature was 
normal and I advised him to get in touch with me if he felt any 
relapse. 

The Chairman. In other words, you felt there was saisfactory re- 
covery and further medical services were not 

Dr. Hughes. I told him to keep in touch. 

The Chairman. Were not indicated ? 

Dr. Hughes. That is right. I told him to continue the medication 
imtil it was gone. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Dash. Senator, I have with me two prescriptions which Dr. 
Hughes gave to Mr. Cohen and which were filled at the pharmacy. 
I offer them to the committee if the committee desires them. 

The Chairman. Doctor, do you identify those as your prescrip- 
tions ? 

Dr. Hughes. Yes; they are the same prescriptions. I gave them 
over the telephone. 

The Chairman. You phoned the prescriptions in ? 

Dr. Hughes. That is right. 

The Chairman. What dates do they show ? 

Dr. Hughes. June 23 — the first one is June 22 and the second one is 
June23. 

The Chairman. Those prescriptions may be made exhibit No. 47. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19237 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 47" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Are they originals? You may submit copies. 

Dr. Hughes. They are written by the pharmacist, not in my hand. 
I ordered them on the phone. 

The Chairman. They represent your telephone instructions you 
gave? 

Dr. Hughes. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Is there anything further you have, Mr. Comisel ? 

Mr. Dash. No, sir; that is everything, I am sure. Dr. Plughes has 
to say. If there are any questions as to me, all I can state is that we 
received the calls, submitted the sworn affidavit of the doctor, and 
did keep in touch with Mr. Cohen by person-to-person telephone call 
and did reach him at home at the times we did call. 

The Chairman. The Chair the other day, when this thing devel- 
oped, which looked like on the face of it, certainly, as an imposition 
on the committee, not knowing who the attorney was and not caring, 
at that, I directed that a subpena be issued for him. 

I understand you agreed to come without a subpena. 

Mr. Dash. Senator, we can certainly understand what it would 
look like when you first saw the picture. That is why we took every 
step to present before you today the doctor and to have Mr. Cohen 
testify fully on this matter. 

The Chairman. You can appreciate our position, being a member 
of the bar. I think you can have some understanding of wluit I said 
a while ago about being unduly burdened with impositions does not 
sit very well with the committee. 

Are there any questions, Senator Curtis? 

Senator Cuktis. No questions. 

The Chairman. Have you any questions, counsel ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Was beer good for him. Doctor ? 

Dr. Hughes. I don't know that it would do him any harm. 

Mr. I\JENNEDY. I see in front of him at the dinner, at the banquet 
that night 

Dr. Hughes. I don't know. I didn't attend. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Maybe it is summarized best after Mr. Hoffa ap- 
peared at a banquet for Mr, Cohen up in Philadelphia, Mr. Chair- 
man, when he was calling Cohen a strong-willed leader, the type of 
leader that will go farther in this international union. 

The Chairman. He did go farther. 

Mr. Kennedy. He did. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hoffa was right about that. 

Dr. Hughes. That is beyond my realm of knowledge. 

The Chairman. That is out of your realm ; that is right. 

Dr. Hughes. That is out of my category. 

Tlie Chairman. I wish to tliank you for coming down. Doctor. 
I regret that it caused you this inconvenience. But certainly I think 
you couldn't attach any criticism to tlie committee for pursuing the 
matter. 

Dr. Hughes. Not at all. 

The Chairman. Certainly on the face of it, it looked like shenani- 
gans. 



19238 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Dr. Hughes. I understand. That is why I am. here. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Dash. Thank you, Senator. 

The Chairman. Is there anythino^ further of Mr. Cohen at this 
time ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, with the understanding. 

The Chairman. Mr. Cohen, you will remain under subpena, sub- 
ject to being recalled. Do you agree to that ? 

Mr. Dash. Yes, sir. He can leave tonight? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. You agree to return ? 

Mr. Dash. Yes, we do. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 2 p.m., 
Monday afternoon. 

(Members of the select committee present at time of recess: Sena- 
tors McClellan and Curtis.) 

(Whereupon, at 5 :20 p.m., the select committee recessed, to re- 
convene at 2 p.m., Monday, July 6, 1959.) 



I 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



MONDAY, JULY 6, 1959 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ B.C. 

The select committee met at 2 :30 p.m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 44, agreed to Februray 2, 1959, in the caucus room, Senate Office 
Building, Senator Carl T. Curtis presiding. 

Present : Senator Carl T. Curtis, Republican of Nebraska ; Senator 
Homer E. Capehart, Republican of Indiana. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Paul J. Tiemey, 
assistant comisel; George M. Kopecky^ assistant counsel; George 
Martin, assistant counsel; Sherman WiUse, investigator; Ruth Y. 
Watt, chief clerk. 

Senator Curtis. The committee will come to order. 

(Members of the select committee present at time of convening: 
Senators Curtis and Capehart.) 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Counsel, call your first witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Arthur Pitman, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Curtis. Would you raise your right hand and be sworn? 

You do solemnly swear the testimony you shall give before this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth- 
ing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Pitman. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR PITMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

G. J. McMAHON 

Senator Curtis. State your name, your residence, and your business 
or occupation, please. 

Mr. Pitman. My name is Arthur Pitman. I live at 137 East 38th 
Street, New York City. I am in the trucking of bananas. That is 
my business. 

Senator Curtis. Do you have counsel with you? 

Mr. Pitman. Yes, I have. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Counsel, will you identify yourself, please? 

Mr. McIVIahon. G. J. McMahon, of the New York Bar, 501 Fifth 
Avenue, New York. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Pitman, how long have you been in the trucking 
business ? 

Mr. Pitman. Over 50 yeai^. 

19239 



19240 IJVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You are president of the Pitman Co. ? 

Mr. Pitman. I am. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of Hoboken, N.J.? How long has that company 
been in existence ? For that period of time ? 

Mr. Pitman. What company ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Your company. 

Mr. Pitman. Over 50 years in the trucking business. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many trucks do you have ? 

Mr. Pitman. We operate 50 trucks right now. 

Mr. Kennedy. Initially, or some years ago, the early 1950's, you 
operated in New York City ? 

Mr. Pitman. New York City. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a contract with the Teamsters Union 
in New York City ? 

Mr. Pitman. I had a contract with Teamsters Union 220, New York 
City. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you moved into New Jersey ; is that right ? 

Mr. Pitman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. In November 1952, approximately ? 

Mr. Pitman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you initally understood that the contract that 
you had in New York City would be respected in New Jersey? 

Mr. Pitman. 220 told me my contract would be respected in New 
Jersey. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you learn once you got over to New Jersey that 
that wasn't the case ? 

Mr. Pitman. That was not the case. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you approached by Mr. Anthony Provenzano, 
who was at that time business agent of local 560 ? 

Mr. Pitman. I know him as Tony Provenzano. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you approached by Tony Provenzano ? 

Mr. Pitman. I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he want you to sign a contract with his union 
at that time ? 

Mr. Pitman. He told me I should sign up with 560, that 220 didn't 
mean nothing to me. So I asked him to get in touch with 220. He told 
me to do that. So I tried, my steward tried to get in touch with him, 
and he couldn't get in touch. My steward and my drivers decided 
before we have any trouble they would go into 560. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go into local 5G0 ? 

Mr. Pitman. 560. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might identify Mr. Provenzano, Mr. Chairman. 
He is now president of local 560 of the International Brotherhood 
of Teamsters. At that time he was a business agent. He was elected in 
June 1958 by the executive board to replace Mike Sheridan, who had 
taken a leave of absence in about 1958. In May of 1959, Provenzano 
was elected president of joint council 73, of Newark, N.J. He is a 
close associate of Mr. Hoffa in New Jersey. 

Did Mr. Tony Provenzano approach you then in 1953 or 1954 for a 
payment in order to continue to have labor peace ? 

Mr. Pitman. Yes. I guess about close to a year after is when he 
asked me. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money did he ask you for ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19241 

Mr. Pitman. He asked me for $5,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what purpose? 

Mr. Pitman. I guess to stay in business and keep out of trouble. 

Mr. ICjennedt. What did he say to you ? 

Mr. Pitman. He said I wouldn't be in business too long. 

Mr. Kennedy. He said you would not be ? 

Mr. Pitman. I would not be in business too long. 

Mr. Kennedy. If what ? 

Mr. Pitman. If I didn't pay the money. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you agree to pay it at that time? 

Mr. Pitman. No ; I did not agree to pay it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ultimately agree to pay the money ? 

Mr. Pitman. I told him it was an estate with seven in the family and 
it would be a hard thing for me to do. It went on for 7 or 8 months 
before it happened. 

Senator Curtis. Would you tell us how tliis approach was made? 
Did he seek you out ? Where did he meet you ? 

Mr. Pitman. Down in the banana terminal he met me and chatted 
with me and talked to me about it. 

Senator Curtis. Had you been having labor trouble ? 
Mr. Pitman. No, I hadn't had any labor trouble ; no. 

Senator Curtis. I mean, had you had any things to annoy or harass 
you ? 

Mr. Pitman. Well, him coming after me all the time was annoying 
me. I didn't have the money. That went on for 7 or 8 months. 
Senator Curtis. But he brought up the subject ? 
Mr. Pitman. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. What did he say would happen if you didn't pay ? 
Mr. Pitman. He said, "If you want to stay in business, you better 
get it up." 

Senator Curtis. He was the one who mentioned the sum of $5,000 ? 

Mr. Pitman. Right. 

Senator Capehart. Did you finally pay the $5,000 ? 

Mr. Pitman. Pardon? 

Senator Capehart. Did you finally pay the $5,000 ? 

Mr. Pitman. No. 

Senator Capehart. You never did pay it? 

Mr. Pitman. I didn't pay $5,000 ; no. 

Senator Capehart. What did you pay ? 

Mr. Pitman. $2,500. 

Senator Capehart. For what purpose was that payment made? 

Mr. Pitman. To stay in business, to stay out of trouble ; that is all. 

Senator Capehart. Paid to this one gentleman ? 

Mr. Pitman. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. Did you pay it in cash or by check ? 

Mr. Pitman. Cash. 

Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Chairman 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Pitman, here is what appears to be a photo- 
stat of a check. I would like to have you look at it and see if you can 
identify it. 

(The document was handed to the witness. ) 
Mr. Pitman. Yes, sir ; that is mine. 



19242 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. That is the $2,500 check that you just referred to? 

Senator Capehart. You just said a minute ago you paid in cash? 
Is it two different payments ? 

Mr. Pitman. I am a little hard of hearing. I don't quite hear you. 

Senator Capehart. I thought you said a moment ago in answer to 
my question that you paid him in cash. 

Mr. Pitman. I paid him in cash ; yes. 

Senator Capehart. Were there two payments — one in cash for 
$2,500 and one by check for $2,500? 

Mr. Pitman. This was a check made out for cash and I got the 
cash for it and passed him the cash. 

Senator Curtis. The check will be identified as exhibit No. 48 and 
be incorporated in the record at this time. 

( Check referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 48" for reference and 
will be found in the appendix on p. 19493.) 

Senator Curtis. That check is for $2,500 payable to cash? 

Mr. Pitman. To cash. 

Senator Curtis. Whose endorsement is that on the back of the 
check ? 

Mr. Pitman. It is mine — is it mine ? I didn't look at the back. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Pitman. That is mine, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You drcAv the check, caused it to be cashed and 
deliver the money to Tony Pro? 

Mr. Pitman. That is right ; to Tony Pro. 

Senator Curtis. Did all that happen on or about the date the check 
bears, December 20, 1954 ? 

Mr. Pitman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did that come about, that you drew the check 
for $2,500? Did you finally have some conversations with him that 
you agreed you would pay him $2,500? 

Mr. Pitman. I told him that is all I could get, and if I could get 
that, he would be lucky to get it. So I got that. That is all I could 
get. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you go about getting the $2,500? You 
wrote the check? 

Mr. Pitman. How did I go about it? I had to talk — there is a 
family of seven there. I have four sisters and two brothers. My 
dad passed away and they left them all on my hands. I had to talk 
to them, keep talking and talking. They didn't agree on it but I had 
to do it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio did you get to cash the check ? 

Mr. PiTiviAN. My bookke.eper, Mr. Ray Salone. 

Mr. Kennedy. You gave him the check ? 

Mr. Pitman. I gave him the check. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he go the cash ? 

Mr. Pitman. Right around the corner and got the cash. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Tony Provenzano come to get the cash? 

Mr. Pitman. Tony was waiting there, waiting in my office for me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you pay him in your office? 

Mr. Pitman. No. We walked a good distance away. We walked 
down about a half block and then over by a diner. I passed him the 
money at the diner. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19243 

Mr. Kennedy. And then you came back up to the office ? 

Mr. Pitman. No. I went in for a cup of coffee and he went back 
for his car. 

Senator Curtis. Was there anything about the transaction that 
indicated that anyone else would share in the money besides Tony 
Pro? 

Mr. Pitman. I don't know anybody else but Tony Pro. 

Senator Curtis. There was nothing that he said? 

Mr. Pitman. Nothing that he said. 

Senator Curtis. That is, that indicated he was going to share 
that with anyone ? 

]\Ir. Pitman. No, sir ; he did not. 

Senator Curtis. You definitely were of the opinion that it was not 
going to the union but going to him as an individual ? 

Mr. Pitman. I couldn't say that. I don't know. I don't know 
where it was going to. 

Senator Capehart. Did he ask that you pay it in cash ? 

Mr. PiTiMAN. Yes. 

Senator Capehart. Did he ask that you pay the money in cash ? 

Mr. Pitman. I don't know. I don't know that. 

Senator Capehart. Why didn't you give him a check ? You made 
out a check for the cash. Why didn't you make it out in his name? 

Mr. Pitman. I didn't think he would accept a check. That is what 
I thought. 

Senator Capehart. Did you know whether he would or not? Did 
you ask him ? 

Mr. Pitman. I don't know that. I don't remember that. 

Senator Capehart. Why were you, a businessman, passing out cash 
rather than checks ? 

Mr. Pitman. I am sure it was cash. I know it was cash. They 
wanted cash. I know that. 

Senator Capehart. Did you deduct the $2,500 on your expense 
account for tax purposes ? 

Mr. Pitman. I deducted is on the trucking business as entertain- 
ment. 

Senator Capehart. I see. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have here an affidavit, Mr. Chairman, from Mr. 
Salone in connection with the cashing of the check and the delivery 
of the money to Mr. Pitman and the visit of Tony Provenzano. Mr. 
Aporta can identify it. 

Senator Curtis. Have you been sworn, Mr. Aporta ? 

Mr. Aporta. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You do solemnly swear the testimony you. shall give 
before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Aporta. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN A. APORTA 

Senator Curtis. State your name, your residence, and occupation. 

Mr. Aporta. My name is John Allen Aporta. I reside at Coytes- 
ville, N. J. I am a cprtified public accountant and am attached to 
the professional staff of this committee. 

Senator Curtis. What is the paper that you have before you? 



19244 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Aporta. I have an affidavit by Kaymond Salone, who is the 
manager of the trucking company, the Pitman Co., in connection with 
the cashing of a $2,500 check which Mr. Salone caslied and gave the 
currency to Mr. Pitman. 

Senator Curtis. You secured the affidavit, did you ? 

Mr. Aporta. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You interviewed Mr. Salone? 

Mr. Aporta. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. He executed that affidavit in your presence? 

Mr. Aporta. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Coimsel, do you want to summarize it? 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to have it in the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Curtis. It may be placed in the record at this point. 

(The affidavit is as follows:) 

State of New York, 
County of New York, ss: 

I, Raymond Salone, residing at 47 Laurence Street, East Hempstead, Long 
Island, N.Y., made this aflSdavit freely and voluntarily to John Allen Aporta who 
has identified himself as an investigator for the U.S. Senate Select Committee on 
Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field, and I know this aflSdavit 
may be used in a public hearing. 

On Monday, December 20, 1954, Mr. Arthur Pitman called me on the tele- 
phone. He instructed me to issue a check on the Hudson Trust Co. located at 
14th and Washington Streets, Hoboken, N.J. The check was made payable 
to "cash" in the amount of $2,500. It was dated December 20, 1954, No. 3053. 
This amount was charged on our books to the account of "entertainment." 

The check was held in the safe from December 20, 1954, to Thursday, December 
23, 1954. At about 11 a.m. Mr. Arthur Pitman called to tell me that he would 
be down in the office in about 20 minutes. He further instructed me to cash 
this check. I did so and received from the bank 25 $100 bills which I inserted 
In a green envelope and placed in the safe. 

While waiting for Mr. Arthur Pitman to arrive, Tony Provenzano, business 
agent for Local 560 Teamsters, came down to our garage at 13-13 Park Avenue, 
Hoboken, N.J. He came there in his own car and waited for Mr, Arthur Pitman 
to arrive. 

After about a 10- or 15-minute wait, Mr. Arthur Pitman came into the office 
and asked for the money. I opened the green envelope and counted the money. 
As he left the office with the money he said, "Watch me where I go." 

Mr. Arthur Pitman walked out of the office into the garage where he met Tony 
Provenzano. Both men walked out of the garage together to the corner near 
the gas station, a distance of about 125 feet. 

I continued to watch but could not hear them. Tony Provenzano was facing 
me and Mr. Arthur Pitman had his back to me so I really could not see what 
actually happened. 

Then about 10 or 15 minutes later Tony Provenzano came back to the garage, 
got in his car and drove away. 

R. J. Salone. 

Sworn to before me this 12th day of November 1958. 

Philip Zimmerman, 
Notary Puilic, State of New York. No. S1-9S04600. 

Qualified in New York County. Certificate filed with New York County clerk. 
Commission expires March 30, 1960. 

Mr. Kennedy. You gave Tony Provenzano the $2,500 ? 

Mr. Pitman. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the reason that you paid him the $2,500 
in cash ? 

Mr. Pitman. To stay out of trouble and get everything working 
right there ; that is all. To stay out of trouble ; that is all. He wanted 
the money and kept after me all the time for 7 or 8 months. It got 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19245 

to be that I just had to do it. No matter what happened I had to do it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you think it was a proper payment ? 

Mr. Pitman. No, I don't think it was a proper payment ; no. 
Mr. Kennedy. You knew it was going to him or to his colleagues ; 
it wasn't helping the union at all in any way ? 

Mr. Pitman. All I know is Tony Pro. That is the only man I met 
in the union. That is the only man I know. I haven't been in the 
union hall since I have been there, 8 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew it was for Tony Provenzano, not for the 
help and assistance of union members. You didn't believe it could 
help or assist the union ? 

Mr. Pitman. No, it couldn't help me. I am paying everything I 
should pay in the union. There are no favors that he could do for 
me at all. I am not looking for favors. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Curtis. Have you any questions ? 

Senator CArEiiART. I do not think so, except I just can't quite under- 
stand you, a businessman, being a party to a transaction like this when 
you knew it was wrong. 

You knew it was wrong, didn't you ? 

Mr. Pitman. Yes ; I knew it was wrong. 

Senator Capehart. You knew it was wrong if you deducted it from 
your income tax. 

Mr. Pitman. Yes ; I knew that was wrong, too. 

Senator Capehart. How do you expect this committee or the Con- 
gress to clean up these situations if you businessmen and others partici- 
pate in them yourselves — the things that are wrong ? 

Mr. Pitman. He kept after me for 7 or 8 months. I just could not 
take any more of it. I either had to leave the business or give it up. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Pitman, did Tony Provenzano have the power 
to put you out of business if he wanted to ? 

Mr. Pitman, I am sure he could. 

Senator Capehart. How could he put you out of business ? 

Mr. Pitman. Because my chauffeurs, they know Tonj^^ Pro. They 
don't know Arthur Pitman, 

Senator Capehart. Did you have a contract ? 

Mr. Pitman. I have one. 

Senator Capehart. You say he bothered you for 7 or 8 months. 
Wliatdidhedo? 

Mr. Pitman. He came after me. When he would come down and 
see me during the 7 or 8 months I would leave the terminal. 

Senator Curtis. Did you say you were unwilling to pay over this 
amount ? 

Mr. Pitman. Yes ; I was unwilling. For 7 or 8 months he was after 
me to pay him. At last it got so bad I was not on the job. I was off 
the job all the time, watching my trucks and all that. 

Senator Curtis. While you disapproved of it, you felt it was nec- 
essai-y in order to keep operating ? 

Mr. Pitman, Yes, 

Senator Curtis. Anything else ? 

Mr, Kennedy, That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Curtis. We thank you very much for your appearance here. 

Mr, KENNEDY. Mr. Walter Dorn, 

Senator Curtis, Will you stand to be sworn ? 



19246 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will 
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God? 

Mr. DoRN. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER A. DORN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
L. MirRRAY DOODY, JR. 

Senator Curtis. Please give your name and your address and your 
business, your occupation. 

Mr. DoRN. My name is Walter Dorn. I live in Shodlack Landing, 
N. Y. President of Dorn Transportation. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Dorn, do you have counsel with you ? 

Mr. Dorn. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Counsel, will you identify yourself. 

Mr. DooDY. L. Murray Doody, Jr., attorney at law, 75 State Street, 
Albany, N.Y. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are here under subpena before the committee? 

Mr. Dorn. Yes, I am. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been president of the Dorn 
Transportation Co. ? 

Mr. Dorn. Five years. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many trucks does it have ? 

Mr. Dorn. Roughly, 500 units. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would be truck and trailer ? 

Mr. Dorn. That is truck and trailer separately. 

Mr. Kennedy. 500 of each ? 

Mr. Dorn. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. 250 of each ? 

Mr. Dorn. 160 tractors, about 230 trailers, and 210 or 220 straight 
trucks. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is about 500 pieces of straight equipment 
altogether ? 

Mr. Dorn. Altogether. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your gross business is approximately 

Mr. Dorn. In 1958 it was $5,800,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where do you operate ? 

Mr. Dorn. From the Canadian border at Rouses Point, south to 
Baltimore, east into the Hartford- Bridgeport area of Connecticut. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, you have conti-acts with a number of Teamster 
locals throughout the northern section of the country ? 

Mr. Dorn. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. In Baltimore, local 557. Philadelphia, local 107. 
Hoboken, local 560. Yonkers, 445, and a number of other locals ? 

Mr. Dorn. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you first meet Mr. Tony Provenzano ? 

Mr. Dorn. In the early part of 1952 ; probably the second quarter 
of 1952. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. Will you speak a little louder ? 

Mr. Dorn. Second quarter of 1952. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long had you been in the trucking business as 
of that time? 

Mr. Dorn. I had been in it since 1940. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19247 

Mr. Kennedy. Your family is in the trucking business ? 

Mr. DoRN. My brother has been a primary owner and he has been 
in it before that. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you happen to meet Tony Pro ? 

Mr. DoRN. I operated a terminal in Secaucus, N.J. 

Mr. Kennedy. You met him at the time ? 

Mr. DoRN. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You experienced some labor difficulties when you 
went over to Secaucus ? 

Mr. DoRN. Yes; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time did you arrange for Mr. Adelizzi of 
the Empire State Trucking Association to come over and try to help 
you settle your difficulties ? 

Mr. DoRN. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet with Tony Pro at that time ? 

Mr. DoRN. Yes, sir. 

ISIr. Kennedy. Did you meet with anybody else from the union in 
addition to Pro ? 

Mr. DoRN. Mr. Castellito. 

Mr. Kennedy. C-a-s-t-e-1-l-i-t-o? 

Mr. DoRN. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is also known as Three-Finger Tony; is that 
right? 

Mr. DoRN. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Anthony Castellito? 

Mr. DoRN. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was business agent also of the local ? 

Mr. DoRN. Yes. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Did you make any progress while you had Mr. Ade- 
lizzi there? 

Mr. DoRN. No ; I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the atmosphere while Mr. Adelizzi was 
present ? 

Mr. DoRN. It was very unpleasant. 

Mr. Kennedy. So did you feel you could do better if Mr. Adelizzi 
was not present ? 

Mr. DoRN. I felt that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you feel that was the point they were trying 
to get across to you ? 

Mr. DoRN. I believe so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then after you had several meetings with Proven- 
zano and Castellito with Adelizzi, then you ended up having a meet- 
ing with them yourself, without Adelizzi ? 

^Ir. DoRN. Yes. 

ISIr. IvENNEDY. I might add, Mr. Chairman, he has the finest of 
reputations in New York in the trucking business. 

Was there an approach made to you at that time when you had the 
meeting with Pro and Castellito ? 

Mr. DoRN. Yes, there was. 

INIr. Kennedy. Will you relate that to the committee ? 

ISIr. DoRN. The approach was if I wanted to stop having trouble 
I had better get him some money. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any discussion as to how much money 
should be gotten up ? 



1924S IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DoRN. Not in exact terms ; no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Generally was there discussion ? 

Mr. DoRN. I believe it was generally about $5,000 a year. That 
was my impression at the time. 

Mr. Kennedy, This was at the time both Castellito and Pro made 
this approach to you initially ? 

Mr. DoRN. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you say to them at that time? 

Mr. DoRN. I told them I did not control the company. I had no 
way of getting that kind of money out of the company. If there 
were some way I could do it I would try to do it, I would try to do 
what I could, myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. So what happened ? What was the result ? 

Mr. DoRN. Over the next 15 months I paid about $1,500 in cash 
total. 

Mr. Kennedy. How often did you meet with them to give them the 
money ? 

Mr. DoRN. That consisted of four times. 

Mr. Kennedy. Four times you gave him what ; three or four hun- 
dred dollars each time ? 

Mr. DoRN. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were both of them present at each meeting? 

Mr. DoRN. Castellito may have been present once, but no more. 

Mr. Kennedy. Pro was present at all four meetings ? 

Mr. DoRN. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You gave him the money ? 

Mr. DoRN. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Castellito might have been present at one meeting ? 

Mr. DoRN. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. In addition to the time the original deal was set 
up ; is that right ? 

Mr. DoRN. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you have the meeting at which the initial 
approach was made to you ? 

Mr. DoRN. At the Swiss Town House in Weehawken. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Where did you make the payments to Provenzano ? 

Mr. DoRN. At the Swiss Town House in Weehawken. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you put it in an envelope or hand it to him ? 

Mr. DoRN. No ; in mj hand. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just in cash, you would hand it to him ? 

Mr. DoRN. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did that arrangement continue for about 15 
months ? 

Mr. DoRN. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did it start, approximately? 

Mr. DoRN. It started probably the late summer of 1952, continued 
sometime in 1954. 

Mr, Kennedy. Why did this arrangement terminate? 

Mr. DoRN. That arrangement terminated because I was afraid to 
do it any longer, and I stopped it. 

I could not frankly get my hands on the money. 

Mr. Kennedy. You could not get your hands on any more money ? 

Mr. DoRN. That is right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19249 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there a new arrangement made at that time ? 

Mr. DoRN. In 1953 I was given the name of a lawyer to put on 
retainer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who gave yon the name of the lawyer? 

Mr. DoRN. Tony Provenzano. 

Mr. Kennedy. IVhat was the name of the lawyer? 

Mr. DoRN. Michael Communale. 

Mr. Kennedy. C-o-m-m-u-n-a-l-e? 

Mr. DoRN. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he suggest that you put him on retainer with 
your company ? 

Mr. DoRN. Yes, he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did you pay him ? 

Mr. DoRN. $200 a month. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you continue to pay him ? 

Mr. DoRN. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was the last time you paid him ? 

Mr. DoRN. June 1, 1959. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever consult with him ? 

Mr. DoRN. No, I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever meet him? 

Mr. DoRN. No, I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever ask him to do anything? 

Mr. DoRN. No, I didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is the reason you paid him $200 a month because 
you were told to do so by Tony Provenzano ? 

Mr. DoRN. Yes, it is. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that in order to avoid labor difficulty or trouble 
with Mr. Provenzano? 

Mr. Dorn. In order to avoid more trouble. I already had it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know at that time Mr. Communale was as- 
sistant prosecutor of Hudson County, N.J. ? 

Mr. Dorn. I did not know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. He works for the Public Prosecutor's Office. 

Mr. Dorn. I did not know that. 

Mr. Kennedy. He does anti-labor-racketeering work. 

Mr. Dorn. I did not know that. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Dorn, what could these two men do to you if 
you refused to give them any money ? 

Mr. Dorn. They could stop the operation. 

Senator Curtis. You did this because you thought it was necessary 
to continue to carry on your business ? 

Mr. Dorn. I thought it was necessary. 

Senator Curtis. Who was it that brought up the idea of placing 
an attorney on the payroll ? 

Mr. Dorn. Mr. Provenzano. 

Senator Curtis. Any further questions ? 

Senator Capehart. Did you consider what you did as being right? 

Mr. Dorn. No ; I considered it necessary. 

Senator Capehart. Don't you thing it is getting awfully discourag- 
ing in this committee and others to find good, honest, fine businesses 
such as your own dealing in this sort of scheme ? Why do you do it ? 



19250 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. DoRN, I don't believe people would do it if there was some other 
place to go. 

Senator Capehart. Couldn't you have gone to the sheriff or mayor 
or the Governor ? 

Mr. DoRN. I didn't Imow, but I think Mr. Kennedy made that point 
plain. 

Senator Capehart. I did not hear you. 

Mr. DoRN. I did not realize the situation existed, but I believe Mr. 
Kennedy made it quite plain that that would not have been an answer. 

Senator Capehart. Why ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Because the man he was paying, the man that was 
put on the payroll by Mr. Provenzano, the lawyer, was working in 
the public prosecutor's office. 

Senator Capehart. Didn't you know that yourself ? 

Mr. DoRN. No ; I never knew that. 

Senator Capehart. You never made any effort to try to find out 
who this man was ? 

Mr. DoRN. No, I didn't. 

Senator Capehart. Were you certain there was an individual by 
that name ? 

Mr. DoRN. I would not have been able to swear to it. 

Senator Capehart. Did you deduct this $200 a month from your 
tax return ? 

Mr. DoRN. I was told it was put in as a retainer expense. 

Senator Capehart. Do you think it was right to do that ? 

Mr. DoRN. I don't believe it was right ; No. 

Senator Capehart. Do you think you got value received for your 
money ? 

Mr. DoRN. That is something I don't know. 

Senator Capehart. The point I am trying to make is. How do you 
expect, regardless of any legislation we might pass here, or any State 
legislation, if a businessman and county officials are going to indulge 
in this sort of thing, what good is it going to do us to pass any legis- 
lation ? 

Mr. Dorn. I don't know. 

Senator Curtis. I might say for tlie record we have not passed any 
legislation yet, A great many people are still out on the limb so far 
as getting any protection. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did you pay Mr. Communale alto- 
gether ? 

Mr. DoRN. Approximately $14,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have the checks here. 

It was contemplated, I believe in 1957, that you would take him 
off tlie payroll ; is that right ? 

Mr. DoRN. Yes, it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. And for some reason, which is not 

Mr. DoRN. I did not do it. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Dorn, I hand you what purports to be a bundle 
of checks. Will you thumb through there and tell us what they are, 
if you know? 

(The documents were handed to the witness.) 

Mr. DouN. They are payments made to Mr. Communale of $200 
each. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19251 

Senator Curtis. Payments by the Dorn Transportation Co.? 

Mr. Dorn. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Those are the monthly retainer checks about 
which you testified ? 

Mr. DoKx. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. They will be marked "Exhibit No. 49" for refer- 
ence only. 

(Checks referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 49" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

]\rr. Kennedy. What had been the difficulty, Mr. Dorn, that you 
had had with Mr. Provenzano? A¥hat was he trying to do or what 
was the problem originally as far as he was concerned in the union? 

Mr. Dorn. I was forced to put a switcher on in the yard, whom 
I didn't consider I needed, and my drivers refused to drop and back 
in their trailers when they come otf the street, and I couldn't get them 
to do it. I was told that they didn't have to do it, and there Avas a 
general slowdown. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did those conditions improve once you made the 
payments to him? 

Mr. Dorn. The slowdown may have. The switcher I still have. 
The other, over the years, has gradually dwindled out. 

Mr, Kennedy. Did you feel that you were achieving or obtaining 
what you hoped to by making the payments ? 

Mr. Dorn. I have achieved nothing since I moved to Secaucus. 

Mr. Kennedy. Since you went over there ? 

Mr. Dorn. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you weren't obtaining what you expected, why 
did you continue to make the payments ? 

Mr. Dorn. I wasn't looking for anything. I was afraid it would 
get worse. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is no question that without any trouble at all, 
Mr. Provenzano could put you out of business ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Dorn. I believe so ; yes. 

Senator Capehart. Who do you say this Mr. Communale is? Who 
is he? 

Mr. Dorn. He is apparently the lawyer that we paid on retainer. 

Senator Capehart. I know, but did you say a minute ago he held 
some office with the county prosecutor ? 

Mr. Dorn. I have been informed by Mr. Kennedy that he does. I 
didn't know that. 

Senator Capehart. You didn't know that until you arrived here? 

Mr. Dorn. I did not. 

Senator Capehart. What county is he supposedly the prosecutor of 
or assistant prosecutor? 

Mr. Dorn. I don't know. I don't know. 

Senator Capehart. What county do you live in ? 

Mr. Dorn. I live in New York State, in Rensselaer County. 

Senator Capehart. Was that a county, Mr. Counsel, in New Jersey ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Hudson County, N.J. 

Senator Capehart. Is that the headquarters of your company? 

Mr. Dorn. The headquarters is at Rensselaer, N.Y. 

Senator Capehart. But not in New Jersey ? 

Mr. Dorn. No. 

36751— 59— pt. 55 8 



19252 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Capehart. And you never knew this gentleman ? 

Mr. DoRN. No, I didn't. 

Senator Capehart. Where did you forward the checks ? 

Mr, DoRN. To the address that was given to me. 

Senator Capehart. What address was that ? 

Mr. DoRN. I frankly don't have that right now. 

Senator Capehart. You paid him over $14,000 and don't know the 
address of the man ? 

Mr. Dorn. No; it was sent from my accounting office. I don't 
have the address in mind. 

Senator Curtis. Your company has the address. What you mean 
is you do not have it with you ? 

Mr. DoRN. I don't have it with me ; no. 

Senator Capehart. What I can't understand is why businessmen 
would indulge in this sort of thing. I can understand why racketeers 
would indulge in this sort of thing, but I can't understand why busi- 
nessmen would indulge in this sort of thing. 

In other words, it takes two people, you know, to commit this 
crime. I don't understand why businessmen would participate in 
this. I don't see how we are ever going to stop it, as long as you do it. 

Mr. Kj:nnedy. His address, I believe, is 591 Summit Avenue, Jersey 
City,N.J. 

I have a letter here I would like to have you identify, if you can. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Senator Curtis. Do you identify the letter, Mr. Dorn ? 

Mr. DoRN. It is my signature ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. What is the letter ? 

Mr. Dorn. It is a letter to Mr. Communale, putting him on a 
retainer. 

Senator Curtis. What is the date of it ? 

Mr. DoRN. August 10, 1953. 

Senator Curtis. That will be exhibit No. 50. 

(Letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 50" for reference and 
will be found in the appendix on p. 19494.) 

Mr. Ivennedy. It is dated August 10, 1953, to Michael G. Com- 
munale. 

Dear Mb. Communale : We would like to have you accept a retainer from our 
company in order for you to handle our legal matters regarding the ton-mile 
tax, and other legal matters that may arise in the New York City area, starting 
at once. We are sorry for the delay in writing this letter, which we agreed to do 
when we originally discussed this matter. 

No. 1, did you ever discuss that matter with him ? 
Mr. DoRN. No ; I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was just the fact that Tony Provenzano re- 
quested you put him on the payroll ? 
Mr. DoRN. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. You did discuss it with Tony Pro ? 
Mr. Dorn. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. But never with Mr. Communale ? 
Mr. DoRN. No. 
Mr. Kennedy. It says here, 

legal matters regarding the ton-mile tax. 

Wliat was that? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19253 

Mr. DoRN. Ton-mile tax is something we have in the State of New 
York. 

Mr. Kennedy. You wouldn't be getting an attorney in New Jersey 
to handle that for you anyway, would you ? 

Mr, DoRN. No ; I wouldn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that is just verbiage ? 

Mr. DoRN. That is correct. 

Senator Capehart. Do you mean to tell me that you wrote this 
letter and didn't know the gentleman and never had him do any work ? 

Mr. DoRN. That is right. 

Senator Capehart. You didn't even know who the gentleman was ? 

Mr. Dorn. No. 

Senator Capehart. Was he a reputable lawyer at the time ? 

Mr. DoRN. I didn't know. 

Senator Capehart. And you have never seen him to this day ? 

Mr. DoRN. No ; I have not. 

Senator Capehart. I again say why would a businessman do a thing 
like that? 

Mr. Kennedy. Because you were going to be put out of business if 
you didn't ; isn't that right ? 

Mr. Dorn. That is right. 

Senator Capehart. You are going to eventually be put out of busi- 
ness anyway if this sort of thing goes on. How can law-enforcement 
officers and how can this Congress legislate on this sort of thing if 
businessmen are going to participate in it? What good is it going 
to do ? That is, to pass legislation if you businessmen are not going to 
help your Government to uphold the law ? You are going to violate 
the laws yourself. 

Mr. Kennedy. I very much appreciate the help that you have given, 
Mr. Dorn. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Dorn, we want to thank you for your testimony. 

Senator Capehart. I am grateful for the help you have given, too. 
But there are evidently two sides to this. You participated in it 
yourself. My point is you should not have done it. I would think you 
would have stood and gone out of business before you would have 
permitted yourself to do this. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Dorn, we thank you for your appearance here 
and for making tliese facts available to the committee. 

Have you completed, Mr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. DooDY. Have you anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No. 

Senator Curtis. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Provenzano will be here, but just so we get it in 
the proper perspective as to with whom these gentlemen were dealing, 
he is a close associate, according to the information that we have — 
and we put some of it into the record in connection with the tapes that 
were used in the 1957 hearings — he is a close associate of Tony 
"Ducks" Corallo, Carmine Tramunti, Sonny Campbell, Bemie Adel- 
stein, Connie Noonan, Jerry Catena, and Anthony Strollo, also known 
as Tony Bender. 

He has contacts and connections with the leading racketeer and 
gangsters in New Jersey and New York. He is an important figure 
now, has become an important figure, in the Teamsters Union. 



19254 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I would like to call Mr. Communale, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Communale. 

Is Mr. Communale in the room ? If so, please step forward. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, they had some bad weather, I guess ; 
there was some difficulty with the planes. 

I might call Mr. Tony Provenzano. There is a possibility that 
they were on the same plane. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Tony Provenzano. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, I will go ahead with some other witnesses. 

Senator Curtis. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Carl Helm. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Carl Helm ? 

Raise your right hand and be sworn. Do you solemnly swear the 
testimony you are about to give before this Senate select committee 
will be the truth, the whole tinith, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God? 

TESTIMONY OF CARL HELM, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
HAROLD H. HERWITT 

Senator Curtis. State your name, your residence, and your business. 

Mr. Helm. My name is Carl A. Helm, H-e-l-m. I live at 1322: 
North Highland Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa. I am retired. 

Senator Curtis. Do you have counsel with you ? 

Mr. Helm. Yes, I do. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Counsel, will you identify yourself? 

Mr. Herwitt. Harold H. Herwitt, attorney at law, Pittsburgh. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Helm is about to testify to 
matters going back a period of time, but it is important so far as. 
establishing the pattern of these individuals in that area. 

Mr. Helm, you were former owner of the L. & H. Transportation 
Co.? 

Mr. Helm. I was the president. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did that company go out of business ? When 
did you retire ? 

Mr. Helm. 1953. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did it go out of business at that time ? 

Mr. Helm. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long had you been in the trucking business? 
Just approximately ? 

Mr. Helm. Twenty-five years. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have been retired since the company — since 
1953 ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Helm. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the late 1940's, were you operating your company 
in New Jersey and did you have labor difficulties at that time? 

Mr. Helm. Yes, we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have some conversations during this period 
of time with Mr. John Conlon ? C-o-n-l-o-n ? 

Mr. Helm. Yes, we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. C-o-n-l-i-n. My mistake. 

Mr. Helm. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was president of local 650 at tliat time ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19255 

Mr. Helm. Of New Jersey. 

Mr. Kennedy. In New Jersey ? 

Mr. Helm. In New Jersey. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were having some labor difficulty. Did he have 
a conversation with you or relate to you how you could solve some of 
your labor problems? 

Mr. Helm. We had a meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you have the meeting ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Helm. It was in, I believe, Hoboken, N. J., at a restaurant of 
some kind. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did 3^ou have a conversation with Mr. Conlin at that 
time? 

]Mr. Helm. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did Mr. Conlin say to you ? 

Mr. Helm. Well, there was our attorney from New York, Mr. Abel 
Just, Mr. Jacobson, our New York manager. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was present ? 

Mr. Helm. Pie was present. My sister and myself. We met with 
Mr. Conlin there for dinner. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there any other Teamster officials there ? 

Mr. Helm. There might have been ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did Mr. Conlin say to you at that time at this 
meeting or at this dinner ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. You can answer. 

Mr. Helm. Well, he says "Everything will be all right." It would 
cost us $300 a month, nothing over $20 bills. "Just go home; don't 
worry," he would call the New York office. "Everything is all right." 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you say that a little louder, please ? 

Mr. Helm. He said he would contact our New York office; he would 
take it up with the New York manager ; everything will be all right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he say about how much it would cost 
you? 

Mr. Helm. A minimum of $300 a month. 

Mr. Kennedy. A minimum of $300 a month ? 

Mr. Helm. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you what the bills would have to be ? 

Mr. Helm. Nothing over $20 bills. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nothing over $20 bills ? 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Helm, was this conversation with you privately 
or did everyone that you mentioned at this dinner hear it? 

Mr. Helm. Mr. Conlin talked very low at one end of the table. 

Senator Curtis. You were close to him ? 

Mr. Helm. I was pretty close to him. 

Senator Curtis. Is it your best judgment that the others did not 
hear all the details ? 

ISIr. Helm. Yes. I don't think they all heard it too good. 

Senator Curtis. Did you discuss it with them later ? 

Mr. Helm. I talked to them ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. And they agreed that you should do it ? 

Mr. Helim. Not necessarily. 

Senator Curtis. Did you pay him? 



19256 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Helm. Yes. Not personally. 

Senator Curtis. Did they disagree with the idea of payment? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Helm. Well, the attorney said they didn't teach him that in law 
school. That was the attorney's answer. 

Senator Curtis. They didn't like it, but they didn't prevent you 
from doing it; is that correct? 

Mr. Helm. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the attorney actually go in and meet with Mr. 
Conlin in the men's room ? 

Mr. Helm. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. "WTiat did the attorney, Mr. Just, relate to you after 
his meeting ? 

Mr. Helm. Well, outside Mr. Just said Mr. Conlin told him to go 
back and explain the facts of life to Mr. Helm. 

Mr. Kennedy. To go back and explain the facts of life? 

Mr. Helm. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were arrangements subsequently made for the pay- 
ment of some $300 ? 

Mr. Helm. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And was that made through Mr. Jacobson? 

Mr, Helm. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it explained to you that the payments were to 
be made once a month ? 

Mr. Helm. Once a month. 

Mr. Ivennedy. At the beginning of the month ? 

Mr. Helm. Yes. They would call. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who would call ? 

Mr. Helm. Mr. Conlin's men. 

Mr. Kennedy. And would you relate how you understood the pay- 
ments were made ? 

Mr. Helm. I understood that Mr. Jacobson would take the money 
out of petty cash when they called him and he would have to go and 
meet them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where would he ordinarily meet them ? 

Mr. Helm. Anywhere. They would specify that, "Meet me in a 
half hour." 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you undertsand it was on a corner ? 

Mr. Helm. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they would drive up in a car and he would give 
it to them in a car ? 

Mr. Helm. Well, I don't know that; how he met them. 

Senator Curtis. Wliat year did all of this take place? 

Mr. Helm. This was back in 1946 or 1917 ; somewhere back. 

Senator Curtis. It began about 1946 or 1947 ? 

Mr. Helm. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. How long did it continue? 

Mr. Helm. About 5 months or 6 months. 

Senator Curtis. How did you get it stopped ? 

Mr. Helm. Well, first we called the FBI. I didn't call them. Our 
New York office. I advised them to call the FBI and tell them about 
It, that something had to be done. The answer was that the FBI said, 
well, they just didn't have the manpower. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19257 

Mr. Kennedy. We find in our looking into it — you just told Mr. 
Jacobson to call ? 

Mr. Helm. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know if Mr. Jacobson ever called ? 

Mr. Helm. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. We don't have any information, Mr. Chairman, that 
this call was ever made to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Senator Capehart. Who was Mr. Jacobson ? 

Mr. Helm. Our manager in New York City. 

Senator Capehart. He was your manager, not your lawyer ? 

Mr. Helm. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. And the report you got back was that they didn't 
have the manpower ? 

Mr. Helm. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. You didn't contact them directly ? 

Mr. Helm. No. 

Senator Curtis. Although you were in favor of it and recommended 
it? 

Mr. Helm. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long did your payments go on ? 

Mr. HJELM. Five or six months. 

Mr. Kennedy. Initially when you talked to our investigator you 
thought they went on until you retired from your business. 

Mr. Helm. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. They only went on for 6 months ? 

Mr. Helm. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you stop the payments ? 

Mr. Helm. Well, it took money. No. 1. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the reason? So you decided you would just 
stop ; is that right ? 

Mr. Helm. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Jacobson handled all the payments, did he? 

Mr. Helm. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever meet a Tony Castellito ? 

Mr. Helm. Not to my recollection. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Jacobson tell you that the payments were to be 
made to a man by the name of "Three-Finger" Tony ) 

Mr. Helm. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Three-Finger" Tony ? 

Mr. Helm. Tony. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he say just Tony, or "Tliree-Finger"' Tony? 

Mr. Helm. He might have said "Three-Finger" Tony. 

Mr. Kennedy. There are two Tonys ? 

Mr. Helm. I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the initial arrangement or the initial discussions 
regarding the $300 were set up or discussed between you and Mr. 
Conlin at tliis meeting? 

Mr. Helm. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was ultimately worked out with Mr. Jacobson 
and some representative of the local and the $300 was paid every 
month for approximately 5 months ? 

Mr. Helm. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Conlin, Mr. Chairman, is, I believe, first vice 
president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 



19258 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Helm. At the present time ? 

Mr. Kennedy. At the present time. He is a member of the execu- 
tive board, and first vice president. 

Senator Curtis. Is there anything further? Senator Capehart? 

Senator Capehart. Did you have any trouble after you discontinued 
paying the $300 a month ? 

Mr. Helm. Plenty. 

Senator Capehart. As much as before? Was there any difference 
between your troubles before and after ? 

Mr. Helm. Not much. 

Senator Capehart. Not much difference ? 

Mr. PIelm. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you in fear of testifying before the committee ? 

Mr. Helm. I most certainly was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you now ? 

Mr. Helm. It is over now. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you in fear of giving testimony against some 
of these individuals ? 

Mr. Helm. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason ? 

Mr. Helm. Maybe bodily harm ; anything. 

Mr. Kennedy. What makes you think that anything would happen 
to you? You said when I first discussed it that you were reluctant 
to testify, and you said something to the effect that you wanted to 
keep on living ; is that right ? 

Mr. Helm. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you think there is that much of a problem about 
coming in and testifying? 

Mr. Helm. It could be. 

Senator Capehart. How long have you been in the trucking 
business ? 

Mr. Helm. About 25 years. 

Senator Capehart. How long did you have the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Helm. Well, quite a number of years. 

Senator Capehart. Twenty years, would you say ? 

Mr. Helm. I don't think it is that long. 

Senator Capehart. Did any of them ever harm you during the 20 
years ? 

Mr. Helm. No. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Helm, we want to thank you for being here 
and for the information you have given the committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Jacobson. 

Senator Curtis. Will you raise your hand and be sworn ? 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give 
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM JACOBSON 

Senator Curtis. State your name, your residence, and your business 
or occupation. 

Mr. Jacobson. My name is William Jacobson, Rural Delivery No. 
11, Wanaque, N.J. I am in the trucking business. 



IIMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19259 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Jacobson, do you have counsel with you ? 

Mr. Jacobson. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You are aware as a witness you are entitled to have 
an attorney if you choose with you ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You waive counsel? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Jacobson, you are now terminal manager of the 
Refrigeration Division of Daniels Motor Co., 80 James Street, Jersey 
City, N.J.; is that right? 

Mr. Jacobson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been in the trucking business ? 

Mr. Jacobson. About 27 or 28 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been with the Daniels Motor 
Freight Co. ? 

Mr. Jacobson. April 7 of last year. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who were you with prior to that time ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Long Transportation Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. For a period of time you were with L. & H. Trans- 
portation Co. ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long were you with L. & H. ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I would say around 15 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. In late 1948, Mr. Jacobson, or early 1949, did you 
have some difficulties with local 560 of the Teamsters — were there 
some difficulties in New Jersey in connection with local 560 ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I refuse to answer on the ground that the answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Jacobson, what is the true reason you won't 
testify before the committee? 

Will you tell that to the committee ? 

If you want to exercise your privilege, go ahead after that. Will 
you give the true reason why you won't testify before the committee ? 

Mr. Jacobson. No ; I refuse to answer on the ground that the answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. That is not the reason that you think it will in- 
criminate j^ou, Mr. Jacobson, because this all occurred probably 9 or 
10 years ago; according to the information you gave us it occurred 
in late 1948 or early 1959. So it is 10 years, at least 10 years ago. 
That is not the reason. 

Mr. Jacobson. I could not truthfully answer a lot of these questions 
because it is not fresh in my mind. 

Senator Curtis. ^Yliy not do as well as we can? Whatever you can 
remember, you tell us. If you can't remember the other, you can tell 
us that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have some difficulties with local 560 during 
approximately that period of time? 

Mr. Jacobson. We had difficulties. I don't know if it was 560 or 
807. We certainly had some difficulties. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there some discussion, did you understand, by 
Mr. Helm with Mr. Conlin about trying to settle some of your diffi- 
culties? 



19260 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Jacobson. I refuse to answer on the ground that the answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this : As this occurred quite a period 
of time ago, certainly there is nothing in any of the answers that you 
might give that would incriminate you. 

What would be the reason you would not want to give this informa- 
tion to us, Mr. Jacobson ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I don't have any specific reason. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. What is generally the reason ? Don't you want to 
help the committtee by giving up the information? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why don't you answer that question then? 

Mr. Jacobson. Well, I expect to be in this business for some years 
to come. Tliere might be some retaliation. I don't say that there 
will be. I have a livelihood to make yet. I am not retiring yet. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you think in order to stay in business it would 
be better if you did not testify against some of these people? Would 
that be the reason you would not want to help the committee, help 
the Government? You served in the Army, didn't you? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Weren't you overseas ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you helped the Government before. Is the rea- 
son you would not want to help now the fact that if you stayed in 
this business they might retaliate against you? 

Mr. Jacobson. They might. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there also a question about the physical fear? 

Mr. Jacobson. I refuse to answer on the ground that the answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that the answer you gave me down- 
stairs as to why you would not testify is because you said, "I want 
to go on breathing" ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I refuse to answer on the ground that the answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Jacobson, is that the reason that you won't give 
this information or testimony to the committee? 

Mr. Jacobson. What is that, sir ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Because of your physical fear? Would that be the 
primary reason? Is that the primary reason, Mr. Jacobson? 

Mr. Jacobson. I refuse to answer on the ground that the answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would that be the main reason that you don't want 
to help the committee ? 

Mr. Jacobson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That you have some physical fear of yourself? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you think could happen to you, Mr. 
Jacobson ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I suppose anything could happen. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you thinJk: 

Mr. Jacobson. That I don't know. Nothing might come of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the main reason you won't give us the testi- 
mony regarding these payments ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19261 

Mr. Jacobson, I refuse to answer on the ground that the answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you state it is because of your physical fear and 
the fact you have to stay in this business ; is that the primary reason 
you won't give us the information regarding the payments? 

Mr. Jacobson. No ; the primary reason is that I have to stay in this 
business. I can't do anything else but this business. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you think would happen if you gave us 
the information ? 

Mr. Jacobson. That is hard to say. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just don't want to take the chance ? 

Mr. Jacobson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Don't you think that your 

Mr. Jacobson. By the same token, one way of getting blackballed 
with all the companies. 

Mr. Ivennedy. The company might fire you if you testify ? 

Mr. Jacobson. That is right. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. So it is as much a fear of the employer, that they 
might fire you if you gave the testimony ? 

Mr. Jacobson. That I don't know. I don't know how the employers 
might work, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you feel you would feel better if you took the 
fifth amendment than if you testified ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Jacobson, at whose request would the employer 
fire somebody because they gave testimony here ? 

Mr. Jacobson. It would come from most any source. 

Senator Curtis. Would it come from these Teamster bosses? 

Mr. Jacobson. It could be. 

Mr. Kennedy. But when you 

Mr. Jacobson. I have never known of an instance of it actually 
happening, but it could be. 

Mr. ICennedy. Didn't you state when you talked to us downstairs, 
you said, "I am too scared of the situation; I want to go on breath- 
ing. I don't stick my neck out for nobody. I would rather be a live 
coward than a dead hero." Didn't you say that ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I refuse to answer on the ground the answer might 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wouldn't you just answer that question ? Isn't that 
correct, that that is what you stated ? "I would rather be a live cow- 
ard than a dead hero." Didn't you say that ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Yes, sir ; I said that a dozen times. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us about the payments that you 
made? 

Mr. Jacobson. I refuse to answer on the ground the answer may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you tell me downstairs that the man came 
along in the automobile once every month and you would go down on 
the corner and meet him and throw the envelope or give the money 
into the car as the car would come by ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I refuse to answer on the grounds the answer may 
tend to incriminate me. 



19262 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Did you retain any of the money that was turned 
over to you by tlie L. & H. Co., or did you give it all to Tony Pro or 
his representative? 

Mr. Jacobson. There was no money turned over to me by the L. & 
H. Co. at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you get the money from ? 

Mr. Jacobson. The money for what ? 

Mr. KJENNEDY. The money in connection with the payments. 

Mr. Jacobson. I refuse to answer on the grounds the answer may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Did you make any payments ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I refuse to answer on the ground the answer may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kenney. You told us about the payments, did you not? 

Mr. Jacobson. I refuse to answer on the ground the answer may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you state also to our investigator : 

Another thing, I will go to jail for 20 years. I tell you nothing. I have been 
told that if I ever repeat or talk I will find myself cut in little pieces. Who 
told me? That is none of your business. Mister, when you are threatened by 
this mob, you don't answer. You just do and shut up. 

Mr. Jacobson. That I said that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Jacobson. I refuse to answer on the ground the answer may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Capehart. You were shaking your head. Does that mean 
that you did not say it ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I did not say it. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Jacobson, it does not occur to me that your use 
of the privilege of the fiftli amendment is appropriate here. iVt the 
same time, the record speaks for itself. But there is an element of 
intimidation and fear. It may be that the committee will call you 
again. I do not know. 

But I believe that it would be well for you to avail yourself of the 
privilege of having an attorney to counsel you. Certainly, if you are 
afraid of any of these people, that is one thing. But rather than take 
a position before this committee and before the public that truthful 
answers would incriminate you, it may be a position that you do not 
deserve. 

While this committee cannot provide you with an attorney, the act- 
ing chairman does suggest that should we call you again, you ought to 
get one. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that we get the last of it, Mr. Jacobson, the last 
piece that I read you was not the statement that you made to me, 
but the statement that you made to Mr. Aporta when you were first 
interviewed in June of 1955. 

Will you take your mind back to that occasion. Tell us whether 
you made a statement not using those words along the lines that I 
read to you. I am not talking about when you and I had an interview, 
when you said, "I want to go on breathing." But this was an inter- 
view that you had with a representative of the statf of the committee. 

Mr. Jacobson. Will you read those exact words again, ])lease? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19263 

Mr. Kennedy. I will read you this. At this point Mr. Jacobson 
said : 

Let me set you straight. I am too scared of the situation. I don't stick my 
neck out for nobody, and besides, who are you kidding? Don't give me any of 
that B.S. about future protection and all that. I would rather be a live coward 
than a dead hero. Why, you guys haven't touched nothing. All your B.S. 
about cooperating. Well, as I said, I am not sticking my neck out for anybody. 
I will clam, take the fifth all the way. I want to be here a little longer. 

Another thing, I will go to jail for 20 years. I tell you nothing. I have been 
told if I ever repeat or talk I will find myself cut in little pieces. Who told me? 
That is none of your business. Mister, when you are threatened by this mob, 
you don't answer. You just do and shut up. 

Mr. Jacobson. The only part of that statement I might have made 
and I am not sure of that, would be I would sooner be a live coward 
tlian a dead hero. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the rest you did not ? 

Mr. Jacobson. No, sir. I might have implied it, but I certainly 
didn't say anything like that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you evei-y say, "I have been told that if I repeat 
or talk I will find myself cut in little pieces" ? 

Mr. Jacobson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't ? 

Mr. Jacobson. Definitely not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever state, "Mister, when you are threatened 
by this mob, you don't answer. You just do and shut up" ? 

Mr. Jacobson. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you were in my office, you stated this was a 
rough group, did you not ? 

Mr. Jacobson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you wouldn't want to fool around with them ? 

Mr. Jacobson. I refuse to answer on the grounds that the answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think it amounts to virtually the same thing. 

Mr. Aporta, you took down the words as nearly accurately as 
possible? 

Mr. Aporta. I not only did that, but I wrote them in front of him. 
He asked me whether or not I was going to put that into the record 
and I told him I couldn't answer that question because everything 
he told me was part of our record. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was on Thursday, June 11 ? 

Mr. Aporta. Correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. You may stand aside for the present. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Communale ? 

Mr. Communale is on the telephone, Mr. Chairman, and he said that 
he has become ill, and that the doctors have indicated that he should 
not come — well, he hasn't seen a doctor, but he is going to see a doctor. 

Senator Capehart. Is he in Washington ? 

Mr. Kennedy. He is in New Jersey. I guess we will not have him. 
Maybe we can have Mr. Provenzano. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Provenzano, stand and be sworn. 

You do solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give shall 
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God? 

Mr, Provenzano. I do. 



19264 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY PROVENZANO, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, H. CLIFFORD ALLDER 

Senator Curtis. Will you state your name, your address, and your 
business or occupation? 

Mr. PROVENZAisro. Anthony Provenzano, 69 Jefferson Street, Ho- 
boken, N.J. 

Senator Curtis. A nd your occupation ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Provenzano. Mr. Senator, I respectfully decline to answer be- 
cause I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. This address that you gave, is that your residence 
or your business address ? 

Mr. Provenzano. My business address. 

Senator Curtis. Will you give your residence address? 

Mr. Provenzano. 70 Catalpa Avenue, Hackensack, N.J. 

Senator Curtis. Do you have an attorney ? 

Mr. Provenzano. I do. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Counsel, will you identify yourself for the 
record ? 

Mr. Allder. H. Clifford Allder, Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Provenzano, you are now president of Local 660 
of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters? 

Mr. Provenzano. Mr. Senator, I respectfully decline to answer be- 
cause I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were elected in June of 1958 by the executive 
board and in May of 1959 you were elected president of Joint Council 
73 in Newark, N.J. ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Provenzano. Mr. Senator, I respectfully decline to answer be- 
cause I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you enlighten him ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Provenzano. Mr. Kennedy. Counselor. I am sorry. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, would you tell me, Mr. Provenzano, whether 
you received the money from Mr. Pitman that he testified to, about 
giving you $2,500 ? 

Mr. Provenzano. Mr. Senator — Mr. Kennedy, rather — I respect- 
fully decline to answer because I honestly believe my answer might 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That didn't improve the answer. 

What about the monev that you received from Walter Dom in 1953 
and 1954? 

Mr. Provenzano. I respectfully decline to answer because I hon- 
estly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you receive any of the money that was 
arranged for by John Conlin witli Mr. Helm, $300-a-month pavments 
madeinl940's? 

Mr. Provenzano. I respectfully decline to answer because I hon- 
estly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Tony Ducks Corallo ? 

Mr. Provenzano. I respectfully decline to answer because I hon- 
estly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19265 

Mr. Kennedy, According to our information, you are an associate 
of Tony Ducks Corallo, Carmine Tramunti, Sonny Campbell, Connie 
Noonan, and Anthony Strollo, known as Tony Bender ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Provenzano. I respectfully decline to answer because I hon- 
estly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know Jimmy Hoffa ? 

Mr. Provenzano. I respectfully decline to answer because I hon- 
estly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know an attorney by the name of Michael 
Communale ? 

Mr. Provenzano. I respectfully decline to answer because I hon- 
estly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Have you ever had any business dealings with him ? 

Mr. Provenzano. I respectfully decline to answer because I hon- 
estly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Did he ever share with you any moneys that he 
received from the Dom Transportation Co. ? 

Mr. Provtenzano. I respectfully decline to answer because I hon- 
estly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Do you have any business other than your employ- 
ment with the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Provenzano. I respectfully decline to answer because I hon- 
estly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Capehart. Mr. Chairman 

Senator Curtis. Senator Capehart ? 

Senator Capehart. Do you intend to take the fifth amendment to 
any and every question asked you ? 

Mr. Provenzano. I respectfully decline to answer because I hon- 
estly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. KJENNEDY, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Conlin is ill. We expected him 
as a witness also. 

Isn't that right, Mr. Allder ? 

Mr. Allder. That is right. He is 76 years of age and has a phys- 
ical condition that doesn't allow him to be here. If necessary, we 
will obtain a doctor's certificate. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could we obtain that ? 

Mr. Allder, We will be glad to. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Conlin stated publicly that he was going to 
retire next year, I believe, and he was going to suggest and recom- 
mend that Mr. Provenzano succeed him as vice president of the Inter- 
national Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

Would you accept that position, Mr. Provenzano ? 

Mr. Provenzano. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could we put into the record briefly, Mr. Chairman, 
what the financial status is of the local, how many members there are 
in it, through Mr. Aporta? 

Senator Curtis. All right. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN A. APORTA— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. How many members, approximately, are in the 
local? 



19266 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Aporta. As of January 1, there were 9,836 men. 

Mr. Kennedy. What does it show as far as the salary of Mr. 
Provenzano and the other individuals? 

Mr. Aporta. It shows that as of the first of the year, each one of 
the officers and each one of the businessmen received $19,500. 

Mr. Kennedy. And does each one of them have a Cadillac? 

Mr. Aporta. Each one of them has a brand new Cadillac, last year's 
model. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there also a special arrangement that has been 
made in the last 2 years about special payments to the officers of this 
local? 

Mr. Aporta. Yes, there is. There is a defense fund that was set up 
especially for the business agents. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is called the defense fund ? 

Mr. Aporta. Defense pension fund. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you explain when that was set up and for 
whose benefit it is ? 

Mr. Aporta. In the meeting of November 8, 1956, the president, 
Sheridan at that time, presented the attorney for the union, Jacob 
Friedland, "to make a report," on a proposed pension fund. 

He went on to explain that to start the fund it was necessary to 
deposit 50 cents per member, retroactive to 1954. Thereafter, the 
membership would pay out of dues 50 cents per month for each 
member. He estimated at that time that it would take about 8 years 
to have sufficient moneys to bring the plan up to date. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the plan ? 

Mr. Aporta. The plan was whereby they contribute these 
moneys 

Mr. Kennedy. For whose benefit? 

Mr. Aporta. For the benefit of the business agents and all officers 
of local 560 of the Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many of them are there, approximately? 

Mr. Aporta. There are 12. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the plan went into effect? 

Mr. Aporta. On Januai-y 1, 1957. 

Mr, Kennedy. How much money did the local union contribute? 

Mr. Aporta. In 1957, 1958, tlirough March 31 of this year, they 
contributed $279,003.05. 

However, they still owe imder this plan as of May 1, 1959, $147,- 
982.50. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the total then? 

Mr. Aporta. The total of the fund itself should have been, in cash, 
under the plan, as of April 30, 1957, should have been $426,985.55. 

Mr. Kennedy. This money all comes from the union members' 
dues? 

Mr. Aporta. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was made retroactive so the union had to go in 
debt for a good part of this money ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Aporta. They did to the tune of $97,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. In order to make the payment? 

Mr. Aporta. Payment of $195,395.50 in 1957. 

Senator Curtis. Is this a trustee plan ? 

Mr. Aporta. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19267 

Senator Curtis. Or is it with an insurance company? 

Mr. Aporta. No, it is with a bank, a trust agreement. 

Senator Curtis. For the benefit of a total of 12 people? 

Mr. Aporta. Twelve men. 

Senator Curtis. Have you ascertained what the probable benefits 
will be? 

Mr. Aporta. No, because it depends on how long they live and ifc 
depends on how long they stay with tlie union and other uncertainties 
of that type. In other words, Mr. Conlin is now 7C, we are told. If 
he lives for another 10 years and stays active he will continue on for 
another 10 years. 

Senator Curtis. Is he a beneficiary at the present time? 

Mr. Aporta. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How much are his benefits? 

Mr. Aporta. He has vested rights in this deferred service fund, 
in cash, of $44,817.52, to which there is owed to him by the member- 
sliip as of May 1, 1959, under the trust agreement covering this plan, 
$25,939.89. 

Senator Curtis. Does the present witness have any vested rights 
in the plan? 

Mr. Aporta. Yes, sir, he does. 

He has vested rights to the tune of $11,287.24. And under the plan 
the membership still owes $4,770.12. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, the important part of it, was the membership 
informed that this matter was going to be taken up and discussed and 
voted upon at the meeting? 

Mr. Aporta. In writing, no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there a card or letter or any communication that 
went out to them to tell them that the local union might go into debt 
in order to give certain benefits to the officers, the delegates? 

Mr. Aporta. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there any way to determine how many members 
of the union actually attended the meeting at which this was 
approved? 

Air. Aporta. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are detailed minutes, or minutes kept of all the 
meetings held by this union or executive board? 

Mr. Aporta. We do have minutes that they tell me are all of the 
minutes that exist for the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do they show? 

Mr. Aporta. They show that on — what they show so far as the 
plan is concerned? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. The minutes indicate it was taken up at the 
membei-ship meeting? 

Mr. Aporta. Right, 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the date of the membership meeting? 

Mr. ArORTA. November 8, 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it taken up in executive board meeting also? 

Mr. Aporta. No, sir, not to my knowledge, because no one seems 
to recall wlio was at the executive board "fneeting and they don't keep 
any minutes of the executive board meetings. 

^Ir. Kennedy. When the executive board meets no minutes are kept 
at all? 

30751—59— pt. 55^ 9 



19268 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Aporta. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So there is no way you can detrmine what preceded 
or what discussions were had in the executive board about this special 
fund? 

Mr. Aporta. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then as far as the membership meeting itself is con- 
cerned there is no documents that are available to show that the mem- 
bership was ever informed that this was going to be taken up or dis- 
cussed, and also no documents show how many members actually ap- 
prove this special fund ; is that right ? 

Mr. Aporta. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many members are a quorum at the meeting? 

Mr. Aporta. A quorum at a meeting is 25 members. 

Mr. Kennedy. Twenty-five are a quorum? 

Mr. Aporta. Twenty- five is a quorum. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of course, the people that were to benefit under this 
special fund are 12 in number ? 

Mr. Aporta. Are 12. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY PROVENZANO, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, H. CLIFFORD ALLDEE^Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us anything about that, Mr. Proven- 
zano? 

Mr. Provenzano. I respectfully decline to answer because I hon- 
estly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you were getting your regular salary, the special 
fund, and you were getting money from the employer ? 

Mr. Provtenzano. I respectfully decline to answer because I hon- 
estly believe my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Througli all of this you were promoted and became 
head of the joint council, is that right, since our investigation began? 

Mr. Provenzano. Mr. Kennedy, I respectfully decline to answer 
because I honestly believe that my answer might tend to incrimi- 
nate me. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN A. APORTA— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Do j^ou have tlie percentage of payments that are in 
the form of salary or other fringe benefits of all of the income of the 
union ? 

Mr. Aporta. Yes, sir. Beginning with the year 1957 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Aporta. For the year 1957, the union took in in dues, initia- 
tions, and books, $482,282.83. Interest on savings banks, et cetera, 
$24,509.55. Total for that year of $500,729.38. 

Now, for the disbursements we have salaries of $224,725 ; paid into 
the deferred service fund for business agents and officers, $195,395.50. 
Expenses for automobiles, $8,342.74. For miscellaneous expenses of 
delegates we have $3,200. We have for welfare fund for the em- 
ployees and the 12 business agents and officers 

Mr. Kennedy. That is, employees of the union ? 

Mr. Aporta. Employees of the union and the 12 men involved. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19269 

Mr. Aporta. Of $8,639.28. Making a total, without legal and 
accounting fees, leaving that out, we have a total of $441,000 — 
$440,719.35. 

Mr. Kennedy. What percentage is that of the total income? 

Mr. Aporta. A little better than 86 percent. 

Mr. Kennedy. Approximately 86 percent of all of the income of 
the union went into the form of salaries and benefits for the officers 
and to some extent tlie employees of the union ; is that right ? 

Mr. Aporta. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it approximately the same percentage in the fol- 
lowing year ? 

Mr. Aporta. In the following year the income dropped $4,000, so 
that it stopped at $502,988.55 with a percentage of about 74 or 75 
percent. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. You may stand aside. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is still under subpena. 

Mr. Allder. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Castellito. 

Senator Curtis. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn ? 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give 
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God ? 

Mr. Castellito. Yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY CASTELLITO, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, H. CLIFFORD ALLDEE 

Senator Ct-rtis. State your name, your residence, and your business 
or occupation. 

Mr. Castellito. Anthony Castellito, 302 Baltimore Avenue, Hobo- 
ken, X.J. 

Senator Ci'rtis. Your business or occupation ? 

Mr. Castellito. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Do you have an attorney ? 

Mr. Castellito. I do. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Counsel, will you identify yourself? 

Mr. Allder. H. Clifford Allder, Washington, D.C. 

Senator Curtis. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. ]Mr. Castellito, you are business agent for local 560 of 
the Teamsters, and an associate of Tony Provenzano; is that right? 

Mr. Castellito. I respectfully decline to ansM-er because I honestly 
believe my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you tell us about the meetings you held with 
Walter Dorn in 1953 and 1954 which suggested he should pay some 
money to ease his labor problems ? 

Mr. Castellito, I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
])elieve my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you tell us about your dealings with the L. & H. 
Transportation (^o. and whether you received any money from Mr. 
Jacobson, in New York City, during 1948 and 1949 ? 

Mr. Castellito. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe mv answer mav tend to incriminate me. 



19270 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. What is his sahiry, Mr. Aporta ? 

Mr. Aporta. $19,500. 

Mr. Kennedy. Phis the Cadillac? 

Mr. Aporta. The Cadillacs. 

Mr. Kennedy. Plus expenses? 

Mr. Aporta. Plus expenses. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is he also a beneficiary under this special arrange- 
ment that was made in 1957 ? 

Mr. Aporta. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you received money also from three sources, the 
special arrano;ement, the salary and expenses, and you received money 
from the employers ; is that right, Mr. Castellito ? 

Mr. Castellito. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

Senator Citrtis. Mr. Castellito, how long have you been with the 
Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Castellito. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you tell us what you know about Mr. Com- 
munale? 

Mr. Castellito. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer mav tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

Senator Curtis. You may stand aside. You will remain under 
subpena, subject to returning upon reasonable notice. Do you agree 
to that ? 

Mr. Castellito. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Call your next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. That finishes that phase, Mr. Chairman. We have 
two or tliree things I would like to finish up this afternoon. But that 
is the main purpose of the hearing. 

I would like to call Mr. Benjamin Dranow. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Dranow. 

Will you raise your right hand and be sworn ? 

You do solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will 
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothinc; but the truth, so he\p vou 
God? 

Mr. Dranow. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF BENJAMIN DRANOW ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
H. CLIFFORD ALLDER 

Senator Curtis. State your name, your residence, and your business 
or occupation. 

Mr. Dranow. My name is Benjamin Dranow. I live in Beverly 
Hills, Calif. 

S"nr»tor Cithts. Yonr street address ( 

Mr. Dranow. 9649 West Olympic Boulevard. 

Senator Curtis. Your business or occupation ? 

Mr. Dranow. I respectfully decline to answer because I Iionestly 
believe that the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ct-rtis. You have counsel present? 



niPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19271 

Mr. Dranow. Yes, I do. 

Senator CuRns. Comisel, will you again identify yourself for the 
record ? 

Mr. Allder. H. Clifford Allder, Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Dranow, Mr. Chairman, as you will remember, 
appeared before the committee about a year ago in connection with 
a loan to a department store up in Minneapolis. Mr. Hoffa had 
loaned them $1,200,000, and the department store then went into bank- 
ruptcy. Mr. Dranow had been a friend and associate of Mr. Hoffa. 
Dr. Dranow then took off' with over $100,000 from the department 
store. That was all developed during our hearings first in 1957 and 
then later in 1958. 

We had also gone into the Sun Valley situation down in Florida, 
where another friend of Mr. Hoffa's had developed the Sun Valley 
operation, and where Mr. Hoffa had obtained loans from banks in 
Detroit and in Florida. Then that went into bankruptcy. 

Then we found from our investigation in 1959 that Mr. Benjamin 
Dranow took over the Sun Valley operation. 

Could 3'ou tell us how that was arranged ? 

Mr. Dranow. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. We had testimony from Claude E. Davis, president 
of the Barnard National Bank, in Cocoa, Fla., that on October 8, 
just 3 weeks after we held hearings on some of these activities, Mr. 
Benjamin Dranow went down there and said if the bank would 
make a loan on this matter which he was interested in, he in turn 
could get $1 million of Teamster Union funds deposited at the bank 
witliout paj'ing any interest. 

Would you tell us about that ? 

]\Ir. DiLVNOw. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, he appeared before the committee 
in 1958. He was supposed to have appeared in 1957. We were unable 
to find him. We finally found him after a year of looking for him. 
He appeared in 1958. 

Then he was sujDposed to appear last week. He became ill and was 
unable to testify. Mr. Allder was able to secure him for an ap- 
pearance here today. 

We also found him not only in the Sun Valley operation, but also, 
according to the testimony before the committee, we found that it 
was to Mr. Dranow that the Teamsters looked in order to make the 
purchase of certain jackets for Teamster Union members, some 20,- 
000 jackets, mostly for locals 299 and 337 in Detroit, and that the 
jackets were paid for by these two locals, and that there was no bid 
obtained. 

Could you tell us why the Teamsters went through you for that? 

Mr. Dranow. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe mj' answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Particularly in view of the fact that your opera- 
tions have been revealed h.ere before the committee, why, then, would 
Mr. Hoffa deal with you, Mr. Dranow ? 

Mr. Dr.\now. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 



19272 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And then the third case, Mr. Chairman, that we 
found Mr. Dranow involved in — and this is all since our hearings 
when the information regarding Mr. Dranow was developed — the 
third case involved certain airplanes, one of which ultimately ended 
up trying to transport arms and goods to the Dominican Eepublic. 

Would you tell us what you know about that, Mr, Dranow? 

Mr. Dranow. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy, And when the representative for the company went 
to see Mr. Downs in Chicago, the man that was ultimately arrested 
in connection with the transportation of the arms, he stated that he 
was there at the suggestion of Mr. Dranow who spoke for Mr. Hoffa 
on these matters. 

Would you tell us about that ? 

Mr. Dranow, I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy, Why would Mr, Hoffa go through all these financial 
dealings with you, Mr. Dranow ? 

Mr. Dranow. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wouldn't he be interested in protecting the union 
membership by dealing with somebody who was not found to be dis- 
honest in connection with these financial deals ? 

Mr. Dranow. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us who made the arrangement where- 
by you only paid $18,000 for Mr. Henry Lower's interest in Sun 
Valley? 

Mr. Dranow. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Curtis. You may stand aside. You will remain under 
subpena and return upon proper notice. 

Mr. Dranow. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Dominic Abata, Everett Chirk, and Cecil 
Clark, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Curtis. Will you three gentlemen come forward ? 

All three of you will be sworn at once. Do you and each of you 
solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give before this 
Senate Select Committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Abata. I do. 

]\Ir. Everett Clark. I do. 

Mr. Cecil Clark. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF CECIL CLARK, DOMINIC ABATA, AND EVEEETT 

CLARK 

Senator Curtis. Beginning on my left, will you give your name, 
your residence, and your business or occupation ? 

Mr. Cecil Clark. Cecil J. Clark, Yellow Cab driver, 2450 South 
Sawyer, Chicago, 111. 

Senator Curtis. Your name and address ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19273 

Mr. Abata. Dominic Abata, 2610 West Berwyn, Chicago, 111. 

Senator Curtis. And your occnpation? 

Mr. Abata. I am organizer now. 

Senator Curtis. For what ? 

Mr. Abata. President of DOUC, Democratic Organizing Com- 
mittee. 

Senator Curtis. Wliat union? 

Mr. Abata. Local 777. 

Senator Curtis. Of the Teamstei-s ? 

Mr. Abata. No. Independent. 

Senator Curtis. And your name and address and business or occu- 
pation? 

Mr. Everett Clark. Everett Clark, Yellow Cab driver, 3332 South 
Hamilton Avenue, Chicago, 111. 

Senator Curtis. You gentlemen are aware that you are entitled to 
have an attorney to advise you when you appear as a witness ? You 
are each aware of that, are you ? 

Mr. Cecil Clark. Yes. 

Mr. E\'erett Clark. Yes. 

Mr. Abata. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. E\-ERETT Clark. Yes. 

Mr. Cecil Clark. Yes. 

]Mr. Abata. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Abata, you testified before this committee some 
months ago ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Abata. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. In connection with activities of Joseph Glimco, of 
local 777 of the Teamsters? 

Mr. Abata. I did, sir. 

^Ir. Kennedy. At that time we had a considerable amount of tes- 
timony other than your own, which revealed that Mr. Glimco was 
using the union funds for his own personal purchases and for his own 
reasons ; is that right ? 

Mr. Abata. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That he made a trip to California, that he was using 
union funds to make purchases for his friends: is that correct ? 

Mr. Abata. Right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was all revealed before the committee. 

And in addition, there was testimony about the lack of democracy 
and also collusion with certain employers in the Chicago area in 
connection with Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. Abata. Right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. After you returned to Chicago, there was an effort 
by the union membership, was there not, to try to throw off the control 
of Mr. Joseph Glimco, of local 777 ? 

ISIr. Abata. We are still trying. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was at least in part led by you ; is that correct? 

Mr. Abata. Right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have there been efforts to harass yourself and those 
who have attempted to get rid of Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. Abata. Definitely. 

Mr. Kennedy. There has been a major effort along those lines, has 
there not? 



19274 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Abata. I would say yes. 

Mr. Kennedy, Mr, Clark, both of you are individuals that have 
supported Mr, Abata in connection with these efforts ? 

Mr, Everett Clark, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Cecil Clark. That is right, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy, And you have had the support, help, and assistance 
of other taxicab drivers in the Chicago area ? 

Mr, Cecil Clark, Very much so. 

Mr, Everett Clark, That is right, 

Mr, Kennedy, Those who have been helping and assisting you, have 
they been subject to harassment ? 

Mr, Everett Clark, They have, 

Mr, Kennedy, What form does this take? 

Mr. Everett Clark, Fired, discharged, 

Mr, Kennedy. By whom ? 

Mr, Everett Clark, By the company and the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you say fired by the company, how did that 
take place? 

Mr. Everett Clark. No bookings. 

Mr. Kennedy. They wouldn't give you the work that they gave to 
the other individuals? 

Mr. Everett Clark. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy, What taxicab companies are involved in some of 
these things? 

Mr, Everett Clark. The Yellow Cab and the Checker Cab Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. You two are still working, are you not ? 

Mr. Everett Clark. We are. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were some of your colleagues fired ? 

Mr. Everett Clark. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. By both of these taxicab companies? 

Mr. Everett Clark. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has it been obvious that the two taxicab companies 
have favored Mr. Joseph Glimco ? 

Mr. Everett Clark. They have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you find that you had difficulty getting as many 
runs as you had prior to the time that you opposed Mr. Glimco? 

Mr. Everett Clark. Would you repeat that again, sir? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you find that harassment also took the form of 
you not being given as much business as you had received prior to the 
time that you opposed Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. Everett Clark. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did the harassment take place as far as you 
were concerned ? 

( The witnesses conferred with each other. ) 

Mr. Kennedy. Maybe you can explain it, Mr. Abata. 

Mr. Abata. The harassment took place in the form of intimida- 
tion 

Mr. Kennedy. In what specifics, please ? 

Mr. Abata. Such as threatening him to break his legs, and beating 
him up on occasion, and intimidating him in the garages. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you trj' to get petitions signed ? 

Mr, Abata. We did, sir. 

Mr. I^nnedy. What happened ? 



IMPROPER ACTR^ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19275 

Mr. Abata. Every time we went out to have petitions signed, we 
were harassed and intimidated. 
Mr. Kennedy. In what way, specifically ? 

Mr. Abata. Taking the petitions away from the committee, ripping 
them up, throwing them away. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you had meetings, did they come around with 
cameras to take your pictures ? 

]Mr. Abata. When we had meetings, they did, sir. 
Mr. Kennedy. Were you beaten up? 
jMr. Cecil Clark. I was not beaten up. 
Mr. Everett Clark. I was beaten up. 
Mr. Kennedy. In Avhat way ? What happened ? 
Mr. Everett Clark. I was sitting in my cab. I pulled in the 
North Western Station, about six came down to my cab, opened the 
left door up. I looked to see who was there. Wlien I did, I turned 
m}' head and he hit me in the left eye. I had three stitches taken. 
Senator Curtis. Do you know who did that ? 

]Mr. E\t:rett Clark. Yes, I do. He is in court. I have liim in 
court now. 
Senator Cltrtis. Was he connected with the Teamsters Union? 
Mr. Everett Clark. Yes. 
Senator Curtis. Do you know why he did it ? 

Mr. E\t.rett Clark. Because I was getting my petitions signed up. 
Senator Curtis. It was because of your activity to have an inde- 
pendent union ? 
Mr. Everett Clark. That is right, sir. 
Senator Curtis. That is all, 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you ever told that if you went to see Mr. Glimco 
and had a talk with him, that this whole thing could be straightened 
out? 
Mr. Everett Clark. I did. 
Mr. Kennedy. Who told you that? 

Mr. Everett Clark. Kenneth Colling. Kenneth Colling came up 
to me one evening as I was leaving the garage to go home — came up 
to the side of my car and he said, "Have you been down to see Glimco 
yet ?" and I said, "No." He said, "If you don't go down to see him, I 
am going to smear you up." 

Senator Curtis. What position did he hold in the union? Do you 
know? 
Mr. E\t:rett Clark. I understand that he is Glimco's agent. 
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Abata, have you been followed ? 
Mr. Abata. I have been followed morning and night, sir. 
Mr. Kennedy. You have two detectives now guarding you, is that 
right? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there fear among the drivers in their efforts to get 
rid of Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. Abata. I would say "Yes." 

Senator Curtis. These things that you have described have they 
been going on currently ? 
Mr. Abata. The last 4 months they have been. 
Senator Curtis. They are going on now ? 
Mr. Abata. They are going on right now, right at this moment. 



19276 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Do you get any protection from local authorities ? 

Mr. Abata. Some. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are guarding you ; they are doing everything 
they can? 

Mr. Abata. Yes. 

Senator Capehart. Who furnishes the two detectives ? 

Mr. Abata. The city of Chicago. 

Senator Capehart. Are they with you today ? 

Mr. Abata. No ; they are not. 

Senator Capehart. Are they with you 24 hours a day ? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. Stay at your house at night ? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. Have they ever noticed anyone or caught any- 
one? 

Mr. Abata. They noticed Colling one morning and they wanted to 
know who he was. They noticed him going by my home. 

Senator Capehart. Wlio was going by your home ? 

Mr. Abata. This gentleman that this gentleman spoke about. I 
told the police department who the gentleman was. His name is 
Kenneth Colling. He is an agent of Glimco's. 

Senator Capehart. Wliat is it that you are doing that makes it 
necessary for you to have two bodyguards ? 

Mr. Abata. Well, I tell you. Senator, when I came here in March 
to testify I was inspired by this committee. I thought like a lot of 
other people do you are the greatest committee in the United States. 
I think it is for the little man. I went out when I got back to Chi- 
cago, after my testimony here, I felt that the cab drivers needed 
some help. I got myself a committee together to reorganize the cab 
drivers of Chicago through an independent union. 

Senator Capehart. You mean a union, an independent union? 

Mr. Abata. That is right. 

Senator Capehart. Prior to your testimony in March, had you any 
organizing experience ? 

Mr. Abata. I was president of the Cab Drivers Union for 15 
years. 

Senator Capehart. The AFL union, the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Abata. The Teamsters Union. The same cab drivers union 
we are talking about now. 

Senator Capehart. That is the same union that Mr. Glimco is now 
the president of? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. Did he beat you in an election ? 

Mr. Abata. No ; he could not beat me in an election. I was forced 
out of the union. 

Senator Capehart. How were you forced out ? 

Mr. Abata. Well, they asked for my resignation time and time 
again. 

Senator Capehart. Who asked for it ? 

Mr. Abata. Various friends of his. 

Senator Capehart. Various friends of whose ? 

Mr. Abata. Joe Glimco's. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19277 

Senator Capehart. What position did he hold when you were 
president ? 

Mr. Abata. He was trustee. 

Senator Capehart. He was one of the trustees ? 

Mr. Abata. Right, sir. 

Senator Capehart. Now, since you have been out you have been 
trying to organize another union '^ 

Mr. Abata. Through the inspiration I got from this committee here. 

Senator Capehart. Have we given you any help ? 

Mr. Abata. The committee? 

Senator Capehart. Yes. 

Mr. Abata. I should say they are. 

Senator Capehart. They are giving you help ? 

Mr. Abata. They are. 

Senator Capehart. Are they furnishing the two guards, helping to 
furnish the two men watching you? 

Mr. Abata. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. We are not. 

Mr. Abata. No, the police department is. 

Senator Capehart. Well, that was my question, what help this 
committee was giving you. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think that is all for now, Mr. Chairman. 

We liave liere an Illinois Teamsters News that I would like to have 
for the record. 

Can you identify the Illinois Teamsters News ? 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Abata, we hand you what appears to be a 
photostatic copy of a newspaper. Can you tell us what it is? 

Mr. Abata. I know one thing. Senator. It is the Teamsters News. 

Senator Curtis. You recognize it as the Teamsters News? 

Mr. Abata. Yes. It is more or less a scandal sheet. I never saw 
this Teamsters News before, nor anybody else. 

Senator Curtis. You mean you never saw it before today ? 

Mr. Abata. Prior to that date, that is right. 

Senator Curtis. But you did see an issue like that ? 

Mr. Abata. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Who prints that? 

Mr. Abata. A fellow by the name of George Barker. 

Senator Curtis. That picture that you have in your hand, is that 
of you? 

Mr. Everett Clark. It is, sir. 

Senator Curtis. When was that taken ? 

Mr. Everett Clark. It was taken around May 4. 

Senator Curtis. What year ? 

Mr. Everett Clark. 19.59. 

Senator Curtis. It shows that you have an injury. 

Mr. Everett Clark. It does, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Where did you receive that injury ? 

Mr. Everett Clark. At North Western Station while I was sitting 
inside my cab. 

Senator Curtis. That was the assault made upon you that you pre- 
viously described a few minutes ago ? 

Mr. Everett Clark. That is, sir. 



19278 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. The picture will be received as exhibit No. 52 for 
reference only. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 52" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you received telephone calls in addition? 

Mr. Everett Clark. I have, but when I would answer they would 
hang up. 

JNIr. Kennedy. How about you ? 

Mr. Cecil Clark. I have had calls, one pertaining to a death threat. 
Other calls I have had, they would just hang up and no answer. My 
last call was Saturday morning about 8 :30. I had a call and the party 
hung up. 

Mr, Kennedy. Did any of them mention your wife, what would 
happen to her ? 

Mr. Cecil Clark. At no time was my wife ever mentioned; only 
when I was threatened that my wife would be found crying over my 
dead body. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. That your wife would be ciying over your dead 
body? 

Mr. Cecil Clark. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you any fear about going out, for instance, 
to Midway Airport or any of those places ? 

Mr. Cecil Clark. I have fear going to Midway or leaving the 
airport, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why? 

Mr. Cecil Clark. Well, during this activity in the union business 
I normally go to the airport, I wdll stay there in line. During the 
course of the time of our petitions we was working day and night 
and getting them signed, we were watched from all angles, sideways, 
and by different stories, seeing who these petitions were signed by. 
Sunday morning we were out to the airport getting petitions signed. 
Monday I was in the cab line. In front of me was another Yellow 
Cab No. 512. I have only known this man a short while. That is 
George Crandall. He came up to me and asked if we had been sign- 
ing petitions yesterday. I said yes, I was out here and there was 
another party with me at the time. He told me right across the 
street Cafarello's put up a new signboard above the roof for their 
advertisement. He said it was veiy easy for the Teamsters to get a 
man spotted over there and pick you off while you were in the line. I 
remained there about a half hour, took my load, went downtown. I 
have not gone to the airport for fear of somebody being in the motel 
for that threat. 

Mr, Kennedy, Mr. Chairman, this points out why these Teamster 
members do not get rid of some of their officers. We had the situ- 
ation with local 802 in New York City in connection with John Mc- 
Namara, and we have local 777 in Chicago. Also enclosed in this 
paper is a letter from Jolm T. O'Brien to Joseph Glimco dated April 
28, 1959, which again is extremely pertinent. Could I read excerpts 
from it ? 

Senator Curtis, Yes. The entire exhibit I don't believe we have 
made a part of the record. It will be made part of the record for 
reference. 

That will be made exhibit No. 51 for reference. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 19279 

(The document referred to ^Yas marked "Exhibit No. 51" for refer- 
ence and may be fomid in the files of the select committee.) 
Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

Dear Sir and Brother : This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of 
April 21, 1959, with reference to the actiou taken by your executive board on 
April 20, concerning the so-called Local 777 Democratic Union Organizing Com- 
mittee. 

As you requested, I have made an investigation into the matter. After care- 
fuly examining the situation, I advise you, your fellow officers and all members 
of local 777 of my findings as follows : 

1. The so-called Local 777 Democratic Union Organizing Committee is a dual 
and secessionist movement within the meaning of and prohibited by the inter- 
national constitution. 

2. This group is led by people who are not members of the Teamsters Union 
and who have no rights or business in the Teamsters organization on local 777 
under the international constitution or the local bylaws. 

3. The so-called organizing committee is attempting to oust and replace the 
Teamsters Local 777 as bargaining agent for Yellow and Checker taxidrivers 
and inside workers. 

4. The rump organization is misusing the name of local 777 in its title and 
probably has misled members of Teamsters Local 777 into signing petitions which 
they believed were official papers of your organization. 

5. Members of Teamsters Local 777 who take part in this dual movement or 
do anything else knowingly to aid it may be subject to the disciplinary pro- 
cedures of article IS of the international constitution and the parallel provisions 
of your local 777 bylaws. 

Accordingly, I recommend that you read this letter to your regular member- 
ship meeting on May 4, 19."i9. and that yon otherwise acquaint your membership 
with the dual union character of the so-called democratic union organizing 
conuuittee. I also recommend that you read article IS of the international 
constitution in its entirety to your membership meeting. 

There is a final paragraph, but it is signed John O'Brien. In other 
words, they were ready to take disciplinary action against the union 
membership who were trying to take steps to clean up the union. Mr. 
John O'Brien appeared before the committee and took the fifth 
amendment. 

Senator Capehart. The democratic union organizing committee, 
does that have anything to do with the Democratic Party ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all for these witnesses. 

Senator Curtis. Senator Capehart has a question. 

Senator Capehart. AVas there any connection between this and the 
Democratic Party ? 

Mr. Abata. No, not at all. 

Senator Capehart. No connection at all ? 

Mr. Abata. No, sir. 

Senator Capehart. The word "democrat" as used here was used in 
what respect? 

Mr. Abata. Just democratic in voicing the opinions among the 
membership. That is what we mean. 

Senator Capehart. You mean this Teamsters Union is democratic? 
Is that the idea ? 

Mr. Abata. No. AVe say it is a democratic organization where the 
i-ank and file has a right say what it wants. 

Senator Capehart. You mean your group is the democratic group ? 

Mr. Abata. Eight. 

Senator Capehart. That is what was meant by this statement of 
"democrat"? 

Mr. Abata. Yes : that is all. 



19280 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. We thank you gentlemen very much for coming 
here and givmg this information to tlie committee. You may stand 
aside. 

Mr. Colling and Mr. Glimco. 

Will you stand and be sworn ? 

Do you and each of you solemnly swear that the testimony you are 
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Colling. I do. 

Mr. Glimco. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH P. GLIMCO, ACCOMPAITIED BY COUNSEL, 
H. CLIFFORD ALLDER, AND TESTIMONY OF KENNETH COLLING 

Senator Curtis. Will the gentleman on my left state your name, 
your address, and your business or occupation? 

Mr. Glimco. Joseph Paul Glimco, G29 Selbourne Koad, River- 
side, 111. 

Senator Curtis. Your business or occupation ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to ansAver the question because 
I honestly believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Are you represented by counsel? 

Mr. Glimco. I am, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Counsel? 

Mr. Allder. H. Clifford Allder, Washington, D.C. 

Senator Curtis. The gentleman on my right, state your nam©, your 
residence, and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Colling. Kenneth Colling, 865 North Wood Street, Cii- 
cago. 111. 

Senator Curtis. Your business or occupation ? 

Mr. Colling. I am a cabdriver. 

Senator Curtis. Are you represented by counsel ? 

Mr. Colling. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You understand that you are entitled to counsel? 

Mr. Colling. I don't think I need any. 

Senator Curtis. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Colling. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Colling, do you receive any money from the 
Teamsters Union whatsoever? 

Mr. Colling. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Glimco, you appeared before the committee 

?ireviously, and the fact was developed that you were taking union 
unds to provide for you and your girl friend to take a trip to the 
west coast. Your union funds were used for those purposes. 

Have you paid the union back for that trip that you took out there? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Glimco. Pardon me. I didn't understand it. Would you re- 
peat it, please ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I am wondering if you paid the union back for the 
money that you took. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19281 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer the question because 
I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You do? 

That is the money that you took in connection with your girl friend 
on that trip. Then as to the money which the committee developed 
you were using in Chicago for your own personal purposes, have you 
restored any of that money to the union ? 

Mr, Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer the question because 
I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what about the $124,000 that you took, Mr. 
Glimco, when you were involved or indicted for extortion in the 
Fulton Street Market ? You took $124,000 of union funds from the 
taxicab local with no authorization from the membership to defend 
yourself in that case. 

Have you restored any of the $124,000 ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you like me to repeat it ? 

Mr. Glimco. Please. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was developed before the committee that you took 
$124,000 of union funds at a time that you were indicted for extortion 
in connection with the Fulton Street Market. You had been placed 
in charge of the Fulton Street Market by some of the underworld 
figures in Chicago. You were then involved in an extortion. You 
took $124,000 of union funds out of your taxicab local to defend your- 
self in that case. I am asking you now whether you have returned 
to the local any of the $124,000. 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer the question because 
I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has the district attorney, the public prosecutor, 
the prosecuting attorney in Chicago, taken any action against you 
in connection with any of these cases, Mr. Glimco? 

Mr. Glimco. Wliat was that? Pardon me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has the district attorney taken any action against 
you in any of these cases ? 

Mr, Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer the question because 
I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr, Kennedy. Has Mr. Hoffa taken any action against you in con- 
nection with any of these activities ? 

Mr, Glimco. I respectfully dexiline to answer the question because 
I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. So it is left up to the local membership. Nobody 
has taken any action against you, Mr. Glimco. It is left up to the 
local membersliip, and you carried on a harassment against them, is 
that right ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr, Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer the question because 
I lionestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy, You wouldn't be able to go out and harass anybody 
yourself, Mr. Glimco. So did you hire some people to do it for you? 
Did you ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer the question because 
I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 



19282 IMPROPER ACTIVmES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You hired some big fellows to go around and beat 
up the taxicab drivers who were opposing you, Mr. Glimco? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. The record should show that he is consulting with 
his attorney. He needs advice on these matters. 

Mr. Glimco. I didn't hear the question. Would you mind repeat- 
ing it, please ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I asked you whether you had to go out and hire 
some big fellows to go beat up the taxicab drivers for you. Did you 
hear that? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer the question because 
I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you be scared to do it yourself, Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr. Glimco. I respex:'-tfully decline to answer the question because I 
honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me, 

Mr. Kennedy. And you can always pay them out of union funds. 
Is that right? 

Mr. Glimco. I respectfully decline to answer the question because 
I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy, Just as you are living on union funds, traveling 
around the country on union funds, and always using union members' 
dues money for those purposes ? 

Mr. GLiJvrco. I respectfully decline to answer the question because 
I honestly believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you expect Mr. Hoffa is ever going to take any 
action against you, Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr, Glimco. I respectfully decline to ansAver the question, or an- 
swer the question, rather, that my answer might tend to incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Colling, have you been going ai'oimd harassing 
the drivers on behalf of Mr. Glimco ? 

Mr, Colling. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me, 

Mr, Kennedy. Is that because Mr. Glimco couldn't do it himself 
and he got you to do it for him ? 

Mr, Colling, I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me, 

Mr, Kennedy. Could you tell us where vou obtained your 1957 
Cadillac, Mr. Colling? 

Mr. Colling. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy, Mr, Colling, you were convicted of robbery, were 
you not in 1940 ? 

Mr, Colling. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that when the police stopped you 
at, one time when you were following Mr. Abata around, you showed 
them a letter saying that you were on autliorized business at that 
time ? 

Mr. (\^lling. I respectfully decline to answer l)ecause I lionestly 
believe mv answei- misfht tend to incriminate nie. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19283 

Mr. Kennedy. And didn't you state to one of the taxicab drivers 
that he better give up circuhiting his petition and o-et away from 
there or you would break his damn legs ? 

Mr. Colling. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Curtis. You may step aside. 

Mr. Kennedy. We might need Mr. Glimco again. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Glimco, you wnll remain under Kub])ena. 

Mr. Kennedy. We might keep him here. We might need him here 
tomorrow. 

Senator Curtis. You are not dismissed. You will be here tomor- 
row. 

Mr. Glimco. Thank you. 

(AYhereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the committee proceeded to other busi- 
ness, ) 



36751— 59— pt. 55 10 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



TUESDAY, JULY 7, 1959 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Commiitee on Improper Activities 

IN the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ B.C. 

The select committee met at 10 :30 a.m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 44, agreed to February 2, 1959, in the caucus room, Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Barry Gold- 
water, Republican, Arizona. 

Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Paul J. Tierney, 
assistant counsel; Arthur G. Kaplan, assistant counsel; George M. 
Kopecky, assistant counsel ; George H. Martin, investigator ; Sherman 
S. Willse, investigator ; Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

(Members of the select committee present at time of convening: 
Senators McClellan and Gold water.) 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, yesterday a statement was made by 
Mr. Helm that he liad requested Mr. Jacobson to contact the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation in connection with these payoffs that his com- 
pany was making, so that they could make an investigation and make 
an arrest or take some appropriate action. 

At that time I put in the record that we had received no informa- 
tion that any such contact was made with the Federal Bureau of In- 
vestigation. They have since checked their files even more thoroughly 
and have found that there was no request made of them, nor was this 
information ever reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

The Chairman. Who was the witness that gave the testimony? 

Mr. Kennedy. It was Mr. Helm. All he stated was that he told 
Mr. Jacobson to take some action by contacting the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation. When Mr. Jacobson appeared before the committee, 
he took the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. All we have is that one businessman gave instruc- 
tions to another, one of his subordinates, I suppose, to take it up with 
the Bureau, and then that subordinate took the fifth amendment? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is right. 

The Chairman. And the FBI says no such report ever came to it ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

19285 



19286 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. All right ; that is the record. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Communale. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear tlie evidence you shall give 
before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Communale. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL G. COMMUNALE 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation, please, sir. 

Mr. Communale. My name is Michael G. Communale, and I am an 
attorney at law of the State of New Jersey. I have an office at 591 
Summit Avenue, Jersey City, I am also employed as an assistant 
prosecutor for the county of Hudson in the State of New Jersey. 

The Chairman. Assistant prosecutor ? 

Mr. Communale. Yes; I am permitted to engage in private prac- 
tice, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedt. Mr. Communale, as you are aware, we had testimony 
yesterday from Mr. Dorn, of the Dorn Transportation Co., in connec- 
tion with placing you on the payroll, giving you a retainer of some 
$200 a month, and that this was requested by Mr. Tony Provenzano, 
who is now head of joint council 73 in New Jersey, and president of 
local 560 of the Teamsters, and at that time was a business agent for 
local 560 of the Teamsters. 

Did you, in fact, receive $200 a month from Mr. Dorn, of the Dorn 
Transportation Co. ? 

Mr. Communale. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Over what period of time? Over what period of 
time ? 

Mr. Communale. I read the newspaper accounts and Mr. Dorn's 
testimony is substantially correct. Beginning about August 3, 1953, 
or August 10, 1953, up to and including last month. 

The Chairman. To June 1959 ? 

Mr. Communale. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever do any work for the $200 a month ? 

Mr. Communale. Actually and substantially, no. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just i-eceived the $200 every month ? 

Mr. Communale. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't it seem to you a little bit unusual that you re- 
ceived the $200 a month without doing any work ? 

Mr. Communale. It did, and it did not, because I considered myself 
on a retainer, and whatever moneys received by me would be an ad- 
vance toward any reserve fee or any fee that I might earn for services 
performed after the receipt of the money. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know ]Mr. Tony Provenzano ? 

Mr. Communale. I do, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you known him ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19287 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. I have seen him in and a1)out the city of Jersey 
City, and particularly in my oflice building a number (3f times. The 
extent of my association with him is very limited. 

Mr. Kexnedy. Do you know Jacob Friedland ? 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. I do, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. His office is located on the same floor as your office? 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. Practically next door at one time. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is the attorney, is he not, for Tony Provenzano? 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. I Understand that, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And also for various Teamster local unions ; is that 
right? 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. Yes. He is very, very active and prominent in 
labor circles. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did it happen that you were placed on the pay- 
roll of the Dorn Transportation Co. ? 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. If you will bear with me, Mr. Chief Counsel, I 
must go back to the circumstances by which I was associated in some 
way with Jack Friedland, because he had an office next to mine and we 
spoke to each other each day, and sometimes we would engage in a 
friendly game of gin rummy in the leisure hours of the day. 

I got to be very friendly with him. Sometimes I would eat lunch 
with him. There is a restaurant in tlie building. We were in constant 
association with one another. My office was next to local 617. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Of the Teamsters ? 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. Of the Teamsters. That is another local that was 
represented by Jack Friedland. In that local, there was a man by the 
name of Nicholas Amatrudi, at whose wedding I was the best man. 
That was over 30 years ago. 

I was in daily contact with them, talking with them, having friendly 
association, but I never represented labor miions, and particularly 
local 617, and more particularly this very good friend of mm, Nicholas 
Amatrudi. All work was done by their own counsel and their own 
lawyers. 

Then there was an old man in my office who had been associated with 
another oldtimer by the name of Douglas D. T. Storey. Douglas D. T. 
Storey passed on, and the old man who was with Douglas D. T. Storey, 
and that man's name is Ciccarelli. He remained in my office after the 
death of Mr. Storey. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was his first name ? 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. We used to call him "Chick," but his name is 
Orestes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Go on. 

(At this point Senator Ervin entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. Now, having given you tliis background of Jack 
Friedland, and being next to my office, and local 617, and Nick Ama- 
trudi, and Con Ronan, who was the president of that local, and Wil- 
liam McGuire, who was the secretary^, I got to be very friendly with 
the union men, and I often spoke about the possibility of getting any 
business without being too forward about it. 

Ciccarelli, anxious to earn his keep in and about my office, and he 
would get $25 or $30 on occasions from me, he lived in a furnished 
room, was a sickly old man, had no means of livelihood except what he 
could pick up in the building by running messages, and he was fast 



19288 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

approaching 80 years of age, I would assume, and this is purely con- 
jecture on my part, that he must have had a conversation with a man, 
we will say, like Jack Friedland, and in due course I was approached 
by Ciccarelli, who said to me rather offliandedly, and I didn't pay too 
much attention to it, "How would you like to represent a trucking 
company?" 

I said, "What connection do you have with trucking companies?'' or 
words to that effect. He said, "Well, I understand you have been 
recommended as an attorney for this trucking company in upstate 
New York which wants to start an office here in Jersey City. They 
want a terminal, they want land, and you have a chance of making a 
good fee." 

"Do you know anybody in the city who has vacant land ?" I imme- 
diately thought of Tonnelle iV venue, which was a part of a highway 
system, and there was a growing industry of truck terminals in Jersey 
City and its environs. So I made a cursory look about and that was 
the extent of any activity I took. It was practically a waste of time 
anyway. But later on Ciccarelli tells me, "You have been retained, 
and you are going to get $200 a month." 

I said, "That's fine." I said, "But where is the retainer?" He said, 
"Well, they will send you a letter. In due course of time I received a 
letter, which original letter I turned over to this committee. It is 
dated August 10, from Rensselaer, N.Y., from the Dorn Transporta- 
tion Co., in which they say they would like me to accept a retainer for 
the purpose of handling tlieir legal matters on the tax on trucks run- 
ning up and down the State of New York that must pay a tax per ton 
per mile, and other legal matters that might come under my considera- 
tion while I would be so retained. 

They apologized for the delay in sending me tlie letter of confirma- 
tion of the retainer, and I would assume that the original conversa- 
tions had with Dorn Transportation were with Mr. Ciccarelli, who 
represented himself as my agent, working in my office, for the purpose 
of getting this retainer. 

As each month came around, the sum of $200 came to my office in 
the form of a check, which I either deposited in my own personal ac- 
count or cashed it, if I were outside among friends, associates, and 
businessmen. 

I believe some of those checks you have here is because your investi- 
gators recently, outside in the hall, asked me about them, so I know you 
have those checks. I do know also that I have turned over to this 
committee letters which might explain the delay in inquiring what my 
full status with the company was. 

In 1957 and in 1958, and it might have been before that, too, because 
T don't have the complete file — Mr. Ciccarelli had kept two files, and 
why he did that I don't know, but I did find another file 

Mr. Kennedy. Maybe you had better identify Mr. Ciccarelli other 
than being an older man. What did he do ? 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. He acted as a law clerk in my office. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had he had any experience along those lines? 

Mr. Communale. Yes. He had experience and he had been dis- 
barred many years ago. He was one of the lawyers that had been 
disbarred, but excepted from the rule of being associated in any law 
office. The rule went into effect after his disbarment. Out of charity, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19289 

out of mercy, and out of sympathy, and also for economic reasons, 
being that most of my time was spent down at the courthouse, Mr. 
Ciccarelli was a convenience to me. 

He answered the telephone, took care of my mail, and many times 
interviewed persons for the purpose of getting facts in any cases. 

Mr. Kexnedy. What was he disbarred for ? 

Mr. Communale. He was disbarred, I believe, sir, for embezzlement. 
I am not familiar with that, because it happened a long, long time 
before I met him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any difficulty with him when he 
worked for you ? 

Mr. Communale. Yes ; I did have difficulty with him. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Along what lines ? 

Mr. Communale. Along the lines of being careless with my money 
and careless with other people's money, and also making false pre- 
tenses to people, borrowing money on my name. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you find that he embezzled some of your client's 
money ? 

Mr. Communale. As far as embezzlement is concerned 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, did he take it ? 

Mr. Communale. It would spell out more or less larceny than 
embezzlement. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am sorry. But as assistant prosecutor in Hudson 
County, did you take any action against him ? 

Mr. Communale. When I found out about it, the man was hope- 
lessly in bed sufTering from a stroke and on the point of death, unable 
to talk. He could not give me any information with regard to the 
things I wanted to know. So the only things that I would have by 
way inculpating him would be the circumstances. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is dead now ? 

Mr. Communale. He is dead. 

Mr, Kennedy. IVlien did he die ? 

Mr. Communale. He died about 2 years ago, 

Mr. Kennedy. 1957 ? 

Mr. Communale. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy. When did this embezzlement take place ? 

Mr. Communale, In 1953, 1954, 1955 ; around that time, 

Mr. Kennedy. And you discovered it in 1955 ? 

IMr, Communale, I discovered it in the latter part of 1954, but 
I did not have the full proof. You will realize that it was very em- 
barrassing for me, and whatever losses were sustained were sustained 
by myself. It was my money that he took. I know what you are 
driving at, that if I, as a prosecutor, knew that a crime had been 
committed, it would be my duty to prosecute to the full letter of the 
law, but circumstances and conditions vary, and this is one of very, 
\ery extraordinary proportions. 

If I was derelict in not bringing it to the attention of the authori- 
ties, then, sir, I plead guilty in the name of sympathy, humanity, and 
mercy. 

Mr, Kennedy, Now, to get back to your own $200 a month, 

Mr, Communale, We were talking about mj^ association with these 
men and how I came to get this retainer. 



19290 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

In 1957 and 1958, and it might have been other years, when the 
same type of letters were sent to me, the actual knowledge that I had 
that Dorn Transportation Co. would like to change the situation or 
the contract with me came by way of a letter dated February, I believe, 
1957, in which they said they would like to drop the retainer basis 
and continue me on an individual fee basis. 

I wrote back that I would be very happy, or words to that effect, 
to cooperate with them ; that they need not keep me on a retainer any 
longer than they wanted to ; and if they desired to employ me on a fee 
basis, I would be glad to do so, and if I could be of any service to 
them in the future I would do it. 

But I did not insist upon the continuation of the installments of 
the retainer. However, notwithstanding the fact that I wrote the let- 
ter, stating that I would like to be employed under a case basis, they 
continued to send the payments each month, which I considered a 
reserve toward any possible fees I might earn. 

In 1958, the same type of letter was sent to me, I don't know by 
whom, but I have a recollection that such a letter was sent to me, and 
I turned it over to this committee. This committee now has the orig- 
inal of those two letters. 

In addition to that, the auditors inquired of me whether there was 
any outstanding obligation or work to be performed by me and I re- 
plied in the negative, that everything as far as Dorn Transportation 
Co. was concerned — I had no matters then pending or any claims to 
be collected or any accounts due or payable; that there were no judg- 
ments for or against the company, and I answered the auditors. 

That was the extent of my actual physical work witli the company. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you say the actual physical work for the 
company, what that amounts to, then, is nothing? 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. One could easily come to that conclusion, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could one come to any other conclusion ? 

Mr. Communale. I fail to see how they could, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't it strike you as just a little bit peculiar, Mr. 
Communale, that you would be working for some 5 years and receive 
some $200 a month and never be asked to do anything? 

Mr. Communale. I had those thoughts; yes, sir. Do you want to 
know why I didn't do something about it ? 

Mr, Kennedy. All right. 

Mr. Communale. I felt that as long as this company was willing 
to pay me the sum of $200 a month on a retainer basis, and I had 
sufficient authority to accept it, I would continue so long as they 
wanted me. That is my answer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of course, the significant part about this is Mr. 
Dorn's testimony that he put you on the payroll, that he was re- 
quested to do so by Tony Provenzano, who at that time was shaking 
him down, who told him that in order to have labor peace he had to 
pay Mr. Provenzano certain amounts of money: that he continued 
to pay those moneys to Provenzano, and subsequently that arrange- 
ment ended, and Mr. Provenzano told him that you should be placed 
on the payroll for $200 a month. 

You were placed on the payroll at $200 a month, and up until June 
of this year never did any work for that salary. 



IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19291 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. Mr. Chief Counsel, if I knew anything along the 
lines of what Mr. Dorn testified to, I would not even have accepted 
the first check. I knew nothing of any such alleged arrangement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Even from your testimony, you had a man who had 
been disbarred, Ciccarelli, who made the arrangements for you to go 
on the payroll, and then you found him 6 or 8 months later involved 
in an embezzlement of your own money, or larceny of your own funds 
and a larceny of your clients' funds. 

I would think that would arouse your suspicion, if notliing else, in 
connection with this business that he had brought to you. 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. Well, sir, that goes into an operation of my mind. 
Your mind might work that way. I will tell you the truth, the 
thoughts entered and left my mind. I did nothing about it. 

I agree with you, that as a human person, rationalizing, these 
thoughts would occur. 1 have no argument with this committee nor 
do I attempt in any way to defend myself, but merely to answer your 
questions to the best of my ability. 

I am not apologizing. I can't. I am not defending myself; this 
is not the place for it. You are asking me questions and I am re- 
sponding to them to the best of my ability. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Communale receive some of this money? 

Mr. Communale. Who? 

Mr. Kennedy. I mean, did Mr. Ciccarelli receive some of this 
money ? 

Mr. Communale. On occasions I would give him some money. If 
he cashed a check for me, and he needed money, he got it as an ad- 
vance toward the services he rendered to me. He was not on my pay- 
roll, but he was there. After a while he got to be like the "Old Man 
of the Sea." 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do with this money % 

Mr. Communale. He entwined his legs about my neck one day 
when I fell asleep on the beach and he was with me until almost the 
time 

Mr. Kennedy. A very visual picture. 

What did you do with the money after you received it? 

Mr, Comml'nale, I used it for my expenses, personal obligations, 
social activities, 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you pass some money on to anyone? 

Mr. Communale. Absolutely not, sir, 

Mr, Kennedy. Some of it went into a trust account. What wavS 
that for? 

Mr, Communale. Well, if I have money that I feel is clients' money, 
I keep it separately in an account, and sometimes pay court expenses 
out of it. I would have to replace the money taken from the trust 
account and put it in there. The trust account is a general account. 
It may have been the money of maybe four or five people in it. It is 
commingled with other people's money. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is your money that you put in to replace money 
that you had taken out of the trust fund ? 

Mr, Communale. To account for court costs and expenses on be- 
half of clients whose money I had, and also as a matter of convenience 
for the purpose of cashing the check. 



19292 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you do favors occasionally for Teamsters or 
Teamsters officials ? 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. It all depends on what you mean by favors, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. Favors in connection with any problems that they 
might have. 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. I dou't want to be facetious, but if Nick Amatrudi 
would tell me that one of his men was stopped for overloading, did 1 
know any magistrate or any person connected with the courts where 
he might get some consideration, I would do my very best to intro- 
duce him or tell him just what he ought to do. Not that he should 
evade his responsibility for violating the law, but there are certain 
considerations given to persons who endeavor to do the right thing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you think there is a good possibility that the 
reason you received the $200 a month was that you could perform, 
that the Teamster officials in that area would have a friend in the at- 
torney general's office ? 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. Well, sir, I beg your pardon. I would assume 
that would be begging the question, looking for the kind of an answer 
that you are looking for. But in all of the ramifications of that ques- 
tion, particularly directed to me, it would be inconceivable, it would 
be ridiculous, and it w^ould be fantastic to think that anybody could 
obtain labor peace through me or any considerations. I am a lowly 
assistant in the prosecutor's office who does what he is told and fol- 
lows orders. I do not make policy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you think, looking back on it now, that that very 
well might have been the purpose of your receiving the $200 a month, 
that the Teamster officials in that area wished to have a contact in 
the prosecutor's office? 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. It is very highly conjectural and to me appears 
almost fantastic. It is unreal. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of course, what you do have is your being placed 
on the payroll of the company under these rather peculiar circum- 
stances, and Mr. Friedland and some of these other individuals were 
interested in helping you out. You were placed on the payroll. There 
has to be some reason or purpose in doing it. 

Can you think of any other reason, other than the one I have 
given you? 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. I cau only let the facts and circumstances speak 
for themselves. I represent to this committee that I have come here 
to tell the truth, the whole truth. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you give us any reason as to why tliey would 
put you on the payroll other than the reason I suggest ? 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. Other than my association with Nick Amatrudi, 
Jack Friedland, and other people who might have had some relation- 
ship with Dorn, I don't know. Particularly this Anthony Proven- 
zano, who is mentioned so often, my meetings with him were very 
casual. He never spoke to me or made any arrangements or told me 
that he was interested in my welfare in any way. 

The Chairman. I have not gotten the full connection of this. Who 
arranged with Mr. Dorn for this payment to be made? 

Mr. Kennedy. Anthony Provenzano. 

The Chairman. It was not Ciccarelli ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19293 

Mr. Kennedy. No. The arrangements were made with Mr. Dorn 
by Mr. Provenzano, and Mr. Provenzano then placed Mr. Communale 
on the payroll for $200 a month. Mr. Communale has explained that 
he first heard about it through Mr, Ciccarelli, as I understand the 
testimony. 

Mr. Communale. That is right. 

(At this point Senator Ervin withdrew from the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. "V^Tiat is your relationship with Provenzano, with 
Tony Pro? 

Mr. Communale. I have no relationship to him in any way, either 
by blood or association. 

Tlie Chairman. Any business relationship? 

Mr. Communale. No business relation. 

The Chairman. Did I understand you to say he had an office in 
your building? 

Mr. Communale. No; his office is in Hoboken. Tliat is local 560. 
But their lawyer 

The Chairman. Why would he make arrangements for you to 
receive a retainer fee ? 

jVIr. Communale. Senator, I wish I could answer the question, 
but I don't have the ability or the knowledge. 

The Chairman. You are not close acquaintances? 

Mr. Communale. Absolutely not, sir. 

Tlie Chairman. You had no confidential relationshp ? 

Mr. Communale. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You had no strong friendship that existed between 
you ? 

Mr. Communale. Absolutely none, sir. 

The Chairman. No business relation ? 

Mr. Communale. No business relation. 

The Chairman. Yet he goes out and arranges foi- you to get a 
$200 a month payment. 

Mr. Communale. Assuming that he is the one that did it, sir. 

The Chairman. I mean on the basis of the testimony. 

Mr. Communale. I would arrive at the same conclusion you have; 
why would a man want me to be retained ? 

The Chairman. It does leave a question mark. 

Mr. Communale. That is on th.e assumption tliat he did it. 

The Chairman. If he did it, if Dorn is telling the truth — of course, 
if he is telling a falsehood about it, there may be a whole lot more 
to this than we can find out. 

Mr. Communale. Mr. Dorn came here and gave testimony under 
oath. The other fellow, as I miderstand it, took the fifth amendment. 
That leaves it in a very, very peculiar position. 

The Chairman. Yes ; I wish we could get all of the facts. 

Mr. Communale. I would like to know the answer myself. 

The Chairman. It is a strange thing, and you would concede that, 
that somebody you didn't know or hardly knew and had no relation- 
ship with, or friendship or business, social or otherwise, just went out 
and arranged with someone in business with whom his labor organ- 
ization might make a contract to send a $200 monthly retainer fee to a 
strange attorney. 



19294 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. I doii't want to be hammy about this thing, but 
I want to tell you one thing. I spoke to Prosecutor Whipple last 
night. When we learned of the transaction that was supposed to have 
happened in the Swiss Town House Restaurant about the passing of 
money for extortion, he advised me to pass this on to the committee, 
and that he would like to have a full transcript of the proceedings as 
the}^ aft'ect Hudson County for the purpose of prosecution. 

It may also be, if it please you, Mr. Chairman, that because of these 
allegations made by Mr. Dorn, that I may find my usefulness impaired. 

I would like to get the answer, the true answer. 

The Chairman. I assure you that we have nothing else in mind, 
and I don't want to see you harmed or hurt. 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. I liave been harmed in a manner now 

The Chairman. I don't know how this committee is going to do its 
job if it stops every time it reaches a point where someone might get 
hurt if the truth comes out. There is no way we can do a job if we 
do that. 

Now, so far as the transcript is concerned, they are available from 
the reporter, all or any part of it, and I know you can procure it there. 

Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We might put these letters in to which you had 
reference. 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. May I ask that either you keep the originals and 
give me a photostat, or vice versa ? 

The Chairman. That will be provided. Either photostatic copies 
will be made and either the original or the photostatic copies given to 
the witness. 

I Dresent to you these letters. 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. May I also add to your records this folder which 
shows the handwriting of Mr. Ciccarelli. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 53, the folder which 
you are presenting with the handwriting of Mr. Ciccarelli. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 53" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Now, I present to you two original letters, one dated 
February 18, 1957, addressed to you by Mr. Walter A. Dorn, of Dorn 
Transportation, Inc., and ask you to examine it and state if you 
identify it. And the next one is one dated February 25, 1957, from 
the secretary of state, addressed to you. 

I wish you would examine those two letters and state if you identify 
them. 

( Documents handed to the witness. ) 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. I liave examined them, and they are the letters I 
turned over to your committee. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibits 54A and B, in the 
order of their dates. 

(Letters referred to were marked "Exhibits No. 54A and 54B," for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 19495-19496.) 

The Chairman. I hand you now the carbon copies of letters from 
you, one dated February 21, to Mr. E. J. Patton, secretary of state, and 
the other one dated February 28 to the Dorn Transportation, Inc., 
from you. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19295 

Will you examine those carbon copies and state if you identify those. 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. These are copies of the oriijinal letters. 

The Chairmax. They may be made exhibits 54C and D in the order 
of their dates. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibits No. 54C and 54D" 
for reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 19497, 19498.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you about this : When you received this 
letter — 

We would like to have you accept a retainer from our company, regarding the 
ton-mile tax — 

and other matters in New York City, didn't that arouse some question 
in your mind, the fact that if tliey wanted someone to handle some- 
thing in New York they would not get a New York attorney rather 
than a New Jersey attorney ? 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. That could be, but the ton-mile tax doesn't require 
the services of an attorney. 

Mr. Kennedy. But it is in New York, is it not ? 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. It requires the service of one who is convenient, 
and that is not strictly an attorney's job, but other legal matters might 
be, because they were going to have their base in Hudson County some 
place or other. 

Mr. Kennedy. But this says — 

In the New York City area — 

The ton-mile tax is in New York, and this is in the New York City 
area. They said — 

We are sorry for the delay in writing this letter which we agreed to do when 
we originally discussed this matter. 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. You will notice in that folder that I gave you 
that there is a half of an envelope from the Dorn Transportation Co., 
which has a prior postmark indicating that Mr. Ciccarelli had prior 
correspondence. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't it strike you as a little peculiar that they 
said — 

We are sorry for the delay in writing this letter — 

and — 

when we originally discussed this matter? 

You never discussed the matter with them ? 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. I liadu't discussed it with Dorn, but I discussed 
it with Ciccarelli. 

]Mr. Kennedy. That is not what he says here. It says — 

We discussed this matter. 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. If he says that, I am not bound by what he says. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am thinking of all of the circumstances in this 
case, the fact that there is this letter and those peculiarities in tlie 
letter, the fact that you had the $200 under slightly unusual cir- 
cumstances, and continued to get it and never did any work. It 
seems a little strange that it didn't arouse your suspicion over a period 
of 5 years. I just don't understand wliy you would not at least mnke 
a telephone call to Mr. Dorn and say, "I have been on your payroll for 
4 years now ; do you want me to do anything?" 



19296 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. That was the thing that I spoke to you about the 
other day. I believe Mr. Ciccarelli had been in contact with some 
representative of Dorn or contact with someone, and the letter dated 
August 10, I believe it is, was preceded by another letter, because I 
found among Mr. Ciccarelli's eifects a postmarked letter bearing date 
of July. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not questioning the fact that Mr. Ciccarelli is 
the one who su^; ^'sted this, or that Ciccarelli made the arrangements. 
I think that Ciccarelli's background and the fact he was a disbarred 
attorney, and that you later found out he was embezzling your own 
money and your clients' money, would have been a red flag to you. I 
am not questioning that at all. I am just saying that all of the cir- 
cumstances that surrounded this, it would seem to me, would have 
aroused your suspicion. 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. Mr. Kennery, I have tried to answer your ques- 
tions truthfully to the best of my ability, and I am going to say that 
I thank you for the consideration and your discretion in this matter. 

The Chairman. We thank you, sir. I appreciate it when a witnevSS 
comes before this committee and tries to be frank and tries to answer 
the questions. It is helpful to us, and we may not always get tlie full 
answer or the whole answer and all of the truth, but we certainly need 
all of the cooperation we can get in order to tiy to make a record that 
is truthful and not one that is false. 

All right. Thank you. 

Mr. CoMMUNALE. Thank vou Very much. 

The Chairman. Call the nest witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now we are going into an entirely diiferent phase 
of our hearings, one involving some of the contracts that have been 
negotiated through the central conference of Teamsters by Mr. Hoffa, 
and we are also going to talk about some of the contracts in the eastern 
conference of Teamsters. 

There has been a statement made that the corruption that exists 
in the hierarchy of the Teamsters is unimportant because of the fine 
high contracts that Mr. Plotfa and some of his chief lieutenants nego- 
tiated. We are going to determine or tiy to determine during the 
next 2 days wliether the contracts that have been negotiated by Mr. 
Hoffa are in fact the highest contracts in the International Brother- 
hood of Teamsters, oi" v/hether in fact there have been contract^, in 
other sections of the country that are superior to the contracts tliat 
have be^n negotiated by Mr. Hoffa in his own bailiwick. 

In that connection, we will have a number of witnesses, including 
a number of Teamster union officials throughout tlie countiy who 
have been negotiating contracts for a number of yeai*s. 

But I would like first to call Mr. Joseph Adelizzi, Mr. Cliairman, 
who will give the situation in New York City. 

The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall 
give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the tiiith, so lielp you God ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. I do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19297 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH ADELIZZI 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation, please. 

Mr. Adelizzi. My name is Joseph M. Adelizzi, and I live in Green- 
wich, Conn., 203 Heniy A\enue, and I am the managing director of 
the Empire State Highway Transportation Association, 24 East 33d 
Street, New York City. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are director of the Empire State Tracking 
Association ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. What does the Empire State Trucking Association 
comprise ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. It has a membership of motor carriers, both private 
and for hire, operating both locally in New York City, and m New 
York State, and into New York State from various cities throughout 
the countiy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Adelizzi, how long have you been in the 
trucking business yourself ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. I have been in this field of labor-management rela- 
tions for 25 or more years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now let me ask you this : Let me get some explana- 
tion of some terms that we will be discussing today. 

What are the conferences, for instance, in the Teamsters Union? 
There is an eastern conference and central conference, and the west- 
em conference. 

Would you explain just briefly wluit the conferences are ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. The Teamsters have divided the country into regions 
and called them conferences, and set up conferences in each region. 
The eastern conference covers the area around New York, and the 
territory adjacent thereto. 

The central conference, or the central States conference, covers the 
middle portion of our country. 

The western conference covers the Mountain States and the Pacific 
coast States. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then there is the southern conference ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Yes ; that covers the Southern States. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the southern conference has been under the 
control of Mr. Hoffa and also the Central States. 

Mr. Miller has been the director, but he has been under the direc- 
tion of Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. Adelizzi. He certainly has been very active in it. 

Mr. Miller. What is "ti-uckaway" or "driveaway"? Wliat is 
meant by that? 

Mr. Adelizzi. We have the automobile haulers who haul the cars, 
automobiles directly from assembly plants to the points of distribu- 
tion. 

The (Iriveaways are drivers who literally drive the trucks or cars 
away from the points of manufacture or assembly, to the points of 
distril)ntion. 



19298 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And there is a contract that is negotiated covering 
the triickaway-driveaway ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What is the difference between truckaway and 
driveaway ? Truckaway is where you load four or five cars on a big 
truck and deliver them, from the plant; is that correct? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Tliat is correct. 

The Chairman. What is a driveaway ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Just what the term implies. The driver drives a car. 

The Chairman. Whoever drives a truckaway is a driveaway; is 
that right ? 

Mr. Adelizzi, We have the automobile haulers, and you have seen 
them on the highways, where they have three or four cars loaded on 
the truck. 

The Chairman. What is that, a truckaway, or a driveaway ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. We call them automobile transport drivers, or auto- 
mobile haulers. 

The Chairman. I want to relate them to these two words. 

Mr. Adelizzi. The driveaway is where a person gets into a car and 
literally drives the car. 

The Chairman. Wliere he just comes and he buys a car or he takes 
one car and he delivers it? 

Mr. Adelizzi. That is right. 

The Chairman. That is a driveaway. 

Mr. Adelizzi. That is right. In the case of a truck he might drive 
two trucks, and he might take two trucks at a time, and he might 
drive the one and carry the other one or tow the other second truck. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there is a national driveaway and truckaway 
contract ; is there not ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. I understand that there is. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the head of the national truckaway-driveaway 
conference is Mr. Hoff a ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. That I also understand to be so, 

Mr. Kennedy. Actually, up until the last 3 years, the national 
truckaway-driveaway has comprised for the most part just the central 
conference of Teamsters? 

Mr. Adelizzi. That is correct. 

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the pro- 
ceedings: Senators McClellan and Goldwater.) 

Mr. Kennedy. And since 1955, 1 believe, there has been an effort to 
come also into the eastern section of the United States ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. That is also true, 

Mr. Kennedy. So although it is called national, it comprises mostly 
the central conference of Teamsters. 

Mr. Adelizzi. With the one exception in the East, where they have 
had a separate union, 

Mr. Kennedy, Over-the-road drivers are drivers that drive from 
one city to another, as a general proposition ? 

Mr, Adelizzi, Over-the-road drivers are intercity drivers who op- 
erate primarily between terminals as contrasted with the local drivers 
who pick up and deliver, 

Mr. Kennedy. They are called cartage drivers ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. The cartage drivers are the so-called local drivers. 
I think the local drivers is a more popular term. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19299 

Mr. Kennedy. What does your Empire State Trucking Association 
deal with for the most part ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. We deal with all types of drivers. 

Mr. Kennedy. iVnd is this the trucking in the northeastern section 
of the country? What is your jurisdiction? 

Mr. Adelizzi. The association jurisdiction is in New York State. 
But we are interested in trucks that come from outside the State be- 
cause of their activity in New York City or New York State. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you are familiar, are you not, with the trucking 
situation generally in the Eastern section of the country as well ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. 1 am most familiar with that area ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are the contracts that exist in the Eastern section 
of the United States, as far as the Teamsters are concerned, higher 
than the contracts of the central conference of Teamsters ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. I would say generally so, and over a long period of 
time. 

Mr. Kennedy. The contracts that have been negotiated by the 
Teamsters in the East have been higher than the contracts that are in 
existence and have been negotiated by the Teamsters in the central 
conference ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Just generally so, yes. 

The Chairman. What do you mean "higher" ? Higher wages ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Well, higher measured by labor costs. The total labor 
cost. 

The Chairman. That would include higher wages or longer working 
hours, or both ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. It is difficult to make direct comparisons unless you 
are comparing like things, and because classifications of employment 
differ, it seems to me tliat in order to get a true comparison, you have 
to speak in terms of labor cost, which includes wages, the fringe 
benefits 

The Chairman. Let's start with that. You say labor cost is higher 
in the eastern conference than it is in the central ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. I would say generally, yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Would that be true in the case of over-the- 
road drivers? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Well, it would be particularly true if you compared 
New England, let us say, with the Central States. It is difficult to 
compare the New York area with the Central States as far as over- 
the-road drivers are concerned, because those New York contracts don't 
generally govern road drivers. They govern primarily the local 
drivers. The road drivers are governed by union contracts outside of 
New York City or outside of the New York area. The only repre- 
sentation of road drivers in the New York area is incidental rather 
than general. 

Senator Goldwater. Would there be more over-the-road drivers 
in the eastern conference than in the central conference? 

]Mr. Adelizzi. The number in the central conference would be many 
times greater. 

Senator Goldwater. In that particular category ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Yes. 



36751^9 — pt. 55 11 



19300 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater, Now we get into cartage types of drivers. 
There would be more of those, am I correct in assuming there would 
be more of those in the eastern conference than in the central 
conference ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Yes ; that would be so. 

Senator Goldwater. So if we are going to talk about a comparison 
of wage rates we have to talk about specifics. We have to talk about 
over-the-road or cartage or the other ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. That is correct. Otherwise, your comparison is 
faulty. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you say, averaging over-the-road, cart- 
age, and all the others, that the eastern conference has a better hourly 
rate than the central conference ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. I think we ought to dispel the belief that eastern 
conference governs wage costs in the East. That isn't so at all. The 
eastern conference, as far as the New York area is concerned, has just 
barely made its influence felt. It is not general in its coverage of the 
eastern seaboard. 

In fact, the eastern conference at the moment has no more than 
four or five unions that are parties to their contract. 

Senator Goldwater. Your contracts are not made by the confer- 
ence ; they are made by the locals ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Made by both. They are individual negotiations 
with the locals and group negotiaJtions with the conference, the Team- 
sters conference, which included, the last time, about five unions, five 
local unions. 

Senator Goldwater. Does that hold true in the central and western 
conferences, too ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. I understand that most, if not all, of the local unions 
participate in the Central States conference. 

Senator Goldwater. Most of the contracts are negotiated by locals 
in the central and western conferences? 

Mr. Adelizzi. No; my understanding is they are negotiated by an 
area committee or a conference committee. 

Senator Goldwater. We could assume, then, by that statement, that 
in the central conference, and we will exclude the western conference 
for the time being, that the locals do not participate as freely in 
contracts as they do in the eastern conference. 

Mr. Adelizzi. My underetanding is that in the central conference 
the locals don't participate at all, except as represented on a confer- 
ence or area wide committee. But that is just the opposite, as you 
point out, in the East. There the negotiations are, for the present 
at least, on an individual basis, with one exception. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you say, then, that the benefits to the em- 
ployee, the individual truckdriver, are greater in the area covered by 
the eastern conference of Teamsters than the benefits to the employee 
in the central conference of Teamsters ? 
Mr. Adelizzi. I would say generally, yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Do benefits include wages 

Mr. Kennedy. Wages, hours, conditions, holidays. 
For instance, we have some comparisons. For instance, in local 
299 of the Teamsters, Mr. Hoffa's local, they pay an hourly rate of 
$2.53 ; local 701, which is here in the East — is that correct ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19301 

Mr. Adelizzi. They are in central New Jersey. 

Mr. Kennedy. They pay $2.65 an hour. 

Senator Goldayater. Is that for the same type of work, long-range 
liaulmg, over-the-road hauling, or is it cartage? 

Mr. Kennedy. It is the same. 

Senator Goldwater. Identical types of work? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. There are a lot of fringe benefits, 
the holidays, the vacation. There is no overtime in the central con- 
ference of Teamsters. 

Is that correct ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. There would be on the local drivers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Over-the-road there is none ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. There is none. 

Mr. Kennedy. Although there is some overtime in some of the east- 
ern locals. But taking everything into consideration, a member of the 
Teamsters Union in the eastern part of the United States gets paid 
more than the union member in the central conference of Teamsters. 
We will go into some details about it. 

The Chairman. In other words, what we are saying is that over in 
the eastern conference, the package for the worker has more in it than 
the package for the worker in the central conference ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Yes. That has been traditionally so. At one time, 
going back 20 years ago, the differentials were much greater, but over 
the years the New York area, more particularly local 807, which has 
become a byword in Teamster circles, has been the pattern which 
these other unions have set up as a target. Over the years the dif- 
ferentials have gradually narrowed. 

But generally speaking, even today the locals in the New York area. 
New York-north Jersey area, receive, or their members receive, greater 
benefits than do the locals or the numbers of locals in the central 
States. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me get down to specifics with you and what 
occurred during 1954 when Mr. Hoffa came into the negotiations that 
were being conducted between the Teamsters and the truckers in 
New York. 

The contract negotiations took place in 1954, is that correct, and 
were you one of those who was conducting the negotiations? 

Mr, Adelizzi. I chairmaned the employers committee of about 25 
people. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was the chief negotiator on the other side? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Thomas Hickey. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of local 807? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Well, he was then an international officer. He was 
an organizer for the international union. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. The other union principals were John O'Rourke and 
John Conlin ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. They were very prominent in the negotiations. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. At that time, did the truckowners hope to settle the 
contract for from 10 to 15 cents an hour increase in wages? 

Mr. Adelizzi. That was set up by the employers committee as the 
top offer that we would make to the union for a new contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the negotiations break down ? Was Mr. Hickey 
trying to obtain 25 cents an hour ? 



19302 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Adelizzi. Well, may I give you a little background on that 
so that the committee may better understand what I may say later? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Adelizzi. In 1954, or, rather, in 1948, we attempted negotia- 
tions on an areawide basis in order to iiv -vove the competitive position 
of the employers, and amazingly enough we negotiated a settlement 
with a group of 12 or 13 local unions. But 807, a local which has 
plagued us over many years, the membership of that union refused 
to ratify the settlement, and as a consequence a strike followed and 
the settlement reached with this areawide group fell and the settle- 
ment became based on the settlement made by 807. 

So for a period of 6 years, between 1948 and 1954, negotiations 
went back on an individual basis, with the exception of Hudson Coun- 
ty, where the three unions there, 560, 617, and 641, located in Hoboken 
and Jersey City, had traditionally negotiated together. 

In 1954, at the suggestion of Hickey, we agreed to explore again 
the efficacy of areawide negotiations, and proceeded to set up bargain- 
ing conmiittees to represent the area, Hickey for the unions and I 
for the employers. 

In the course of time, negotiations got underway. It wasn't long 
before we found that there was very little hope of any settlement 
because of political differences, political rivalries, between the mem- 
bers of the union negotiating committee, with Hickey on one hand, 
and O'Rourke and Conlin presumably on the other. 

In the course of time, it leaked out from the union committee that 
the minimum that we would have to pay for a settlement would be 
a package of 25 cents. 

That figure, that minimum, was adopted by the international union 
in the person of Dave Beck, and since management was unwilling to 
pay that price, a stalemate or impasse was reached. It was at that 
point that Bent sent Hoffa into the area with a committee of vice 
presidents to lend whatever assistance they could to this stalemate 
situation. 

Mr. Kennedy. When he came in, did he make an approach to you 
that he could get the contracts signed for a lesser amount than the 25 
cents ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Well, several weeks before he came in, we received 
word from the West, from the Central States, that a settlement could 
be made on the basis of 18 cents for 1 year, and 7 cents for the second 
year. 

Wlien Hoffa came in, shortly after he came in, at the behest of a 
citizens committee, which was named by the mayor of New York, I 
was approached on the proposition of 18 and 7. 

Mr. Kennedy. By whom were you approached ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Well, the offer came from Hoffa directed to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you understood he had made arrangements 
with the central conference, with the truckers in the central conference, 
to sign a contract for the 18 and 7 ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Our understanding was, and it came from the em- 
ployers in the Central States, that such an agreement would be accept- 
able to Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the committee what convereation 
you had with Hoffa at that time? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19303 

Mr, Adelizzi. I found myself closeted with Hoffa and the chairman 
of the citizens committee tliat I mentioned, a Mrs. Kosenberg 

The Chairman. Found yourself what? 

Mr. Kennedy. In conference. 

Mr. Adelizzi. The three of us were alone. Mrs. Rosenberg was en- 
deavoring to find some common meeting ground by which this threat- 
ened strike could be avoided. 

Tliis offer of 18 and 7 was made by Hoffa, and I reported that that 
was nothing new, that we had had that for several weeks. Mrs. Rosen- 
berg turned to Hoft'a and said that in the light of that, he ought to 
come up witli something different, something new, whereupon he said, 
"Very well, we will make the offer 17 and 8." 

I was asked wlietlier I would recommend such a settlement to the 
employers committee, and when I said that I wouldn't, because I didn't 
think it was justified, Mrs. Rosenberg remarked that if I wouldn't 
recomemnd it, tlien the chances of it being adopted by the employers 
committee was rather poor. 

Hoffa made the same observation. 

Whereupon, I asked Hoffa by what authority he made such an 
offer, because up to this point the minimum offer we had been getting 
from the union committee was 25 c ents, and that was the minimum 
that Beck had established on the international level, the level of the 
international union. Hoff'a replied that he didn't have the authority. 

The Chairman. Pie did not have ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. He did not have it. 

But he was quite confident he could persuade Dave Beck to endorse 
it and to have tlie imion committee approve it ; whereupon I suggested 
that before we go any further, that he get authority to make such an 
offer. The fact of the matter is that he never did get the authority 
from the committee, the union committee, because of the resistance or 
refusal of Hickey and local 807 to support it. 

^"Mien that union wouldn't support it, the others wouldn't either. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it a fact that if you had pursued the matter — 
well, ultimately you had to settle for 25 cents ; is that correct? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Ultimately, 807 withdrew from the committee, and 
they set up a campaign of divide and conquer. They forced the em- 
ploj^ers they had contracts with to sign on the basis of 25 cents, and 
that became the pattern for the whole area. 

Mr. Kennedy. So ultimately you all had to capitulate and sign for 
25 cents? 

Mr. Adelizzi. That is right. 

i\Ir. Kennedy. If you had gone along on the 17 and 8 or the 18 and 7, 
it would have been, obviously, more profitable for the truck owners, 
more b?nefical for the truck owners ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. It would have been a cheaper settlement, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. "What was the reason that the truck owners and your- 
self felt that 3^ou would not go along with the 17 and 8 or 18 and 7 at 
that time ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Well, in 1954, in light of the circumstances that were 
present, there was a strong suspicion on the part of some of the unions 
in New York City and some of the employers that a move was afoot to 
take over control of the labor situation in New York, the New York- 
North Jersey area, and we were rather reluctant to surrender control 
to some forces from the Midwest, so to speak. 



19304 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you feel that this coming in from the outside 
and offering a better contract for the employers, the 18 and 7 was an 
effort to undermine the activities of Mr. Tom Hickey of local 807 ? 

Mr. Adleizzi. It had all the appearances of doing just that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was it also felt by you and by some of your col- 
leagues that if you signed up on this basis, even though it would be 
more profitable to you, it would be, in fact, turning over the trucking 
business and the trucking industry in New York to the underworld 
or the mob ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. There was a strong suspicion of that, a strong fear 
of that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't that, in fact, the reason why you wouldn't sign 
and undermine Hickey, that although you had your difficulties and 
problems with Mr. Hickey, at least it has always been felt that he 
was an honest Teamster official, and that although you might make a 
temporary deal which would be profitable to you momentarily, in the 
long run this would be, in fact, turning over the control of the whole 
trucking industry in New York? 

Mr. Adelizzi. For that reason we came to the support of Hickey 
and the leadersliip of 807. 

Mr. Kennedy, Did you find for specifics, as far as the gangsters 
taking over was concerned, that Mr. Johnny — was Joliimy Dioguardi 
present in discussions ? Was ]Mr. Johnny Dioguardi contacting or in 
contact with Mr. Hoffa during this period of time ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. That I don't know, except what the papers reported. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he outside ■ 

Mr. Adelizzi. He was in the hallways in the hotels, wherever we 
were meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand Mr. Phil Weiss was there also ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Yes. They were both together. 

Mr. Kennedy. As a matter of fact, didn't one of the representa- 
tives of your companies have an approach at a later time that the 
terms of the contract could be alleviated if the insurance was given 
to somebody of Mr. Phil Weiss' choosing? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Yes. I think your committee has had testimony on 
this. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you outline what it was ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. I was approached by one of our members who had 
been approached by some friend of his, with a proposition that this 
unsatisfactory settlement, if that is the term, of 25 cents, could be 
amended under certain conditions, one of which was to agree to buy 
our welfare insurance from the proper agency. 

Tlie Chairman. Was that agency identified? 

Mr. Adelizzi. No, except as to location. My impression is that the 
agency was located in Chicago. In any event, in order to test out 
just what was behind this, I suggested to this member of ours that 
he manifest an interest, whereupon it was suggested that we name a 
representative to meet with these people, to explore the situation. We 
made the mistake of suggesting an honest man as a representative. 

The Chairman. Suggesting who ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. ^Vhen they saw him, they just wouldn't talk and the 
thing fell through. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19305 

Mr. Kennedy. Actually, you suggested Mr. Hugh Sheridan. 

Mr. Adelizzi. That is right. That was a bad choice. 

jlr. Kennedy. You described him, "He is so upright, he squeaks 
when he walks." 

^Ir. Adelizzi. That is correct. We just weren't thinking when we 
suggested that he represent us in these discussions. 

Mr. Kennedy. The approach was made through Phil Weiss, was 
it not? 

Mr. Adelizzi. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he held the conversations? 

[Mr. Adelizzi. He was the one that met Sheridan, but they did no 
business. 

Mr. Kennedy. They ultimately refused to talk. We had some testi- 
mony by Mr. Genzer, to whom the approach was made by Pliil Weiss, 
before the committee a year or so ago, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Adelizzi. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the time that Mr. Hoffa came in, did he also 
bring in some of the Midwestern carriers? 

Mr. Adelizzi. I wouldn't know that, but they were here, they were 
present. I understand that they were in the hallways in the hotel that 
Hoffa stayed at. There were negotiations going on all over the city, 
apparently, with everybody except the committees that were charged 
with the responsibility of negotiating. 

Mr. Kennedy. Specifically, was Frank Blunden there ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. I understand he was present. 

Mr. Kennedy. "\^^iat was his company ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Kramer Motor Lines, I believe, from Detroit. 

Mr. Kennedy. Kramer Bros. ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Kramer Bros. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does it amount to, in fact, a penalty to try to do 
business with an honest union official, such as Mr. Hickey ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Sure. It costs us money to do business with Hickey. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would it be much easier to do business with some- 
body like Johnny Dioguardi ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. I haven't done any business with him, so I can't speak 
with direct experience. But I understand, based on what I have heard 
and what I have read, that it is much cheaper to do business with 
people like that than it is with Hickey, or any of these people who try 
to conduct an honest union. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is basically the reason that you wouldn't go 
along with Mr. Hoffa at that time ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Well, I can't say that, beyond what I have said, that 
we didn't like the entry into the New York picture of Hoffa and his 
people in 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have an affidavit here from Mr. John Strong, Mr. 
Chairman. We expected him to be a witness. He is president of 
local 807, but they are in the midst of a strike at the present time, and 
he was unable to come. We had also expected Mr. Tom Hickey 
to be a witness, but he has had his leg amputated and is unable to 
travel, and so he could not come either. 
The Chairman. You may introduce the affidavit. 
Mr. Kennedy. Could we read it into the record ? 



19306 II^IPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Read the pertinent parts, and it may be printed 
in the record in full. 

Mr. Salinger. This is the affidavit of John Strong. 
(The affidavit referred to follows :) 

State of Nkw York, 
County of New York, ««; 

I, John Strong, of New York City, make the following voluntary aflBdavit to 
Pierre Salinger,^ who has identified himself to me as an investigator of the 
U.S. Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor-Management 
Field. 

I am president of Local 807, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, New 
York City. In 1954, areawide negotiations were held with truck owners to 
cover a number of locals in the New York and New Jersey areas. Thomas 
Ilickey, secretary-treasurer of local 807, was the cochairman of the union 
negotiating committee. 

Our committee had determined to hold out for a 25-cent increase and a 2-year 
contract. John O'Rourke, who is now the president of joint council IB and 
who was then a member of the negotiating committee, got in touch with Dave 
Berk, general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, to find 
out if a strike was necessary, whether the members of the union would get 
strike benefits. 

ORourke told me that Beck gave sanction to a strike calling for 25 cents an 
hour increase. After two extensions, one for 30 days and one for 1-5 days, the 
negotiations became badly deadlocked. General president Beck sent a group 
of international vice presidents to assist in negotiations. 

These included James R. Hoffa, Sidney Brennan, Einar Mohn, John T. 
O'Brien, and Joe Diviny. After the arrival of this committee, Tom Hickey and 
I went to the Xew Yorker Hotel where Hoffa and the other vice presidents 
were staying. Before we got out of the lobby, we heard run^ors that a deal 
was being set to settle the negotiations. We heard that this deal included 
a 2-year package — a 17 cents increase in the first year and 8 cents in the second 
year. 

Although I did not get this information directly, it was my information that 
because of the negotiations coming in the Central States area, Hoffa and the 
big midwestern carriers had already agreed to a package of 17 and 8 and that 
an effort was being made to see that the areawide committee of New York and 
New Jersey affiliated with the Eastern Conference of Teamsters conformed 
to this pattern. 

Soon after Mr. Hoffa came to town, Thomas Hickey was replaced as chair- 
man of the negotiating committee by John 0'Rf>urke. At that time I resigned as 
recording secretary of the negotiating committee. 

A meeting was held at which 15 members of the local 807 wage scale com- 
mittee were present and Hoffa was there also. I called Hoffa over and told 
him that Beck had OK'd a quarter and asked Hoffa whether he had any objec- 
tion to our signing up the employers for a quarter. 

Hoffa said he had no objection — ^"Go ahead." I then said that our people 
would liegin signing them up for 25 cents and hour. Within a couple of days, 
on October 15, at the Hotel Statler, Hoffa discussed a settlement on the basis 
of IS and 7. 

Our local would have nothing to do with that and following this we signed 
up the employers for 25 cents. This action by local 807 set the pattern for a 
final settlement of 25 cents minimum for all locals involved in negotiations. 

Following the 1954 negotiations, a strong effort was made to defeat Tom 
Hickey and me in our local union. 

I have read the above statement and believe it to be the truth to the best 
of my knowledge. 

John E. Strong. 

Sworn to before me this Gth day of July 1959. 

John ,T. Mansfiet-d, 
Notanj Puhlic, State of Neiv York. 

No. 24-7703110. qualified in Kings County, cert, filed in New York County, 
term expires March 30, 19G0. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is, of course, extremely important, that they 
had nefTotiated a lesser contract in the central conference of Teamsters 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19307 

and it would have been embarrassing if the unions in the East had 
received a higher package deal, and so it was to Mr. Hoffa's interest 
to negotiate a contract that did not increase the benefits of the em- 
ployees more in the East than he had been able to obtain in the cen- 
tral conference. 

The Chairman. Why did you say you didn't accept Hoffa's offer? 
\\nien he offered to give you a contract of 17 and 8, why didn't you 
take it ? That would be cheaper at least for the first year. 

Mr. Adelizzi. He wanted to buy it for 10 to 121/^ cents. 

The Chairman. Did you have the opportunity to take Hoffa's offer 
or the 25-cent package ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Hoffa's offer was never formalized. 

The Chairman. So you never had a chance actually to take it? 

Mr. Adelizzi. That is right. 

The Chairman. It was just discussed. 

Mr. Adelizzi. It was never submitted to our committee because 
Hoff a never got the authority to make it. 

The Chairman. But he was trying to get authority to make it? 

Mr. Adelizzi. That is correct. 

The Chairman. He offered it provided he could get the authority. 

Mr. Adelizzi. We offered it and when I challenged it, he didn't 
have the autliority. 

The Chairman. But he was willing, as far as his negotiation au- 
thority was concerned, to throw that out as a possible offer or basis 
of settlement? 

Mr. Adelizzi. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the same kind of situation arise later in 1955 or 
1956 in the negotiations? 

Mr. Adelizzi. Well, in 1956 we were plagued with the creation of 
a rival employer bargaining unit. Some of these carriers from the 
Midwest, you mentioned Blunden, and he chaired the committee. 
They came into the New York area and set up a committee apart from 
the one that had traditionally negotiated the contracts with these 
unions, with the result that we had at least two different sets of nego- 
tiations in 1956. 

This Blunden committee was on the one hand, and the committee 
with which I was associated was on the other. Now, because of this 
threat in 1954, and when I talk about threat I am referring particu- 
larly to 807, because while 807 over the years had achieved rather a 
notorious reputation, at that time from 1948 on, the leadership of 807 
has acquired character and some stability and we were quite pleased 
with our relationship. 

As I say, the threat of 807 being taken over, so to speak, in 1954, 
was such that in 1956 we did what we could to guard against any 
further exposure such as had existed in 1954. At that time, we nego- 
tiated apart from tlie eastern conference, we negotiated a contract 
that was with 807 alone and we did it early enough so as to be able 
to use that contract as sort of an anchor or a pattern for the rest of 
the areas. 

It developed that while the Blunden committee, so to speak, nego- 
tiated a settlement with these locals in Hudson County, 566, 517, and 
641, and one or two locals in Yonkers, that is, 445. and one local in 
New York, 816 — all of the other locals negotiated separate agree- 



19308 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

ments, but the pattern wliicli came out of the 807 settlement governed 
ahnost exactly all of these agreements, with the exception that these 
locals in the eastern conference compelled a differential of 2 cents an 
hour merely to demonstrate that they could outdo the negotiators of 
the 807 agreement. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was an effort in 1954, then, and then again in 
1956, to destroy the effect of local 807 ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. I would think so. 

Mr. Kennedy. And in 1954, when the offer was made by Mr. Hoffa 
regarding the 18 cents and the 7 cents, as I understand your testimony, 
although you felt that he did not have the authorization to make the 
offer it was also felt, and there were discussions among the truckers, 
that if you pursued the matter with Mr. Hoft'a and ignored local 807, 
you could obtain a contract for 18 and 7 and thus bypass local 807; 
IS that correct ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And, therefore, that would mean, in 1954, the virtual 
destruction of Tom Hickey and local 807 as a practical, strong force in 
New York City. 

Mr. Adelizzi. It could have that result certainly. 

Mr. Kennedy. And so that determination had to be made at that 
juncture, and the basis of your determination to go along with 807, 
although it cost you money temporarily, was that you felt at that 
time that if you made this contract and took the bait that was being 
offered to you, the underworld or the mob would come in and take 
over the trucking in that area ? 

Mr. Adelizzi. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might say again, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Adelizzi 
has the finest of reputations in the New York area, and he has had 
for a considerable amount of time. He is known as a tough negotiator, 
but always had the finest reputation among the union officials, as well 
as among the management. 

_ Senator Goldwater. This is the Empire State Trucking Associa- 
tion, an association of truck lines ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct ; the employers. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Thank you very much. 

We will take about a 2-minute recess. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might say for the record that the Phil Weiss we 
are discussing is the same Phil Weiss that has appeared before the 
committee and taken the fifth amendment. He was involved in labor 
racketeering and has been identified before the committee as one of 
the most notorious labor racketeers in the United States. 

The Chairman. We will recess for a few minutes. 

(A brief recess was taken.) 

(At the expiration of the recess, the following members of the 
Select Committee were present : Senators McClellan and Goldwater.) 

The Chairman. The committer will come to order. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is one phase of this, Mr. Chairman. Now I 
would like to call Mr. Carney Matheson. 

The Chairman. Be sworn, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19309 

You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this Sen- 
ate Select Committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Matheson. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF CARNEY D. MATHESON 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and 
your business or occupation. 

Mr. Matheson. My name is Carney D. Matheson. I live in Bloom- 
field Hills, Mich. My occupation is attorney. 

The Chairman. I assume you waive counsel? 

Mr. Matheson. I waive counsel, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Matheson, you are the senior partner in Mathe- 
son, Dixon & Brady ? 

Mr. Matheson. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are general counsel of the Michigan Motor Car- 
riers Employers Association ? 

]Mr. AIatheson. For the labor division ; that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the counsel for the National Automobile Trans- 
porters Association ; is that right ? 

Mr. Matheson. I am counsel and chairman of that association. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have been associated in the negotiation of 
motor carrier contracts for employers for the past 25 years ? 

Mr. Matheson. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. A good deal of the negotiating that you have con- 
ducted has been with Mr. Hoffa representing the Teamsters Union? 

Mr. Matheson. That is true ; in our territory. 

Mr. Ivennedy. In 1954 were you brought into the eastern section 
of the United States, Mr. Matheson ? 

Mr. Matheson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. By whom were you brought it ? 

Mr. Matheson. Anchor Motor Freight. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where are they from ? 

Mr. Matheson. Their headquarters are in Cleveland, Ohio. They 
haul automobiles out of the General Motors assembly plants in the 
eastern seaboard, I think five in number, and later Anchor was joined 
by the Ford carrier who hauls out of Ford assemply plants, four in 
number, and then in the last 2 years the new Chrysler plant at Newark 
also joined the group. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. They hired you to represent them in the negotiations 
with the eastern locals ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Matheson. They had formed the eastern conference consisting 
of all automobile carriers of nine assembly plant operators. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would be the truckaway ? 

ISIr. Matheson. The truckaway, and they also called it the truck- 
away and driveaway, Mr. Kennedy, but there is very little driveaway 
on the eastern seaboard. 

Mr. Kennedy. So a truckaway-driveaway conference had been 
formed in the east, and Anchor Motor Freight requested you to con- 
duct the negotiations on their behalf ? 

Mr. Matheson. That is correct. 



19310 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

^Ir. Kennkdv, Prior to that, time you had negotiated the contract 
with the Central States, the national truckaway-driveaway contract? 

Mr. Matiieson. I was in the negotiation of the national contract 
since its inception. 

Mr. Kexnedy. The national truckaway-driveaway is headed by 
Mr. Hoffa, himself, of the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Matiieson. Originally Mr. Hoffa came through the ranks of 
the automobile division. 

^Ir. Kennedy. And he headed up the negotiating team for the 
Teamsters in the central conference of Teamsters ? 

Mr. Matiieson. He is chairman of their negotiating committee 
with his committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you were brought in. Do you know if Mr. Hoffa 
suggested to Anchor Motor Freight or to any other company that 
they use your services ? 

Mr. Matiieson. He did not, sir. After the formation of the eastern 
conference on the eastern seaboard, as I understand it, the carriers 
thouglit that they should have a separate division of automobile car- 
riers, because both their problems and contracts are different, and as 
I understand it, that is why they called me in to negotiate for them as 
automobile haulers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. O'Neill is liere, is he not ? 

]Mr. Matheson. Yes. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. He is from Anchor Motor Freight. Maybe we can 
get to him also at the same time. You are representing Mr. O'Neill, 
are you ? 

]\ir. INIatheson. Yes, I am, sir. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give 
before tliis Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. O'Neiel. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF PATRICK J. O'NEILL, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
CARNEY D. MATHESON 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation. 

Mr. O'Neill. My name is Patrick J. O'Neill. My place of busi- 
ness and home is Cleveland, Ohio. My occupation is I am the assist- 
ant to tlie president of Anchor INIotor Freight. 

The Chairman. Anchor? 

Mr. O'Neill. Motor Freight, New York corporation, and Anchor 
Motor Freight, Inc., of Delaware, and Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 
of Alicliitian. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. AYho is tlie president of Anchor Motor Freight? 

Mr. O'Neill. Mr. H. M. O'Neill. 

^fr. Kennedy. AAHiat relation is he? 

Mr. O'Neill. He is my father. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is a family owned company, is it, i\.nchor Motor 
Freight? 

Mr. O'Neill. Essentially; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For the most part it is family owned ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19311 

]Mr. O'NEn.L. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Matlieson and I were discussing this. I was ask- 
ing him how he happened to be brought into these negotiations in the 
East. I would like to ask you the same question. 

Did Mr. Hoffa suggest'that :Mr. Matheson be brought in to help in 
the negotiations of the contract here in the East ? 
Mr. O'Neill. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any conversations with Mr. Hoffa in 
connection with that ? 
INIr. O'Neill. No, sir. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. You conducted the negotiations, did you, on behalf 
of Anchor Motor Freight ? 

Mr. Matheson. No, sir. The negotiations were actually conducted 
by a committee which I chairmaned. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you represent anyone other than Anchor Motor 
Freight ? 

Mr. Matheson. Yes. Anchor Motor Freight; the Nu-Car Carriers. 
They haul Fords out of some of the assembly plants on the eastern 
seaboard. They also own the company called University Overland 
Express. And there was another automobile conveying company haul- 
ing Fords now out of the new Mahwah plant. 

Mr. Kennedy. The negotiations took place in 1955 ? 
Mr. Matheson. That is correct, in New York City. 
Mr. Kennedy. And ultimately a contract was signed; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Matheson. That is true. 

(At this point Senator Ervin entered the hearing room.) 
Mr. Kennedy. Did you conduct negotiations in 1958 again ? 
Mr. Matheson. The last contract ? 
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 
Mr. Matheson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss the terms of the contract or what 
would appear in the contract in 1955 with Mr. Hoffa ? 

]\Ir. Matheson. No, sir. I sent him some of the mimeographed 
official demands that were made upon us, and when the contracts were 
finished I sent him copies. But he had already had copies from the 
eastern conference. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any discussions with him about the 
terms of the contract ? 

]Mr. Matheson. No, sir. The eastern conference, under Mr. Tom 
Flynn and his committee, negotiated all the terms of the contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you didn't have any discussions with him at all 
in connection with that? 

Mr. Matheson. In the actual negotiations ? 
ISIr. Kennedy. No. Of the contract. 
Mr. Matheson. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. O'Neill, did you have any discussions with Mr. 
Hoffa in connection with this contract? 

IVIr. O'Neill. Not until he entered the picture, Mr. Kennedy. 
Mr. Kennedy. When did he enter the picture ? 

Mr. O'Neill. As I understand it, late in the negotiations 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this 1958 ? 
Mr. O'Neill. Yes, sir. 



19312 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

]\Ir. Kennedy. Let's ffo back to 1955 and dispose of that first. In 
1955 did you discuss the contract at all ? 

Mr. O'Neill. No, sir. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. You didn't have any discussions with him about it? 

Mr. O'Neill. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then in 1958, did he come into the discussions, in 
1958? 

Mr. ]\rATiiES0N. In 1958 ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

^Ir. ^NIatheson. After the deadlock was reached and the local unions 
asked for authority to strike all the assembly plants in the eastern 
seaboard, he entered into the negotiations and tried to forestall a 
general strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. O'Neill, was he able to do that ? 

Mr. O'Neill. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you achieve generally what you had hoped to at 
that time? The claims that were being made by the union were 
turned down at that time? 

]\Ir. O'Neill. The contract that was accepted by the union was es- 
sentially the terms that we had otfered. 

Incidentally, Mr. Kennedy, the money package was not an issue at 
the time. The question was the interpretation of the maintenance-of- 
standards clause. That was the difficulty, as I understood it, at the 
time, that was deadlocking the negotiations. 

(At this point Senator Goldwater withdrew from the hearing 
room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. When you talk about maintenance of standards, 
what do you mean by tliat, Mr. O'Neill ? 

Mr. O'Neill. JMaintenance of standards to me means that — that is, 
at least in Teamster contracts — that nothing that they have, that is, 
that the Teamsters have, will be taken away from them. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was the big question in 1958, whether some 
of these Teamster locals were going to lose some of the matters for 
which they had bargaiiied earlier? 

Mr. O'Neill. Yes, sir. The way that came about was we were — 
that is, the companies — interested in uniformizing the contracts that 
we had with the various locals to the greatest extent that we could 
because our terminals here in the East are physically located in such 
a way that the drivers from one terminal have daily conversation with 
the drivers from the others. 

We felt that this was creating a certain amount of labor uiire.st 
because a driver from one of the terminals would say, "Well, we have 
this," foi-getting that he possibly didn't have something else that was 
in another package in another local, and the driver understanding. 
'"Gee, they have this; why don't we have it?" We were being whip- 
sawed back and forth, or that is, tliis is our feeling, by these locals. 

Consequently, it was our interest to unifonnize these contracts as 
much as possible. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you trying to unifonnize them not only here in 
the East, but also with the central conference of Teamsters ? 

Mr. O'Neill. That would be our objective, yes, sir, because com- 
petitively we would be in a better position, obviously. 



IIVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19313 

Mr. KJENNEDY. The contracts generally in the central conference of 
Teamsters are not as high as the contracts in the eastern conference ; is 
that correct ? 

Mr. O'Neill. I would say, Mr. Kennedy, that our drivers in the 
East have a greater opportunity to earn — that is, they can earn more 
dollars in a given period than our drivers that are under the central 
States conference contract. 

]Mr. Ejennedy. You would agree, Mr. Matheson, that generally the 
contracts in the eastern section of the country, as far as the truckaway- 
driveaway, are higher than the contracts in the central conference? 

Mr. jVIatheson. The opportmiity, Mr. Kennedy, to earn more money, 
as he explained, is true, due to the short hauls in the East as compared 
with the long average hauls in the Middle West. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you say that the contracts generally, as far 
as the employees, the Teamster members are concerned, are higher here 
in the East than in the Midwest, as you explained it yesterday ? 

Mr. Matheson. I think they might be in slight areas, because the 
so-called over-the-road contracts in the eastern territory are the direct 
result of what used to be called, and is still called, local cartage short 
hauls. 

In the East, the average haul must be only 75 miles. In the Middle 
West, the average haul is in excess of 200 miles. It is like comparing 
apples and oranges. You shouldn't compare them that way. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you request Mr. Hoffa to come into the 1958 
negotiations, Mr. Matheson ? 

Mr. ALiTHESON. Well, it was general knowledge that these negotia- 
tions were going on. I think his official entrance into the negotiations 
was in direct response to a request to strike all the operators on the 
eastern seaboard. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you suggest or request that he come in and con- 
duct the negotiations ? 

Mr. Matheson. I don't suggest anything to Mr. Hoffa or the union 
officials. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you at this particular juncture request that he 
come in and help in the negotiations ? 

Mr. Matheson. Well, in our general discussions, I talked to him and 
I said that the employers were serious, they would take a strike, and 
this time it wouldn't be just one assembly plant, because of the em- 
ployers having organized into this organization ; that the strike would 
be in nine assembly plants, and that if we couldn't come together there 
would be a strike and we would not deviate any further because we 
simply could not go any further. 

Mr. Kennedy. So he came into the negotiations at that time? 

Mr. jVIatheson. He called all the local unions, the business agents, 
the stewards and their committees, and all the employer committees, 
and our terminxil managers into a huge conference in the union head- 
quarters in Washington. 

Mr. Kennedy. So he did enter the negotiations at that time. 

Mr. Matheson. Definitely. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you, Mr. Matheson, during your relationship 
or the time you have known Mr. Hoffa, have you had any financial 
dealings with him? 



19314 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Matiieson. Yes. That has been spread upon the records of the 
committee a number of times, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can we get that straightened out now while you are 
here? It is tlie first time you have been a witness. 

Can you tell us when that started, what financial dealings you have 
had with:Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. Matheson. If I had known that, I would have brought my 
files, if you were going to go into that, Mr. Kennedy. I think your 
files show it. You ask me the questions and I will try to answer it. 
That way I won't forget anything. 

Mr. Kennedy. Maybe there have been financial dealings that I don't 
know about. 

]\Ir. Matheson. I will make this statement: There have been abso- 
lutely no financial dealings with Mr. Hoffa other than already appears 
in your records. You also have all my records so I would have to 
borrow from you to read some of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. As I understand it, you had a land deal some 10 or 
15 years ago, when you bought an interest in some land and Hoffa 
bought an interest in some land ? 

Mr. Matheson. I think it is longer than that, Mr. Kemiedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't know. We don't have the records on that. 

Mr. Matheson. Ten or fifteen years ago? Twenty years ago, I 
believe. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that about ? 

Mr. Matheson. It was a piece of property that a client of mine 
was interested in, together with Mr. Orrin DeMass, who was liquor 
commissioner of the State of Michigan at that time, and I think Mr. 
Hoffa and Mr. Brennan purchased an interest from Mr. DeMass. I 
also had a small interest in it. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much money was involved in that ? How much 
money did Mr. Hoffa put up in that ? 

Mr. Matheson. I don't recall, it has been so long ago, Mr. Kennedy. 
I understood you had some figures or statements from Mr. Casero on 
that, who kept all the records and ran the corporation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you were in a brewery together, were you, the 
PML Brewery? 

Mr. Matheson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that ? 

Mr. Matheson. That was a brewery enterprise that Mr. Fitzgerald, 
the union attorney, and a group — they had approximately, when I 
was asked to take a small investment, about 100 stockholders in Flint, 
Mich. The brewery was failing and Mr. Fitzgerald asked me if I 
would take it over and try to reorganize the thing and save it. 

Mr. Kennedy. How mucli money did you invest in that ? 

IMr. Matheson. I originally invested about $5,000, but I think the 
total amount went very substantially higher. 

]\Ir, Kennedy. The total amount was what? 

Mr. Matfieson. I say the total amount eventually went very sub- 
stantially higher. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was the total amount? 

Mr. ^Matheson. It ranged in excess of $50,000, I am sure. I don't 
have the figures right here. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about Mr. Hoffa; did he invest in that also? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19315 

Mr. Matheson. Yes. Mr. Hoffa invested $20,000 in it. 
Mr. Kennedy. Where did he obtain the $20,000 ? 
Mr. Matheson. I haven't an yidea where he obtained it. 
Mr. Kennedy. AYas that the PML or the brewery ? 
]\lr. Matheson. Well, it was PML that invested in the breweiy. 
Mr. Kennedy, Who kept the records of PML ? 

Mr. Matheson. There wasn't any records. We just started the 
PML and when the investigation started we dropped it. 
Mr. Kennedy. What happened to Mr. Hoffa's $20,000 ? 
Mr. INIatheson. He lost it. Mr. Hoffa lost it with the rest of the 
100 stockholders in the brewery. 

Mr. Kennedy. What year was this ? 

Mr. Matpieson. You have the records. I really don't remember, 
Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Approximately 1952, was it? 

Mr. Matheson. I really don't know. Your records would show it. 

The company went into bankruptcy, I believe, or rather, the 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know where any of the records would be? 
We can't find any source for Mr. Hoffa's $20,000 in that enterprise. 
Mr. JNIatheson. When the brewery went under, Mr. Kennedy, I 
was in the hospital and the people who owned the building and the 
real estate foreclosed and the whole thing was pretty well wound up 
wlien I got out of the hospital. 
Mr. Kennedy. Would you know where any of the records are ? 
Mr. Matheson. No, I don't, Mr. Kennedy. I think the Internal 
Revenue checked it at the time, and the Liquor Division, but I don't 
know where all the records are. 

ISIr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Hoffa put up cash or check ? 
Mr. Matheson. Yes, it was cash, Mr. Kennedy. 
Mr. Kennedy. $20,000 in cash? 
Mr. Matheson. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have a brother, Mr. Albert Matheson ? 
Mr. Matheson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he form the J & H Sales Equipment Corp. ? 
Mr. Matheson. Yes. He originally formed the leasing corpora- 
tion, I believe, with one tractor. 
Mr. Kennedy. AVliat? 

Mr. Matheson. A leasing corporation owning one tractor. 
Mr. Kennedy. Who was that company owned by, the J & H Sales ? 
]Mr, Matheson. It was owned by Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Brennan. 
Mr. Kennedy. Was it in their names ? That was the one in their 
wives' maiden names? 
]Mr. Matheson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Initially the stock of the company was held by 
James Montanti? 

^Ir. Matheson. I think that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why was it done through James Montanti and then 
transferred to Hoffa and Brennan's wives' maiden names ? 
]Mr. Matheson. I imagine it was done for business reasons. 
Mr. Kennedy. What business reasons? 

]Mr. Matheson. They didn't want any of their names to appear. 
]Mr. Kennedy. Then the J & H Sales and Equipment Corp. changed 
its name to the National Equipment Co. ? 

36751— 59— pt. 55 12 



19316 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. ^NIatheson. I think that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The owners continue to be Josephine Poszy wak and 
Alice Johnson? 

Mr. Matheson. I think that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The National Equipment Co. was purchased in Au- 
gust 1951 by tlie Convertible Equipment Leasing Corp. ? 

Mr. Matheson. I think that is correct. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Who owned the Convertible Equipment Leasing 
Corp.? 

Mr. Matheson. Owned by the Bridge family living in Detroit. 

Mr. ICennedy. Did you have any interest in it ? 

Mr. Matheson. I originally had an interest, because I acquired 
Baker Driveaway from the Bridge family and the equipment com- 
pany was the holding company for Baker Driveaway. 

Mr. Kennedy. What interest did you have in Convertible ? 

]Mr. Matheson. Instead of fees we took an interest in the company 
which we later sold to the Bridge family. 

Mr. Kennedy. The sales price was $10,000, according to the records. 

Mr. Matheson. I think that sounds as though it was it. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the value of the corporation at the time this 
company, Convertible Equipment Leasing, paid $10,000 for it, from 
Mr. Hoifa and Mr. Brennan and their wives, the value of the corpora- 
tion was minus $6,000. 

Mr. Matheson. I don't think so. I think equities of equipment 
was involved, and I think they paid them a fair value. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe you and I went over this a year or so ago, 
Mr. Matheson, out in Detroit, did we not ? 

Mr. Matheson. Yes. 

Mr, Kennedy. We reviewed the records, and INIr. Bellino also re- 
viewed the records here before the committee, which showed that the 
value of the corporation at the time this company paid $10,000 for it 
was worth minus $6,000. 

Mr. Matheson. Including the equities? I will take Mr. Bellino's 
word because he has been very competent. I am no auditor. But I 
thought at the time the $10,000 was a reasonable value for the equip- 
ment and what was left of the company. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bellino, what did we find to be the value? 

Mr. Beixino. My recollection is that it was minus $6,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the testimony at the time, from the books 
and records. 

I believe we reviewed that matter with you out in Detroit. 

Air. Matheson. At least, I thought, Mr. Kennedy, when we were 
discussing, we were discussing net worth. Because a company has 
no net worth doesn't mean that when you sell it you have to sell it for 
minus. 

Mr. Kennedy. The National Equipment Co. leased equipment to 
the Baker Driveaway ; is that right ? 

Mr, Matheson. Yes; it did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you had an interest in the Baker Driveawav 
also? 

Mr. Matheson. I still had it at tlie time. I think it was later that 
I sold our interest. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19317 

Mr. Kennedy. So we have the brewery enterprise, the National 
Equipment, Xo. 2 ; the Terminal Realty Co., wliich ^Yas the real estate 
that you were in with Mr. Hoffa; and then the Convertible Equip- 
ment Leasing Co. 

Mr. Matheson. I think that is correct, over a period of about 25 
years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have there been any others, other than those four ? 
Mr. Matheson. Xo, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Those are the only four in which you have had any 
financial dealings with Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Matheson. None whatsoever. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you think it was proper, ]Mr. Matheson, to go 
into business, when you were head of a negotiating committee, to be 
in a financial business with the union official who was conducting the 
negotiations on behalf of the union? 

Mr. ]Matheson. Mr. Kennedy, at that tune no one thought very 
mucli about it. 

Mr. Hoffa wasn't quite so prominent. He certainly was not the 
political figure he is today. I didn't look at it from the standpoint 
of going into business with him at all in those enterprises. I was not 
in business with him in the sense that you are using it, 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't know how else you can describe it. You 
went into a financial deal with him, the land deal. Then you made 
joint investments in the PML Co., where he invested $20,000 in cash. 
Then your brother set up the National Equipment Co. under a front, 
and then transferred the title to Mr. Hoffa 's and Mr. Brennan's wives' 
maiden names. Ultimately, you had an interest in a company which 
purchased that company. 

Mr. Matheson. Well, in stating it again, in the original land deal 
he was not in when I had my interest. That was owned by a client of 
mine. I had a very small interest. 

Mr. DeMass and Mr. Casero owned the company when I had an in- 
terest. So I was not in business with Mr. Hoffa. 

On the brewery deal 

Mr. Kennedy. Which one did you describe then ? 

Mr. j\L\theson. The original property deal that you discussed. On 
the brewery deal there were over 100 stockholders, Mr. Kennedy. 
If Mr. Hoffa was one, I don't feel that that should be construed that 
I was in business with Mr. Hoffa in the sense that you mean, 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa invested $20,000. Were there investors 
as high as that? 

Mr. Matheson. Yes. 

Mr, Kennedy. ^Vlio were some of the other investors? 

Mr. Matheson. I don't have the records. 1 think I invested con- 
siderably more. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Ralph Wilson was another one, and he handled 
the insurance for Mr, Hoifa. 

Mr. Matheson. He handled the insurance on a competitive basis. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well 

Mr. Matheson. You are drawing the wrong conclusion there, Mr. 
Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am just asking questions about it, Mr. JMatheson, 
We found that Mr, Hoffa is in a number of trucking companies, that 



19318 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

he has financial deals with the head of the negotiating committee, 
which is of some interest, obviously. 

Mr. Matjieson. I started to explain each transaction. _ 

If you would allow me to finish, I would appreciate it. 

Onthe forming of the leasing corporation, 1 had no interest in that. 
That was formed for them, 

Mr. Kennedy. By whom? 

Mr. Matheson. By us, but it was for them. So I didn't have an 
interest in that. So when you say that I was 

]VIr. Kennedy. Didn't they lease trucks to the Baker Driveaway 
then ? 

Mr. Matheson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you have an interest in Baker Driveaway'^ 

Mr. Matheson. But, Mr. Kemiedy, on this leasing thing, if you 
will, please remember that for 25 years, 80, and sometimes a higher 
percent of the tractors operating by all trucking companies is leased 
from Teamster drivere, and the Teamster drivers as well as business 
agents think nothing of leasing because it is a very common practice. 
To an outsider, that might look bad. But the industry doesn't con- 
sider it such. 

Mr. Kennedy. But he was a Teamsters Union official at that time. 

Mr. Matheson. I didn't understand that there was any prohibition 
that the members couldn't lease, or everybody under them, and the 
Teamster couldn't. At least, we didn't give it any thought at the 
time. 

Mr. Kennedy, He was in that business. Obviously, he must have 
felt there w^as something wrong about it or it wouldn't have been set 
up in his wife's maiden name. 

Mr. Matheson. I don't think that is a fair deduction, I think 
there are a lot of business transactions by perfectly honest business- 
men conducted in their wives' names. I don't think anything wrong 
should be imputed from it. I know of my personal knowledge that 
all of these leasing operations were on standard industry leasing con- 
tracts and nothing wrong should be imputed from those leasing con- 
tracts unlevSS somebody can actually show that they were paid over and 
above the leasing contracts, which I certainly don't think they were. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is there anything else in this comiection ? 

Mr. ]\L\theson. Not unless there are further questions. 

Senator Ervin, I would like to ask a question. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. You say it is customary in Michigan for husbands 
to take proj^erty in their wives' maiden names rather than married 
name ? 

]Mr. Matheson. I said a lot of legal transactions I have been in, in 
my capacity as attorney were transactions conducted in their wives' 
names, yes, Senator. That, in and of itself, does not impute any 
wrongdoing is what I was trying to say. 

Senator Ervin. I have been practicing law a long time myself, until 
about all the chlorophyll has gone out of my hair, and until I ran 
into this case I had never heard, much less known, of any case where 
a pei-son had put property or coi-porate stock in tlieir wlvas' maiden 
names. I know a lot of husbands put stock and property in their 
wives' names, but they are usually so proud of tlieir wife that they 
insist that it be put in her married name instead of her single name. * 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19319 

Mr. Matiieson". 'What you say may be true in your territoi-y, but 
it is not uncommon in ISIichigan, certainly. 

Senator Ervin. Can you tell me any motive which a married man 
would have for putting property or corporate stock in his wife's 
maiden name other than that which springs from a desire for 
concealment ? 

Mr. JMatheson. Well, it may be for personal reasons. There might 
be good reasons as well as bad for the concealment, as you call it. But 
I don't see how you could impute wrong, per se, because it is stock or 
business in his wife's maiden name. 

For example, professionally, not too long ago it hit the press that 
there was a woman in Chicago who committed suicide wlio had a chain 
of beauty comiselor finns, and she held her entire business in her orig- 
inal name. I don't thinlv the name has anything to do with it. 

Senator Ervin. Still you say for personal reasons. Can you give 
me a single personal reason other than a desire for concealment which 
would prompt a married man to put property in his wife's maiden 
name ? 

Mr. Mathesox. That could be one of the reasons. The individual 
involved may have his personal reason. In each case, I suppose, he 
would have to be asked as to what his reasons were. In this case, I 
don't think there is any doubt that Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Brennan just 
decided it would be better not to have it in their name. 

Senator Ervin. I put the question to you twice, and you have given 
me two answers — I mean, you have answered twice — but you haven't 
answered it. 

My question still is: Can you tell me a single motive which you 
think would reasonably inspire a married man to put property in his 
wife's maiden name as contradistinguished from her married name, 
outside of a motive arising out of a desire for concealment? 

Mr. Matheson. Well, Senator, of course, you cover a lot of broad 
territory when you say "concealment." There might be a lot of 
business reasons that a man would, yes. 

Senator Ervix. Give me one, outside of a desire of concealing the 
transaction. 

Mr. Matheson. You are using "concealment" in a way that I don't 
think is fair. Just because a person doesn't want some of his business 
transactions made public for personal reasons doesn't mean the motive 
of concealment is bad. 

Senator Ervix. If a man doesn't want his transactions made public, 
it is a desire to conceal them, is it not? That is all it is. 

Mr. Matheson. We could probably repeat that often. All I can 
say. Senator, is that for personal i-easons, concealment may be one. 

Senator Ervin. You said a lot of personal reasons, and the only one 
so far that has been developed is the desire to conceal it, that is, to 
keep it from being known. 

Xow, if you can tell me any other one, I would like to know it. 

Mr. Matheson. It all depends on the facts of the individual in- 
volved. I don't see how I can answer your question. Senator. 

Senator Ervin. I wouldn't have asked you, except you volunteered 
the information that there are a lot of reasons for a man putting prop- 
erty in his wife's maiden name as distinguished from her married 
name, and you haven't been able to tell me one of them. 



19320 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Matheson. I said there could be. 

Senator Ervin. You said there could be. But you are unable to 
name any of them except a desire to prevent it from being known, 
which is nothing in the world but a desire for concealment. 

Mr. Matheson. It would all depend on the individual. An indi- 
vidual may have, as I said, business reasons. Concealment could be 
one. Family reasons could be another. There could be other reasons. 
If each individual case is analyzed, we would have the answer. I 
don't know what case you are referring to. 

Senator Ervix. You said a family reason. What family reason than 
a desire for concealment would he have ? 

I take it that you can't tell me. 

Mr. Matheson. I have explained it the best I could, Senator. I 
don't think I have anything further. 

Senator Ervin. You left me exactly where I started off, with the 
assertion that the only reason a man would do that is because for 
some reason or another he has a desire to conceal the real nature of the 
transaction. 

Mr. Matheson. He may have a desire not to have the facts known. 
But what I was trying to convey was that even that fact, in and of 
itself, is not, per se, bad, or should be construed to be something 
wrong. 

Senator Ervin". Most people do not hide a laudable deal under a 
bushel. I believe the Scriptures tell us that. 

Did your firm prepare the charter for this corporation, and was it 
formed down in Tennessee ? 

Mr. Matheson. No, we did not, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Where was this J & H Sales Co. formed ? 

Mr. Matheson. I think that was formed in Michigan, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Are you certain about that ? 

Mr. Matheson. The original leasing company? Well, I am pretty 
sure it was. The records are in your files there. 

Senator Ervin. There is evidence in the record in this investigation 
that Mr. Hoffa — that a corporation was formed in the State of 
Tennessee. 

Mr. Matheson. That was another corporation that was formed by 
an attorney in Memphis, Tenn., Senator. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was another trucking company. 

Senator Ervin. That was another trucking company which, accord- 
ing to the evidence before us, was formed, as I recall, with the lawyer, 
the lawyer's secretary, and somebody else in the lawyer's office, being 
the subscribers to the stock, and then after the corporation was formed, 
they transferred the stock to Mrs. Hoffa and Mrs. Brennan in their 
maiden names. 

Can you tell me any reason that a pei-son would go from Michigan 
down to Tennessee, people who reside permanently in Michigan would 
go to Tennessee and get a corporate charter under those circumstances, 
unless they desired to conceal the fact of the transaction ? 

Mr. Matheson. Senator, I know nothing about that transaction or 
forming of the corporation, or what the motives were, or the people 
involved. I didn't hear about that until quite a time later. 

Senator Ervin. You had nothing to do with it? 

Mr. Matheson. I had nothing to do with it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19321 

Senator Ervix. You do not make it a practice to go to Tennessee to 
get corporate charters for your clients, do you ? 

Mr. Matheson. Not in Tennessee. But I have a lot of clients who 
Tve formed corporations for in Delaware and other foreign States. 

Senator Ervin. Absolutely. Ninety-nine out of one hundred go to 
either Delaware or New Jersey, don't they ? 

Mr. Matheson. Well, those are the two States. But in the case of 
the trucking industry, I think they go to a lot more States for licensing 
reasons and business reasons ; they might go to any State they operate 
in, Senator. 

Senator ER^^N. As a general proposition, though, when a law firm 
in the United States obtains a corporate charter for a client in any 
State other than the one in which the law firm is practicing or where 
the client lives, they ordinarily go to Delaware and New Jersey, don't 
they? 

Mr. Matheson. I have never gone to New Jersey. I have gone to 
Delaware. That is for charter reasons. 

Senator Erven. Tliat is right. 

Mr. Matheson. But there could be other business reasons. 

Senator Ervin. Businessmen and lawyers think there are advan- 
tages in going to Delaware to get a corporate charter. 

Mr. Matheson. Their corporate charter is adaptable to a lot of 
businesses. 

Senator Ervin. But you never heard of an advantage in going to 
Tennessee for a corporate charter, did you ? 

Mr. Matheson. No, I haven't heard of any, Senator. 

Mr. Kennedy. In addition, this was set up by the Commercial Car- 
rier Corp. in Michigan, through their lawyer, Mr. Wrape, who then 
went down to Tennessee after Mr. Hoffa settled the strike. 

Senator Ervin. The whole procedure that was followed in that case 
was a procedure by which there would be no record, no public record^ 
made in connection with the organization of the corporation, w^hereby 
the real owners of the corporate stock would be known. In that case^ 
they took not only the precaution of going to a State far distant, and 
organizing a corporation under certain manners where the true owners 
would not be disclosed, but to make doubly sure that the true owners 
would not be disclosed, the stock was transferred to these ladies in 
their maiden names. 

Mr. Matheson. Mr. Chairman, may I make a remark on the last 
statement that Mr. Kennedy made ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Matheson. I think the inference was, although I knew nothing^ 
about the forming of the corporation in Memphis, that it had some- 
thing to do with the strike at Flint. 

I handled the strike at Flint and those two things were not related. 
There was no connection whatsoever. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Matheson, we had testimony directly to the con- 
trary in connection with tliat. 

Mr. Matheson. I handled the strike. Would you mind hearing my 
testimony ? 

The Chairman. You have a right to swear that it was incorrect. 
Proceed. We will see what you say. 



19322 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Matheson. The strike at Flint, Mr. Chairman, was a direct re- 
sist of the brokers telling the two owners of Commercial Carrier, who 
operated out of Flint, Mich., haiding Buicks, that the company could 
no longer put on leased equipment in addition to what they had, and 
that the only time the company could supplement the fleet was that 
these brokers would have to buy the tractors and put them on. The 
company had decided that each broker could have one tractor, and 
that argument ai'ose out of that. 

That, unfortunately, came just before, I believe, general negotiations 
of the national contract. That caused a strike. 

It was thoroughly aired before the National Labor Kelations Board. 
That strike at Flint had nothing to do with any corporations that 
were f onned for i\Ir. Hotf a or Mr. Bremian. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I ask a question here? 

jMr. Matheson. Certainly. 

]Mr. Kennedy. The Commercial Can-iei-s — the strike was against 
the Commercial Carriers Co. ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Matheson. The strike was an milawfnl strike by the brokers 
against Commercial Carriers. 

Mr. Kennedy. The strike was against Commercial Carriers? 

Mr. Matheson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennp:dy. And Mr. Hoffa came up there and took the position 
that it was an milawful strike? 

Mr. Matheson. There was no question but that it was an unlawful 
strike, 

Mv. Kennedy. Mr. Matheson, just answer the question. It that not 
correct ? 

jMr. HotTa came up and took the position, against the union members, 
that this was an unlawful strike? 

Mr. jNIatheson. What do you mean when he "came up'"? We took 
that position before the National Labor Relations Board. 

The Chairman. Did he agi-ee with you ? 

Mr. Matheson, Yes, I think he agreed with me. 

The Chairman, All right. 

Mr, Kennedy, Shortly afterward, the representative of Commercial 
Carriers went down to Tennessee, Mr, Wrape, the attorney, and set 
Mr. Hoifa up in a trucking company. 

]Mr. Matheson. I don't know the 

^Iv. Kennedy. You volmiteerecl this testimony. The testimony be- 
fore the coimnittee is that Commercial Carriers is the same company 
where he came up and spoke against the employees, siding with the 
company and with Mr. Matheson, that this was an illegal strike. 
Iloft'a took the side of the company. Immediately thereafter, the at- 
torney for the company went down to Tennessee, aaid they set up a 
trucking company in the attorney's name. 

As Senator Ervin pointed out, shortly afterward the control of the 
company was transferred over to Mr. Hoffa and to ]VIi\ Owen Bert 
Breunan in then' wives' maiden names. 

All of the bills were paid by the Commercial Carriers Co. The 
attorney's fees Avere paid by the Commercial Carriers Co. The Com- 
Diercnil Carnei-s Co. guaranteed the $50,000 loan whereby Test Fleet 
was set up, guaranteed it in a bank. The Commercial Carriers took 
all the trucks from Test Fleet after it was set up. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19323 

The Chairman. Have you any correction to make on that ? 

Mr. Matiieson. Yes, I have, Senator. 

That was quite a long dissertation. I will try to break it clown and 
answer. 

I again state that the strike at Flint had nothing to do with any- 
thing that Mr. Wrape may have set up for Mr. Beveridge and Mr. 
Walter Carey. 

The Chairman. What Avas Mr. Wrape's connection with the com- 
pany involved in the strike ? 

Mr. Matheson. He was general counsel for Commercial Carriers. 

The Chairman. All right. He was general counsel for Commercial 
Carriers in which there was a strike, and where Mr. Hotfa took the 
position that the company was right, that it was an unlawful strike. 
Is that correct ? 

Mr. Matheson. I was going to ask if the records show the time 
between the 

The Chairman. We will get to that. 

But is that correct, that Mr. Wrape was attorney for the company 
that was involved in the strike ? 

Mr. Matheson. Yes, he was, sir; but I don't think they came simul- 
taneously, or they were close together. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. We will get to that. 

Mr. Wrape was the attorney for this company ? 

Mr. INIatheson. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Wrape participated in the negotiations for a 
settlement of the strike ? 

Mr. ]VL\THES0N. No, sir; Mr. Wrape had nothing to do with labor 
relations for Commercial or any other automobile carrier. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlio was the accountant for Commercial Carriers? 

Mr. Matheson. At the time ? I think it was a man by the name of 
Beidler. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Beidler also became the accountant and was 
the one who set up the books for Test Fleet. He kept all the records. 

The Chairman. What is the relationship in time between the time 
the strike was settled until the company was set up in Tennessee? 

Mr. Kennedy. We have it. We have some very interesting docu- 
ments in connection with this. 

Mr. Matheson. There was a considerable length of time between 
those two events, I am pretty sure. 

The Chairman. I was trying to get what the record shows. I don't 
suppose 3' on know the exact time ? 

]\Ir. Matheson. Not the exact time, but I am sure it was quite a 
passage of time. 

Mr. Kennedy. The record shows that the strike was in 1949 and 
the first conversation between Mr. Brennan and Mr. Beveridge was 
in April of 1949, the same exact period of time. 

Mr. ]\Iatheson. The actual formation of the company ? 

]\rr. Kennedy. The discussions which brought about the formation 
of the company. 

Mr. Matheson. I would like to check tliat. That I didn't know. I 
am pretty sure there was a considerable passage of time. It may be 
that the first conversation between Mr. Beveridge and Mr. Brennan, 



19324 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

but I don't think the corporation was formed when the conversation 
took phice, Mr. Kennedy. 

Senator Ervin. I understood you to say a while ago, on another 
matter, that you saw no impropriety in a union officer having business 
dealings with a company whose employees were represented by the 
union for whom he acts. 

Mr. Matheson. I believe I tried to explain. Senator, that the 
practice of leasing trucks is very common in industry, and at various 
times in the last 25 to 30 years that I have been connected with it, 
from 50 to 75 to 80 percent of the total trucks are leased to Teamster 
members. 

Obviously, those members don't look at leasing trucks to companies, 
no matter who the owner may be, in the same light that a total out- 
sider would be. That is what I was trying to explain. 

Senator Ervin. But they hire themselves and their trucks both to 
the companies, the drivers, in those cases, and trailers. 

Mr. Matheson. Well, they are employees. There is a definite segre- 
gation and separation of the lease of the equipment. They don't hire 
in the sense that you 

Senator Ervin. They hire themselves to drive the trucks pulling 
their trailers, don't they ? 

Mr. Matheson. Well, they drive the trucks that they lease to the 
companies. Most of them drive trucks that they lease. 

Senator Ervin. Wlien a union officer comes in and forms a com- 
pany, directly and indirectly, and leases a number of trailers to the 
company, then he is trespassing upon the reserves that theretofore have 
been reserved for the benefit of the members of the unions who drive 
the trucks ? 

Mr. Matheson. Not necessarily. A lot of the drivers o^vn fleets of 
tractors that they lease. They are not all one-tractor ownership. I 
don't think it could be stated that the leasing of trucks by these 
companies is a special province or special right of the driver. 

Senator Ervin. I am talking about union officers who are supposed 
to be looking after the interest of these truckers, the employees of 
the truckers. He draws a salary for representing the union and act- 
ing as collective bargaining ao^ent for these truckers, and then he has 
business transactions from which he is also getting compensation from 
the truckers, and you see no conflct of interest there ? 

Mr. Matheson. Senator, I don't see any conflict of interest, and I 
doubt very much whether Mr. Hoffa's members would consider that 
a conflict of interest. 

Senator Ervin. I was trying to get your views instead of his 
members. 

Mr. Matheson. Based on the explanation I gave, and the practice 
of the mdustry, I don't see any conflict. 

_ Senator Ervin. I see a great deal of difference between a man that 
IS an officer, who is supposed to represent these people, forming a 
corporation and leasing trailers or trucks to the company which em- 
ploys members of the union which he represents. I think that is more 
or less like a lawyer undertaldng to represent both the plaintiff and 
the defendants. I would call it a little bit of cross-field. 

Mr. Matheson. I am afraid I can't agree with you on that, 
benator? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19325 

Mr, KJENNEDY. Senator, the company was set up on April 13, 1949. 

The Chairman. Is that the date of the incorporation? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. And the record shows that Mr. Hoffa was in 
contact. There is a letter of September 8, 1949, after the company 
was set up, written to Carney Matheson from Bert Beveridge, that 
Mr. Hoffa was taking the side of the employer against the employees 
in connection with rehiring some of these individuals with their sen- 
iority ; that the negotiations in connection with this matter took place 
beyond September of 1949, some 3 or 4 months, at least, after this 
company had been set up. 

The Chl:VIRman. What you are stating now is already sworn testi- 
mony in the record? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. You pointed it out again on page 
5556, the dates in connection with this, Mr. Chairman. 

The letter that appears in connection with Mr. Matheson from Bert 
Beveridge is on page 5754, reprinted in full. It shows that Mr. Hoffa 
even at that time was taking part against the employees and on behalf 
of the Commercial Carriers and his friend, Mr. Carney Matheson. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 2 :15. 

(Members of the select committee present at time of recess: Sena- 
tors McClellan and Ervin.) 

(Whereupon, at 12 :55 p.m., the select committee recessed, to recon- 
vene at 2 :15 p.m. the same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The hearing was resumed at 2 :30 p.m., in the caucus room of the 
Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan, chairman of the 
select committee, presiding. 

The Chairman. We will come to order. 

(Members of the select committee present at the convening of the 
afternoon session were Senators McClellan and Ervin.) 

The Chairman. Will you resume the stand, please ? 

TESTIMONY OF PATRICK J. O'NEILL, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
CARNEY D. MATHESON, AND TESTIMONY OF CARNEY D. MATHE- 
SON— Resumed 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Matheson. May I state a correction on questions that you and 
I were going over just before we adjourned, to clarify something, that 
I thought might be misunderstood ? 

The Chairman. I beg your pardon ; I am sorry. 

Mr. Matheson. May I make a statement of verification on an item 
that I though might be misconstrued from my answer on the negotia- 
tions of the first and second eastern conference contracts, please ? 

The Chairman. You may make any statement you desire at this 
point. 

Mr. Matheson. In the questioning from Mr. Kennedy, I thought 
his questions were directed as to the actual decision of the contract 
pro\nsions particularly the first eastern conference contract, and I 
said that I did not discuss it with Mr. Hoffa. I did not mean that it 
was for jreneral discussion, whether it was with Mr. Hoffa or with 



19326 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

the manufacturers or all interested parties. The decision as to the- 
contract terms was not discussed nor decided by Mr. Hoffa. 

The Chairman. "VVliat discussion did you have with him ?^ 

Mr. Matiieson. Just general infonnation at various times, whea 
I did see him as to how the negotiations were progressing. 

The Chairman. You discussed the progi^ess of negotiations with 
him? 

Mr. Matiieson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In the course of that discussion, did you give him 
any detailed information or discuss with him particular phases of the 
issues with him ? 

]\Ir. jNIatheson. I usually sent him a copy of the last proposals that 
were under negotiation and we h;ul at the time, and I didn't discuss it, 
the terms or what the terms should be. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he give you any detailed information ? 

Mr. INIatheson. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he give you any information ? 

Mr. INIatiieson. Just generally asking how we were getting along, 
except the last contract, after the deadlock, the second Eastern Con- 
ference contract, he took over the negotiation for the Eastern Confer- 
ence committees at the headquarters, 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. O'Neill, you state that in the 1955 negotia- 
tions you didn't discuss the contract at all with Mr. Hoffa; is that 
right ? 

]\Ir. CNeill. No, sir. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. You say that Mr. Hoffa never suggested that Mr.. 
Matiieson be brought into this matter? 

Mr. O'Neill. I never discussed it with Mr. Hoffa, Mr. Kennedy. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. And he didn't suggest Mr. Matiieson to represent 
you? 

Mr. O'Neill. No, sir. 

^Ir. Kennedy. You are quite certain about that ? 

Mr. O'Neill. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't discuss the matter at all with Mr. Hoffa,. 
the 1055 negotiations? 

Mr. O'Neill. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you identify this? 

The Chairman. I hand you what purports to be a photostatic copy 
of a document dated June 2.'], 1955, and the title is "Anchor Motor 
Freight, Labor 1955, Eastern Conference of Teamsters, Continued." 

I will ask you to examine it and state if you identifj^ it. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

_Mr. O'Neill. I would have to read it all over, and I am not familiar 
with it, or I can't pick it up just by quickly glancing at it. 

The Chairman. While you are doing that, you proceed to satisfy 
yourself about it, and in the meantime can you interrogate the other 
witness ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Could we identify it then for the record, Mr. Chair- 
man, and I would like to make reference to it. 

The Ciiair:man. Well, he said he is not able to identify it until he 
examines it further. 

Do you have another copy of it? 

Mr. Kennedy. We have a mimeographed copy. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19327 

The Chairman. You go ahead and refer to the mimeographed copy 
;and get anything you want until he identifies it. 

Did you get it out of their records and their files, and will you be 
able to identify it, even if he doesn't? 

jNIr. Kexxedy. That is right. 

The Chairman. Proceed with it. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is from the files of the Anchor Motor Freight 
Co., ''Labor 1955,'' dated June 23, 1955, "Eastern Conference of Team- 
sters, Continued." 

I draw your attention specifically, Mr. Chairman, to the date of 
June 7, 1955, which states : 

P. J. and F. J. O'Neill met with Carney and Al Matheson, and also E. M. 
Brady in Detroit. 

General discussion of history and suggested procedure. 

James Hoffa asked for meeting with Carney, Matheson, P. J. O'Neill, and F. J. 
■O'Neill. Meeting held for 3 hours. 

Hoffa had received copy of demands of eastern conference. Hoffa's general 
reactions were — 

and this is the most pertinent part, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. To get the I'ecord straight, wdio kept this, and from 
whose files was this taken ? 

Air. Kennedy. Anchor Motor Freight. It came from the files of 
the Anchor Motor Freight. 

The Chairman. Is it signed, or an unsigned memorandum in the 
files? 

Mr. Kennedy. An unsigned memorandum. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

Mr. Hoffa had received copy of demands of eastern conference. Hoffa's 
general reactions were — 

( 1 ) Demands were ridiculously high. 

(2) Hoffa had a personal interest because he did not want the eastern 
conference to get out of line with national conference. 

(.3) Hoffa thinks eastern conference will be merged with national confer- 
ence at next contract inasmuch as there are so few carriers in the East. 

(4) Hoffa thinks negotiations are going to be rngge<i. This is always true 
when multiple contracts are merged, plus much individualism in the eastern 
union circles. 

(5) Hoffa states he is chairman of all automotive transportation conferences 
and no strikes can be authorized by the international union without his sanc- 
tion. He would not sanction an eastern conference strike, if employers were 
rea.sonable. 

(6) Unauthorized strikes could occur, but if this did happen he would be 
called into the picture. 

( 7 ) Hoffa gave background of eastern union oflScials. 

(8) Suggested procedure was to move slow and by steps. Hoffa thought it 
would be wise to use Carney in negotiations. 

The Chairman. Now, may I ask you, Mr. O'Neill, if you have ex- 
amined the document ? 

Mr. O'Neill. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you identify it? 

Mr. O'Neill. Yes. sir. 

The Chairman. What is it ? 

Mr. O'Neill. '\Yhat it was, Senator, was a memorandum written 
by F. J. O'Neill on a discussion that he had with, apparently, James 
Hoffa, Carney Matheson, and myself. I am not trying to evade or 
avoid or anything else. Senator. I do not recall in any way discuss- 



19328 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

ing this eastern conference procedure with James Hoifa. I remember 
the meeting vividly and we were called into that meeting because of 
a strike in local 107. 

The Chairman. Whose memorandum is it? 

Mr. O'Neill. F. J. O'Neill's. 

The Chairman. He is your father ? 

Mr. O'Neill. No, sir ; he is my uncle. 

The Chairman. What position did he have in the Anchor Motor 
Co.? 

Mr. O'Neill. He has no position in Anchor Motor Freight. 

The Chairman. What position did he hold ? 

Mr. O'Neill. He has no position, and never did hold a position, to 
my knowledge. 

The Chairman. Wliy was he involved in it ? 

Mr. O'Neill. Because he is naturally interested in the activities of 
his brother or his nephew. He has done certain labor work. 

The Chairman. He was an outsider other than liis relationship to 
you and he made this memorandum ? 

Mr. O'Neill. He was developing the memorandum which was never 
used. 

The Chairman. Well, you say this memorandum relates what hap- 
pened or did it relate something that was going to happen? What 
do you mean by it ? 

Mr. O'Neill. Maybe I can help you, Senator. 

The purpose of the memorandum was to develop our procedure in 
the East with our shipper. We are a contract carrier, and we have 
but one shipper. At times naturally our shipper is interested be- 
cause they have money invested in us, and it is extremely expensive 
if they go on strike in the East or we go on strike, because we are 
in effect the end of their assembly line. 

The Chairman. On the face of it it appears to be a memorandum 
recording impressions gained in this thing, or impressions taken away 
from this conference. Is that correct ? 

Mr. O'Neill. It certainly appears to me. Senator, and of course 
I remember when my uncle Steve wrote this in his own office after this 
meeting, that we had with Mr. Hoffa, wliich was purposely set up 
because of the problems that we were having in Philadelphia. 

The Chairman. How soon was the memorandum written after the- 
meeting? 

Mr. O'Neill. That I can't tell you, Senator. I just don't know. 

The Chairman. It starts off here : 

Hoffa had received copy of demands of eastern conference. Hoffa's general 
reactions were — 

and then it lists them all the way down to eight here. 

First, his reactions were that the demands were "ridiculously high," 
and, second, he had a personal interest because he didn't want the 
eastern conference "to get out of line with the national conference," 
and — 

lloffa thinks eastern conference would be merged with national conference at 
the next contract. Hoffa things negotiations are going to be rugged. Hoffa 
statos he is chairman of all automotive transportation conferences, and no 
strike can be authorized by the international without his sanction. 
Hoffa gave background of eastern union officials. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19329 

In other words, this is the impression that your uncle had and 
the notes that he thought were significant that should be made in a 
memorandum to record what had happened at the conference. 

Mr. O'Neill. They were made, Senator McClellan, for the specific 
purpose of getting his thinking outlined. 
The Chairman. Whose thinking? 

Mr. O'Neill. F. J. O'Neill's thinking, and outlined in case General 
Motors questioned us on how we were proceeding with our negotiations 
in the East. 

The Chairman. Then he recorded here the impression that he had 
gotten from the conference with Hoif a. 
Mr. O'Neill. Apparently so, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The statements in here or the impressions that Mr. 
O'Neill's uncle received speak for themselves, Mr. Chairman. That 
was that the demands of the eastern conference were ridiculously high 
in connection with (2), which we did go into this morning. Hoffa 
had a personal interest because he did not want the eastern conference 
to get out of line with the national conference, because, as was pointed 
out this morning, the national conference of which he was the head, 
had lower rates than the eastern conference. 

Now, also, we have had testimony that Mr. Hoffa did not partici- 
pate in or conduct any of these discussions regarding this contract, 
and yet this memorandum shows quite clearly that the contract was 
discussed, Mr. O'Neill. 

Mr. O'Neill. Not with me, sir, and it could have been with F. J. 
O'Neill. 

Mr. Kennedy. It states that you were present at the meeting. 
Mr. O'Neill. Yes, sir ; I was there. 
Mr. Kennedy. And it wasn't discussed ? 
Mr. O'Neill. I didn't hear any of this discussion. 
Mr. Kennedy. Would he write all these things down if this hadn't 
occurred ? Your uncle, would he be that kind of a person ? 

Mr. O'Neill. I am sure that they occurred, that he must have dis- 
cussed it with Mr. Hofl'a at the time that we had the meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you received the contract yourself at that time 
of the eastern conference or the proposed contract from the eastern 
conference? 

Mr. O'Neill. Yes, I am pretty sure that we had. I am not positive 
of it, but I am reasonably sure that we had. 

The Chairman. I hand you here what purports to be photostatic 
copy of a letter dated June 21, 1955, addressed to Mr. F. J. O'Neill, 
signed by Thomas E. Flynn, chairman, eastern conference of Team- 
sters, which has attached to it a purported contract or an agreement. 
I will ask you to examine the letter and the contract and state if you 
identify that. 

Mr. O'Neill. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The former memorandum may be made exhibit 
No. 55. 

(Memorandum referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 55" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 
Mr. O'Neill. Yes, sir ; I recognize this. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 56, the letter, and 
the contract attached will be made exhibit No. 56-A. 



19330 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 56 (and will be 
found in tlie appendix on p. 19-199) and 56-A" may be found in the 
files of tlie select committee.) 

JNIr. Kennp:dy. That letter is June 21. I believe it says that they 
are enclosing something. 

Dear Mr. O'Neill : Enclosed is a copy of the proposed eastern area truckaway 
and driveaway agreement. 

******* 

This letter will also conflm the fact that we will meet with you again at the 
time and place agreed upon. 

Mr. O'Neill. Yes, sir. 

IMr. Kennedy. It would appear that you did not have the eastern 
conference of Teamsters demands at that time, at least from the east- 
ern conference, until June 21. 

Mr. O'Neill. Well, of course, you are talking dates, Mr. Kennedy. 
I will be very happy to check my records or try to recollect. But 
you are talking 1955. I don't remember every little incident that 
happened. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is a note here on June 3 in this memorandum 
which says — 

demands arrived from eastern conference, over-the-road section, for truckaway 
operations 

which would appear that you did get something on June 3. But it 
would appear also that the official communication that you received 
did not arrive until June 21, 1955, from the eastern conference of 
Teamsters. 

Yet Mr. Hoffa was tliere discussing the demands of the eastern con- 
ference of Teamsters with you on June 7, some 14 days prior to the 
time that you received official communications from the eastern con- 
ference of Teamsters. 

Til at is what the documents appear to indicate. 

JNIr. O'Neill. It is very possible that we had received or that they 
had made their demands. 

The Chairman. In other words you had received, orally or other- 
wise, information as to what they were demanding, obviously, when 
you discussed it with Mr. Iloffa. You had already received it. 

Mr. O'Neill. First of all, Senator, I didn't discuss it with Mr. 
Hoffa. We may or may not have received something. Senator. It is 
very possible Mr. Holta being the chairman of the Central States 
conference, that he had received the demands before they were given 
to us. I don't know. 

The Chairman. The memorandmn indicates you had received de- 
mands, you knew what they were, and that was the purpose of dis- 
cussing it, and how you would proceed in the matter. Hoffa, accord- 
ing to the memorandum, expressed his opinion that they were too 
high. 

:Mr. O'Neill. I do remember. Senator, that the demands at the time 
our basic rate on a mileage basis was within a penny of 13 cents a mile, 
the demand was something like 20 cents in addition to that, which is 
over a 100-percent increase on a mileage rate. 

The Chairman. I can well understand that vou might have had ver- 
bal or oral information about their demands were, but they didn't 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19331 

come to you in a formalized proposed agreement or contract until a 
later date, an you had them tentatively as to what they were, what 
they were going to be, when this conference was held with Mr. Hotfa 
some few days before. 

That is the way it appears. Have you any other explanation ? 

Mr. O'Neill. No, I don't. Senator, because I just don't have the 
records. From what you have taken from my records, it would cer- 
tainly seem that way ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have a letter dated June 2, 1955, where the 
eastern conference sends a copy of the demands to Mr. Hoffa. That is 
dated June 2, 1955. The conference was held with the O'Neills and 
Mr. Matheson on June 7, 1955, and the eastern conference didn't send 
the demands out to the employers until June 21, 1955. 

The Chairman. You may have learned from them that day, from 
Mr. Hotfa, as to what the demands were. 

jMr. O'Neill. That could have been, sir. 

The Chairman. Obviously, he had them before, according to the 
records. 

Mr. O'Neill. That could have been. 

The Chairman. He could have submitted them to you and told you 
what they were that day. 

Mr. O'Neill. It could have been. 

Mr. Kennedy. It also states in this memorandum — 

Hoffa thought it would be wise to use Carney in negotiations. 

The CnAmMAN. Who is Carney ? 

Mr. O'Neill. Carney Matheson is sitting beside me. Senator. 

As I say, I didn't participate in that discussion, so I am extremely 
sorry but I can't throw any light on it other than what would be my 
guess. It would be that Mr. Hoffa would naturally advise Mr. 
Matheson's participation in the negotiations because Mr. Matheson 
had negotiated the automobile contracts in the Central States as far 
as I know since its inception. 

Mr. Kennedy. WTiy would the union official be suggesting to em- 
ployers that they hire a particular individual to conduct their labor 
negotiations ? That is what is of interest to us, particularly in view 
of the former relationship that had existed between Mr. Matheson and 
Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. O'Neill. I can only throw this much light on it, Mr. Kennedy, 
because I honestly did not participate in that part of the discussion 
in the office with Mr. Hoffa. My guess would be that we had dis- 
cussed, of course, using Mr. Matheson in the East and possibly Mr. 
F. J. O'Neill suggested to Mr. Hoffa that we would like to use Carney 
Matheson. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is not what this says. This says, "Hoffa 
thought it would be wise." I just want to point out for the record 
that according to your testimony, we would have gotten an entirely 
erroneous picture of what the situation was — that is, about the fact 
of Mr. Hoffa discussing this contract or ever suggesting Carney 
Matheson — if it had not been for the fact that we were able to obtain 
(his document. 

I might say, Mr. O'Neill, that you did make the documents of 
Anchor Motor Freight available to the committee. 

36751— 59— pt. 55 13 



19332 IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. O'Neill. You are welcome to all of our records. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is fortunate, as I am sure you realize, that we 
were able to get this document, because it is very enlightening, 
indeed. 

How much did you pay Mr. Carney Matheson thereafter to con- 
duct these negotiations? 

Mr. O'Neill. We paid Mr. Matheson to conduct the original negoti- 
ations expenses and legal fees, $20,000. 

Mr. Kennedy. And was he paid by any of the other companies to 
conduct the negotiations ? 

Mr. O'Neill. Frankly, Mr. Kennedy, I would rather not testify 
because I have no 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any other fee ? 

Mr. Matheson. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. From who else ? 

Mr. Matheson. Nu-Car Carriers and associated companies. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did you receive ? 

Mr. Matheson. The same amount, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. $20,000 ? 

Mr. Matheson. That is right. For negotiation over a year's work. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever tell any of the union officials, Mr. 
O'Neill, that you had Mr. Hoffa in your back pocket ? 

Mr. O'Neill. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Hoffa ever relate to you that that had been 
discussed with him ? 

Mr. O'Neill. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He never said that ? 

Mr. O'Neill. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never made a statement to any individual, any 
Teamster Union official, to the effect that you had Mr. Hoffa in your 
back pocket ? 

Mr. O'Neill. I do everything I can, Mr. Kennedy, to tell the truth 
at all times, and that would be a terrifically big lie. So obviously — 1 
am sure I never said anything like that, positively. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all for now, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Anything, Senator? 

Senator Ervin. No. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Topazio. 

Mr. Chairman, we are going now into the effect of Mr. Hofi'a's 
negotiations with some of the individual unions. The next witness is 
one who will precede the major witness, who will be Mr. Ted Daley. 

The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall 
give before tliis Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Topazio. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY TOPAZIO 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and 
your business or occupation. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19333 

Mr. ToPAZio. Anthony Topazio, 33 DeMartino Avenue, Yonkers, 
N.Y. ; a truck driver. 

The Chairman. You waive counsel, do you ? 

Mr. Topazio. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Topazio, you appeared before this committee 
before, did you not ? 

Mr. Topazio. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1957 ? 

Mr. Topazio. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were one of those who were involved in tlie 
so-called paper locals? 

Mr. Topazio. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was in our paper local investigation; is 
that right? 

Mr. Topazio. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You appeared before the committee and took the 
fifth amendment at that time? 

Mr. Topazio. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And this time you wish to answer all the questions ; 
is that correct? 

Mr. Topazio. I do. 

Mr. Ivennedy. You spell your name T-o-p-a-z-i-o; is that right? 

Mr. Topazio. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I might make a preliminary state- 
ment. This gentleman's testimony is in connection with (he steps 
that are taken by Mr. Hotfa or by his chief lieutenants against those 
who oppose him in some of these negotiations. With the next wit- 
nesses we are going into what the efi'ect is on the local union member- 
ship, and what the effect is on the enforcement of the contracts, when 
they are opposed to Mr. Hoffa and some of Mr. Hoffa's associates. 

The Chairman. When did you appear before the committee before ? 

Mr. Topazio. July, if I am correct ; July of 1957, Senator. 

The Chairman. July 2 years ago ? 

Mr. Topazio. That is correct. 

The Chairman. At that time you say you declined to answer 
questions ? 

Mr. Topazio. That is right. 

The Chairman. You have since decided to cooperate with the com- 
mittee and give us the benefit of what knowledge you have ? 

Mr. Topazio. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I want to commend you. I certainly think that 
it is of importance that people who have information that will help 
their Government, give it guidance in meeting its responsibilities, will 
give it. I don't know. I want to hear your testimony. I hope 
you have information which will be worth while. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Topazio, you w^orked for the local of Johnny 
Acropolis, originally ; is that correct? 

Mr. Topazio. Tliat is correct. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. You were a member of his local ? 

Mr. Topazio. That is correct. 



19334 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. After that you were hired as an organizer by Sam 
Zakman, of local 102 of the UAW-AFL? 

Mr. ToPAZio. Tliat is correct. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. That was the local of Mr. Johnny Dioguardi, ulti- 
mately ? 

Mr. TopAzio. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Dio took over from Sam Zakman, did he, sub- 
sequently, took over control of the local ? 

Mr. ToPAZio. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Zakman and Dioguardi had a fight and Dio gained 
control of the local ? 

Mr. ToPAZio. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that that local was then being 
financed by Johnny Dioguardi? 

Mr. ToPAZio. Then I did ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Also from local 102 you became an organizer for 
local 649, which was another of Johnny Dioguardi's locals? 

Mr. ToPAZio. That is right. 

Mr. ICennedy. As an organizer for local 649 you got into some 
difficulty with the law ? 

Mr. ToPAZio, That is right. 

Mr. I^nnedy. You and Joseph Cohen ? 

Mr. ToPAZio. That is right. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. And you were indicted for conspiracy and attempted 
extortion ? 

Mr. ToPAZio. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ivennedy. You were convicted and pleaded guilty to the con- 
spiracy ? 

Mr. ToPAZio. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was 1952? 

Mr. ToPAZio. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were sentenced to what ? 

Mr. ToPAZio. Ten months. 

Mr. Kennedy. At Rikers Island ? 

Mr. ToPAZio. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you emerged from prison, you became a mem- 
ber of local 445, Yonkers, N. Y. ? 

Mr, ToPAZio. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Shortly after you became a member of the local, 
the two officers, Stickel and Massiello, got into difficulty themselves 
with the law, is that right, in an extortion ? 

Mr. ToPAZio. From what I understand, Mr. Kennedy, they were 
already in trouble before I was even a member of that union. 

Mr. Kennedy. But ultimately they were indicted and convicted 
and sent to the penitentiary for extortion ? 

Mr. TopAzio. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is, Lester Stickel and Philip Massiello. They 
were indicted and ultimately convicted for shaking down New York 
milk dealers for $64,000. 

One of thope who led the rank and file against Stickel and Massiello 
was Mr. Ted Daley ; is that right? 

Mr. TopAZTO. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was a good deal of agitation within the 
union ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19335 

Mr. ToPAZio. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you called in to New York — were you called 
in to New York to meet with Mr. John O'Rourke at the Hampshire 
House in connection with Mr. Ted Daley? 

JSIr. ToPAZio. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who else did you meet with there? 

Mr. TopAzio. There was a call left for me to go down to the Hamp- 
shire House and ask for a suite or an apartment. Tliis was in about 
1955. It was Abe Gordon's apartment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Abe Gordon's apartment? 

Mr. TopAzio. Yes. It was in the Hampshire House. It was at the 
time of the merger of the AFL and CIO. I met Jolin O'Rourke 
there, and and Mr. Johnny Dio. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Abe Gordon present also? 

Mr. ToPAzio. Yes, sir. Tliere seemed to have been some stirring 
around or commotion up in 445 with Mr. Ted Daley and Mr. Hopkins. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. James Hopkins? 

Mr. ToPAzio. Hopkins. 

Mr. Kennedy. H-o-p-k-i-n-s? 

Mr. ToPAZio. Hopkins who was with Mr. Daley. I was asked if 
I knew them, and I told them I didn't. The purpose of this meeting 
was to try to get to Mr. Hopkins and Mr. Daley and try to offer them 
some sort of a job and stop this bickering with the officials of 445. 

Mr. Kjinnedy. Officials with whom they were bickering at that 
time were the two individuals who had been indicted for extortion? 

]Mr. ToPAzio. I think it was the whole slate, too. 

]Mr. Kennedy. They wanted you to make an approach down there 
to see if you could get them to take some job so that they would no 
longer be fighting Stickel and Massiello; is that correct? 

Mr. ToPAzio. That is right. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Did you agree to try to do that? 

Mr. ToPAzio. I certainly did. I tried to do it. I was a member of 
445. Being Mr. Jolm O'Rourke was there, and that he had the good 
intentions of the union, that is why I approached. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliom did you approach ? 

Mr. Top.vzio. I tried to make an appointment, and I finally got to a 
Mr. Hopkins. He was to make an appointment. Mr. Daley was to 
be present. I was to give them this. 

Mr. Hopkins showed up but Mr. Daley didn't. He made a subse- 
quent appointment. Again Mr. Hopkins showed up but Mr. Daley 
didn't, and nothing ever came of it. 

Mr. Ivennedy. What job were you authorized to offer ? 

Mr. ToPAZio. Business agents. 

Mr. Kennedy. If they would stop their opposition to Massiello and 
Stickel? 

Mr. ToPAZio. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently, this agitation continued, and Mr. 
Daley obtained control of the local. Mr. Stickel and Massiello went 
to the penitentiary. Mr. Daley obtained control of the local. 

Was there then some step taken to set up independent locals, apart 
from local 445 ? 

Mr. TopAzio. There was, Mr. Kennedy. But prior to that there was 
so much commotion in the rank and file we never knew exactly what 
was going on. 



19336 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to get to tliis otlier time. I lliink we stated 
there was a considerable amount of agitation. 

jMr. ToPAZio. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there an effort to set up an independent local to 
take members away from local 445 ? 

]Mr. Toi'Azio. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You helped form one of these locals, did you not ? 

Mr. ToPAZio. Well, I was never a member of it. It was the move 
from tlie rank and lile of 445 because tliey v/ere getting nowliere with 
the international or witli the officials involved. They tliought it would 
be the best idea to form their own independent union. 

However, before that was formed, I contacted Mr. O'Rourke who, 
liimself, I think, was just becoming a member or was involved in some- 
tliing yvith the joint council. He knew before this was formed, that 
is, a group of members from 445, and he OK'd it. He gave it his 
blessings. 

He said, "OK, go ahead. Anythino: to mve tliem trouble." 

Mr. Kennedy, The point of this, Mr. Chairman, is that you have 
a Teamsters Union, Local 445 ; that the two top officials are involved in 
extortion, indicted, and convicted ; that there is some rank-and-file dis- 
sension witli the union officials. 

Ultimately they kick the local union officials out of office. They 
vote a new slate in, led by Mr. Daley. The international officers, led 
b}' John O'Rourke, are still in opposition to ]Mr. Daley. They want 
to support Stickel and Massiello. the ones wlio have p:one to the peni- 
tentiary. 

So thvy know and are aware of the fact that an independent union, 
outside of the Teamsters Union, is set up, and they give their blessings 
to this independent union that exists in order to take members away 
from the Teamsters Union. 

Did Mr. O'Rourke help or assist in financing this independent 
operation ? 

Mr. ToPAzio. The rank-and-file committee for an election of 445 
members had obtained some machinery to turn out leaflets. These 
leaflets were costly, and we always used to chip in for them. But at 
the time of the idea of the independent 500 being involved, we were 
pretty broke, and Mr. O'Rourke gave me $200 toward expenses for 
paper and telephone calls and stuff like that we needed to operate. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Mr. John O'Rourke, who is now a vice presi- 
dent of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters? He gave you 
$200 in order to help finance the operation of this independent local 
which was trying to take membership away from the Teamsters local? 

Mr, ToPAzio, That is right. 

The Chairman, And the trouble in the original Teamster local was 
that you had some thieves at the head of it ? 

Mr, ToPAzio, That is the way it looked. Senator, 

The Chairman, That is the way it was, 

Mr, ToPAzio, That is the way it was found out. 

The CiiAiRivrAN, Yes. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And O'Rourke told vou at that time that he would 
take any steps to get rid of that "red-headed son of a" 

Mr. TopAzio. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy, "in Yonkers" ? 



miPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19337 

Mr. TopAzio. That is right. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. Did you attend the Teamsters international conven- 
tion in Florida? 

Mr. TopAzio. No, sir. 

]Mr. Kennedy. Did Hopkins report to you regarding that con- 
vention? 

Mr. ToPAZio. Well, right after the convention, Mr. Kennedy, which 
was held in 1957, 1 received a telephone call from Mr. Hopkins, who 
was the president of local 445, my home local, and he told me that he 
was in trouble with the rank and file, and he was told by Mr. O'Rourke 
to contact me and for me to get him a vote of confidence from the 
members of local 445 explaining why he, Mr. Hopkins, and another 
business agent of local 445, a Mr. Shaeffer, voted for Jimmy Hoffa 
and a new slate of vice presidents at this convention in 1957, and that 
Teddy Daley did not vote for them. 

Well, I didn't believe Mr. Hopkins, and I started to realize probably 
a little later that I was just being one of the dopes in this whole outfit. 
I took Mr. Hopkins and I told him, "Look, I don't know if you are 
telling me the truth or not, but let's go down to Johmiy O'Eourke's 
and prove this," and we did. 

We went down to Johmiy O'Eourke's. Mr. Hopkins picked me up 
and we went down there. The reason why Mr. Hopkins voted for 
them was that as president of 445 he was interested in 445, and before 
he would vote for Hoffa or any of his group he had a problem of up- 
state — I don't know exactly the town or the county — that a local 269 
was infringing on the jurisdiction of 445, and they were raising the 
dickens with signing up nonunion members at a lower rate, and if 
these members would stop, if 269 would stop, if the sister Teamster 
local would stop organizing up there and turn over its members to 
445, Jimmy Hopkins would vote for him. 

Jimmy Hopkins told me that was done at the convention in Florida, 
by Mr. O'Rourke, and I don't know the other international official's 
name offhand. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Hopkins relate to you that he was approached 
by Joe Curcio and Jimmy Hoffa in connection with this? 

Mr. ToPAzio. He told me there was somebody campaigning for Jim- 
my Hoffa. They got to Jolinny O'Rourke and Johnny O'Rourke got 
to whoever was heading 269. I don't remember the names. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Hopkins relate that he had discussed it with 
Hoffa himself? 

Mr. ToPAzio. He said Hoffa was there and made sure that this situ- 
ation was cleared up to get the votes. 

Mr. Kennedy. As background, local 269 was one of the paper locals, 
involved in the paper local case. What would appear from the testi- 
mony is that if this man Hopkins, who was president of local 445, 
would vote at the convention for Hoffa and the Hoff'a slate, then 
Hoffa and O'Rourke would arrange for some of the members of local 
269 to be turned over to local 445 in Yonkers. 

On February 24, 1958, you were ordered expelled from the Team- 
sters Union by the officers of local 445 ? 

Mr. ToPAZio. That is right. 

Mr. Ejennedy. For fostering dual unionism; is that right? 

Mr. ToPAzio, That is, I think, one of the charges. 



19338 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And this conviction was appealed to joint council 
16, which was headed by O'Rourke ? 

Mr. TopAzio. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. They ordered a new trial ; is that right ? 

Mr. ToPAzio. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. But Mr. O'Rourke at that time knew all about the 
dual unionism because he had been one of the ones that had made the 
arrangements Avith you ? 

Mr. TopAzio. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And helped finance it ? 

Mr. TopAzio. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. O'Rourke ordered a new trial. Then local 445 
appealed this decision, and two subsequent hearings were held by a 
three-man panel appointed by Hoffa ; is that right ? 

Mr. ToPAzio. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. On July 1, you were notified that you had been 
found guilty of dual unionism ; is that right ? 

Mr. ToPAZio. I don't know exactly, I gave the copy to the com- 
mittee. I didn't receive it in the mail until I was subpenaed down 
here. I walked across the street and ^ot myself a copy of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. The letter from the international went on to state, 
however, that since you had been deprived of union membership since 
February 24, 1958, that— 

He shall be reinstated into membership ; that he shall be ineligible to be a can- 
didate for any oflSce in a local union for a period of 2 years from the date of this 
decision. 

But you were reinstated in the membership of local 445. 

Mr. ToPAzio. Let me remind you, Mr, Kennedy, I have not been 
working since the last time I faced this committee, and I was naive 
enough to believe in this constitution, and I think it is very important 
to this committee. There is a section in here that says that all local 
unions within the jurisdiction of the joint council shall affiliate with 
the joint council and comply with its laws and obey its orders. 

Johnny O'Rourke, knowing all of this, ordered local 445 to give me 
another trial. They didn't comply with that. When I appealed fur- 
ther, and I brought it to his attention that I should have had a decision 
60 days, I quoted the constitution again, and another article, that in 
all matters of appeals, decisions will be given within 60 days of the 
trial. 

From February 1958 until yesterday, I was without any kind of a 
decision from the international, but through at least two hearings, 
two before an international panel, and one before the joint council. 

The Chairman. You were expelled from the union, were you? 

Mr, ToPAzio. That is right. 

The Chairman. Expelled because you helped set up an independent 
union? 

Mr. ToPAZio. That is the charge they made. 

The Chairman. But as I understand it, vice president O'Rourke 
actually helped finance this independent union, did he ? 

Mr. ToPAZio. That is right. 

The Chairman. Was he expelled? 

Mr, ToPAZio. No, sir. That is one of the reasons, Senator, that I 
believe that expulsion has been held up there, because now that I do 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19339 

become a member I do have the grounds in this constitution to bring 
the charges up against Mr. O'Rourke. 

The Chairman. Are you going to bring them ? 

Mr. ToPAzio. I certainly will. 

The Chairman. I hope you do, if you have any. 

I hand you here a photostatic copy of a letter dated July 1, signed 
by John English, apparently addressed to you. Will you examine it 
and state if that is a carbon copy or photostatic copy of a letter that 
you received ? 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. ToPAZio. Mr, Senator, I called my home from downstairs, and 
my wife notified me that she had received the certified letter. Mr. 
Tobin, who represents the local department of the Teamsters, handed 
me this prior to my knowing if there was one home or not. My wide 
did confirm that she got it. This is his copy. 

The Chairman. Your understanding is that that is a copy of the 
letter you received dated July 1. You received it in the last 2 or 3 
days ? 

Mr. ToPAzio. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 57. 

(Letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 57" for reference and 
will be found in the appendix on p. 19500.) 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

If not, thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are now going to call Mr. Daley, Mr. Chairman, 
and you will see how this testimony fits into the testimony we have had 
in connection with the contracts. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Daley, come forward. 

You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this Sen- 
ate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Daley. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF THEODORE G. DALEY, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

FRANCIS MARTOCCI 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation. 

]\Ir. Daley. My name is Theodore G. Daley. I live at Chelsea Hills, 
Beacon, N. Y. I am secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Local Union 445 
in Yonkers, N.Y. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Counsel, identify yourself for the record, please. 

Mr. Martocci. Francis Martocci, 277 Fair Street, Kingston, N.Y. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been a Teamster Union official, 
Mr. Daley? 

Mr. Daley. I was elected on December 12, 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been a member of the Teamsters 
Union? 



19340 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Daley. Since April 8, 1947. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Daley, you are familiar not only with your own 
contracts but the contracts tliat are negotiated in the Central Confer- 
ence of Teamsters dealing with your field ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, I am, 

Mr. Kennedy. You have over-the-road drivers, is that right, in 
445? 

Mr. Daley. We have the local cartage people and some over-the- 
road work. 

Mr. Kennedy. And some local cartage people ; is that right ? 

Mr. Daley. Mostly local cartage and some over-the-road work. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are the contracts that you have in your local higher 
than the contracts for the Central Conference of Teamsters that have 
been negotiated by Mr. Hoff a ? 

Mr. Daley. The contracts negotiated in our local unions are one of 
the three highest ranking in the country. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the answer to the question, the specific 
question ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, considerably higher. 

Mr. Kennedy. That the contracts you negotiated are considerably 
higher than the contracts negotiated in the Central Conference of 
Teamsters ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, that is right, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you mean higher just on wage rates, or do you 
mean taking the whole package? 

Mr. Daley. Wages and conditions contained in the contract. 

The Chairman. Taking it both ways, higher wages, and the pack- 
age contains more ; is that right ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, Senator. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Daley, you have had opposition, have you not, 
from certain of the international officers of the International Brother- 
hood of Teamsters over the period since you took over control of local 
445? 

Mr. Daley. By just about every one of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me ? 

Mr. Daley. By just about every one of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. That includes Mr. Hoff a ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And includes Mr. John O'Rourke? 

Mr. Daley. By all means. 

Mr. Kennedy, Do you feel — and I will get into specifics with you 
in a moment — do you feel that a good deal of the opposition by the 
international officers and Mr. Hoffa specifically has been because of 
your opposition to a contract that was negotiated by him with Anchor 
Motor Freight ? 

I will witlidraw that question. 

Do you feel that the contracts that were negotiated with the Anchor 
Motor Freight in 1958 by Mr. Hoffa are good contracts? 

Mr, Daley, No, I do not. 

IMr. Kennedy. Do you feel that the opposition from the interna- 
tional officers, which includes Mr. Hoffa and Mr. O'Rourke, that you 
have received over the period of the past few years has been based at 
least pai'tially on the fact that you have opposed this contract? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19341 

Mr. Daley. That amongst other things; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like now to go back in your history, to the 
background of when you came in and took over the local and what the 
conditions were at that time, and then gradually get up to the present 
time and the difficulties that you are now having. 

You were elected secretary-treasurer of local 445 in December of 
1955? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, the key officials of the local, as we have pointed 
out, were Lester Stickel and Philip Massiello ; is that right ? 

Mr. Daley. That is true. 

The Chairman. What is the number of members, approximately? 

Mr. Daley. Approximately 3,000, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, prior to the time of their conviction for ex- 
tortion, had you been critical of their operations ? 

Mr. Daley. I certainly was. 

Mr. Kennedy. And vocally critical ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And felt that they should be removed from office? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, during this time of your opposition you were 
driving a truck, is that right, in 1955 ? 

Mr. Daley. That is right, the Dorn Transportation Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. During the height of your opposition, did the brakes 
on your truck give out while going downhill ? 

Mr. Daley. No, I lost my complete drive wheels. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you relate what happened, to the committee ? 

Mr. Daley. I left Saugerties, N.Y., about 6 oclock in the evening 
of November 15, carrying approximately 30,000 pounds of paper on 
trailer. I stopped at a diner to eat and have coffee or something 
with the other fellows at about 6 : 15 in Kingston, N. Y. Around 
6 : 45 I was going dovrn 9W, to a town called Kripplebush, when all of 
a sudden all of the wheels left the truck, the drive wheels. 

Mr. Kennedy. In layman's language, what happened ? The wheels 
fell off? 

Mr. Daley. The wheels flew oft' the truck. 

Mr. Kennedy. All of the wheels of your car ? 

Mr. Daley. Just the two drive wheels. 

Mr. Kennedy. One side of your truck ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. Of course, that immediately released the 
other axle. 

Mr. Kennedy, ^^^lat happened ? 

3^Ir. Daley. Then the truck went over an embankment and I went 
over with it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you in a hospital after that ? 

Mr. Daley. For approximately 2 weeks. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you incapacitated after you got out of the 
hospital ? 

]\Ir. Daley. For a year, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. They made an examination of the truck and the cogs 
in the truck afterward ; did they ? 

Mr. Daley. The State police did, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they find that there had been some tampering 
or that some of the cog^s had been removed ? 



19342 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Daley. I spent some time in the hospital, as I stated, and while 
in the liospital I received threats in the form of a letter, and we called 
in the BCI, and Mr. Kam, who is head of the BCI at that time, told 
me that he had contacted the troopere and got a report on the wheels 
and they were tampered with. n • i 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you determine that you would go ahead with 
your campaign to oust these officials anyway ? 

Mr. Daley. We did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, was there going to be a nomination meeting m 
November of 1955 ? 

Mr. Daley. On November 14, that was the day prior to my accident, 
yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat happened then ; was there such a meetnig ? 

Mr. Daley. We attended a meeting held in Newburgh, N.Y., at the 
Ironworkers hall, and we were told by John Valentino, a former busi- 
ness agent of this local union, that there would be no nominations that 
evening because Stickel and Massiello were in jail and were not af- 
forded opportunity to be nominated. 

Mr. Kennedy. So there were no nominations that evening ? 

Mr. Daley. No, they closed the meeting advising the membership 
that nominations would take place on December 12, in Yonkers, N.Y., 
and we, of course, stayed on to elect what we called — and I would like 
to clear that up for the record at a later point — the Rank and File 
Committee of 445. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were nominated in December, then ? 

Mr. Daley. On November 14, at that meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. You nominated them at that meeting ? 

Mr. Daley. Wlien the former officials walked out of the meeting, be- 
cause Stickel and Massiello were not available to be nominated, the 
membership stayed, and at that point we decided that something 
had to be done with the situation, and we proceeded to elect a com- 
mittee which we called the Rank and File Committee of 445. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you nominated a committee at that time? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then what happened, what was the next step ? 

Mr. Daley. Thereafter we held meetings during that time, between 
November 14. Of course, the following day I had my accident, and I 
released myself from the hospital a couple of weeks later, and I con- 
tinued to muster up this support of the local union membership and 
hold different meetings in different spots, different parts of the county 
that we have jurisdiction over. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what happened ? 

Mr. Daley. That led up to the December 12 meeting at which they 
stated there would be nominations. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you have nominations on December 12? 

Mr. Daley. No, sir. We arrived at the hall in Yonkers, N.Y., and 
there was a schedule, and we found that the doors were barred with 
wood and a big sign on the doors, and there would be no meeting for 
the Teamsters Union this evening. 

We, of course, had our attorney present, Mr. Martocci, and after he 
had conversed with the policemen present at the building, and the 
owner of the building, he had it opened and we went about our meet- 
ing and about the nominating officers, and at that same evening Stickel 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19343 

and the former regime came into the meeting and attempted to cause 
considerable trouble, and after the insistence of our attorney that the 
law enforcement agency do something about it they were told to leave 
the hall. ^ 

The Chairman. Had they gotten out of jail by that time? 
Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 
The Chairman. They were out of jail ? 
Mr. Kennedy. Temporarily. 
Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. When they found out that some of you were going 
to attend this meeting and make nominations, they put up signs, and 
bolted the doors, that there would be no meeting ? 
Mr. Daley. That is right. 

The Chairman. When you got the meeting hall opened and got 
entrance to it, then they appeared ? 
Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And undertook to obstruct your meeting, or ob- 
struct the meeting ? 
Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 
The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you went ahead and conducted your nomina- 
tions anyway ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir ; and we afforded them the opportunity of nomi- 
nations, and no one would nominate them. 

Mr, Kennedy. When did you have the election ? 
Mr. Daley. It came about the same night, because the slate of 
officers from the rank and file who were nominated were uncontested. 
Mr. IvENNEDY. Now Stickel and Massiello refused to give up their 
positions after that ? 

Mr. Daley. They refused to recognize our election. 
Mr. Kennedy. And there was a long legal proceeding which ulti- 
mately resulted in the court's upholding the fact that you were the 
legally elected officers as of December of 1955 ? 
Mr. Daley. Yes ; a year of litigation followed. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this same period of time, these negotiations 
that we have been discussing this afternoon were taking place ; is that 
right ? That is in connection with truckaway-driveaway. 
Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they started in late 1955 and early 1956? 
Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did the legal action result from this meeting at 
which you were elected ? 
Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You had court proceedings and litigation about 
it? 
Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And your group was finally declared by the court 
to be the legally constituted officers of the local ? 
Mr. Daley. Yes, Senator. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now the negotiations on behalf of your union were 
carried out by Lester Stickel, is that right, in late 1955 and earlv 
1956? ' fo 5 J 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 



19344 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Even though you people had been elected ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And, in fact, Lester Stickel signed a contract with 
Anclior Motor Freight in March of 1956 ; is that right ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now had he submitted the contract to the union 
membership during this period of time ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes ; he did, several times. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the contract was submitted first on February 10, 
1956, and the vote was 164 to reject and 60 to accept; is that right? 

Mr. Daley. That is what the men tell me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then it was submitted again on March 3, 1956, 
and the vote to strike was 107, and 93 not to strike? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And despite this, on March 14, 1956, Lester Stickel 
signed the agreement? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, the international officers and Mr. John 
O'Rourke, weren't they aware of the fact that Lester Stickel was 
no longer an officer of this local ? 

Mr. Daley. They were aware of that fact, and also of the fact that 
the membership of Anchor Motor Freight did not wish to have them 
represent them, at the same time. 

Mr. Kennedy. They did not want Lester Stickel to represent them 
in the negotiations ; is that right ? 

Mr. D.\LEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nevertheless, they went ahead and signed the con- 
tract — Lester Stickel signed on behalf of the local union despite this 
record ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. If he wasn't an officer, and he had been displaced 
as an officer, had the local in any way authorized him to become its 
negotiating representative ? 

Mr. Daley. In no way, sir. 

The Chairman. He was just undertaking to exercise the authority 
he formerly had when lie was an officer ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. But doing that contrary to the expressed wishes 
of the union, of the local ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Daley. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that Mr. O'Neill went to the 
eastern conference of Teamsters and was told that it was proper for 
them to negotiate the contract with Stickel? Did you understand 
that? 

Mr. Daley. I knew it was Mr. O'Neill's position, and he stated it to 
me personally. 

Mr. Kennedy. That he had gone to the eastern conference, and they 
had stated that it was perfectly proper procedure for them to negoti- 
ate with Stickel? 

Mr. Daley. The eastern conference had sent in some officials in the 
local 445's jurisdiction with regard to this dispute because the men 
had a spontaneous walkout down there because they rejected the fact 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19345 

that Stickel was negotiating their contract, and they wanted the rep- 
resentation of the newly elected officers. 

The Chairman. Was this negotiation right after he had gotten out 
of jail or just before he went to jail ? 

Mr. Daley. Just prior to going to jail, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. During the same period of time, the joint council 
election was taking place ; is that right ? 

Mr, Daley. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. John O'Rourke was trying to have Mr. 
Stickel and Mr. Massiello recognized as delegates from local 445 in 
the joint council election ? 

Mr. Daley. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was opposed by you and your group, and ulti- 
mately your position was confirmed in the court; is that right? 

Mr. Daley. Stickel certified in the case, Lacey v. 0''Rourke^ in New 
Jersey, in which I took an active part, that certain members or certain 
business agents of our local union were in fact officers when they were 
not. They were not entitled to vote in that election. That eventually 
resulted in Paul Murray making a decision and ruling out those votes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you satisfied with this contract negotiated 
with Anchor Freight in 1955? 

Mr. Daley. In no way, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the membership dissatisfied with the contract ? 

Mr. Daley. "V\^ien you say, Mr. Kennedy, "was I satisfied," I have 
to reflect the thinking of my people. My people weren't satisfied, and 
I couldn't be satisfied. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. O'Neill at that tune make any statement 
about his relationship with Mr. Hoffa? 

Mr. Daley. I believe you are referring to the question you asked 
earlier of Mr. O'Neill while I was in this room. Mr. O'Neill did not 
state that to a Teamster official as you stated it to Mr. O'Neill. He 
stated it in the presence of a Teamster official, myself. He stated it 
to John Gimbicolo, an employee of Anchor Freight, and to Thomas 
Julian, a shop steward and employee of Anchor Freight, a member of 
our local union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you present ? 

Mr. Daley. There was a strike taking place, as I have already told 
you, over the fact that they didn't want Stickel to represent them, 
and I was present and I was called upon to come down and represent 
the men, and P. J. O'Neill, who testified here earlier, refused to 
recognize me ; however, in refusing to discuss anything with me, he, 
of course, made several attempts to talk to the men out at the picket 
line, and this is in one of the conversations he had with the men on 
the picket line, this statement was made. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat was the statement? 

Mr. Daley. He advised the two fellows, Gimbicolo and Julian, that 
his uncle had made the eastern conference of Teamsters and that he 
had Hoffa in his back pocket. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he refer to his uncle or to himself? 

Mr. Daley. That he had Hoffa in his back pocket. I later rej)Pated 
these statements to Flynn and Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. "What was Mr. Hoffa's reaction ? 



19346 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr Daley. First I repeated them to Mr. Flynn in his Washington 
office, and his reaction was that P. J.'s old man ought to buy him a 
big yacht and a bad girl and send him on an extended trip around 

the world. , -,. -, -, ^ ^ u 

I told Mr. Hoffa of it and he immediately told me lie would 
straio-hten him out, and he took me into his office and they had a 
conversation and he came out and he said, "I will guarantee you he is 
straightened away." 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the end of it ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He didn't straighten him out m front of you, 
anyway ? 

Mr. Daley. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now in February of 1957 Chester Fitzpatrick, who 
had been the business agent of local 170 in Framingham, Mass., of 
the Teamsters local, became the la;bor relations director of Anchor 
Motor Freight Co. 

Mr. DaleV. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And on March 8, 1957, Fitzpatrick, as a company 
official, filed a grievance against local 445. 

IVfr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. On what basis? 

Mr. Daley. The agreements involving the penny a mile and their 
inter])retation of the penny a mile in the contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the "penny a mile" ? 

Mr. Daley. There was a serious dispute between the local union and 
the company over that particular matter. 

Mr. Kennedy. It states here in the contract : 

In addition to the above basic rates, add 1 cent per mile from December 1 through 
April 30. 

Mr. Daley. That is exactly what it means. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the dispute with the company ? 

Mr. Daley. The company was to add 1 cent a mile during those 
months specified in that agreement to compensate a driver for the fact 
that he could not make as good time in the winter months as he could 
in the summertime. 

The Chairman. That was winter pay ? 

Mr. Daley. Winter mileage pay. 

Mr. Kennedy. What position did he take — Fitzpatrick ? 

Mr. Daley. Well, they took the position that this compensated the 
driver — the penny a mile compensated the driver for the fact that 
even if he was broke down, 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 10 hours, and still com- 
pensated him for that. 

Mr. Kennedy. They said this covered breakdown pay ; is that right ? 

Mr. Daley. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Snow and ice and breakdown pay ? 

Mr. Daley. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of course, nothing in the contract indicates that it 
was in lieu of breakdown pay ? 

Mr. Daij:y. There is nothing anyplace that would indicate that. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it states specifically in the contract where there 
is a breakdown, that you get paid for that ; does it not ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19347 

Mr. Daley. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And their position in 1957, through Mr. Fitzpatrick, 
was that this cent more during the period of December 1 through 
April 1 was in lieu of the breakdown pay, instead of the breakdown 
pay ? 

Air, Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they pay you, however, during 1957, the 1 cent 
more per mile? 

]\Ir. Daley. They did, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then in 1958 did this question arise again ? 

Mr. Daley. In 1958 it came up during negotiations, of course. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had they paid it after December 12, 1957, this cent ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Daley. That, of course, is the date on which the local union took 
strike action against this company, December 12, 1957. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you take strike action against the company ? 

Mr. Daley. We had been — well, to give you a good picture of it, 
Mr. Kennedy, the company made a demand on the local union to put 
into effect some rules and regulations governing the operation at 
Tarrytown, N.Y., and after our first meeting with the company the 
local union took the position that the past practices of the company 
have prevailed, and of course they are protected with the maintenance 
of standards, and that these were the conditions under which this com- 
pany had operated in the past for 20 years, and we in no way intended 
to sit down to bargain to negotiate or change them until the contract 
had expired, and that he had negotiated this contract with Lester 
Stickel and if he wanted any of these things that he mentioned, in- 
cluding starting time, the right to maintain his equipment in a cer- 
tain spot, that he should have attempted to negotiate them with Lester 
Stickel at the time the contract was negotiated over the objections 
of the people. 

Mr. Ivennedy. So what was the result of that? You went on 
strike ? 

Mr. Daley. Well, there were a series of meetings at which we had 
our attorney present at most because they had their attorney, Carney 
Matheson, present, and it resulted in our breaking up in no agree- 
ments and going to Washington, where Tom Flynn designated Larry 
IMcDermott to come in to the Yonkers area, to Anchor Motor Freight's 
place, and we both agreed, the company and the union, at that time, to 
allow McDermott to analyze the situation for 10 days and make recom- 
mendations to either party. 

During the same 10 days the company instituted a relay in viola- 
tion of our agreement in Washington. The eastern conference was 
notified of it. McDermott was supposed to make a report. They 
did absolutely nothing. 

On tlie evening of December 12, we had been negotiating all day on 
a 14- or 15-point proposal in an attempt to give this company in good 
faith something which we thought they were honestly after. How- 
ever, wo called our attorney from Kir.gston to come down and put it 
into writing and when he got there we started to write out the agree- 
ments we had reached during the day. 

We had already agreed to pay our men money for waiting time, 
which had been agreed to that morning, but which, when the pay- 

36751— 59— pt. 55 14 



19348 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

checks went out in the afternoon of the same day, there was a note 
attached to each check advising our people that the company refuses 

to pay it. , , . 

AlcDermott argued wnth Mr. Fitzpatrick, who at that tune we were 
negotiating witli, and argued that he had previously promised to pay 
this money, that they had always paid it in the past, and that he 
could see no reason why they shouldn't pay it now, and his recom- 
mendation would be to Flynn that you certainly couldn't do business 
with this company. 

Close to midnight of that evening McDermott became disgusted, 
and certainly the local union officials were disgusted because they were 
then retractmg all the agreements they had made earlier during the 
day. McDermott stood up and told me that, "There is certainly 
nothing you can do wath this company. You know what the next step 
is that is to be done, and I am going to make a report to Flynn's office 
that you cannot negotiate with this company ; you have to take action 
against them." At that time we put them on strike. 

Mr, Kennedy. You went out on strike ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the international union in fact support you 
after you went out on strike ? 

Mr. Daley. They did not, sir. In fact, right after making that 
statement, right after me ordering a strike, which I felt that after all 
we had brought McDermott in there and had both agreed to accept his 
recommendations, he stood up and said, "I withdraw. Eastern con- 
ference officials withdraw from this argument." 

Mr. Kennedy. They withdrew after that ? 

Mr. Daley. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened so far as your strike was concerned ? 

Mr. Daley. Well, of course, there was litigation involved there, too. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did the courts ultimately hold that you should 
not have gone out on strike? 

Mr. Daley. We had breached the contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. That you had breached the contract by going out 
on strike? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That this should have been handled as a grievance 
rather than for nonpayment of wages ? Under the contract, if there 
is nonpayment of wages 

Mr. Daley. Our contract was clear. It was article VI of the east- 
ern conference and truckaway agreement that said specifically that 
the union reserves the right to strike if the employer fails to pay 
wages, liealth and welfare, and pension benefits. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you people felt that the failure of the com- 
pany to pay the breakdown 

Mr. Daley. To the employees after they had laid out on the roads 
on a breakdown as wages. They were earning that money. 

Mr. Kennedy. The court held that these were not wages, that it 
should have been handled as a grievance; is that correct? 

Mr. Daley. The court held that it was an unlawful strike. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that the basis of their decision ? You could 
strike without going through a grievance procedure if it was a strike 
based on nonpayment of wages; and you felt that the fact that they 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19349 

did not pay the breakdown and the layover out on the road was non- 
payment of wages so, therefore, your strike was legitimate. 

The company held that this was not; that it should have been 
handled as a grievance, and the couit upheld the company ultimately ; 
is that right? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the beginning the company was going to take 
action against both the local union and the international union ; is that 
right ? 

Mr. Daley. They were supposed to. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they, in fact, only take action against your local 
union ? 

Mr. Daley, To the best of my knowledge, they took action against 
no one but me. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the significance of that, so far as you are 
concerned ? 

Mr. Daley. I think my attorney would be in a better position to 
answer any questions like that. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kennedy. I mean, do you feel that this is once again an inci- 
dent that shows the relationship that existed — or close relationship 
that existed — between the company and the eastern conference officials 
and the international officials ? 

Mr. Daley. Well, yes, we do, Mr. Kennedy, and the reason we 
feel it is that they sued myself, the eastern conference, and the inter- 
national for a half million dollars in damages, yet have not taken any 
action against the eastern conference or tlie international or this local, 
for that matter. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the company start rehiring the drivers that they 
had fired ? They fired the drivers ; is that right i 

Mr. Daley. The company fired the drivers after the decision of 
Justice Ager. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are appealing that decision, are you not? 

Mr. Daley. That is right. And I think that was done on a Thurs- 
day or a Friday, and they immediately notified the drivers that they 
would be available to take applications from the drivers for reem- 
ployment on Saturday. 

They refused to hire anyone who failed to state on their application 
for reemployment that they were discharged for an illegal strike. 
We advised our members not to put that down until it was finally de- 
termined by the court of appeals. 

When our members began calling in to the union hall, speaking 
with me and the business agents involved, asking us whether they 
should put that down, we first advised them not to. We received later 
calls during the day that they were not hiring those people who failed 
to put that down. 

We then, of course, advised them to put it down, over a personal 
protest. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that called a yellow-dog contract ? 

Mr. Daley. No. The yellow-dog contract was never put into effect. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they try to put a yellow-dog contract in ? 

Mr. Daley. They did. When Justice I3ailey was about to sign his 
order, the night before we came into possession of the yellow-dog con- 



19350 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

tract of Anchor Motor Freight, wliich the company intended to have- 
tlio employees sign under tlireat of discharge, or discharge and rein- 
state them if they Avoiikl sign, that set forth the conditions that the 
com])any wished to obtain, tTirough us, which we would not give them 
until this contract expired and negotiated them in good faith. 

Mr. Kennedy. It gave the prerogative to management completely 
to set conditions outside the terms of the contract ? 

jVIr. Daley, i'^ bsolutely. But we had come in contact with that. We 

took it into the judge's chambers. Mr. Martocci was present. He 

advised the judge that in his order there was a provision for rehiring. 

Justice Bailey struck that part out about the reprisal and put in a 

provision that there would be no reprisal. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the employees went back to work, but they had 
to sign the agreement that they had gone out on an unauthorized or 
illegal strike. This comes up to 1958, does it not ? 
Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Starting then, were there negotiations taking place 
for the 1958 contract ? 
Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. On the truckaway-driveaway ; is that right ? 
Mr. Daley. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have great difficulty in reaching any agree- 
ment with Anchor Motor Freight and Mr. Matheson at that time ? 

Mr. Daley. Well, to tell this story properly, and I am not trying to- 
amass any information, because this has been my experience with 
Anchor Motor Freight, based upon the demand placed upon me by my 
people. I represent those people and they are dues-paying members of 
my local union. I am not going to do a damn thing that they don't 
want me to do. 

I don't care who insists that it be done. It won't be done if my 
people don't want it done. When we first went into negotiations, all 
of the local unions talked about disaffiliating with the eastern con- 
ference. After a third discussion on the matter, we found this could 
not be done under the interpretation of the international constitution^ 
so we decided then to stick together and fight the battle out. 

We were better off sticking together, the local unions involved, and 
fighting the company than it was to be split up and fighting both the 
eastern conference and the company. So we negotiated for some time 
in New York City, of course, and the negotiations were subsequently 
moved to Washington, D.C., where they once again split up over the 
insistence of the company to institute their interpretation of the strike 
clause, their management prerogative clause, and several other clauses 
they were attempting to put into the contract, which Mr. Matheson 
testified here todav they achieved, under questions asked by Senator 
McClellan. 

Mr. Kennedy. How were they able to achieve it? Were all the local 
unions in the East opposed to it? 

Mr. Daley. Well, of course, our major breakdown came in the May- 
flower Hotel here in Washington. 

Mr. Kennedy. In answer to my question, were all the local union 
officials and members opposed to it ? 
Mr. Daley. Absolutely. 
Mr. Kennedy. Then how were they able to achieve it? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19351 

JMr. Daley. Through subsequent negotiations. 

Mr. Kexnedy. With whom were the subsequent negotiations? 

]\Ir. Daley. Those are the negotiations that James R. Hoffa con- 
•ducted. 

Mr. Kexnedy. So he came in and took over the negotiations on be- 
Jialf of the union? 

Mr. Daley. Sometime after the eastern conference convention in 
-September, held in Atlantic City, N.J., at the convention Hoffa called 
us iii)stairs and told us that he was going to enter into negotiations. 

V^e were called to Washington headquarters some time, I believe, in 
October. F'rom there on he led the negotiations ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you lose all of the clauses in the contract that 
you were fighting for? I think Mr. Matheson stated or Mr. O'Neill 
stated this morning that they got virtually what they were trying to 
get. 

Mr. Daley. I will concur in that. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you something. Can the international 
president or the president of a conference just take over the negotia- 
tions from a local if the local does not want it to ? 

Mr. Daley. Apparently so. Senator. 

The Chairman. I mean under the constitution, can they just walk 
in anytime and say, "You don't know what you are doing. We are 
going to take over this negotiation and make a contract for you." 
Can they do that? 

Mr. Daley. I will concede that the international constitution gives 
the international president that power. 

The Chairman. Sir? 

Mr. Daley. I will concede that the international constitution does 
give the general president of the Teamsters Union that power at the 
present time. 

Tlie Chairman. He does have that power ? 

:Mr. Daley. He has absolute power to interpret the constitution as 
lie sees fit. 

The Chairman. If you and your local, you and your people, if you 
are holding out for certain provisions in a contract, the president of 
the international can move in and say "Move aside, I am going to 
make a contract for you. We are not going to put that in it," and then 
he sicrns it. You are bound by it ? 

Mr. Daley. That is what happens, sir. 

The Chairman. You are bound by it? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is a kind of dictatorship, is it not ? 

Mr. Daley. Well, of course, it is submitted to the membership for 
a vote of approval. We have no way of telling how the other local 
unions voted in that unit. We don't know what pressures were used, 
if any, to make the other people vote for a contract which we may 
have not wanted in Yonkers, N.Y. 

The Chairman. Then you were bound together. You had how 
many locals negotiating ? 

Mr. Daley. There were six local unions, sir. 

The Chairman. You don't know what the other five did ? 

Mr. Daley. No. 

The Chairman. You just know your people didn't want it? 



19352 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Daley. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. And you were bound by what the other five did? 

Mr. Daley. Absolutely. 

The Chairman. That modifies it some. But what I was trying to 
ascertain was can the president of an international, particularly your 
international, the Teamsters, just move in any time negotiations are 
going on between a local or a half dozen locals and some employer and 
take charge of the negotiations and make such contracts as he desires ? 
You say he can do that? 

Mr. Daley. If I may, I would like to answer it in this way, Senator : 
It has been done. We had applied previously, based upon the vote 
of the membership, the unanimous vote, by the way, of all local unions, 
to turn this contract down. We applied for strike sanction to the 
joint council, as is customary under the international constitution, and 
to the Eastern Conference of Teamsters. When we met here in Wash- 
ington and all local unions joined in an oral request of Flynn as to 
why the strike sanction was not granted yet, Flynn told us it will not 
be granted, that James Hoffa is going to come in and conduct the 
negotiations. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr, Kennedy. As a practical matter, Mr. Hoffa would have such 
connections and contacts in these various locals that it would be vir- 
tually impossible to oppose him if he wanted the contract accepted; 
isn't that correct, Mr. Daley? 

Mr. Daley, Mr. Kennedy, James K, Hoffa is the general president 
of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and it is absolutely 
impossible to say that he doesn't have this power at the time. 

The Chairman. Is that too much or too little power for an inter- 
national president? 

Mr. Daley. It is all according to how it is administered, sir. I can 
tell you this very honestly. The Eastern Conference of Teamsters 
could probably result in being something damn well worth while, with 
the pro])er administration. 

The Chairman, With the proper administration? 

Mr. Daley. Provided the people in the local unions involved, the 
members I am talking about, were allowefl 

The Chairman. You can use absolute power for good, but often 
there is a temptation to use it for evil, 

Mr, Daley, The administration, sir, that is what counts. 

The Chairman, I know. 

Senator Ervin. Don't you agree that in the long run the only wise 
course for a union to take is to try to carry out the will of the local, 
that being the only wise thing for an international officer to do? 

Mr. Daley. Sir, I have negotiated, I would dare say, offhand, in 
the last couple of years, approximately 150 contracts for a large 
amount of people, and I have never signed it without the majority 
vote of my people, I absolutely refused up until this contract was 
signed, any contract in my local unless it was ratified by my people. 

Senator ER\^N, That is the only democratic way to do it, is it not? 

Mr. Daley, In my book it is. 

Mr, Kennedy, So there was dissatisfaction among the delegates 
trying to conduct the negotiations, witli Mr, Matheson on behalf of 
the employers, and finally the locals affected took an almost unani- 
mous strike vote, did they not, decide they would strike ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19353 

Mr. Daley. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had been assured that you would get strike 
sanctions from Joint Council 16 and from the Eastern Conference 
of Teamsters, initially ? 

Mr. Daley. We were told by John O'Rourke in the meeting we 
had in Atlantic City during the convention, we met upstairs at the 
request of James Hoffa, he made the statement in the meeting that 
as far as the local unions in New York he was in full accord, that 
he agreed they should be given strike sanction. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Then it happened that you did not receive the 
strike sanction in the mail? 

Mr. Daley. We were later told in Washington, D.C., by Flynn, 
that we would not receive the strike sanction. 

Mr. Kennedy. What reason did he give you at that time? 

I\Ir. Daley. I don't think he gave any reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he say 

Mr. Daley. That James R. Hoffa was going to come into nego- 
tiations. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he say that the little man doesn't want a 
strike? 

Mr. Daley. Yes ; I believe that was part of the discussion. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the little man was Mr. Hoffa ; is that right ? 

JSIr. Daley. As we know him. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what he calls him generally ; is that it ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then he called you all in and conducted the nego- 
tiations, and the contract was finally signed as you have described 
it here ? 

]Mr. Daley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time you were being harassed 
not only in the manner which you have described, but also by these 
problems and difficulties that you had with Mr. Topazio? Was he 
causing you difficulty in the local union ? 

Mr. Daley. Yes, sir ; and I might add from what I heard here today 
]Mr. Topazio wouldn't be the only one bringing charges against Mr. 
O'Rourke. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know at the time that this local union was 
set up to try to take away your membership in the Teamsters Union, 
that it was at least in part financed by Mr. O'Rourke ? 

Mr. Daley. It is ironic to know the whole story. Wlien we pre- 
ferred charges against Topazio, Joe Cavanaugli, and a former busi- 
ness agent of this local union, John Valentino, for the same thing, at 
all times, when they appealed their decision to the executive board 
they were all expelled, and we had to go before the person who I now 
find out was supporting them financially, as a judge. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is your opinion where a Teamsters Interna- 
tional officer is financing a local union which is trying to take mem- 
bership away from a Teamsters local union ? 

ISIr. Daley. My opinion is that he should be brought up on charges 
and thrown out of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters on 
the same grounds that we expelled the other people on. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you plan to bring charges against John 
O'Rourke to expel him from the union ? 



19354 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Daley. I certainly intend to call a meeting of my executive 
board when I get back, and take a transcript of this hearing back. 
There is no question about it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under the Teamsters constitution, is he liable ? Is 
this grounds for expulsion from the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters ? 

Mr. Daley. It is, unless he makes an appeal. 

Mr. Kennedy. But there have been individuals who have been ex- 
pelled for this reason, have there not? 

Mr. Daley. This, in my estimation, is a cardinal sin in the labor 
movement. This is the worst type. 

The Chairman. That is a rollcall vote in the Senate, and by the 
time we go and vote and return — in fact, when we go to vote for one, 
we may find we have to wait for a second vote. In view of the situ- 
ation and the lateness of the hour, I think it advisable to recess until 
in the morning. 

The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock in the morning. 

(Members of the select committee present at the taking of the 
recess : Senators McClellan and Ervin. ) 

(Wliereupon, at 4:03 p.m., the select committee recessed, to recon- 
vene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, July 8, 1959.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 1959 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

IN the Labor or Management Field, 
Washington^ B.C. 

The select committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to Senate Resolution 
44, agreed to February 2, 1959, in the caucus room. Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
John F. Kennedy, Democrat, Massachusetts ; Senator Sam J. Ervin, 
Jr., Democrat, North Carolina ; Senator Homer E. Capehart, Repub- 
lican, Indiana ; Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican, Arizona. 

Also present : Robert Kennedy, chief comisel ; Paul J. Tierney, as- 
sistant counsel; Arthur G. Kaplan, assistant counsel; Walter J. 
Sheridan, investigator; Pierre E. G. Salinger, investigator; George H. 
IMartin, investigator; Sherman S. Willse, investigator; and Ruth Y. 
Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the select committee present at the convening of the 
session were Senators McClellan, Kennedy, and Capehart. ) 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr, James Luken. 

The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall 
give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Luken. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES T. LUKEN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
BENJAMIN GETTLER 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation. 

Mr. Ltjken. My name is James Luken. I live at 8376 Danbury 
Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, and am president of the Milk Drivers Union 
in Cincinnati, and also president of the Teamsters Joint Council of 
Cincinnati. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

You have counsel. Mr. Counsel, identify yourself for the record. 

Mr. Gettler. My name is Ben Gettler, attorney, 1505 Fountain 
Square Building, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

19355 



19356 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. You are the president of the joint council there? 

Mr. LuKEN. Yes, sir ; since 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. What number is that ? 

Mr. Luken. Joint Council No. 26. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you are president of wliat local ? 

Mr. Luken. Local 98, president of Local 98, Milk Drivers Union. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been in the Teamsters, Mr. 
Luken ? 

Mr. Luken. I have been a milk driver since 1941, and I have been 
an official of the union since August 1, 1949. 

Mr. Kennedy. Plow many members are in your local ? 

Mr. Luken. In the local, 2,300. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many locals are there in the joint council? 

Mr. Luken. Twelve. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, when did you first become an official of the 
joint council? 

Mr. Luken. In February of 1954, 1 was elected to a position referred 
to as trustee and executive board member. In February of 1955, I 
was elected president. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, you are familiar with Mr. William Presser, 
and you know Mr. Presser? 

Mr. Luken. I am familiar with Mr. William Presser. 

Mr, Kennedy. You have known him for some period of time? 

Mr. Luken. Since May of 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you became an officer of the joint council 
originally, in 1954, did a representative of Mr. Presser come to visit 
you, or did he send a representative into the Cincinnati area? 

Mr. Luken, At that time, or around that time, he sent in a Mr. 
Harvey Friedman, and he sent him in as an official of the jukebox 
local, now defunt, local 122. He was Mr. Presser's brother-in-law, 
I believe. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe the record shows that he was and is his 
brother-in-law. 

What was he to do in Cincinnati, as you understood it? 

Mr. Luken. Ostensibly he came in as secretary-treasurer and busi- 
ness manager of a local, although he had never been a member of the 
local. 

The Chairman. What local was that ? 

Mr. Luken. Local 122, the jukebox local. 

The Chairman. It is now defunct, you say ? 

Mr. Luken. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that one of the locals where they paid dues of 
$50 or so, and they had 100 members ? 

Mr. Luken. I believe actually the members paid no dues, and the 
employer sustained the local. The membership was more or less, as 
far as the individuals were concerned, they had no real association 
with the union. It was a per capita thing, based on the machines in 
operation, and so on. It ran something like $50 a month. 

The Chairman. It was kind of a monopoly protection arrangement ; 
is that what it amounted to ? 

Mr, Luken. I believe it was i-eally an adjunct to the dealers' associa- 
tion, and the term "union" would be a misnomer and should not be 
used. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19357 

The Chairman. There wasn't a tiling in the world that served the 
interest of the laboring man, was there ? 

Mr. LuKEX. To the best of my knowledge, sir, there was no contract, 
no benefits of membership, and simply an arrangement whereby they 
could control the stops and keej) them with companies of the associa- 
tion, or something to that effect. 

The Chairman. That is in furtherance of a monopolistic control. 

Mr. LuKEN. I am not an expert on monopolistic control, but it 
would appear to be that. 

The Chairman. It was to keep some out and keep others in? 

Mr. LuKEN. I would say it would keep some in and it has the effect 
of keeping some out. 

The Chairman. That is a kind of monopolistic control, I would say, 
wouldn't you? 

Mr. LuKEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, under the Teamsters constitution, that is per- 
missible, to send an official in like that and make him head of a local 



union 



Mr. LuKEN. To the best of my knowledge, it is and has always been 
a requirement that you be a member of the local union for 2 years 
before you could be an official. 

It seems as if in Ohio these rules only apply to certain people, and 
to other people they do not apply. 

Mr. Kennedy. The constitution is applied only when it will help 
or assist those in positions of power ? 

Mr. Luken. If it was me, I would have been ineligible, but if it was 
Mr. Presser's brother-in-law, he was eligible. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. Did you draw the attention of the joint council 
to that? 

The Chairman. Blood is stronger than constitutional provisions 
then ? 

Mr. Luken. I would say that the analogy would be that government 
by men sometimes supersedes government by law. 

The Chairman. That is where blood superseded the constitutional 
provisions, too, is it not? 

Mr. Luken. In this case I think it was "blood-in-law." 

The Chairman. That is blood and law, dictatorial law ? 

Mr. Luken. I said "blood-in-law," a relative- in-law and not a 
direct relative. 

The Chairman. I think we have a fairly vivid description of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you draw attention to this in the joint council? 

Mr. Luken. In the joint council meeting, the local which I repre- 
sented through me protest-ed that we did not think Mr. Friedman was 
the proper kind of character to be a union official. We saw no evi- 
dence of his credentials, and we felt he should be at least excluded 
from the joint council proceedings, and we are not in a position to 
exclude him from the local itself, because as I said, there were no 
members, and so we tried to exclude him from the joint council. At 
that time the council president was Mr. Starling, who shall we say, 
took suggestions rather readily, and he ruled us out of order and we 
were not able to succeed in our point at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not succeed ? 

Mr. Luken. Not at that time. 



19358 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened to Mr. Friedman ? Did he remain 
a miion official ? 

Mr. LuKEN. He eventually left town. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did he go ? 

Mr. LuKEN. The Ohio State Penitentiary. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason ? 

Mr. Luken. It was something to do with accepting money from 
employers or false affidavits, and I am not sure of the exact reason, 
or the exact teclmical charge. He was convicted in the local courts, 
and he left town, and I think on a 1-to-lO sentence in the Ohio State 
Penitentiary. 

Mr. I^JENNEDY. Did you have any conversation at that time with 
Mr. Hoffa in view of your opposition to Mr. Friedman and Mr. Pres- 
ser? 

Mr. Luken. I think that I have indicated I was disturbed by what 
appeared to be happening, and it was being done ostensibly in Mr. 
Hoffa's name. So I felt it incumbent upon myself to find out whether 
that was with his authorization or not. 

So at the time of the formation of the Central States Conference, 
at my request I made an appointment with Mr. Hoffa whom I did 
not know, and asked if these people were truly his representatives. 

He told me that if I wanted to get along in the Teamsters in Ohio 
I should take my orders from Mr. Presser, that Mr. Presser was his 
man, and that was the way it was, and that is the way it was going 
to be. 

Mr. ICjennedy. How long ago was this ? 

Mr. Luken. At the time the Central Conference meeting was held^ 
in the spring of 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. And have you taken your instructions from Mr. 
Presser since that time? 

Mr. Luken. Have I? No, sir; I wouldn't say I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have some disputes with Mr. Presser in 
1954 and 1955 ? 

Mr. Luken. Well, the next day, after Mr. Hoffa told me that he 
was his man, Mr. Presser came into a meeting in which I was attending, 
a council board meeting, and he told me if I didn't do what I was told 
he would come into the barns in Cincinnati and break up my local. 

The Chairman. Come into what? 

Mr. Luken. Come into the barns ; that is a terminology we use and 
it goes back to the old horse days, when a teamster originated from a 
barn. Today it is the same inference as to the places of employment 
of the members of the miion, and in other words, they would send 
people to the companies where our people work and break up our 
union. 

Mr. Kennedy. So what steps did you take ? 

Mr. Luken. Well, I reported it to the people that I was associated 
with in Cincinnati, and we took what steps we thought were adequate 
to see that that did not happen. 

Mr. Kennedy. What were they? 

Mr. Luken. I think that they involved a lot of endless steps on 
advice of counsel, so that in the event Hoffa or Mr. Presser attempted 
to take over our local union, he would not succeed. We tried to ar- 
range it so our finances were not such that they could be tied up or 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19359 

encumbered, and our members were informed and a vote was taken, I 
would say in about five different meetings, once a year since then, 
authorizing the officers of the local union to take whatever action their 
legal counsel decided was necessary to see that we were able to make 
local control by the local elected officials of our local union. 

The Chairman. Have you been successful in that ? 

Mr. LuKEisr. I am still here. 

The Chairman. And you have been under this pressure all of the 
time, as I understand it. 

In other word, you felt it necessary and imperative that you take 
these precautionary measures and be alert to the situation at all times 
in order to stay in existence? 

Mr. LuKEN. I have spent probably two-thirds of my time in the 
last years protecting my rear against union officials rather than fight- 
ing employers, which I am paid to do. 

The Chairman. I see. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Luken 

Senator Capehart. Did you say that you were paid to fight em- 
ployers ? 

Mr. Luken. That is a cliche. I am paid to represent our members 
and our members' interest are often adverse to those of the employers, 
and therefore, I am paid in a sense to fight the employers. It is a 
cliche. Maybe I put it in a wrong sense. I am paid to represent the 
interests of our members in bargaining. 

Senator Capehart. You said you were paid to fight employers. 

Senator Kennedy. I thought he just straightened it out. I was 
addressing the witness, and would the Senator wait until I finish ? 

Senator Capehart. You go ahead, and then I will go ahead. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Luken, are there very extensive steps which 
Mr. Presser or a comparable authority is able to take in a State in 
order to seize control of the assets of the local ? 

As a general matter, in looking at the organizational structure of the 
Teamsters, are there in the constitution or as a practical matter are 
there numerous things that can be done by a man in Presser's position 
in order to force the local union officials and local union members into 
line? 

Mr. Luken. I believe, or I am positive there is a clause in the inter- 
national constitution, and I am not reading or quoting, but I think in 
substance it provides that when and if the international president has 
information that leads him to believe that a local union official is not 
doing his job properly or in the best interests of the local or in the 
best interests of the international union, he may appoint a trustee- 
ship. 

In other words, it says, "Wlien and if he has information that leads 
him to believe," and no hearing, and that is a tremendous pressure on 
the local union official, because if a trusteeship is appointed, then, of 
course, the official can be removed at the sufferance of the trustee or the 
person acting for the trustee. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, when you state, Mr. Luken, that 
you have to spend half of your time protecting your rear against Mr. 
Presser or his people, in other words, that represents a real threat to 
your local and to your position, if a man in Mr, Presser's position or 



19360 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

in comparable positions throughout the country are out to liquidate a 
union officer, that they have extensive powers to compel local union 
officials to fall into line. 

Mr. LuKEN, I AYOuld say, Senator Kennedy, that if you were not 
an administration man within the Teamsters, that to be able to sus- 
tain yourself, you would have to have the active support of 90 per- 
cent of your membership, rather than the normal 51 percent. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, this seems to me to be an ex- 
tremely important point in attempting to analyze what the future of 
the Teamsters is going to be if Mr. Hoffa remains in control. 

This power to compel union local officials to support Mr. Hoffa and 
his people throughout the country, and especially on the basis which 
the witness has described, that they had to have 90 percent of the 
membership in a sense, instead of 51 percent, if they are opposing Mr. 
Hoffa, indicates perhaps why Mr. Hoffa has been able to maintain his 
position. 

Once you get in control of the gears of tlie machinery in the Team- 
sters Union, it becomes an almost impossible job for the rank and file 
membership to throw Mr. Hoffa out because of the extensive powers 
controlling funds, the powers of trusteeship, and all the rest. I think 
that is a significant point. I think for that reason, under the legisla- 
tion which passed the Senate, there is a limitation, as you may faiow, 
Mr. Luken, on the period of trusteeship. 

The trusteeship can be thrown out at any time if it is not provable 
before the Secretary of Labor that it is in the interest of the local 
union. 

]SIr. Luken. May I comment on just that point? 

Senator Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Luken. I would like to point out to you, sir, that my opinions 
on trusteeship would probably not be that of other leaders in sub- 
stance. I am not talking of nefarious people, but Mr. Meany, et 
cetera. 

The point I think you miss, even in your law there, is that once 
the trusteeship is imposed, even though it be for only a short time, the 
manner of method of getting out of trusteeship, if the leader was re- 
moved, the local leader was removed, for political purposes, he has to 
sustain himself, he has to earn a livelihood, he probably does not have 
a job in the craft which the union is involved in. He may have to 
take a withdrawal card. 

Even if the trusteeship was only for 90 days, his chances of ever 
getting reelected would be mighty, mighty slim! 

Senator ICennedt. In other words, you feel that the law should 
state 

Mr. Luken. My personal opinion, sir, is that a trusteeship should 
be, like martial law, more in the State, and that definite and positive 
cause should be shown first, and that even redress to the courts before 
the trusteeship may be made effective could be had. 

I am quite certain my opinion differs in this from other labor lead- 
ers M'hom I respect, whom I respect their opinions. I disagree with 
them. But I think the removal of a local officer in a union, as long 
as he has been elected properly, is not guilty of a crime, is not guilty 
of subordinating the interest of his members to his, personally, or 
something like that, that he should have his day in court before he is 
removed. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19361 

I do not say that it should be impossible or even too difficult for 
him to be removed, but I think he should have his day before he is 
removed and not reinoved on the basis of when someone has informa- 
tion that leads them to believe. That is not my concept of American 
jurisprudence. 

Senator Kennedy. Your point is that the present practical arrange- 
ment of power within the Teamsters makes it extremely difficult for 
any local union official to go against city hall and to oppose whoever 
may be in power at the central position of the Teamsters. 

Mr. LuKEN. I think you may characterize it to the political state- 
ment that you can't fight city hall. Well, you can, but it is mighty 
difficult. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, you feel that if X is in charge, 
whether it is Hoffa or anyone else, once he is elected president, for 
anyone to throw him out becomes an extremely difficult, if not impos- 
sible, job. 

Mr. LuKEN. I would say that would be putting it quite accurately, 
that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, regardless of 
the merits of performance. You do not have a basic, two-party setup. 
There is no active minority. An active minority is always subject to 
criticism that they may be working against the best interests of the 
local. 

You do not have two political machines. You only have one. This 
is true of my own case. It would be very difficult for a member of 
ours to defeat me in the local union because I know everybody, I have, 
in effect, a political organization inherent with the job. It is a little 
bit different from politics. 

I would say it is much more difficult to defeat an incumbent union 
officer than it would be an incumbent politician. 

Senator Kennedy. May I ask you this : Would you say Mr. Presser 
was a popular figure among the Teamsters of Ohio ? 

Mr. Luken. My observation must be limited mainly to tlie greater 
Cincinnati area, I would say with the membership of the Teamsters, 
the truckdrivers, those who have taken an active interest, which you 
understand are relatively small, I would say he is not very popular. 

In other areas of the State I am not conversant with it because the 
plague has l^een put on me and people don't talk to me. 

Senator Kennedy. The point of the matter is, though, that to get 
rid of Mr. Presser in Ohio would really not be merely a question of 51 
percent of the Teamsters making a decision to elect someone new, but 
it would be an extremely difficult and complicated task to throw Mr. 
Presser out and would require the active support of far more than a 
majority in the Teamsters of Ohio in order to secure new leadership in 
Oliio; is that correct? 

Mr. Ltken. I tliink the thing would go back to its inception. Mr. 
Hotl'a told me that he placed Mr. Presser there. I think under the 
present situation, Mr. Presser would remain so long as Mr. Iloffa kept 
liim there. 

Senator Kennedy. And there is nothing you can do about it? 

Mr. Luken, I do not believe so. 

Senator Kennedy. I think your testimony, Mr. Luken, is extremely 
important in answering a question which, a good many people ask, as 
to wh}^ the rank and file of the Teamsters Union does not secure new 
national leadership. 



19362 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Your practical experience in attempting to protect the integrity and 
reputation of the Teamsters Union indicates how difficult it would be 
to do this nationwide once Mr, Hofla and his group have secured pos- 
session of central power. 

Mr. LuKEN. Well, yes. Also, through these conferences and State 
agreements, et cetera, they control the power of the grievance and 
arbitration procedures of a contract. Of course, grievance and arbi- 
tration procedures, the processing of grievances under the contracts, 
a good contract without a good grievance procedure automatically 
becomes a bad contract because your grievance procedure is your en- 
forcement of the law, just like a good law with no enforcement of the 
law becomes a bad law. 

So even a contract that appeared to be a good contract with a bad 
or a faulty grievance procedure automatically becomes a bad contract 
because no one can get their rights under it unless it has an effective 
grievance procedure. 

Senator Kennedy. I want to thank you, Mr. Luken. As I say, you 
have done a good deal more, I think, than most people in order to 
restore the reputation of the Teamsters. I think that your experience 
has been such that it is of great value to the committee and the Con- 
gress, indicating what kind of legislation would be useful. 

Mr. Luken. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Capehart. Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Senator Capehart? 

Senator Capehart. It isn't quite clear to me because I do not have 
all the records, but you are president of a local at the j)resent time ? 

Mr. Luken. I am president of a local union primarily. That is 
where I draw my basic salary from. I am also president of a joint 
council. 

Senator Capehart. How many individual unions are there in the 
joint council? 

Mr. Luken. Twelve, sir. 

Senator Capehart. But you draw your pajr from the local? 

Mr. Luken. I receive $50 a month from the joint council. 

Senator Capehart. How long have you been president of the 
local ? 

Mr. Luken, Since August 1, 1949. 

Senator Capehart. Since August 1949 ? 

Mr. Luken. Excuse me, sir. January 1, 1949. 

Senator Capehart, How long have you been head of the council ? 

Mr. Luken. Since February 1955. 

Senator Capehart, February of 1955, How long has Hoffa been 
president, international president, of the Teamsters? 

Mr, Luken, I don't know whether you are asking me a legal ques- 
tion or not. He has been provisional president, subject to this court 
procedure, since — originally he should have taken office in November 
of 1957, but it was held up under a court procedure until, I believe, 
February of 1958. Tliese are from memory. Senator. I think that 
is correct. 

He was stopped by a court injunction until the consent agreement, 
and I think tluit was 'in February of 1958. 

(At this point Senator Goldwater entered the hearing room.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19363 

Senator Capeiiart. You were testifying a moment ago that it was 
almost impossible to throw out a union official. Has that been true 
in your instance '? Has there been any effort to throw you out ? 

Mr. LuKEN. I was elected in 1949 by a majority of seven. Three 
years later I ran against the same man and was elected by a majority 
of 1,250 out of 1,500 votes, and since that time I have been unopposed, 
although other officers in our local union have had opposition from 
time to time. 

We have secret ballot elections in our local union every time. The 
term of office is 3 years, but some of the officers are up for election 
every year. 

Senator Capehart. You said a moment ago, I believe, in answer to 
questions by Senator Kennedy, that it was impossible to throw out, 
almost impossible to throw out, an officer of a union. 

Mr. LuKEN. No, sir ; I don't think I said it was impossible. I said 
the incumbent has an edge, even more so than an incumbent in politics. 
I would say an incumbent in politics has an edge. It is more promi- 
nent in a union because you do not have the two-party system. When 
you have an incumbent in politics, you have an active organization 
working against him to some extent. This is not true of the Republi- 
can Party in Hamilton County, where I live. An incumbent endorsed 
by the Republican Party in Hamilton County, he is elected ; that is all 
there is to it. This is in congressional elections. 

There are rare exceptions. The 1948 situation was an exception. 
These are all matters of degree. I did not say impossible. I said that 
they had an edge. There is nothing illegal about the edge. I think it 
is an inherent edge. 

Senator Capehart. Would you recommend any sort of legislation 
to cure that situation ? 

Mr. Luken. I don't know that I consider myself completely com- 
petent to recommend. I would say that in the matter of government, 
I feel that one of the basic advantages of our concept of government 
is the tri party or the tripartite situation, where we have administra- 
tive, legislative, and judicial, and that they, to some extent, emanate 
their power from different directions and at all times they are not al- 
ways in agreement ; whereas, in a union, or, for instance, in a political 
party, all of these functions end up drifting to the same people. 

In other words, Mr. Hoffa or his group end up being not only ad- 
ministrative, legislative, and judicial, but they end up being all of 
them. Tliere is not that setup that we have with the Supreme Court 
maybe disagreeing with you gentlemen about some of the legislation 
you might pass. 

Senator Capehart. Did you testify that you were originally a trustee 
of this union ? 

Mr. Luken. I was asked, I believe, when I was elected. I was elected 
to a position which is termed trustee. It is a misnomer. It is not a 
trustee in any normal sense that you use the word. A union in the 
Teamsters has always seven officers, a president, a vice president, secre- 
tai-y-treasurer, recording secretary, and three trustees. 

The term "trustee" comes about because they are supposed to audit 
the books. They are also part of the executive board or the executive 
committee of the union. 

36751— 59— pt. 55 15 



19364 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Capehart. Who is Mr. Presser? What authority does he 

Mr. LuKEN. That is a broad question. Mr. Presser is president of a 
taxicab drivers local in Cleveland, president of the Ohio Conference of 
Teamsters, president of the Teamsters Joint Council inCleveland, not 
in Cincinnati. 

Senator Capehart. Is he a superior officer to you under the ieam- 
sters setup? Is he over you? 

Mr. LuKEN. In his position of Ohio Conference president, I don t 
think there is any constitutional authority, but let me put it this way : 
He is Mr. Hoffa's man and I am not, and that makes a difference. 

Senator Capehart. You say he is Mr. Hoffa's man. What do you 
mean by that? Do you mean he was elected by the Teamsters in 
Ohio to' be the top man in Ohio, or was he just simply appointed by 
Mr.Hoffa? 

Mr. LuKEN. Mr. Hank Carr from Toledo was president of the Ohio 
conference. Mr. Carr, like me, did not get along with Mr. Hoffa. 
Somewhow or other his resignation was arranged and at the next meet- 
ing Mr. PrevSser was elected unanimously. 

Senator Capehart. When was Mr. Presser elected ? 

Mr. LuKEN. I would say 1953 or early 1954, but this is from memory, 
Senator. 

Senator Capehart. Then Mr. Presser is officially a superior officer 
to you in the Teamster Union ? 

Mr. Lukex. You are asking me, sir, something which has legal 
conclusions. I don't know that that is true. In his position as Ohio 
conference president, he may have some vested constitutional authority. 
We have gone over it with our lawyers from time to time, and we don't 
particularly think he has any enforcible authority if the local union 
would take a strong stand and vote otherwise. 

But he has a tremendous inherent authority if the local union official 
has a tendency to drift along with the tide. 

Senator Capehart. Has Hoffa made any effort to throw you out 
as president of your local ? 

Mr. Lfken. Through Mr. Presser. Mr. Presser runs the State of 
Ohio for Mr. Hoffa. That is virtually — with the exception of the 
southwestern corner. 

Senator Capehart. You haven't any suggestions, then, on how to 
get rid of the situation that you feel exists in unions; namely, once 
you are an officer, it is a tough proposition to elect a new officer? 

Mr. LiTKEN. I didn't say, sir, that I thought that that was some- 
thing. I was describing a situation as I see it and think it exists. I did 
not necessarily mean that it was terrifically wrong. 

I don't know how you would get rid of the incumbent's political 
edge in politics. All I was pointing out was a stated fact that I believe 
that in unions this edge is a little greater than it would be in politics 
because the administrative and the legislative — in a local union, under- 
stand, the legislative, efforts are made by the members directly at what 
you would call a town meeting. 

Rut members do not have the time necessary to always evaluate a 
question, and they liave a tendency to look to their leaders for advice. 
As long as tliose leaders do not give advice which is inherently wrong 
and proves to be wrong, the tendency would be that he would be 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19365 

reelected and he would have an edoje. This does not mean that he could 
not be. thrown out. I defeated an incumbent at one time and certainly 
incumbents have been defeated. But they have a normal, a natural 
etdfi^e. 

I do not believe this is terribly wrong. I do believe if it was possible, 
but I see no legislative way it would be possible, that the system of 
government we have would be much better applied if we had a separate 
judicial as opposed to administrative in the union. 

But I think that is true of corporations to some degree, and we 
don't have it in corporations, either. 

Senator GoLDWATER. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. How many members do you have in your 
local ? 

Mr. LuKEN. In the local, sir, 2,300. In the council, about 18,000.^ 

Senator Goldwater. How many people voted the last time you ran 
for election? 

Mr. LuKEN. In our election, sir, in our local ? 

Senator Goldw^\ter. Yes. 

ISIr. LuKEN. In our local, sir, the last time I ran there was not an 
election because the officers were unopposed. But there were 1,900 of 
those 2,300 members in the hall at the time we were nominated. 

Senator Goldw^\.ter. Isn't that a rather unusual turnout? 

Mr. LuKEN. Yes, it is an unusual turnout. But we think we nin 
an unusual union. 

Senator Goldw^ater. You must, to get that many men out. 

Mr. Luken. We have attempted to encourage membership pailici- 
pation. It is a losing battle. You have to keep fighting to encourage 
it, because, after all, members are concerned with a union for its pri- 
mary purpose of "What do I get and when do I get it ?" 

This is the reason for it, the same as stockholders are concerned 
from a corporation, as "What are my dividends and how much appre- 
ciation do I get for my stock?" It is very difficult to continue to have 
membership participation. We have encouraged it. 

For instance, when we have our election, we always give away 
turkeys as an attendance prize, anytliing we can think of to try to get 
the members to participate. It isn't always successful. 

Senator Goldwait:r. Isn't this apathy in the whole problem, when 
you get down to union elections, a basic problem, that you could 
change officers at the international level if the locals turned out where 
delegates were selected and put the tyjie of delegate in that would A'ote 
against the people they didn't want and for the people they wanted ? 

Isn't that basically the problem of democratic processes in unions, 
getting men to participate? 

Mr. Liken. Let me say, Senator — maybe I am going to shock some- 
Ixxly — to some extent the best form of government is a benevolent 
dictator. The only thing wrong with it is Avho in the world is going 
to control when he will be l3enevolent and when he will not be benev- 
olent? So to some extent the best form of government is a benevolent 
dictatorship. 

In a union a benevolent dictatorship can exist very easily, the 
same as it exists every day of the week in a corporation, because the 
stockholders are not interested in what the president's expense ac- 



19366 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

count is, or not whether he made $5,000, but, "Did I get my 6 percent 
and is there something left over for appreciation and building up the 
stock?" 

If you want to repeal the laws of human nature, I think you are 
right, but I don't know how you will do that. If you shut up the 
television sets in tlie countiy, close up the newspapers, and put the 
women in another country or county, then you could possibly get the 
people to union meetings. It is the same v/ith churches. Can you get 
people to read your newspaper all the time ? 

Senator Goldwater. I am in perfect agi-eement with you. I men- 
tion this to point out the difficulty of legislating in this field. Less 
than 50 percent of the eligible voters of the country voted in the last 
national election. If we get bad government, it is because people 
don't vote. If we get bad union leaders, I think it is because the union 
member is interested, as you say, primarily in working conditions, 
his hours, his pay. If it is good, the devil with it. 

I have asked drivers who come into my business out in Arizona, 
who drive the big semis across the deserts and the mountains, in fact 
I kept a record of it, and found one man who never heard of Jimmy 
Hotf a, who was a Teamster. I haven't found one yet who is against 
Jimmy Hoifa because they all make good pay and they have good 
worlnng conditions. 

I have asked them if they go to meetings. They don't go to meet- 
ings. I haven't found a one yet that comes into my place that attends 
meetings with any regularity at all. So to help answer the question 
put to you by Senator Capehart, until you can get people to go to 
union meetings without giving them turkeys, until we can get people 
in the United States to go to the ballot places and vote, you are going 
to continue to get bad labor leaders here and there, and we are going 
to continue to get bad politicians here and there. It is not like 
Hamilton County all over the United States, you know. 

Mr. LuKEN. No, thank goodness. 

Senatoi- Goldwater. That is all. 

Senator Capehart. I have just one more question, Mr. Chairman. 

What is your reason for disliking Hoffa ? What does he do to you ? 
You are still the president of this local miion, the president of the 
council. What is it? 

Mr. LuKEN. Sir, I don't think I said I disliked Mr. Hoffa. I don't 
have any pei'sonal opinions about the man in any way, shape, or form. 
Let me say that I do not believe he is the best suited to be president 
of the union which I belong to. I do not agree with a lot of his stated 
concepts. 

Although it is a little bit against my feelings in some respects, I 
feel that to some extent wliere there is so much smoke, there is some 
fire, and I have had some of the fire directed at my direction. The 
fact that I have been able to sustain myself does not mean that I like 
it. 

I have had tilings liappen to me that I don't think should be re- 
quired just to hold a ])osition. Understand, I like my position, I like 
the people I worlv for. I could make more money doing other things. 
But to me a job is largely— I liave a family to provide for. But if 
I didn't like my job, if I didn't enjoy it, as I say, fighting with em- 
ployers which you take exception to, l^elieve me, I would have gone 
somejjlace else a long time ago. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19367 

Senator Capehart. I didn't take exception. I wondered if that 
was what you were paid to do, to fight the employer. 

Mr. LuKEN. If it is necessai-y, that is what I am paid to do ; yes, 
sir. 

Senator Capehart. You made the statement, I didn't. 

Mr. Luken. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. That is alL 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Luken, when you say that the ideal state 
is a benevolent dictatorsliip, so that the record is straight, your view 
is that it is impossible to insure that it would remain benevolent 

Mr. Luken. I did not say that an ideal state was. I said it is 
conceivable that a benevolent dictatorship could be ideal. But the 
whole premise falls completely because when you have a dictatorship 
you lose any control as to whether it is going to be benevolent or not. 

I said if you could conceive of a benevolent dictatorship acting as 
a benevolent dictatoi-ship for a certain stated time, yes, it can be a 
very fine form of government. But where is the control ? 

Senator Kjennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. Mr. Luken, I have no reason to doubt, based on 
your testimony, but wliat you try to run a good union, and try to 
operate it with due deference to democratic processes and the rights 
of the individual members. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Luken. Let me say this: My simple philosophy is, Senator, 
I try to act as an officer as I wanted to have officers act when I was 
a member. 

The Chairman. In other words, you treat your members like hu- 
man beings. 

Mr. Luken. I treat my members just like they are voters, Senator. 

The Chairman. Like what ? 

Mr. Luken. Just like they are voters. 

The Chairman. Well, they are votei-s, and you encourage them 
to vote. 

Mr. Luken. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. You don't try to discourage them or hinder them 
from voting or exercising their proper rights, do you ? 

Mr. Luken. We have tried as best I know how to encourage voting 
and membership participation at all times. 

The Chairman. Do you grant to them, inside a union hall, their 
rights, freedoms, and protections guaranteed to them by the Bill of 
Rights of the Constitution ? 

Mr. Luken. In 10 years that I have been chairman of meetings, 
I have never once ruled a member out of order, no matter how far 
he went afield, feeling it was better to let him have his say regard- 
less of whether he was technically out of order or not. 

The Chairman. I am just asking the question. I am trying to 
find out. I have been very interested in what I conceive to be the 
rights of individual members of unions, rights that are essential if 
they are to have the dignity that I think a human being sliould have, 
and have it respected. 

Is there anything in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the 
United States thatyou think should be left outside of the union hall 
when you go into a meeting? I mean any rights, protections, or 
privileges that are guaranteed or reserved to the individual by the 



19368 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Bill of Rights that he should surrender when he walks into a union 
hall? 

Mr. LuKEN. You seem to imply a little bit that I am an expert on 
the Bill of Rights. I don't claim to be. But I know of none. 

The Chairman. I am not implying you are an expert. But we all, 
as human beings, think we have certain rights, that we are entitled 
to certain freedoms, entitled to certain protections, and in a general 
way we know what the Bill of Rights does for us. 

Mr. LuKEN. What I meant to say was without attempting to 
qualify myself as an expert, I know of nothing in the Bill of Rights 
that I think should be denied a union member in his activities as a 
union member any more than it should be denied him in his activities 
as a citizen. 

The Chairman. Of course, there are certain limitations within 
propriety that we ought to observe. I have the right of fre-edom of 
si^eech, but I have no right 

Mr. LuKEN. You have a right to bear arms, but you don't have the 
riglit to go to Fountain Square and shoot oil a gun. 

The Chairman. That is right. There are certain limitations and 
restrictions. 

In your opinion, can a union local be properly operated as a union 
should be and serve the interest and welfare of the members by ob- 
serving what we term the Bill of Rights ? 

Mr. LuKEN. Sir, that has been my whole philosophy, and I think 
that we have reasonably succeeded in that direction in our particular 
local union. 

Tlie Chairman. Then I take it that you would have no objections 
to a bill of rights provision. 

Mr. LuKEN. Senator, again I wish to say I am not an expert. 

The Chairman. I underetand. 

ISIr. LuKEN. I have read your points that are referred to as the 
Bill of Rights. I have also read the legislation liniitedly. I would 
say I have no objection to the stated facts and I have some objection 
to the way in which they are legislated in this case. 

The Chairman. But the point I am trying to make is this : If there 
is anything wrong, or if there is any principle that is violated, what 
is wrong with undertaking to see that when members enter a union 
hall to attend a meeting that their rights and tlieir freedoms and tlie 
protections under the Bill of Rights follow them into that union hall ? 
I just can't understand it. 

I can't understand any opposition to that. 

Have you found it necessary to violate any of those provisions in 
order to operate a imion in the proper way ? 

Mr. LuKEN. Senator, I think that I have read the bill and I have 
read your so-called Bill of Rights, and I do not believe that in our 
local union wo have at any time done anything in the 10 yeare I have 
been associated with it that you could construe as being a' violation of 
your laws, as written. 

However, I am not saying that in my opinion it is a particularly 
effective piece of legislation or that it necessarilv should be legislated. 

The Chairman. Maybe it can be improved. * But you tell us what 
we should do, if anything. 

Mr. LuKEN. I am at a disadvantage. You are an expert and I 
am not. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19369 

The Chairman. I am trying to get a dedicated union man's point 
of view, and I believe you are. Your testimony here today and your 
demeanor indicate that to me. I hope that I am not mistaken. 

What I am tiying to find out is this: What is it that a dedicated 
union man slioukl object to with respect to the Bill of Kights? 

Mr. LuKEN. Well, Senator, as I have said, I can't take exception to 
it because I am not a laAvyer. I have read your bill and in some re- 
spects I say I see nothing wrong with the stated objectives. I have 
discussed it with my brother, who is an attorney and a member of the 
Civil Liberties Union, and he says that some of the things in there 
take exceptions to his concept of civil liberties. 

This is going a little bit too far. I think Mr. Gettler, the union's 
attorney, takes some technical objection to the language. I make no 
objection to the stated objectives. 

The Chairiman. Let me ask you this : This is what I am tiying to 
determine. We have amassed a record here of denial of democratic 
rights and of freedoms and of protections to union members where 
they have been tremendously imposed upon in union halls and by these 
dictators that are not so benevolent that you referred to. 

What kind of legislation would you suggest to reach that situation ? 
You don't need it in your union or in your local from your standpoint, 
or, from what you say, you don't need it and you observe it anyhow. 
But what are we going to do with these that do not? How are we 
going to reach them ? 

Mr. LuKEiSr. Let me try to answer your question the best I can. I 
have read the Kennedy-Ervin bill and I do not claim to be an expert 
on it. I feel a mistake was made in that bill in going into the second- 
ary boycott provisions, notwithstanding Senator Goldwater. 

The Chairman. I don't think it goes into that. 

Mr. LuKEN. From practical experience in this field, I believe that 
is a mistake. There are some technical objections which legal people 
have, and I have to rely on their judgment, and I respect their feeling 
or their general conclusion, and their approach is the same as mine, 
and I have to say that there are some objections to the language in the 
so-called Bill of Rights. I certainly must say that if it was a choice 
of this bill or no bill, if I were a Member of Congress I would vote 
for it. 

The Chairman. Now, no one is contending, and certainly I am not, 
that the wording of the Bill of Rights is perfect. 

]\Ir. LuKEN. You are putting me to some extent on the spot that I 
don't want to give the impression that I feel I am completely qualified 
to answer. 

The Chairman. I understand that, but the point I am making is 
this : I think you will agree with this, that while in your union — and 
maybe you can find thousands of others in the country that are run 
like yours — the leadership is dedicated and tries actually to serve the 
interest and welfare of the men instead of trying to exploit them; we 
do have unions where I am convinced that the leaders are simply using 
unionism to enrich themselves and to exploit their own members as 
well as the public. 

Do you feel that we need some kind of legislation to reach that 
situation ? 



19370 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. LuKEN. I certainly believe to my own personal knowledge and 
things I have read that have occurred, giving them the credit that one 
should give a newspaper account and not taking the complete ver- 
batim — I feel it is necessary that there be some legislation in the labor 
field. I do not take the technical objection that some people take, 
that a labor organization is a private society and therefore should not 
be legislated against. 

legislated against is wrong. I should not say there should not be 
legislation in that field. 

I have to say that I think some of the people are using the present 
exposes. I have to point out that all of the union officials I know, and 
in our locality in particular, there are far more of those dedicated in- 
dividuals than those who are attempting to enrich themselves. 

That is notwithstanding that someone just reading a newspaper 
might come to the conclusion that all union officials are not such nice 
people. There are an awful lot of dedicated union officials who maybe 
don't have the education and intellect of business people, or something 
like that, but they are doing a job in the best way they know how. 
They should not be criticized as a group for the failings of a few. 

I see no objection, and I feel that a union basically is today an 
economic society, and it is not just a fraternal organization or a church 
organization. I feel that the Government has a right and a duty to 
legislate in that field. 

But, I think. Senator, that one of the main problems — and I have 
a tendency to get into politics which I would like to stay out of — but 
one of the main problems here is that some people have seized upon 
this opportunity to legislate against unions rather than to legislate for 
union members. 

The Chairman. Well, that might be conceded without arguing it 
either way. The position I have taken is that decent dedicated union 
leadership in this country ought to come in here and help us write 
legislation to deal with that element that needs dealing with, and yet 
protect and preserve decent unionism. 

Mr. LuKEN. I do not disagree with you. 

The Chairman. That is the point I have. 

Mr. LuKEN. I have cooperated with your committee when requested. 

The Chairman. I am sure that you have. 

But I do say, it is just like crime. We don't enact a law making 
larceny or theft a crime because the majority of our people are thieves. 
We enact such a law to protect the majority from the imposition of a 
very small minority. Is that not correct ? 

Mr. LuKEN. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is true, I tliink, in this field. I agree with 
you, and I have tried to emphasize it everywhere I have made any 
statement, that tlie gi^eat majority of union people and union leaders 
in my judgment are dedicated people trying to serve the interest and 
welfare of the laboring people that they represent. But I do sav to 
you, sir, that this other element, this niinoritv that we are trying to 
deal with, its influence is growing, and unless it is curbed and brought 
under control, unless something is done about it, the day will come 
when decent unionism in this country will be in danger. 

I think it serves the interest of all those who are for unions and 
those who believe in them, and those who believe that working people 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19371 

ought to have their rights. I think it serves their interest and welfare 
to find the kind of legislation needed to drive the crooks and thieves 
and exploiters out of unions and preserve that vliich is decent and 
good and for the interest of the working people of this country. 

^Ir. LuKEN. On that last statement, Senator, I agree whole- 
heartedly. 

The Chairman. That is my position, and I think it is going to take 
a bill of rights or something similar to it in order to bring into union 
halls, into some of them, the protections and the freedoms and the 
rights that human beings are entitled to wherever they are. 
All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just to go back, we had some reference to Mr. Har- 
vey Friedman. He had been, prior to being sent in by Mr. Presser, 
arrested for transportation of illegal liquor, forgery, blackmail, ob- 
taining signatures by false pretenses, and in 1949 he was arrested and 
convicted and received oYo years in Lewisburg Prison for interstate 
transportation of stolen automobiles. That was just prior to the time 
that Mr. Presser sent him down into Ohio. 

Then when he got down there he was convicted for false statements. 
First he was indicted for blackmail and then convicted for false state- 
ments and obtaining property by false pretenses and received a sentence 
of 1 to 6 years. 

Xow, you spoke about the conversation that you had with Mr. 
Presser that he would come in and take over your union if you caused 
him any difficulty. You said that you went back and had the meeting 
with 3'our membership. Did they ever try the approach of offering 
you something if you would go along with them, as long as these 
threats did not work? 

Mr. LuKEN. Yes, sir ; 2 days later I was offered the presidency of 
the jomt council. 

Mr. Kennedy. By whom ? 

Mr. Luken. By Mr. Friedman first, and Mr. Presser later. I was 
standing in a hotel lobby and he came up and he said, "Why don't 
you get along with us, why don't you play ball? You are a young 
man and you could go far, and you could be president of the joint 
council if you wanted to be," and Mr. Presser lat.er joined in. 

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the pro- 
ceedings were Senators McClellan, Capehart, and Goldwater.) 
Mr. Kennedy. What did you say to that ? 

Mr. Lltken. I pointed out to him that they already had a president 
of the joint council. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he say ? 

Mr. Luken. He said, "Resignations could be arranged." 
Mr. Kennedy. You refused to go along with that ? 
Mr. Luken. I later became president of the joint council, but with 
his active opposition rather than his support. 

Mr. Kennedy. And on your own terms; is that right? 
Mr. Luken. On the terms of the group which I was working with ; 
yes, sir. 

(At this point Senator McClellan withdrew from the hearing room.) 
Mr. Kennedy. Then there was an investigation by the so-called 
Bender committee in 1954 of some of the Teamster officials in Ohio, 
was there not ? 



19372 IJVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. LuKEN. Yes, sir. I believe it was in Cleveland, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any conversations at the meeting of 
your joint council in connection with that investigation ? _ 

Mr. LuKEN. I believe that is a matter that your committee investi- 
gated about a year ago. My recollection on it is not completely — 
this is 4 or 5 years ago. As I recall it, a letter was brought in from 
the State or from Cleveland, requesting money so that they could 
pay the expenses of the officers, Presser and Triscaro, who appeared 
before the Bender or the Hoffman committee. I am never sure which 
one it was. 

One of our officers stated the union provided them with counsel, and 
what other expenses were there. 

Mr. Starling 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat position did he hold ? 

Mr. LuKEN. Mr. Starling was then president of the joint council 
in Cincinnati. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were just an officer ? 

Mr. Luken. I was just a board member. 

Mr. Kennedy, Did you write down his statement at the time ? 

Mr. Luken. Yes, I did, Mr. Kennedy; and as I recall it I don't 
remember whether the statement was made directly that the money 
was to be given to Senator Bender for calling off the committee hear- 
ings, or whether it was to be given to other people. I wrote it down 
and you have it. 

(At this point Senator McClellan returned to the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe we have given that to you. 

Mr. Luken. At the time I wrote this down, and it said Mr. Starling 
said, "Other moneys were spent to pull certain strings to see that these 
charges were dropped.'" 

I cannot say accurately at this moment whether Mr. Bender was the 
man that was supposed to have dropped the charges or whether this 
was charges that county officials were pursuing as a result of the 
Bender investigation. 

Afr. Kennedy. It was at the time the investigation was going on. 
Would you relate the beginning part of it, first, as to how the subject 
came up ? 

Mr. Luken. A letter was brought in, and when we made an investi- 
gation of this at your request, or your man came in and went through 
our files, we could not find the letter, but we did find that in the minutes 
of the meeting there was a reference made to the letter, the fact that 
it was brouglil in, that Mr. Starling read it, requesting money. 

]VIr. Kennedy. I might say, Mr. Chairman, we have examined the 
files, and tliat letter to which he is referring is missing from the files. 

]\Ir. Luken. It was not in our files, but, of course, Mr. Starling had 
the letter. Maybe it never went in the files or if it went in, it came 
out. But it was not there when your investigator looked. I think the 
secretary of the Council was with him. I did not personally look, 
but I am sure the files were gone over by two people. 

The minutes of the meeting showed that the request was made. It 
only showed that the request was made for money. It did not say 
exactly what it was for. At that time I was sort of amazed at this 
statement being made that the money was being raised to pay off 
officials, and I wrote it down, November 17, 1954. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19373 

Mr. Kennedy. The date of the meeting was November 22, 1954? 

Mr. LuKEN. The letter was dated November 17, 1954, and the meet- 
ing was November 22. 

Air. Kennedy. And the question then was raised, "As long as we 
have paid all the legal fees in connection with Mr. Presser, why do 
they need money ? " What was the answer to that ? 

Mr. Luken. His answer was, "Other money was spent to pull certain 
strings to see that these charges were dropped." 

That is what I wrote down at that meeting when he said it. 

The Chairman. I was out for a moment. Who made that answer ? 
To whom were you talking ? 

Mr. Luken. He was the then president of the Joint Council, who 
was president of Ohio Conference and was more or less Mr. Presser's 
emissary in Cincinnati. 

The Chairman. What was his name ? 

Mr. Luken. Mr. Starling. He was defeated in the reelection bid 
last December. 

Senator Goldwater. What were these charges? Do you recall? 

Mr. Kennedy. They were appearing before the Bender committee, 
Mr. Presser and Mr. Triscaro, at that period of time. 

Mr. Luken. Trying to recap it as best I can, Mr. Presser, Triscaro, 
and certain other officials who appeared before the Bender conunittee 
or the Hoffman committee, as a result of that appearance, we were in 
Cincimiati, none of our people were involved, were solicited for 
moneys to pay their expenses. One of the executive officers asked 
what the expenses were. Their lawyer was provided for by the union. 

What expenses did they have ? 

AVliy do we have to give money ? 

The answer was given that ''Other money was spent to pull certain 
strings to see that these charges were dropped." 

Right at that time the committee also went out of existence with 
some flair, if you might recall. I am sure Senator Bender's name was 
mentioned, but I want to make it clear that I am not saying that this 
man said the money went to Senator Bender. It may have ; it may 
not have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this in 1954 ? 

Mr. Luken. This was in 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought that was a House committee. 

Mr. Luken. It was a House committee. I am referring to Senator 
Bender. It was Representative Bender at the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was a Congressman at the time. They were 
holding hearings. It was a question of whether they were going to 
resume the hearings and press some contempt action against Mr. Pres- 
ser. It was decided about this period of time to drop the contempt 
action, and they did not hold the hearings that had possibly been ex- 
pected. 

Could we have that note made an exhibit, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Let me see the note. 

Mr. Luken. May I explain, Senator, that the notation on the top 
was just- — well, that piece of paper was a note that was given to me 
by the office clerk when I came into the meeting to call Mr. Struberg, 
who was a company executive. That is his phone number. 



19374 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

When the statement was made I was sort of shocked. I wasn't 
shocked that a politician woiikl take a bribe. I was shocked that some- 
body wonkl be stupid enough to say so in front of seven people. 

The Chairman. Is this your handwriting'^ 

Mr. LuKEN. Yes, sir ; written on November 22, 1954. 

The CiiAiKMAN. You identify it as yoiir handwriting and you state 
this occurred there at the meeting at the time ? 

Mr. LuKEN. That was written on November 22, 1954, and it was one 
of those things you throw in your files and these guys found out. 

The Chairman. It was in your file and you recognize it as yours ? 

Mr. Lfken. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Then it may be made exhibit No. 58. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 58" for reference, 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Senator Capehart. Are you intimating that some politician, maybe 
Mr. Hoffman or Mr. Bender, took a brioe? 

Mr. LuKEN. I am not intimating anything. 

Senator Capehart. What did you mean by the statement that you 
made a while ago, that you weren't shocked at a politician taking a 
bribe? 

Mr. LuKEN. Previously, I said I was shocked. No, I would not 
be shocked at a politician taking a bribe. I think the record is pretty 
replete that we have had nimibers of them in this country who have 
taken a bribe, I wouldn't be shocked at it. I was shocked at a man 
making a statement that they were bribing an official, in front of all 
those witnesses. 

Senator Capehart. What do former Senator Bender and Con- 
gressman Hoffman have to do with it? 

Mr. Kennedy. Congressman Hoffman is not involved in this. 

Mr. LuKEN. I don't know that either was involved. My answer is 
in direct reply as to what that note means. I can only give you what 
it means and what was said at the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Congressman Hoffman had nothmg to do with this. 

Senator Capehart. The note says — 

Mr. Starliug says that other moneys were spent to pull certain strings to see 
that these charges were dropped. 

Mr. Starling made that statement, did he? 

Mr. LuKEN. Yes, sir. That statement is in quotations there, and 
I wrote it down. The reason I w^rote it down is, as I say, I was 
shocked that a statement like that would be made. It was something 
really unusual, and I worte it down so I wouldn't be misquoted at a 
later time. 

Senator Capehart. What were you talking about at the time? 

Mr. LuKEN. We were talking about a request for money from the 
people who had appeared before the Bender committee, or for a group 
of jjeople acting in their behalf, to raise money to pay the expenses 
of that appearance. 

Senator Capehart. How did this testimony of yours, intimating, 
maybe, by inference, maybe, that maybe Bender or Hoffman got some 
money— you weren't intimating that? 

Mr. Luken. I was not, sir. I was trying to make it very clear. 

The way my answer fitted into Mr. Kennedy's question was I 
wanted to make it clear that I was not stating that Mr. Bender or 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19375 

Mr. Hoffman got anything, and that I was only quotmg a statement 
that was made in my presence. Other than that, I know notliing 
about it. 

Senator Capeiiart. This memorandum says, "Letter of November 
17, 1954." 

What does "letter of" have to do with it ? 

Mr. LuKEx. That was the date of the letter that Mr. Starling read 
to us which requested the money. 

The Chairman. Ask him what the letter said. 

Senator Capehart. What did the letter say ? 

Mr. LuKEx. The letter in substance said that people Avere raising 
money to carry the expense of the appearance of these people before 
the Bender committee or the Hoffman committee, I don't know which 
it was. 

And would we contribute to that. 

Senator Capehart. Would you contribute ? 

Mr. LuKEN. Would we contribute to it. Would we help pay these 
expenses. 

One of the executive officers there said, "What expenses? There 
were no expenses." 

Mr. Starling agreed there were no open expenses and suggested, as 
is quoted there, and let me stick to the quote — I am sorry I said any- 
thing other than the quote. I was trying to make sure that my state- 
ment was not misinterpreted and as a result vou have misinterpreted 
it. 

Senator Capehart. How did I misinterpret it ? 

Mr. LuKEN. You seemed to make the inference to me that I was 
making an accusation against Mr. Bender or Mr. Hoffman, and I am 
not, sir. 

(At this point Senator Ervin entered the hearing room.) 

Senator Capehart. The note says — 

Other money was spent to pull certain strings to see that these charges were 
dropped. 

What I was trying to find out was how Congressman Hoffman and 
former Senator Bender's name got mixed up in this matter, because 
you said it wasn't unusual, or some such statement, that politicians 
take money. 

Mr. LuKEN. Because Mr. Kennedy's question included, I believe, a 
statement that the charges were before the Bender committee. That 
was where the charges were. 

Senator Capehart. Was it the Bender or the Hoffman committee? 

Mr. Kexxedy. I can straighten that out. Clare Hoffman, the Con- 
gressman from Michigan, had nothing whatsoever to do with this. 
This was a committee that was run by Congressman Bender. Con- 
gressman Hoffman had nothing to do with this whatsoever. His 
name shouldn't even be injected into these hearings at all in connection 
with tliis matter. He had absolutely notliing whatsoever to do with 
it. I think that in fairness to him we should straighten the record 
out. 

Congressman Bender was the chairman of a subconmiittee which 
was investigating Mr. Presser and Mr. Triscaro. They conducted 
hearings during 1954. I think they ended sometime in (Jctober, but 
the dates are in the record already. To the best of my recollection on 



19376 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

it, they ended sometime in October with the announcement that they 
would be continued in November; that there would also be some con- 
tempt citations. 

The hearings were not continued. 

According- to the minutes that we put into the record about a year 
ago, Mr. Presser announced at that time there wouldn't be anything 
further done in connection with this matter, with his case, that the 
whole thing was going to be dropped. That is what he announced 
publicly to his membership, that the charges against him were going 
to be dropped. 

This is putting the rest of the story in. 

Mr. LuKEN. To make my point clear, I just wanted to make sure 
that you put my story in and it wasn't alleged that I did. 

Senator Capehart. Did you contribute any money to this ? 

Mr. LuKEN. No, sir, we did not. 

The Chairman. How much was asked for ? Do you know ? 

Mr. LuKEN, It seems to me. Senator, there was no request for money. 
It seemed to me that the overall request was we were trying to raise 
$40,000. But there was no specific request to us. 

The Chairman. No amount assigned to your local ? 

Mr. LuKEN. No, nothing assigned. Just that "We need money." 

The Chairman. Are you sure about the amount of $40,000? 

Mr. LuKEN. No, sir. I do not claim to be sure. I was asked that 
question by the investigators and I believe a figure of $40,000 sticks 
in my mind, but I do not want to be held to it. That was the overall 
amount. 

The Chairman. So you have no information other than that they 
said they needed some money because they said they would have to 
pull some strings. 

Mr. LuKEN. Basically, I would like to stand on the statement that 
I wrote at the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't think in anything you have said that you 
have gone beyond that. 

The Chairman. The point I am making is that you had no knowl- 
edge at the time of payments being made to anybody, other than a 
request being made. 

Mr. LuKEN. Just that "we needed money." 

The Chairman. They were in a campaign to raise money ? 

Mr. LuKEN. Yes, sir. 

The Chairiman. They said they had extra expense because they had 
some strings to be pulled ; is that correct ? 

Mr. LuKEN. Yes, sir. 

Mt-. Kennedy. To get the charges dropped. 

The Chairman. It impressed you so at the time you made a notation 
of it ? 

INIr. LuKEN. Yes, sir. That is not uncommon. I do that on things 
that are important. 

The Chairman. I appreciate that. But it was of enough significance 
that it imi)ressed you at the time and you made a notation of it? 

Mr. LuKEN. I would say it impressed me ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you make any contribution ? 

Mr. LuKEN. No, sir, we did not. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19377 

The Chairman. Did you advise your lodge or local not to make a 
contribution ? 

Mr. LuKEN. Under the procedures, when a request like this came 
into the executive board, if they wanted to make a contribution they 
would have recommended it to the delegates for their ratification. 

In this case, they made no such recommendation, and I believe the 
letter was ordered filed. I think Mr. Kennedy has the minutes. 

The Chairman. Do you laiow what became of the letter ? 

Mr. LuKEN. No, sir, I do not, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you ever have it in your files, the files of your 
local ? 

Mr. LuKEN. No. This was not the local. This was the Joint Council, 

The Chairman. Well, the Joint Council. 

Mr. LuKEN. I was not a principal officer of the Council at the time, 
I was just a committee member present when this discussion took 
place. 

The Chairman. You have never had the letter, then, in your pos- 
session, in your official position ? 

Mr. LuKEN. No, sir. We tried to reconstruct that, and the best we 
could reconstruct was that the letter probably was never out of Mr, 
Starling's possession, because we noted that it was unusual that the 
minutes said he, the president, read it, where normally the commu- 
nications are read by the recording secretary. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Luken, I would like to ask just one more 
question to try to clear this point up. 

Were there any charges made by the local prosecutors, such as the 
county attorney, or the State's attorney ? 

Mr. Luken. Understand, sir, this transpired in Cleveland, and I am 
in Cincinnati. I do not know, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Was there any charge against Mr. Presser 
pending by a State or county court ? 

Mr. Luken. I have to say, sir, I don't know that there were any 
charges against Mr. Presser, whether they were State, county, or Fed- 
eral, or the committee's charges. I do not of my own knowledge know 
that there were any charges. 

Senator Goldwater. What I was trying to find out, just to keep 
the record straight, is if, when you wrote down that this money was 
to be used to pull certain strings to see that these charges were dropped, 
were the strings pulled at the local level or the State level or the 
Federal level ? I do not want your opinion on it if you don't know. 

Mr. Luken. Sir, all I can say is that to the best of my recollection 
it made only reference to the congressional inquiry, but it did not 
say where the charges would be. I have enough general knowledge to 
know that information that may come from a congressional inquiry 
can incur local charges. I wanted to make it clear that I didn't mean 
that these were, from my inference, that these were charges of the 
committee. They may have been local charges. I do not know. 

Senator Goldwater. You do not know ? 

Mr. Luken. I don't even know if there were any. I am j ust making 
the statement that this is what the man says. 

Senator Goldwaitr. I would like to ask the counsel if he is aware 
of any local charges that might have existed against Mr. Presser. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not. 



19378 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. Local or State charges ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not aware that there were any charges at local 
or State level. They had had some hearings, Senator, the Bender 
subcommittee, and there might have been some consideration of some 
of the things that they developed regarding Mr. Presser and Mr, 
Triscaro; but I know of no specific charges that were made against 
them other than those that were being made during the course of 
the subcommittee's work. Some of those might have been considered 
by the local authorities. I have no information on that. 

Senator Goldwater. Is my memory right, that Mr. Presser was in 
trouble a year or so ago in a court in Pennsylvania, where some local 
was suing him ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No ; he appeared before tlie committee in connection 
witli his misuse of union funds and misuse of union position. He 
appeared twice. He was convicted in 1954 in an antitrust case. We 
developed some matters regarding his activities out there. I don't 
know wliether the Justice Department is investigating him at the 
present time. He is in Ohio, head of the Ohio Conference of Team- 
sters. 

His chief lieutenant is Triscaro, who also appeared before this 
committee. 

The Chairman. They took the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, both of them. The date of the antitrust con- 
viction was 1952 rather than 1954. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Friedman was sent to jail in 1954 or 1955. Did Mr. Presser 
then send in someone else to replace him ? 

Mr. LuKEN. I think there was an intervening time. The next 
replacement, I think, came from Mr. Hoffa personally ; that was Mr. 
Ralph Vanni. 

Mr. Kennedy. By whom was he sent ? 

Mr. LuKEN. I tliink he came from Hoffa personally. He came from 
Detroit. He was on the conference payroll under the apparent di- 
rection of Mr. Presser, but he seemed to be much more directly con- 
nected with Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is V-a-n-n-i ; is that right ? 

Mr. Luken. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long did he remain ? 

Mr. LuKEN, I would judge about 2 years, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What kind of difficulties did he cause you? 

Mr. Luken. There aren't that many hours in a day. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just summarize it in broad general categories. 
^ Mr. Luken. He was sent in, I would say, with the obvious inten- 
tion that Mr. Friedman had failed to take over the council or failed 
to take over the city, and he was sent in as an obvious replacement. 
There was a little intervening time. As to my own particular local, 
the milk drivers union, they tried to cause some dissension amongst 
the members, and not finding a fertile field they went to the employers, 
and so the employers told me, about 15 of them, that they were told 
by Mr Vfinni in substance that "We would like to get Mr. Luken 
out of here, and if you will cooperate with us, it will be to your best 
advantace." 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19379 

Mr. Kennedy. He went to the employers and told them that ? 

Mr. LuKEN. That is what the employers tell me, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. To their best advantage, financially ? Was that in- 
dicated? 

Mr. Luken, One of them told me this story, which I tliink would 
characterize it. 

AVe were currently in negotiation at the time and asking 15 cents. 
And eventually settlement was made on 13 cents and fringes. At that 
time, Mr. Vanni told this one man this stoiy, that he thought Mr. 
Luken was giving them more trouble, and that the rates were too liigh, 
but he doesn't alw^ays agree with employers; that he had an em- 
ployer make him an offer the day before of 2 cents an hour, and that 
was a ridiculous offer, of 2 cents, but we settled it for 4 cents. 

This occurred at the same time we were in the process of settling 
for 13 cents. 

The employer said, "Gee, I would like to have had the 4-cent offer he 
had instead of the one you make." 

Mr. Kennedy. That was the general pattern ? 

Mr. Luken. That was one of the approaches. Several of the em- 

Eloyers just told me he said plain out, "We would like to get rid of 
luken. Will you help us ?" 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you finally reach the point where you sent out a 
letter to all employers ? 

Mr. Luken. As soon as we heard about it, we informed the em- 
ployers that this person did not in any way represent our union and 
did not in any way represent our membership, and it was just an 
official notice that the only officers of this union are such, and any 
other such person is not acting within the authority of the membership. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened to Mr. Vanni ? 

Mr. Luken. He was pulled out about, I would say, 2 yeare after- 
ward. He got into all sort of bad publicity. I don't think there was 
any actual legal difficulties. He turned out to not be an asset to them 
in any M'ay. He wasn't accomplishing his purpose. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive information that he was taking 
money from employers, or at least on one occasion ? 

Mr. Luken. In a couple of instances ; yes, sir. We had an affidavit 
turned over to the lawyer from one of the unions that he was accept- 
ing money, and I had an employer say that lie wanted some cabbage, 
and that he gave him $25. But wlien we tried to get the employer to 
stand up, he ran for cover. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think we have a copy of the affidavit that you were 
referring to, wliich indicates that he tried to get money from an em- 
ployer, other than the $25. 

Mr. Luken. I didn't know yon had a copy of it, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this sworn to? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Luken. I do not know, sir. I wasn't there personally-. I was 
not there. I have read that at one time or another. 

The Chairman. What is this document ? You say you are familiar 
with it. 

Mr. Luken. It is an affidavit, I believe, from a man who was a 
foreman for a 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

36751— 59— ,pt. 55 16 



19380 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. I ask you to examine the document and state if 
you can identify it. It doesn't show any oath having been attached 
to it in verification. I don't know what the original may show. That 
appears to be a photostatic copy. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. LuKEN. Sir, I was not present. I have read this at a previous 
time. I am informed that it is a transcript of a recorded conversa- 
tion ; that it is not an affidavit as the counsel stated. It is a transcript 
of a recorded conversation. 

The Chairman. Between whom? 

Mr. LuKEN. The questions were asked by a Mr. J. W. Brown, an 
attorney. The answers are by Lee Adam Wliite. 

The Chairman. Where was this document kept ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. LuKEN. It would be in the office of the files of local union 100 
or in their attorney's office. 

The Chairman. It wasn't in your possession ? 

Mr. LuKEN. No, sir. But I had observed it previously. 

The Chairman. I am trying, if it has any significance, to get it 
properly identified so that it may go into the record and be made an 
exliibit. You have no knowledge of it other than having seen it at 
some time? 

Mr. LuKEN. The only knowledge I have is that Mr. J. W. Brown, an 
attorney, who also happens to be Brown & Gettler, who happen to be 
our attorneys, told me that he had taken this statement from this fore- 
man and he let me read the statement as it was of interest to me in my 
position of joint council president. 

It is not, to my knowledge, an affidavit, but it is a transcript of the 
conversation between them. 

The Chairman. Of an interrogation? 

Mr. LuKEN. An interrogation would be the best correction ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is not that important, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. At the present, it will not be made an exhibit. 
I wanted something more authentic. 

Mr. Kennedy. The point I was trying to make is that Mr. Friedman 
came in first to disrupt the operations of Mr. Luken, and he ended up 
going to jail in connection with receiving money from an employer, 
receiving money under false pretenses. 

Then they sent in their Mr. Vanni. He got into difficulty also. 
They received information that he was going around telling the em- 
ployers that he would get them a better contract than they were getting 
from the local union. 

They subsequently learned that he was also taking money from 
employers. This was one of the means of substantiating the state- 
ment, but it is not important as he has given it under oath anyway, 
that they did receive information. 

And because of the bad publicity that Vanni received, he did have to 
leave the city of Cincinnati ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Luken. I believe Mr. Presser was quoted in a newspaper state- 
ment as saying he was fired. 

The Chairman. That is the second man that was sent in to disrupt 
your local ? 

Mr. Luken. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19381 

The Chairman. The other one that was sent to the penitentiary, was 
that for a crime committed there in connection with his work, trying 
to undermine you ? 

Mr. LuKEN. No, sir. He was also an official of the Dry Cleaning 
Workers Union, wliich is now defunct. The international is defunct 
itself. The Dry Cleaning Workei-s, not the Teamsters. 

The Chairman. What he was convicted for was not something he 
did in connection with that particular assignment to undermine you ? 

Mr. LuKEN. Well, he was tried under a blackmail indictment for 
accepting $500 from the employer for labor peace. As I recall, the 
judge's decision was that he did accept the $500, but this was not black- 
mail under the statutes of the State of Ohio, and along with the inves- 
tigation at that time the police foimd, as I understand, some faulty 
affidavits and he was eventually sent to jail for making false state- 
ments. 

The Chairman. I was just trying to ask one question, whether it 
was related to his assignment down there to get you or undermine your 
local, or was it related to some other activity. 

Mr. LuKEN. I think it was indirectly related to his general assign- 
ment in the Cincinnati area. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Presser tell you that Mr. Vanni had been 
sent down for that specific purpose, the second gentleman ? 

Mr. LuKEN. At one time Mr. Presser told me, this was one of the 
times he was giving me the sweetness and light treatment, he told me 
Mr. Vanni was in there not to organize, but to disorganize, and if 
we would cooperate, Mr. Vanni would be pulled out. 

I told him Mr. Vanni wasn't effective, and if that was the best he 
could send in, he could leave him there as long as he wanted to. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you had some elections, the last elections that 
occurred in 1958 ; is that right ? 

Mr. LuKEN. Those are elections within the Teamsters Local 100. 
That is our biggest local, the general trucking local. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was an election of some importance, because it 
was a question of whether the delegates were going to be 

Mr. Luken. Well, we almost have the pro-Hoffa and the anti-Hoffa 
side to some extent. The incumbent officers in that local were the pres- 
ident and two other officers who were pro-Hoffa, and the rest of the 
officers, if you want to characterize them, were against him. 

May I say for democracy or against it. It was an important elec- 
tion. I would assume it seemed like all the forces of the international 
were thrown in there to tiy to win it for their people. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who finally won it ? 

Mr. Ltjken. The anti-Hoffa people. 

Mr. Kennedy. The people on your side ? 

Mr. Luken. Yes, sir. They had to have three elections and two 
court hearings, but they finally made it. 

The Chairman. Is this local 100 in your joint comicil ? 

Mr. Luken. Yes, sir. It is the biggest local in the joint council, 
probably the most effective economically; the most important eco- 
nomically, excuse me. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was a gentleman by the name of Morris who 
was heading up the Hoffa forces ? 

INIr. Luken. Well, he wasn't originally heading them up. As I 
said, they had to have three elections. They had to have an election 



19382 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

to validate the election — I don't know. It is pretty difficult to beat 
somebody that has Mr. Hoffa's approval. 

There was a whole series of elections. Mr. Morris was on the ticket 
of one of the — well, he was originally a minor official, but when Mr. 
Starling lost, the incumbent lost, he seemed to be set back in the Hoffa 
forces, and Mr. Morris then seemed to come forward as their spokes- 
man. 

Mr. Kenned^-. "What was Mr. Morris' first name ? 

Mr. LuKEN. Robert, I believe. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he have any position in the union ? 

Mr. LuKEN. He was a tnickdriver, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. No official position? 

Mr. LuKEN. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy, Was he one of those who were leading the fight 
against your people? 

Mr. LuKEN. After the election was lost by Starling, he emerged as 
the leader to have the election set aside so that they could have another 
election. 

Mr. Kennedy. The election was by voting machines; is that cor- 
rect ? 

Mr. LuKEN. The elections were by voting machines, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Lariy Steinberg, one of HoflPa's lieutenants, over- 
saw the election ? 

Mr. Luken. Larry Steinberg, who is the pei^sonal representative of 
Mr. Hoffa, came in and was present at all times during the casting of 
ballots and the counting of ballots. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the anti-Hoff a faction won ? 

Mr. Luken. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nevertheless they attempted to set it aside; is that 
right ? 

Mr. Luken. Well, while the election results were over, the election 
M-as over, but the results were not in, and IMr. Steinberg said this was 
a fine, honest election. ^Tien his man lost, somehow or other, he said 
it wasn't any good, that the machines ought to be thrown out. 

Mr. Kennedy. But ultimately you were sustained ? 

Mr. Luken. Through court. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there another election? 

Mr. Luken. There was an election to decide whether the first elec- 
tion should count. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the result of that ? 

Mr. Luken. The same people won that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they use some tactics against i^eople in local 
100 f luit were supporting you ? 

Mr. Lr^KF.N. When you say "they," I don't know. All of us have 
had these normal tactics. I mean, they sent the undertaker to my 
house once to pick up my body : they sent flowei-s to my funeral. I 
don't kiK)w who they were, but these things happened coincidentally. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period in 1956, or so, did you receive 
telephone calls yourself? 

Mr. I^uken. i would say about 100. 

Mr. Kennedy. What would they say in the telephone calls? 

Mr. Luken. About two-thirds of tliem, there just wasn't anylwdy 
there when you answered, and some of them said, "Got out of town," 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19383 

or "Have you got your bags packed?" A couple of them were from 
women wlio told my wife that I was rmming aroimd with other 
women. 

This was a credit to me, because I can't conceive of being successful. 
But it got old hat after a while. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did they send the undertaker to your home? 

Mr, LuKEN. Well, he never got there, but he called me up. It 
happened that I knew him. He explained to me that he had a call 
to come out and pick up my dead body. Believe me, I am not there 
yet. 

Mr, Kennedy. Were there also flowers sent to your home, to your 
funeral ? 

Mr, LuKEN. There was an order sent in the name of the president 
of the central labor council who sent flowers to the home of my 
brother for my funeral. I don't know who placed these things. 

iMr, Kennedy. This was, however, during the 

Mr. LuKEN. The worst one, as far as I am concerned, though, is 
one of the officials avIio v/on in this local 100 election, the first thing 
you know he is charged with rape in court, which, laiowing the person, 
is ridiculous, and later on the woman who made the accusation ad- 
mitted to us that she was paid $195 to do so and promised $1,000 if he 
was indicted. 

The Chairman. Why did they short-change her $5 ? 

Mr. LuKEN. I couldn't tell you, Senator, I wasn't in on it, believe 
me. 

Mr. Kennedy. By whom was she paid ? 

Mr. LuKEN. All I know is what she said, and she said she was paid 
by "the Great White Father in Washington." She was paid by Robert 
Morris, whom she quoted as saying he got the money from "the Great 
White Father in Washington." 

Mr. Kennedy. Did she say who she understood "the Great White 
Father" to be? 

Mr. LuKEN. She understood Hoffa, or Bill, I believe, meaning Bill 
Presser, 

Mr. Kennedy, All of this effort against you and your operation at 
this juncture was run by the same Mr. Morris, who paid the woman to 
make the charge against one of your lieutenants; is that right? 

Mr. Luken. Well, he also had his car bombed and made the im- 
plication that some of us did it. As soon as I heard about it, he was in 
the hospital, I called the police chief and I said that "I will t^U you 
that any of our people will not only prove that they are not guilty, but 
they will prove their innocence, and if any one of you request it we 
will take a lie detector test." All of them did. Mr, Morris didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. The man whose car was bombed ? 

Mr. Luken, He refused three times to take it, 

Mr, Kennedy, Isn't it true that a few hours prior to the time his car 
was bombed, he called the insurance agency to find out if he would be 
paid insurance if his car were bombed ? 

Mr, Luken, That's what the police officials told me, I don't know 
of my own knowledge. 

The Chairman. Do you attribute all of this to the fact that you 
oppose Hoffa and his methods ? 

Mr. Luken. I don't attribute it to anything. I just say it coin- 
cidentally happens. 



19384 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Yes, you do. It is only human nature that you 
would attribute it to something. 

Mr. LuKEN. I would say if I had not been in opposition to Mr. 
Presser or Mr. Hoffa, I don't think it would have happened. 

The Chairman. All right. I don't know, but that is the negative 
way of saying "yes." 

Mr. Kennedy. You know that is the reason, Mr. Luken ; that is the 
reason tliat you feel all of these things have happened. It is common 
knowledge in Cincinnati. 

Mr. Luken. If you ask me if I feel, that is the reason I feel. But 
if you ask me if I know, I just say I don't believe it would have hap- 
pened 

The Chairman. You can attribute without knowing. 

Mr. Luken. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I didn't ask you if you knew. I asked you if you 
attributed. 

All right ; proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to get into the contract phase of the situa- 
tion now, Mr. Luken. 

As a general proposition, have the contracts in the Ohio Conference 
of Teamsters been higher than the contracts of the rest of the Central 
Conference of Teamsters ? 

Mr. Luken. Well, understand, sir, I am primarily an official of the 
Milk Drivers Union 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand. I am just asking generally. 

Mr. Luken. On request, I help the other imions. Rut Avhen they 
get into area negotiations, they go by me. Prior to the present agree- 
ment setup, the Ohio Conference had the Ohio highway drivers under 
Ed Muq^hy, through the chainnan of it being Hariy Carr, in Toledo. 
The contract rates for ovei--the-roads in Ohio has always been superior 
to those existing in the 11-State area of Mr. Hoffa's; yes, sir. They 
are still superior, but during the last 6 years this superiority has 
been hacked away. 

For example, during the period 1955-58, the general rate increase 
was 25 cents, but the Ohio people got 15. From 1958 to 1961, the 
contract rate is 10, 7, and 6, and the Ohio people get 7, 6, and zero. So 
they are both progressing, understand, sir, but they are progressing 
at a less rapid rate than previously. 

The differential is being wiped out on the guaranteed iims, and the 
guaranteed runs are the guts of the agreement, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. This, of course, Mr. Chairman, is of extreme im- 
portance because of the contentions made by Mr. Hoft'a's chief lieuten- 
ant that the best contracts in the Teamsters have been negotiated by 
him personally. We found out from testimony yesterday that this 
was not true in the eastern contracts, that the Central States Con- 
ference, of Teamsters contracts are below those of the eastern con- 
ference. 

Now we find that the contracts neogtiated in the Ohio Conference 
of Teamstei-s, which were a part of the Central Conference of 
Teamsters, are higher than the contracts that have been negotiated 
by Mr. IToffa. In order to equalize them, they are not permitting 
the Ohio Conference of Teamsters to go ahead as quickly, so that the 
Central Confei-enee of Teamsters will ultimately catch up. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19385 

That is it in substance, isn't it ? 

Mr. LuKEN. That, I understand, is it. The basic agreements had 
an original, different approach. One is on mileage and the other is 
hourly, hourly rates with guaranteed runs. The guaranteed runs are 
still superior to the mileage rate. Those were included in what is 
called the Ohio rider. 

Mr. Kennedy. One of the most important parts of the contract 
is the grievance clause, is it not ? 

Mr. LuKEN. Well, I think I previously stated that a good contract 
with a bad grievance procedure, or not able to effectively process a 
grievance when the employer does not comply with the agreement, 
automatically makes it a bad contract, in my opinion. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have Mr. Hoffa and his lieutenants tried to harass 
you and your people through the grievance procedures of these con- 
tracts ? 

Mr. LuKEN. Well, understand, my particular local refused the only 
area agreement in our field. It was way substandard to what we had, 
and was for 6 years, and provided us nothing. So we refused it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What contract was that ? 

Mr. LuKEN. Beatrice Foods Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened in that case ? 

Mr. Luken. In that case, we received a telegram to come to Chicago 
to a meeting, just a meeting about the Beatrice Co. We did not at- 
tend for some reason which I don't recall, but we did not attend. 

Later we got a communication with a contract which said that the 
contract had been ratified and it was now binding upon us and we 
would have to accept it. We went over it, and in 15 pages and 34 
articles we found that there were all sorts of things that we had 
enjoyed over a period of years, such as seniority for drivers — under- 
stand, this agreement does not include wages. The wages were sup- 
posed to be an addenda that you negotiated separately. We could 
not accept it. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Why ? Wliat was wrong with the contract? 

Mr. LuKEN. In the first place, it is a 6-year agreement. I don't see 
how you can set out an agreement for 6 years. That is getting to be 
an awful long time. 

In the second place, not only did it not maintain the standards we 
had, but it would — a thing like seniority to drivers is an important 
thing to people lilie us, and we are not about to give it up. 

But the worst thing about it all was this : I, obviously, am not po- 
litically in good with the administration, and under this contract any 
time there was a grievance the company could simply tell us to go 
jump in the lake, they are going to take it to Chicago and settle it 
with Jimmy. 

Under this contract, they had the final say. It wouldn't make any 
dilTereiice what our membei-s thought. They had the final say. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did this contract actually give up benefits that you 
had been able to obtain ? 

Mr. Luken. As it was written, it gave up benefits. Later on, Mr. 
Gibbons and Kavner came in town to sell me on the idea, and they 
explained to me that they thought they could hold all of these benefits 
for us. But we already had them. Why should we take a chance on 
their thought that they could hold them for us ? 



19386 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy, This contract was negotiated by whom? 

Mr. LuKEN. I could not tell you. It makes reference to a com- 
mittee. I don't know who. I midei-stand Dick Kavner was the mov- 
ing force beliind it, but I am not positive. 

The Chairman. AVliat has happened since you refused to abide by 
that contract but relied upon retaining the contract that your local 
had negotiated with this firm ? 

]Mr. Liken. Then the company came in and told us we had to take 
it. We just would not do so. Finally the company amended their 
position to say that they would continue to accept the Cincinnati area 
agreement. 

The Chairman. What? 

]Mr. LuKEN. Finally, the company amended their position to accept 
the agreement that we had with all the dairies in Cincinnati. 

The Chairman. In other words, you maintained, in spite of the 
Hoffa crowd trying to make you accept a contract for 6 years that 
they had negotiated, that gave you less than what you already had ? 

Mr. LuKEN. Undei*stand, sir, the wages in this agreement 

The Chairman. I am not talking about wages. It gave you less, as 
you have described it. 

Mr. LuKEN. Yes, sir. 

The ChairivIan. They tried to force you to take it ? 

Mr. LuKEN. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Then the management, the firm, tried to force you 
to take it? 

Mr. LiTKEN. Yes, sir. The finn told us they could not negotiate 
with us on subjects covered in this master agreement, but that we liad 
to take those in the master agi-eements. 

Our people unanimously rejected it at the meeting, those working 
for the company, and our union in general rejected area agreements. 

The Chairman. In other words, your local stood firm on what you 
had and refused to take what the company insisted that you take and 
Avhat the Hoffa higher-ups insisted that you take? 

Mr. LuKEN. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you still have what you had ? 

Mr. LuKEN. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You are still operating that way ? 

Mr. Ldken. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. What company is that? 

Mr. Luken. Beatrice Foods Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do they operate nationally ? 

Mr. Liken. Yes, I would say nationally. They have operations 
in Hawaii. But mainly they are located between the Rockies and the 
Alleghenies. They have otlier operations, but their main area is 
between the Rockies and the Alleghenies. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Luken, you negotiate for milk drivei-s, 
don't you ? 

Mr. Li'KEN. And workers that go along with it, the dairy industry, 
the margarine industry, the ice cream. 

(At this pohit Senator McClellan withdrew from the hearing 
room.) 

Senator Goldwater. Let's take the case of the milk truckdriver. 
Is he on an hourly rate or a mileage rate ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19387 

Mr. LuKEN. The milk truckdriver is, generally speaking, a sales- 
man, sir. In most cases he is on a salary and commission. 

Senator Goldwater. But he has a basic hourly rate ? 

Mr. LuKEN. No, sir. He is on a salary and commission. In our 
case, with a maxmium number of hours that can be worked within the 
framework. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you negotiate the salary ? 

Mr, LuKEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. How does the salary that you negotiate with 
you local compare with salaries paid elsewhere in Ohio or the Middle 
West? 

Mr. LuKEN. I would say that New York, Chicago, undoubtedly, 
are ahead of us. We are way ahead of the South. 

Senator Goldwater. I am talking just about the Middle West, Ohio, 
Indiana, Illinois. 

Mr. LuKEN. I believe we are — well, outside of Chicago, in Illinois, 
they are very low. Downstate Illinois is very low^, and Indiana is not 
too high. In Ohio, the three principal cities do not deviate too much. 

I believe Cleveland is probably a little higher than we are. Toledo 
is a little below us. 

Senator Goldwater. What is the salary agreement between your 
local and your companies? 

Mr. LuKEN. Do you want to switch it to the hourly paid people? 
We have both. 

Senator Goldwater. No; I am interested in this point. AVhat 
brought this up is that we have a note in the witness sheet that rates 
under the contract with Luken are approximately 70 cents per hour 
higher than contracts negotiated by local 100. 

Mr. Luken. I believe you are referring to the margarine companies 
and not the dairy companies. These are hourly paid people. 

Senator Goldwater. You negotiate for margarine workers, too? 

Mr. Luken. Yes. There are three margarine companies in Cincin- 
nati. Two of them are members of our union. 

Senator Goldwater. Is there a 70-cent-an-hour difference? 

Mr. Luken. At least that, sir. 

Senator Goldw^ater, What is the rate that you have? 

Mr. Luken. At one company we have an average rate of $2.47 ; at 
another company $2.38, which is now expiring. It is subject to re- 
negotiation. We hope to bring it up to $2.47, approximately. 

The third company, I would guess from reading the contract and 
knowing the people, I would say that it averages around $1.70 to $1.75. 

Senator Goldwater. Wlio negotiated the contract? 

Mr. Luken. May I make a little explanation of this, sir, becanse it 
is not our local ? It is local 100. I want to make it clear that it is 
not the direct responsibility of the people who are now in office. This 
occurred in 1055. Mr. Crawford, who was a business agent at that 
time, told me that the contract was signed in Detroit, and that now 
he was going down and sign up the members. 

In other words, the agreement was arranged in Detroit without any 
membership at all, and after the agreement was made they were go- 
ing down to sign up the members. That was a 6-year agreement, 
too. May I say when you smell 6-year agreements, look twice. But' 
that was a 6-year agreement with a reopening at the end of 8 years. 



19388 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

On December 15 of this year, Mr. Starling, who was defeated in 
the election on December 3, and who should have been out of office, 
signed another agreement continuing, in effect, basically the old agree- 
ment, with 5 cents an hour, and that is what brought it up to the 
average rate of, I would say, $1.75 or $1.80. But the original agree- 
ment, I think — my copy states to me that it was signed in Detroit, 
because it carries three signatures. It carries the signature of a man 
in Detroit on the bottom line as if he signed it first, then there are two 
names scjueezed in above the top line, one being Starling and one being 
Crawford. They are both defeated candidates in this particular local. 

Tliey executed this agreement the second time after they were de- 
feated, before the others could become installed. 

(At this point Senator McClellan entered the hearing room.) 

Senator Goldwater. To your knowledge, are there other contracts 
that haA'e been negotiated in the same way as the one we have just 
described in your local 100, that pay approximately the same rate, 
$1.75 an hour in other places in Ohio or in Indiana ? Do you know of 
those? 

Mr. LuKEN. I don't believe so. I think, Senator, margarine pro- 
duction is largely a southern operation, and there are some pretty low 
rates in the South. But they are not typical of our area. 

Understand, Senator, there are three companies. One of the ones 
we have has over 100 people involved. Another one has 20, and this 
third operation has about 20 people involved. So that the normal 
pattern would be that they would follow the largest ones in this area. 
But that has not been done in this case. 

Senator Goldwater. This is such a large differential. That is the 
reason I am staying at this. I want to find out if this is a pattern 
generally across that section of the country for margarine workers. 

Mr. LuKEN. The only otlier one I know of — I can't pattern mar- 
garine companies throughout the country too well. There is one in 
San Francisco I know of whose rates are similar to ours, and the one 
in Detroit, the same company, in Hoffa's local, their rates are equal to 
ours, and maybe a little better. 

Senator Goldwater. Let's go into the drivers' field which everyone 
thinks of as being the Teamsters. To your knowledge, are the across 
the road, the higliway drivers paid pretty much the same across the 
Middle West, in that central conference? 

^Ir. LuKEN. The basic agreement is now the same, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. All across ? 

Mr. LuKEN. As far as I know, other than the Ohio rider, which is 
a preservation of a previous better condition. 

Senator Goldwater. "VMiat was that better condition ? 

Mr. LuKEN". Well, sir; they work on hourly rate with guaranteed 
runs. In other words, you get a certain number of hours between 
Cincinnati and Cleveland, whether it takes you that long or not, 
uidess you exceed it. If you exceed it, you have the higher. "\^Tien: 
you apply that rate to the number of hours granted, you have a liigher 
pay for that job than if you applied the Central States mileage agree- 
ment. 

But the Central States mileage agreement, other than Ohio, applies 
universally. As far as I Icnow, in local 100, in our town, they stick 
to that religiously and do the best they can to enforce it. I have heard 
that in other cities there are special agreements. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19389 

Take this margarine company. I think if you will read the agree- 
ment, you will find in that case the going rate on mileage is 9.05, and 
I think that provides 71^ or 8 cents. The number of people involved 
in driving in the margarine companies is very small, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. What are we talking about now? In the 
margarine contracts, are we talking about 300 people, approximately? 

Mr. LuKEN. In Cincinnati? No, sir; 150. 

Senator Goldwater, 150 ? 

Mr. LuKEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Then 150 people out of your total membership 
in the council of what? 

Mr. LuKEN. 18,000. 

Senator Goldwater. Of course, the Teamsters, we find, covers a 
multitude of jobs. Are the bulk of these people, the 18,000, actually 
engaged in cartage or Teamster work, driving ? 

Mr. LuKEN. If 3^ou are going to say driving, I would say half. 

Senator Goldwater. Half of them ? 

Mr. Luken. Yes, sir. If you are going to say — well, take, for 
instance, our particular local, the Dairy Employees Union. All of 
the people who work for the dairies, with the exception of manage- 
ment personnel and office clerical persons, are covered and represented 
by our union. 

In our particular union, roughly half of them, you might say, have 
a wheel in their hand and the other half are engaged in production, 
maintenance, et cetera. 

Senator Goldwater. Does this cover the milkers ? 

Mr. Luken. This does not take place in the city. This is the farm. 
The actual milking of the cows has not been unionized, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. That is all. 

Senator Capehart. What company pays $2,47 ? 

Mr. Luken. Merchants Creameiy Co. 

Senator Capehart. How many employees ? 

Mr. Luken. About 25, sir. 

Senator Capehart. What company pays $2.38 ? 

Mr. Luken. Nu-Maid Margarine Co. 

Senator Capehart. How many employees ? 

Mr. Luken. About 110. 

Senator Capehart. What company pays $1.75 ? 

Mr. Luken. Sliedd Bartush Foods. 

Senator CapeHxVrt. How many employees ? 

Mr. Luken. About 25. 

Senator Capehart. About 25 ? 

Mr. Luken. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. That contract was made 6 years ago ? 

Mr. Luken. No, sir. It Avas a 6-year agreement made in 1955. 

Senator Capehart. Do each of these employees do similar work in 
the three companies ? 

Mr. Luken. Identical, sir. 

Senator Capehart. Identical ? 

Mr. LuNEN. Yes, sir. The production of margarine in all cases 
is veiy similar. This company uses a different brand of machine, 
or maybe it is more progressive in one phase. 

Senator Capehart. Let me ask you this question : Wliat responsi- 
bility does the international union. Teamsters Union, have to the 



19390 I]VIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

locals and what responsibility do you have to the international? 
What is the connection? Under your rules and regulations, are 
they entitled to discipline a local union? 

Mr. LuKEN. Let me ti-y and give you a nonteclmical answer. Prior 
to 1950, basically the Teamsters was a federation where the local 
unions were autonomous local unions. I think Dave Beck first in- 
stalled the conference setup. 

Of coui-se, management does, too, with your big national com- 
panies; it forces this to some extent. On the west coast it was re- 
fined where the local unions became of lesser importance and the 
conferences and joint councils became of more importance. I do not 
like this, when it can be avoided, because it takes the membership 
away from tlie membership and puts it in the hands of professionals 
who are possibly not always motivated by the membership. 

But it also is very effective if used properly. That, basically, was 
the Teamsters concept prior to 1950. There has been a very drastic 
change in that concept to make the local unions more or less simply 
a part of the whole. The constitution — well, let me say that the con- 
stitution says that the general president shall interpret it, and I do 
not wish to hazard an interpretation as to what it means. 

Senator Capehart. You do pay part of your local members dues 
to go to the international ? 

Mr. LuKEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Capehart. And they do have certain rights within your 
union, do they, or do they not? 

Mr. LuKEN. Will you differentiate in what you mean by the word 
"union"? 

Senator Capehart. As I understand your setup, you have a local 
union, you have a conference, and then you have the international 
union. 

Mr. LuKEN. They certainly have rights within the local. 

Senator Capehart. The international union does ? 

Mr. LuKEN. We sometimes have wondered whether we get too much 
benefit from the international union. 

Senator Capehart, Could the international union, for example, call 
the members of these three unions you just mentioned out on strike ? 

Mr. Luken. I would say that it certainly would be improper and 
has not, to my knowledge, ever been the procedure. Unless the local 
union had entered into a joint negotiation with other local unions. 
Then your vote would be by unions rather than by members. 

Senator Capehart. If one of these unions or all of them went out 
on strike, could the international union order them back to work? 

Mr. Luken. They could deny them benefits, strike benefits. 

Senator Capehart. Do they have a right to simply say, "We believe 
that you should go back to work" ? 

Mr. Luken. A lot of these questions you are asking, I think have 
an awful lot of legal conclusions to them. The international constitu- 
tion says if a local has refused arbitration, the international may order 
you to go back to work pending an arbitration. Unless you would 
get into inherent powers of the president or inherent powers of the 
executive board, I don't believe that there is any specific constitu- 
tional provision whereby the international could order a union back 
to work if it was not breaching its agreement and if it had complied 
and taken proper strike votes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19391 

Senator Capehart. If the international union had reason to be- 
lieve that they were violating a contract with an employer, could they 
order them back to work ? Do they have the right to ? 

Mr. LuivEN. Certainly they could order them. I don't know whether 
they have a right to. I really don't know, sir. I would say as a local 
union official, if I got such an order I would certainly run to my 
lawyer. 

Senator Capehart. Can the international union go out and bargain 
directly with any one of these three locals, or three companies? 

Mr. LuKEN. That is a position I disagree with Mr. Hoffa on. I 
think he says yes, and I say no. 

Senator Capehart. You say the international cannot ? 

Mr. LuKEN. Not unless the local vests that authority with him. 

I think it is covered by the Taft-Hartley law, sir, whether the con- 
stitutions cover it or not. I think the basic law of the country has 
preempted the constitution. 

The local, if it is a certified bargaining representative, I believe the 
law has been held that it is the certified bargaining representative. 

Senator Capehart. Wliat I am trying to get at is how can you 
have an international union if it doesn't have some power of discipline 
over its local unions, or should it have power of discipline. 

Mr. LuKEN. Let's say we have a federation, which is another re- 
fined step, and there the power is much limited. In international 
unions, they will vary from being a form of a federation, to almost 
complete control of them. 

In the Teamsters, I have to concede that the question may be one 
that is subject to interpretation as to just what the constitution now 
provides. 

Senator Capehart. Doesn't the international union have to give 
you a right or anybody a right, or a franchise, or a charter, to or- 
ganize a new union or to organize a company ? 

Mr. LuKEN. To give you a right to go organize a company, if you 
have a charter ? I don't believe you have to seek any permission from 
anyone if the members want it, unless you would be infringing upon 
another chartered local's jurisdiction. 

Senator Capehart. Could I go out and start a local Teamsters 
union in Cincinnati or any other town without getting permission 
from the international union ? 

Mr. LuKEN. No, sir. If there was not a local, you would have to 
make application for a charter from the international union. 

Senator Capehart. Then if the international union 

Mr. LuKEN. Actually, as a matter of practice, sir, you could go 
out and organize a union as an independent and after you did so, 
you could then affiliate. 

Senator Capehart. No, I mean organize it as a part of the Team- 
sters Union. Your answer is I could not? 

Mr. LuKEN. I think that is right, sir. 

Senator Capehart. If the international union, then, gave you a 
charter, and you can't organize without their permission, they must 
have some responsibility, then, do they not, for your actions, for the 
union's actions, or should have if they give you a charter? 

Mr. LuKEN. I presume they should to some extent sir. To what 
degi^e, I don't know. I am a firm believer that whenever possible 



19392 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

the best and most effective form of government, and tliat is what the 
union is, is as close as possible to the people directly affected. 

Senator Capehart. Would you feel you would be better off as the 
head of your union if it was not affiliated with the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. LuKEN. I think the answer that we are affiliated is the best 
answer. 

Senator Capehart. But you seem to want to deny them any 
responsibility oi authority for its action. How can you have your 
cake and eat it, too ? 

What I am trying to find out is how much authority they do have 
over the locals, and how much you, the local, can look to the inter- 
national for certain help. 

Mr. LuKEN. Sir, I keep going back to, I think, whenever possible 
the wishes of the members themselves should prevail, whatever entity 
is involved, wlienever possible. I will grant you that in the republi- 
can form of government, or the democratic form of government, 
you have to have some legislative authority, and some degree of 
responsibility. You are asking a very theoretical question which 
would go as to whether you should have locals at all, and if you don't 
have any locals at all it is a little bit like where does the Federal 
Government supei'sede over the local government. Certainly the inter- 
national has some authority as long as we are affiliated with them. 

Senator Capehart. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 

(At this point Senator Goldwater withdrew from the hearing 
room.) 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Luken, as a matter of principle, are unions 
supposed to exist in order that they might obtain better wages and 
better working conditions for the members of the locals? Is that 
not true? 

Mr. Luken. That, I believe, is the primary purpose. 

Understand, Senator, that from time to time that stated objective 
may appear to not be the most important thing, but it still is. As 
an example, an employer might raise wages beyond the union scale, 
and you say, "Well, why do we have a union ?" 

It may well be that that is a calculated effort to just get that re- 
action so that tlie employer can get rid of the union and do Avhat he 
pleases, and have no bargaining rights and no speaking for the in- 
dividual at all. 

There is a certain degree that the interest of the individual has to 
be takeii into consideration of whether the collective good OA-errides 
the individual's good. A complete paramount theory of the in- 
dividual's good eventually results in anarchy. There certainly has 
to l)e a form of majority rule. 

Senator Eijvin. In other words, your international is formed pri- 
marily like the Federal Government, for the purpose of promoting 
the welfare of unionism in those areas which are general and in an 
entire area or the entire country. 

Mr. Luken. You have a comnmnity of interest whether you drive 
a truck in Los Angeles or Cincinnati, and the International is basical- 
ly formed to bring that community of interest together. The ques- 
tion is whether that community of interest should be completely au- 
thoritative by the International or whether it should remain in the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19393 

locals is one that I could argue botli ways and have not a completely 
firm answer on in my own mind. I am afraid situations alter cases. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, you have a situation which is es- 
sentially modeled on our Federal-State system of government. 

Mr. LuKEN. To a degi-ee, yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And I want to say that I agree with you normal- 
ly that as much as your government, whether it is in the union or in 
a county or municipality, the closer you keep your government at 
lionie on essentials, the better off, I think, you are. 

Mr. LuKEN. Don't get me in agreement with you on States rights, 
Senator, although this is a theory. As I say, it is all completely sit- 
uations altering cases and you have to go into the complete subject. 
I don't want to characterize a complete statement. 

Senator Ervin. I am not going to get into an argument with you on 
that, because I think that the Federal Government should be allowed, 
as the constitution contemplates, to operate in the areas which require 
national action, and that local governments should be allowed to make 
final decisions in areas which are local in nature. 

For examj)le, the police of a city that are promoted to local traffic 
ought to be controlled by the local level, while the interstate highway 
shoud be. controlled by the Federal level. 

Mr. LuKEN. To a large extent I agree with you. 

Senator Ervin. The thing in a union is where you have cooperation 
between your local union and international union and both try to work 
together for the good of those wlio are members of the union. 

Mr. LuKEN. I think that is right, sir. 

Senator Ervin. I want to commend you for the attitude you have 
sliown toward your unionism, and also your frankness in discussing 
these matters with the committee. 

Mr. LuKEN. Thank you, sir. 

(At this point Senator McClellan withdrew from the hearing room.) 

Mr. LuKEN. Mr. Kennedy, I don't think I answered your question. 
I limited my answer originally to what happened in our particular 
local, and the overall picture is that local 100, which has these area 
agreements, they certainly have had grievances denied to them on 
political grounds, rather than on the merits of the case. 

Mr. Presser once told me that if they would get on the right side 
politically they would win the cases they are now losing. 

Mr. Kennedy. That means if a driver puts in a grievance against 
the company, a claim for more wages, for one reason or another, that 
the company didn't pay him, and lie puts the greivance through, you 
have found that in Ohio, or the place over which you have some con- 
trol or influence, that the truck drivers in that area lose their griev- 
ances, and you are told by Mr. Presser that they would continue to 
lose them until you get on the right side ? 

Mr, LuKEN. Tliat is right, sir. I think the statement he made once 
was, "AVell, you just lost every one of them, but if you would get 
on the right side you would have won them all." 

Mr. Kennedy. Is the grievance procedure something on which the 
membership should have some control and rights ? 

Mr. LuKEN. I again repeat, sir, to me a good contract without 
adequate grievance procedure automatically becomes a bad contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is a matter of some importance as we proceed. 



19394 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Just summarizing in comiection with these contracts again, because 
of the negotiations that have been carried on prior to the time Mr. 
Presser came in, the contracts in Ohio were higher than the contracts 
that were negotiated by Mr. Hoffa in the Central Conference of 
Teamsters ? 

Mr. LuKEN, This is in the over-the-road trucking field, and that 
was true, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Over the road ? 

Mr, LuKEN. That was an Ohio agreement; not a Cincinnati agree- 
ment. 

Mr. Kennedy. All of Ohio ? 

Mr. LuKEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In order to equalize that situation, in order to bring 
Ohio into tlie pattern with tlie rest of the Central Conference of 
Teamsters, the other contracts liave been increasing more rapidly 
than the contracts in the Ohio Conference ? 

Mr. LuKEN. Yes, sir. The differential is being eliminated. In 6 
years, some of it has been eliminated. I am told by the experts that 
most of it will be eliminated by 1961. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is to bring Ohio down so that they no longer 
will have higher contracts than the contracts that have been signed 
byMr.Hoifa? 

Mr. LuKEN. It is to bring them all in line; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy, That is a matter of considerable importance, particu- 
larly with the testimony that we had yesterday. 

Then we discussed some specific contracts, not over-the-road but 
specific local cartage contracts. You mentioned the Shedd-Bartush 
agreement. 

Mr. LuKEN. That would not be a local cartage. That is a margin 
production operation. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was negotiated, was it not, in Detroit ? 

Mr. LuKEN. Mr. Crawford, a business agent for local 100, told me 
that it was negotiated in Detroit. 

TESTIMONY OF PIERRE E. G. SALINGER^Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Salinger, you made a study of the contract ? 

Mr. Salinger. I have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where does it show it was negotiated ? 

Mr. Salinger. The original contract in Detroit, signed by Charles 
Burg, a business agent of local 337. 

Mr. Kennedy. He negotiated the contract for the firm in Cincinnati ? 

Mr. Salinger. Not only in Cincinnati, but a number of other areas 
where the Shedd-Bartush people had operating plants. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES LUKEN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
BENJAMIN GETTLER— Resumed 

Mr. Kennedy. The result of that contract was to bring the wages 
of this particular company some 70 cents down below other wages? 

Mr. LuKEN. No, sir. Understand this company Avas not unionized 
at all. He negotiated the contract while the company was not in the 
union. He negotiated it while there were no union members. 

Mr. Kennedy. The employees didn't agree to this ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19395 

Mr. LuKEN. I think they later did. They got a nickel out of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to the time the negotiations took place, they 
had not signed up with the union 'i 

Mr. LuKEN. No, sir. 

iSIr. Kennedy. The result of the contract that was negotiated up in 
Detroit was that the wages for the employees in this particular com- 
pany were some 70 cents below the wages of the competitors? 

Mr. LuKEN. They now are, yes, sir. 

It was just recently renegotiated. 

Mr. Kennedy. I just have one last question I want to ask you. 

Has a contract been negotiated and signed by the Ohio Conference 
of Teamsters with the dump trucks ? 

Mr. LuKEN. The contractors, I think. The construction workers. 
The excavators, dump truck drivers. 

Mr. Kennedy. And prior to the time that the contract was signed 
for the dump truck operators in the city of Cincinnati, had a tele- 
gram been sent to the Ohio Conference of Teamsters informing them 
that they could not sign a contract on behalf of your union? 

Mr. LuKEN. This is local 100, and local 100 told the Ohio Confer- 
ence of Teamsters that they wanted to negotiate their own agreements, 
that they were not satisfied with the State negotiations of them. 

Nonetheless, three companies that do business in this area, and 
the Ohio Conference of Teamsters, signed a contract for 61/^-61/2-6^/^ 
for the next 3 years. The current pattern in Cincinnati on construc- 
tion workers is I21/2 cents for 2 years. I don't know. I am told we 
have a strike going on or just about to go on because of this. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you think this is another effort to undermine 
your operations, of you and your people ? 

Mr. LuKEN. I think when the local union said they didn't want to 
be a party to it, and yet they go ahead and do it anyway, and what 
comes out isn't so good, I can't see that it has been done to make 
friends and influence people. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the ones to suffer in all of this, which is the 
important thing, in all of these operations that you have described 
today, are the employees, the members of the Teamsters Union. 

Mr. LuKEN. Let me say it is my opinion that part of this operation 
is to cause trouble within the local union and then be the great savior 
to solve the problem. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then during the course of this, those who suffer are 
the members of the Teamsters Union! 

Mr. Luken. At least temporarily, yes, sir. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Is there anything else that you think we should 
cover ? 

Mr. Luken. I am here at your pleasure. 

Mr. Kennedy. You might have to be recalled. 

Mr. Luken. All right, sir. 

(At this point Senator McClellan returned to the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 2 :30. 

(Members of the select committee present at the taking of the recess 
were Senators McClellan, Ervin, and Capehart.) 

(Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the select committee recessed, to recon- 
vene at 2 :30 p.m., the same day.) 

36751— 59— pt. 55 17 



19396 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(The select committee reconvened at 2 :55 p.m., in the caucus room of 
the Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan, chairman of 
the select committee, presiding.) 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the select committee present at the convening of the 
afternoon session : Senators McClellan and Ervin.) 

The Chairman. Call the first witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Grabowski. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall 
give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Grabowski. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD GRABOWSKI 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation. 

Mr. Grabowski. My name is Richard Grabowski, and I reside in 
Baltimore, Md. I am a business agent for Teamsters Freight Drivers, 
Local 557, Baltimore, Md. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Grabowski. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are business agent of Local 557 of the Team- 
sters of Baltimore, Md. ? 

Mr. Grabowski. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And this local has some 4,500 to 5,500 members ? 

Mr. Grabowski. Yes; the membership fluctuates from 4,500 to 
6,500 members. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is their jurisdiction ? 

Mr. Grabowski. Predominantly over-the-road freight hauling. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been a Teamster Union member? 

Mr. Grabowski. I have been a member since 1944. 

Mr. Kennedy. You started driving a truck then ? 

Mr. Grabowski. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been an officer ? 

Mr. Grabowski. I was elected for a 1-year probationary period in 
1956, After that 1-year probationary period, the chairman of the 
general meeting — we had a general meeting, and there was a motion 
on the floor to install me by acclamation, and the motion carried. 

But I requested the Chair to place my office up for ballot vote, 
and requested nominations be taken, and therefore I was elected by 
a ballot vote rather than acclamation. 

Mr. Kennedy. You refused to take it by acclamation ? 

Mr. Grabowski. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You felt there should be a ballot vote and wanted to 
have everybody vote? 

Mr. Grabowski. I wanted to be sure the membership wanted mv 
representation. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were voted in at that time ? 

Mr. Grabowski. A majority of 9 to 1. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is your salary there ? 

Mr. Grabowski. $145 a week. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19397 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you receive expenses ? 

Mr. Grabowski. I receive $35 a week car expenses, and I buy my 
own car and my own insurance, and repairs, and gasoline and every- 
thing that goes with that car. The balance of that money is spent. 
Usually when you stay close to your membership, you meet them in 
diners, and_when their business agent comes in there is something to 
pick up, a coffee check, and so that $35 is spent very easily. 

]Mr. Kennedy. But your salary is $145, and then the $35 expenses, 
and you don't have a Cadillac that is furnished ? 

Mr. Grabowski. No, sir ; I drive a 1955 Buick. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which is your own automobile ? 

Mr. Grabowski. I bought it myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't know Avhether you were aware of the fact 
that Mr. Goldstein of Local 230 of the Teamsters in New York City 
who is a friend of Mr. Hoffa receives $375 a week, plus $25 expense, 
and he is in the penitenitary. 

Mr. Grabowski. Well, I intend to stay out of the penitentiary. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have not been very close to ISIr. Hoffa, then ? 

Mr. Grabowski. Not necessarily so. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, the contracts that exist in your local, are they 
better than the contracts that have been negotiated in the Central 
Conference of Teamsters, Mr. Grabowski ? 

Mr. Grabowski. Well, I have the best car hauling agreement in the 
country. It is a half cent a mile at this time liigher than any other car 
hauling local in the comitry. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, your contract is half a cent higher than the 
next best contract, and the next best contract is m the eastern section 
of the country ? 

Mr. Grabowski. As to the next best contract, you might put it in 
that fashion. There are two phases to the Eastern Conference truck- 
away-driveaway agreement. It defines common carrier and contract 
carrier. These five local unions associated with the contract carriers 
in this area are the only car haul people who receive premium pay for 
Saturday or Sunday work. They are the only ones in the whole coun- 
try. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, in smnmary, the contracts which you have 
negotiated and which exist for this Baltimore local are quite consider- 
ably better than the contracts that have been negotiated in the Central 
Conference of Teamsters ? 

Mr. Gr.\bowski. Well, in 1954, I was a shop steward and selected 
by the employers of Anchor Motor Freight to represent them in nego- 
tiations. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I just get an answer to the question and then 
I will go into details. 

Mr. Grabowski. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are tlie contracts that exist in your local better than 
the contracts by quite a considerable amount better than the contracts 
of the Central Conference of Teamsters? 

Mr. Grabowski. They are. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, going back to the 1955 contract with Anchor 
Motor Freight, and negotiations that took place at that time, did you 
have some difficulty during that period of time in connection with the 
negotiations with Anchor Motor Freight? 



19398 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Grabowski. Are you talking about the Eastern Conference 
agreement ? 

Mr, Kennedy. That is correct. 

Mr. GiL\BowsKi. Yes ; I had considerable difficulty, because the ap- 
plication of pay was different than the mileage rate. We had a method 
of pay where we tried to make a comprehensive breakdown on the work 
performed rather than the miles driven, because the man who drives 
100 miles through mountainous area, and a man who drives on flat ter- 
ritoiy, and the fellow in the mountain area would be working 3 or 4 
hours longer than the fellow in the flatter territory, and so we made 
a breakdown so they would be paid on hourly rate that would be com- 
parable to each other. 

So as a result to achieve uniformity, as the conference put it, we 
would have to change our application of pay to a mileage breakdown. 

Mr. Kennedy. The result of the 1955 negotiations was to erode 
away some of the gains and benefits that you had obtained for the 
local? 

Mr. Grabowski. As a result, in the 1955 negotiations, 50 percent of 
the points of delivery from the Baltimore area were frozen for a 
period. 

Mr. Ivennedy. Mr. Grabowski, I want to see if we can get the gen- 
eral answer first and then we will get into the details of it. 

What I am going to try to find out is whether in the 1955 negotia- 
tions you lost some of the benefits that you had been able to obtain 
through negotiations that had occurred earlier. 

Mr. Grabowski. Absolutely. 

Mr. Kennedy. And this occurred as a result of the fact that the form 
of payment was changed in the 1955 negotiations ? 

Mr. Grabowski. Yes ; the method of payment has been changed. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then in 1958, the same situation arose. We 
have had some testimony in connection with this. Those representa- 
tives of the locals of the Eastern Conference who participated in the 
1958 negotiations, were they dissatisfied with the progress that they 
were making with Anchor Motor Freight ? 

Mr. (jRABowsKi. Yes. We had four or five bad times and we could 
get nowhere with the company. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were your local and the other locals prepared to 
strike in connection with that? 

Mr. Grabowsky. I can only speak for my local. My membership 
was })repared to strike and we took a strike vote in my membership. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the time that Mr. Hoffa came into the nego- 
tiations in 1958? 

Mr. Grabowski. Well, may I answer it this way: We negotiated 
4 months and the company took the stand that we had negotiated and 
consummated an agreement and insisted that we take it back to our 
membership for approval or rejection. I took it back to the member- 
ship and made a request of them to reject the contract because it would 
be a definite setback. 

Then we came back into negotiations, and then Mr. Hoffa entered 
the progT-am and chaired the meetings and negotiated the agreement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the contract that was negotiated by Mr. Hoffa 
on behalf of your local and other locals, detrimental, in your estima- 
tion to the membership ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19399 

Mr. Grabowski. I ^yollld say "Yes," and the only way we could over- 
come that was because there was a provision for a local rider, and my 
local rider at this time is as large as the master agreement. The lo- 
cal rider, through whatever provision produces the greater, super- 
cedes the other. We negotiated that because we had a maintenance 
of standards clause in the agreement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Based on that contract, and the fact that within the 
contract there is this management prerogative clause, what would you 
estimate has been the loss that has been sustained by the individual 
driver ? 

Mr. Grabowski. I would say it is going to be an estimate of $2,000 
a year for the drivers out of the Baltimore area. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is based on the fact that although you had 
reached an impasse with Mr. Matheson, who was representing the 
Anchor Motor Freight, you went back to your local and they agreed 
to take a strike. This was also what occurred in Mr. Daleys local. 
They had agreed to take a strike and you went back. Mr. Hoffa 
called you back, and he then took over the negotiations and conducted 
them and ultimately signed tliis contract, that has led to a loss of a 
couple of thousand dollars per year for your drivers; is that correct? 

]\Ir. Grabowski. It was taken back to the membership, and because 
of tlie maintenance of standards clause in the agreement, and the local 
rider that I had negotiated, I took it back to the people and said that 
we had in my opinion an agreement we could live with, although I 
pointed out that there was this management prerogative clause that 
had become part of our agreement. 

At tliat time I relayed to my membership that I didn't know what 
it would mean to us for the 3-year period, but the company insisted 
it be in there, or it would mean that they would take a strike to get it 
in there. 

So rather than to lead the membership into a strike, and thinking 
that I had practically the conditions I had in the previous 3 years, I 
requested that the membership accept it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What has been the result ? 

Mr. Grabowski. As a result, the agreement, although some language 
and certain articles are obeyed, they are being misused, and the intent 
is not being carried out, and as a result, the company established a relay 
68 miles away from the point of origin and they are hauling cars out 
of that point for a half cent less, because it is no longer a Baltimore, 
Md., terminal trip. 

Mr. Kennedy. They established a relay outside the city of Balti- 
more, and because you pay higher wages they were able to use the 
members of other locals which pay lower wages and use those drivers 
and thus save money ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Grabowski. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That lias been under the manager prerogative clause? 

Mr. Grabowski. Yes. 

'Mv. Kennedy. Then they save tlie Saturday and Sunday overtime, 
do they not ? 

Mr. Grabowski. Well, it practically cut 50 percent of the premium 
pay tliat was earned in the previous 3 years out of this 3 years, it seems 
tome. 



19400 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. The overall result, as you look back on it now, since 
the contract was signed, is that each individual driver has lost ap- 
proximately $2,000 a year? 

Mr. Grarowski. Well, as a result of the use of outside equipment 
and the relay, they cut our people back to a 5-day week, where it 
was 

Mr. Kennedy. The answer to the question is 

Mr. Grabowski. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. They have lost that through these various methods 
that you described ? 

Mr. Grabowski. They will lose a considerable amount of their 
annual earnings. 

Mr. Kennedy. What will happen in 1961, when this contract comes 
up again, Mr. Grabowski ? 

Mr. Grabowski. Well, although the company said they would take 
a strike vote to get the managerial clause in, as I stated, I hate to lead 
the members into a strike because it hurts their families. But I will 
definitely request a strike vote if this article is not removed from the 
agreement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Even if, once again, Mr. Hoffa takes the opposite 
point of view ? 

Mr. Grabowski. Well, then I will have to find out how long the law 
will protect us with the conference agreement. The international con- 
stitution states that wherever there is an areawide agreement, a local 
union must participate. Whether my membership rejects it and the 
rest of the conference accepts it, well, whether I would be legally 
bound to strike I will have to find out at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. In summary, then, you fared far better, and your 
membership fared far better, when you negotiated your own contracts 
than when Mr. Hoffa came in and negotiated for you ? 

Mr. Grabowski. When the eastern conference was put together, 
for the first 3 years 55 percent of the points of delivery were frozen. 
We didn't receive an increase on 55 percent of the points of delivery 
because of the eastern conference agreement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Some of the terms you are using are a little tech- 
nical for us. If you would just answer my question, then you can 
explain it. 

Were you able to gain more through your own negotiations and the 
negotiations of your own local union officials than when Mr. Hofl'a 
came in and attempted to negotiate and did negotiate on your behalf? 

Mr. Grabowski. Yes. We had the best agreement in the country 
when we were negotiating on our own. 

The Chairman. May I ask you why you think Mr. Hoffa or the 
representatives of the eastern conference would want to negotiate 
a contract providing fewer benefits for you than the one you had? 
What would be the reason for that ? 

Mr. Grabowski. Well, I didn't know what the reason was. But as 
I find yesterday, in the testimony that was given here yesterday, that 
they are trying to achieve unformity and they don't want the eastern 
conference to run away from the Central States ; it seems that would 
be the answer. 

Tlie Chairman. In other words, they are holding some down in order 
for the others to catch up ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19401 

Mr. Grabowski. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. There is tlien a difference, you find, no doubt there 
is a difference, between the eastern conference level of benefits and 
those of the central conference ? 

Mr. Grx\bowski. And I would say 

The Chairman. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Grabowski. Yes. 

The Chairman. All right ; go ahead. 

Mr. Grabowski. I would say that difference is only because there 
were people who negotiated conscientiously and were progressive, and 
because of that fact the eastern conference agreement is higher. 
Whether it will be higher in the next 3 years, that remains to be 
seen. 

The Chairman. I can't quite get what the motive would be on the 
part of Mr. Hoffa, as head of the Teamsters, now, particularly, as 
president, to hold down any union, any local like yourselves, that 
may have gotten a good contract, to say, "Well, now, you have to 
give up some of those benefits and come down here to a level on the 
average of the others." 

'Wliy would it be necessary for him to do that? I don't quite under- 
stand. It seems to me that he is penalizing those who are the most 
vigilant and alert and competent to look after their members. 

Mr. Grabowski. Well, Senator, I can't answer that question. As I 
say, when we negotiated our own agreement, we had our own auton- 
omy, we, in my opinion, were a closer body. I feel as though because 
of the conference trying to uniform wages, it looks like I will be 
standing still awhile. 

The Chairman. You will what ? 

Mr. Grabowski. I will be standing still awhile. 

The Chairman. You will be standing still a while ? 

Mr. Grabowski. So far as my increases are concerned. 

The Chairman. I couldn't quite rationalize why it would be neces- 
sary if some of you to go along and make good contracts, do pretty 
well for your folks, making progress all along in the matter of securing 
better working conditions, wages, and so forth. I can't understand 
why it would be necessary to hold you folks back, why the international 
would want to, or why the eastern conference would want to hold 
you back. 

Mr. Grabowski. Well, they claim it is to achieve uniformity. I 
don't see why they couldn't negotiate the Central States up to us, 
rather than freezing us to achieve uniformity. 

The Chairman. In other words, bringing the Central States up to 
the eastern conference would be more advantageous to the working- 
man? 

Mr. Grabowski. I would say, "Yes." 

The Chairman. And you kind of set the pattern for the highest 
standard in your local ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Grabowski. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I make some comment on that, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa has been chairman of the National Truck- 
away and Driveaway Conference, and that operated chiefly in the 



19402 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Central Conference of Teamsters. Most of the negotiations by the 
National Truckaway-Driveaway took place with Carney Matheson. 

Carney Matlieson, as Ave pointed out yesterday, and also earlier in 
the hearings, was in a number of business deals with Mr. Hoffa, 
including some of these trucking companies. They negotiated the 
contract. Then they started to move in on the East. 

All of the eastern locals of the Teamsters Union had negotiated 
higher contracts. So Mr. Iloffa came in, as it seemed from the 
memorandum yesterday, and said the negotiations or the claims of 
these eastern Teamster officials are much too high, and, "Wliat I sug- 
gest you do is," and then he gave some background on some of the 
Teamster officials in the East and then told the employers, "Why 
don't you hire Carney Matheson and let him liandle it for you?'] 

Carney INIatlieson, his old business partner, for $40,000 came into 
the East and started negotiating the contract on behalf of the em- 
ployers. Mr. Hoffa intervened in 1955-58, and all the benefits that 
these local unions had been able to gain through the years here in the 
eastern sex^tion of the country were suddenly lost with Mr. Carne-y 
Matheson and Mr. Hoffa negotiating the contracts. The situation is 
extremely clear as far as that is concerned. 

The CHAiRMAisr. All right; proceed. 

I was just trying to get this record clear. It is an unusual thing, 
it is a peculiar thing, at least, to find a labor leader saying, "We have 
too much money ; we have too many benefits. We have to lower it. 
We have to level this tiling off." That is unheard of in my book. 

Mr. Grabowski. Well, of course. Senator, that is not my thinking. 

The Chairman. Sir? 

Mr. Grabowski. That is not my thinking. 

The Chairman. But I think you are pointing up the contrast here 
between your thinking and that kind of thinking. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Grabowski. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, under your view, the effort ought 
to have been made to raise the other people up instead of dragging 
your contract or grading your contract down? 

Mr. Grabowski. I would say yes. All the years I fought for bet- 
ter conditions seem to have been in vain at this time. 

Senator Ervin. I sort of agree with you. It looks like to me in 
order to get equality you ought not to drag down those above the 
average. You ought to try to build the ones who are below the 
average up to the top people. 

Mr. Grx\bowski. I believe the added effort should have been made 
there. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is particularly significant because Mr. Hoffa 
has made the claim throughout the country in all of his speeches, and 
so have his chief lieutenants on his behalf, that all the corruption and 
gangsters within the Teamsters hierarchy, not talking about people 
like yourself, but Mr. Hoffa and his colleagues, that "That should all 
be excused when we negotiated good contracts for you," when, in fact, 
the good contracts that have been negotiated have been negotiated by 
people such as Mr. Grabowslri, Jun Luken, Ted Daley, and these 
others. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19403 

Their contracts are far better than the contracts that have been 
negotiated b}'^ the corrupt officials. Many of these contracts are very 
good. The best contracts are negotiated by these people who have not 
been found to be corrupt, who don't have to appear before this com- 
mitter as Teamster officials, and take the fifth amendment, but who 
can answer all the questions. 

The Ohio Conference of Teamsters contracts are better than the 
rest of the Central Conference of Teamsters, and the contracts here 
in the East are better than the Central Conference of Teamsters. 
All of the contracts that have been negotiated by Mr. Hoffa are lower 
than the contracts in these other sections of the country. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

Mr. Kennedy. You have already stated that your over-the-road 
drivers are paid more than the Central Conference of Teamsters over- 
the-road drivers, have you? 

Mr. Grabowski. Our over-the-road people are paid, as I outlined 
before, by a flat rate schedule. If the mileage is extended, it is at IO14 
cents a mile, where the Central States is at 9.025. So it is a cent and 
a quarter higher. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has it happened frequently that these carriers are 
using drivers from local 299, Mr. Hoffa's own local, who get paid this 
lesser rate, to come into Baltimore, rather than the drivers of your 
local to whom they would have to pay higher wages? 

]Mr. Grabowski. All the freight commg in from the Central States 
or the West, we only have about 10 percent of the drivers there. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is more profitable, certainly, for the companies to 
use these other drivers than your own drivers where they have to pay 
higher? 

Mr. Grabowski. That is obvious. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that has been another problem as far as your 
people are concerned ? 

Mr. Grabowski. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Is there anything, Senator? 

Senator Ervin. No. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Thomas L. Fagan. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give 
before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help 5^ou God ? 

Mr. Fagan. I do. 

TESTIMOmr OP THOMAS L. FAGAN, ACCOMPANTED BY COUNSEL, 
BEN PAUL JUBELIRER 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation. 

]\Ir. Fagan. ]\Iy name is Thomas L. Fagan. I reside in Pittsburgh, 
Pa., Ill Roswyn Drive. I am president of Teamsters Local Union 
249, general chartered union in that area. 



19404 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, will you identify yourself for the 
record ? 

Mr. JuBELiRER. Ben Paul Jubelirer, 210 Jones Law Building, Pitts- 
burgh, Pa. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been in the Teamsters Union, 
Mr. Fagan? 

Mr. Fagan. I have been a member since March 17, 1937. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been an officer ? 

Mr. Fagan. Since January 1, 1947. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many members do you have in local 249 ? 

Mr. Fagan. Approximately 10,000 members. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are president? 

Mr. Fagan. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What salary do you receive as president ? 

Mr. Fagan. I receive a salary of $12,000 a year. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you receive expenses ? 

Mr. Fagan. Yes. I have a $100-a-month car allowance. I buy my 
own car, maintain it, and pay for repairs. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a comparison of the contracts that you 
and your officials — you do the chief negotiating on behalf of your lo- 
cal, do you not? 

Mr. Fagan. Yes ; that is right. I am the chairman of all negotiating 
committees in local 249. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are the contracts that you have negotiated higher 
than the contracts that have been negotiated in the Central Confer- 
ence of Teamsters? 

Mr. Fagan. As Chairman McClellan pointed out yesterday, it is a 
little hard to make an actual determination in relativity between con- 
tracts unless you are in a position of analyzing it in its entirety, be- 
cause of the cost of fringe benefits. 

I have with me here a rough draft to give you some idea of the com- 
parison between the Central States and local union 249 over-the-road 
freight agreement. If I may be permitted at this time 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have another copy for the chairman ? 

Mr. Fagan. Yes ; I do. 

I would like to at this time explain the comparison so that it is clear 
to the committee because of this particular factor : In our local union, 
we negotiate our contracts based on agreed-to rates. In other words, 
between cities we have a fixed rate of pay and that is based on a 20- 
mile-an-hour formula. 

What we have done here is reduce that 20-mile-an-hour formula 
directly to a trip rate so that it would give you a fair and honest com- 
parison of the difference between the Central States and local union 
240. 

If you follow me, under the single-axle, that is, a single-axle 

trailer 

The Chairman. Let this, for the benefit of those who will try to 
follow and understand this testimony, be printed in the record at this 
point. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19405 

(The chart referred to follows:) 
Comparison of Central States and local 249 over-the-road freight agreements 





Central States, Feb, 1, 1959 


Local 249, June 1, 
1959 




8.7 cents 


12.85 cents. 


Tandem axle (4 axles) 


8.95 cents 


13.2 cents. 


Tandem axle (5 axles) -. ..._.. 


9.07 cents 


13.2 cents. 


Double bottoms .. . - 


10.1 cents 


16.35 cents. 


Paid holidays 


6. at 8 hours ... 


7, at 10 hours. 


Lodging -. - 


$2.50 


$4. 








Heilth and welfare 


$10.83 per month 


$10.75 per month. 


Pension 


$3 per week 


$4 per week. 







CHANGES IN 1960 





Central States, Feb, 1, 1960 


Local 249, June 1, 
1960 




8.95 cents 


13.2 cents. 






13.55 cents. 


Tandem axle (5 axles) 


9.32 cents 


13.55 cents. 


Double bottoms 


10.32cents - 


16.7 cents. 


Pension 


$4 per week 


$4 per week. 









Note.— Prepared by Kesearch Department, E.C.T., July 7, 1959. 

The Chairihan. Now you may discuss it and we will know what you 
are discussing as we read the record. 

Mr. Fagan. Thank you. 

Under the arrangements of single-axle, referring to a single-axle 
trailer, the rate in the Central States is 8.7 cents per mile. Every 
mile traveled in the Central States under their contract by a driver 
pulling a single- axle trailer, he is reimbursed to the extent of 8.7 cents. 
In local 249 it is 12.85 cents. You can see the difference there. 

It goes right down. The tandem axle, four axles, is 8.95 cents in 
the Central States and 13.2 cents in local 249. Tandem axle, five 
axles, 9.07 cents in the Central States and 13.2 in local 249. 

On the double bottoms, and this is a combination of two trailers 
pulled by a tractor, the Central States rate is 10.1 and ours is 16.35 
cents. 

That gives you the different analyses of what a man is paid and the 
differences that exist between the Central States and local union 249. 

The Chairman. That is cents per mile? 

Mr. Fagan. Cents per mile ; that is right. 

The Chairman. The driver, when he drives 1 mile in the Central 
States, has earned the amount indicated here? 

Mr. Fagan. That is right. 

The Chairman. And if he is in local 249, under the contract there, 
he earns the amount stated under the 249 column ? 

Mr. Fagan. That is right, Mr. Chairman. That is exactly how it 
is added up. And the number of miles traveled at the end of the 
run is what the compensation is that the man receives. So you can 
understand very readily that traveling out of local 249's jurisdiction 
into the Central States, our drivers are paid more than what they 
are who are operating in a revei-se mamier from the Central States 
domicile. 



19406 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Now, just a few of the fringe items that are different. Under paid 
holidays, they have six paid holidays at 8 hours. We have seven 
paid holidays at 10 hours. The lodging for the Central States is 
$2.50 ; for local 249, it is $4. 

The Chairman. Do you mean that is expense allowed ? 

Mr. Fagan. Expense allowed. 

The Chairman. That is in addition to their earnings by mile or 

day? 

Mr. Fagan. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, in the Central States they get 
$2.50 a day subsistence and in your jurisdiction, your people get $4 ? 

Mr. Fagan. That is right, when they are required to lay over on 
the other end, that is the compensation they receive in addition to their 
regular trip rate. . j. ^^ 

Bereavement leave, in case of death in the immediate family, 
none in the Central States and 4 days in 249. 

Health and Welfare is $10.83 a month in Central States and $10.75 
a month in local 249. 

Pensions are $3 a week in the Central States for each man, and m 
local 249 it is $4 a week. 

As you go down the changes are in the 1960 agreement, and they 
are comparable to the present rates, both increases being granted on a 
imifoiTKi basis. 

This gives you some idea. We have tried to break it down to give 
you a fair analysis of the differences in the agreement. 

The Chairman. In other words, in your 1960 contract, in each 
jurisdiction in the Central States and also in your local, you have 
just kind of a percentagewise increase, was it? 

Mr. Fagan. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. So you have just extended that down here? 

Mr. Fagan. That is right. 

The Chairman. But the ratio of difference, the differentials be- 
tween what your benefits are in local 249 as compared to Central 
States contract, are comparably the same, percentagewise, as they were 
before you entered into the 1960 contract? 

Mr. Fagan. That is exactly right, Mr. Chairman. 

And beyond that point, I would like to say that we have other 
statistical documents here to prove that not only in the field of the 
over-the-road trucking but also in the study of meatpacking con- 
tracts, that our local union has the highest rate and conditions of 
anyone throughout the countiy. 

We also have the highest rated agreements with the big four pack- 
ers — Swift, Armour, Cudaliy, and Wilson. The same thing applies 
in our grocery chainstore industry, with A. & P., Kroger's, and the 
national chains, that our rates and conditions there are the highest 
anywhere in the United States. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might point out that local 299 has contracts with 
these same companies which Mr. Fagan has mentioned. 

The Chairman. Do you mean you have contracts with the same 
companies as in Central States in some instances? 

Mr. Fagan. Yes, that is correct, with the big four packers and also 
vrith Kroger's and A. & P. that oi)erate in those territories. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your contracts are higher? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19407 

Mv. Fagan. Our contracts are the highest, that is right. 

We have statistical proof of that to submit to the committee. 

Mr. Kennedy. I might point out again in this instance, Mr. Chair- 
man, that Mr. Holfa, when he testified before the committee, stated 
that the contracts of his local were the highest of any local contracts 
in the United States. 

I have one other matter tliat I want to take up with you. 

There was some difficulty about the Eazor Trucking Co, in Pitts- 
burgh; is that correct? 

]\lr. P^AGAN. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Eazor purchased two trucking companies in Pitts- 
burgh with the understanding, as I undei*stand, with one of the busi- 
ness agents, that they would be able to successfully compete with their 
opposition ? 

Air. Fagan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The companies operating out of Pittsburgh had 
been laying over in Napoleon ; is that right? 

Mr. Fagan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they wanted an opportunity to lay over in 
Napoleon also? 

Mr. Fagan. That is exactly right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Without paying lay-over time ? 

Mr. Fagan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you summarize what happened ? 

Mr. Fagan. Yes ; I could summarize. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't want to go into too much detail. 

Mr. Fagan. I could summarize it for you as briefly as I possibly 
can. 

Eazor Express purchased the operating rights from Carl Helm, 
owner of Associated Freight Forwarding, operating between Pitts- 
burgh and Chicago, and L. & H., operating between Pittsburgh and 
New York. At the time of the purchase it was the understanding, 
as far as Eazor Express was concerned, that they would have the right 
to be able to domicile their men at Napoleon and Harrisburg, the cen- 
tral points, rather than their actual points of domicile in the 249 area. 

There was a meeting called at wdiich time the men agreed to an 
arrangement whereby an additional hour was paid and the lodging 
was ])aid at the domiciles both at Harrisburg and Napoleon. 

Then after that was in effect for some time, the men disagi'eed with 
this arrangement. As a result, it was taken up through the grievance 
machinery. 

At the time that it was to go to the third step, which is a three- 
membei-s from managements and three from the union, to make a 
decision under local union's 249 contract, at that time all parties con- 
cerned were ordered into Chicago, and Hoffa made the decision at that 
particular time that, as far as the domicile would be concerned, it 
would be in Napoleon, Ohio, and that the men would lose the 1 hour 
additional that was negotiated and agreed to by the men and the 
company, and also their right to receive lodging at that point because 
then their domicile point would actually become Napoleon, Ohio. 

Mr. Kennedy. What in substance happened was that the men were 
dissatisfied with the dollar they were receiving? 

t\Ir. Fagan. That is right. 



19408 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. It went to the grievance procedure, it got to the 
third stage, and instead of following through the grievance procedure, 
Mr. Holt'a took control over it in the Central Conference of Teamsters. 
He ruled in favor of the company, and the drivers not only didn't 
get more than the dollar but they even lost the dollar? 
Mr. Fagan. That is exactly right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he have any right to take over and make that 
decision ? 

Mr. Fagan. The only right he had was the right that we w^ere 
under trusteeship at the time. Actually he would have no right other 
than that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under the contract it should have gone through the 
grievance procedure ? 

Mr. Fagan. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. The only point of that, Mr. Chairman, is that Mr. 
Hoffa took control and made the decision adverse to the union member- 
ship. It should have gone through the union procedure but he did 
not allow it to do so. 

The Chairman. We have a signal for a rollcall vote in the Senate. 
"VVe will have to suspend until members of the committee can go over 
and vote and return. 

Mr. Kennedy. We appreciate very much the testimony of Mr. 
Fagan. He has been very helpful. 

The Chairman. The committee will have a brief recess. 

(A brief recess was taken. Members of the select committee pres- 
ent at the taking of the recess were Senators McClellan and Ervin.) 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the select committee present after the taking of the 
recess were Senators McClellan and Ervin.) 

The Chairman. The Chair will make this brief announcement: 

Former Senator Bender has requested to be heard this afternoon, 
and that request will be granted, in view of his name having been 
mentioned in some testimony that was heard this morning. 

But so that we may have before us a transcript of w^hat may have 
been said, I have asked the official reporter to arrange to have it 
present. 

In the meantime, we will proceed with another witness, and as soon 
as we can we will hear Mr. Bender. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to call Mr. Gotfredson and Mr. Dennis. 

The Chairman. Do you and each of you solemnly swear that the 
evidence you shall give before this Senate select committee shall be 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,' so help you God ? 

Mr. Gotfredson. I do. 

Mr. Dennis. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT B. GOTFREDSON AND R. I. DENNIS, 
ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, THOMAS M. CHAWKE 

The Chairman. If you have counsel, will you arrange for counsel 
to have the chair right in between you. 

Beginning on my left, will the witness give his name, his place of 
residence, and his business or occupation, please. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 19409 

Mr. Dennis. My name is R. I. Dennis. I reside at Detroit, Mich., 
and I am employed in the capacity of vice president of the Trans- 
American Freight Lines. 

The Chairman. And the one on my right. 

Mr. GoTFREDSON. My name is Robert B. Gotfredson, president of 
Trans- American Freight Lines, Inc., Detroit, Mich. 

The Chairman. Gentleman, you have the same comisel represent- 
ing you, do you ? 

Mr. Gotfredson. We do. 

The Chairman. Will counsel identify himself for the record? 

Mr. Ciiawke. Thomas M, Chawke. I am an attorney at law, with 
offices at 1724 Ford Building, in the city of Detroit. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Sheridan, if that is permissible, will conduct the 
interrogation. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Sheridan, you may proceed with the 
questions. 

Mr. Sheridan. Mr. Gotfredson, in 1955 you participated in the 
Central States contract negotiations in Chicago and reached a separate 
understanding concerning your company, which was different from 
the regular Central States agreement ; is that correct? 

M. Gotfredson. I reached a separate understanding with the ne- 
gotiating committee for the union, subject to ratification by our 
employees. 

Mr. Sheridan. Now, this agreement consisted of two proposals cov- 
ering, one, the subject of the method of payment of your drivers in 
that they would be paid a cent and a half per mile extra in lieu of 
four fringe benefits ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Gotfredson. That is correct. 

Mr. Sheridan. The second proposal which was accepted was to the 
effect that a separate grievance procedure would be followed by your 
company other than the grievance procedure contained in the contract ; 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Gotfredson. That is correct. 

The Chairman. I present to you a photostatic copy of a document 
which appears to have been signed by you and others, and it appears 
to have been signed also by Mr. Hoffa. I don't see the date of it but 
I will ask you to examine it and state if you identify it. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Do you identify the document ? 

Mr. Gotfredson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Wliat is it ? 

Mr. Gotfredson. It is a proposal transmitted on behalf of Trans- 
American Freight Lines. 

The Chairman. Submitted to whom ? 

Mr. Gotfredson. To the Central States Drivers Council in Chicago. 

The Chairman. Is it signed ? 

Mr. Gotfredson. It is. 

The Chairman. By whom ? 

^Ir. Gotfredson. By Mr. Hoffa, Mr. Healy, and myself. 

The Chairman. What is the date of it ? 
was in 1955. 



19410 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman, Executed in 1955 ? 

Mr. GoTFREDsoN. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 59. 

(Docmnent referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 59" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Sheridan. Mr. Gotfredson, under proj^osal No. 2, which is the 
separate grievance procedure, you substitute for sections 7 and 8 of 
the Central States contract a grievance procedure whereby you would 
first attempt to resolve your difficulties at the local level, and then 
failing adjustment there, quoting from the document — 

The disputes or grievances arising out of operations under this agreement and 
the territories as outlined in the master agreement, shall then be referred to the 
Central States drivers council in writing, and after such reference shall be 
handled under the usual procedures by representatives of the company and the 
Central States drivei's council. 

Now, this is in lieu of the usual grievance procedure in the Team- 
ster contract whereby they refer grievances to the State committee 
and then to an area committee in Chicago. 

Have you been following this separate agreement that you made in 
the handling of your grievances ? 

Mr. Gotfredson. In my opinion, we have. 

Mr. Sheridan. Have you been submitting your grievances in 
writing to the Central States drivers council when you couldn't settle 
them at the local level ? 

Mr. Gotfredson. Any grievances that were not settled with the 
local union representatives were submitted to the Central States 
drivers council. 

Mr. Sheridan. Specifically, who were they submitted to, your 
grievances, under your system ? 

Mr. Gotfredson. The secretary of the Central States drivers coun- 
cil in Chicago. 

Mr. Sheridan. Wlio is that? 

Mr. Gotfredson. The name slips my mind. 

Mr. Sheridan. Isn't it a fact that in practice, your grievances are 
handled through Mr. Frank Fitzsimmons, or more recently through 
Mr. Holland McMasters, representatives of local 299 in Detroit, rather 
than by somebody with the Central States drivers council ? 

Mr. Gotfredson. No, that is not correct. Most of our grievances 
are settled at the local level. 

Mr. Sheridan. I mean the ones that are not settled at the local 
level. 

Mr. Gotfredson. The ones that are not settled at the local level, 
some of them are f unneled through Mr. Fitzsimmons. 

Mr. Sheridan. Are all of them f unneled through Mr. Fitzsimmons ? 

Mr. Gotfredson. No, some were f unneled through a Mr. McMasters. 

Mr. Sheridan. I said, "Or Mr. McMasters." That is through local 
299? 

Mr. Gotfredson. That is correct. 

Mr. Snr.RiOAN. Rntlier than through the Central States drivers^ 
council i 

Mr. Gotfredson. No, tliat would be the court of last resort. 

Mr. Sheridan. Is there anything in this separate proposal whiciv 
M-as in itself a separate agreement, which provides for channeling tlie-e 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19411 

grievances through representatives of local 299 rather than the local 
union or the Central States drivers council ? 

Mv. GoTFREDSON. That isn't exactly spelled out, but to our best 
belief, we were dealing with the union in settling these. 

Mv. Sheridan. Is Mr. McMasters a representative of the Central 
States drivers council ? 

Mv. GoTFREDsoN. I dou't think so. 

Mr. Sherid.vn. Does he represent himself as such in dealing with 
your employees ? 

IVIr. Gotfredson. No, he never has. 

Mv. Sheridan. Now, we have found that the usual procedure that 
is followed in practice in your company, is that grievances are first 
taken up at the local level between the employee and the management, 
and then with the local union, but the contact with the local union is 
merely a referral by the local union to Mr. Fitzsimmons in Detroit 
and he is the one who actually handles the grievances with Mr. Dennis, 
the vice president of your company. 

Mr, Gotfredson. It doesn't exactly work out that way. 

Mr. Sheridan. How does it work, sir ? 

Mr. Gotfredson. Before Mr. Fitzsimmons or Mr. McMasters will 
settle any grievance, they first of all have to receive authority from 
the locals involved. 

Mr. Sheridan. Have you ever seen any indication of such authority 
in writing ? 

Mr. Gotfredson. I have seen some wires. 

Mr. Sheridan. From the local union giving Mr. Fitzsimmons au- 
thority to act on their behalf ? 

Mr. Gotfredson. That is correct. 

Mr. Sheridan. You have seen such a letter? 

Mr. Gotfredson. A wire. 

Mr. Sheridan. Is there any place either in the contract, the Central 
States contract, or in the separate grievance agreement which you have 
in lieu of the provisions of the contract, which provides that a repre- 
sentative of local 299 should handle your grievances ? 

Mr. Gotfredson. No, sir. 

Mr. Sheridan. Then there is nothing in writing to back up this 
inpractice grievance procedure ? 

Mr. Gotfredson. Well, we have no choice on who the union choses to 
settle their grievances. That is their prerogative. 

Mr. Sheridan. Who made the decision that Mr. Fitzsimmons should 
be the one to do this ? 

Mr. Gotfredson. We have no knowledge of how Mr. Fitzsimmons 
got the authority to settle them. 

Mr. Sheridan. In going through your files, we found nothing in 
writing to give Mr. Fitzsimmons this authority. We found no au- 
thorization for any local unions to give Mr. Fitzsimmons the authority 
to acton belialf of them. 

Mr. Gotfredson. As a matter of fact, I have very little to do with 
the settlement of grievances, personally. 

Mr. Sheridan. Mr. Dennis liandles most of that, does he? 

Mr. Gotfredson. Mr. Dennis liandles most of the grievances, and I 
only come into the picture wliere there is threat of a strike. 

36751— 59— pt. 55 18 



19412 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Sheridan. Was this separate grievance procedure ever ratij&ed 
by the membership, by the employees ? 

Mr. GoTFREDSON. No, it was not. 

Mr. Sheridan. It was not ratified ? 

Mr. GoTFREDSON. No, but I would like to explain this: that it is the 
position of our company, Trans- American Frein^ht Lines, that as the 
employer it our prerogative to choose the individual or individuals to 
represent the company in any grievance negotiations, and not that of 
the union. 

Mr. Sheridan. But this is a part of a contract, an addendum or 
a rider to a contract which you negotiated with the union and which 
the union membership thought they were ratifying, yet they knew 
nothing about the second proposal. 

With regard to the first proposal for the cent and a half payment, 
both of these proposals were passed or were signed by Mr. Hoffa and 
Mr. Healy with the understanding that they would be ratified by the 
majority of the locals. They went into effect on February 1, 1955. 

Prior to putting these into effect on February 1, 1955, did you have 
the approval of the majority of the locals ? 

Mr. GoTFREDSON. We did have such approval. 

Mr. Sheridan. Prior to February 1, 1955 ? 

Mr, GoTFREDSON. That is right. 

Mr. Sheridan. In what form did you have this approval ? 

Mr. GoTFREDSON. Well, we — the union, rather, called a mass meeting 
of the various locals, the business agents from those locals. 

Mr. Sheridan. That was on February 13, 1955 ? 

Mr. GoTFREDSON. I f orgct the date. 

Mr. Sheridan. It was 2 weeks after the negotiation, after the provi- 
sion went into effect. 

Mr. GoTFREDSON. We had asked for an earlier meeting, but the 
union — we had to await the pleasure of the union. 

Mr. Sheridan. At that meeting on February 13, 1955, Mr. Hoffa 
presided and you were also present. Mr. Hoffa made the statement 
that most of the locals had turned down the company's proposal but 
that he did not know why they had turned it down. 

Is that true, Mr. Gotf redson ? 

Mr. GoTFREDSON. That wasn't said in my presence. 

Mr. Sheridan. I think this was said before you came into the meet- 
ing. Then you and Mr. Hoffa both addressed the meeting telling them 
of the benefits of operating under the cent-and-a-half proposal, and 
an agreement was reached at that meeting whereby you would try this 
system of payment for a period of 12 weeks, I believe it was, is that 
correct, three 28-day periods ? 

Mr. GoTFREDSON. To the best of my recollection, the representatives 
of our employees, namely, the stewards, agreed to put on a trial basis. 

Mr. Sheridan. For 12 weeks ? 

Mr. GoTFREDSON. I think that was the period. And if at the end of 
12 weeks there were any repercussions, at that time it was agreed an- 
other meeting would be held, and further discussions held with the 
union regardmg the cent and a half. 

Mr. Sheridan. So it was agreed that after the 12-week period 
another meeting would be held to reevaluate the matter? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19413 

Mr. GoTTREDsoN. Only in the event, as I say, that there were objec- 
tions, serious objections, to the cent and a half after we had put it 
into effect. 

Mr. Sheridan. Mr. Chairman, could we make the minutes of that 
February 13, 1955 meeting an exhibit ? 

The Chairman. Has the witness identified them ? 

Mr. Sheridan. I can identify them. 

The Chairman. Have you been previously sworn ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Not during this hearing. 

The Chairman. Stand and be sworn. 

You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this Senate 
Select Committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Sheridan. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER J. SHERIDAN 

The Chairman. State your name and your position with tliis com- 
mittee. 

Mr. Sheridan. Walter J. Sheridan, an investigator with the com- 
mittee. 

The Chairman. You have just made a statement about a docu- 
ment. Do you have the document before you ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, I do, sir. 

The Chairman. What is the document ? 

Mr. Sheridan. It is a document recording the minutes of a meeting 
held on February 13, 1955. The document is signed with the type- 
written signature by Otto Frobe, the secretary-treasurer of the local 
100 of the Teamsters Union, in Cincinnati. 

The Chairman. Is that the record of the minutes of the meeting? 

Mr. Sheridan. Tlie minutes we have been discussing. 

The Chairman. How did you procure it ? 

Mr. Sheridan. From the files of local 100, in Cincinnati. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 60. 

(Minutes referred to were marked Exhibit No. 60 for reference 
and may be found in the files of the Select Committee.) 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT B. GOTFREDSON AND R. I. DENNIS, ACCOM- 
PANIED BY COUNSEL, THOMAS M. CHAWKE— Resumed 

Mr. Sheridan. Were there any objections after this 12-week period 
to the cent and a half arrangement, Mr. Gotf redson ? 

Mr. GoTFREDSON. Nonc came to our attention. 

Mr. Sheridan. So the meeting that was agreed to he held was never 
held ? There was never a second meeting held to discuss this situation 
with the membership ? 

Mr. GoTFREDSON. No, no second meeting was held. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I might say here that we are going to 
have testimony in connection with this cent and a half, and what oc- 
curred in 1955 at this meeting and what occurred at the various locals, 
because it is of extreme importance to tlie committee. 

But we wanted to have Mr. Gotfredson's testimony in connection 
with that before we have the other witnesses. He might not have 



19414 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

knowledge or information as to what occurred at the union level, but 
we wanted to determine what occurred as far as management was 
concerned. 

Mr. Sheridan. This arrangement has been in effect, then, since Feb- 
ruary 1, 1955, until the present time. During that period of time, 
have there been any questions raised on the part of your drivers 
as to their desires under this arrangement? Have there been any 
significant requests by them to change this agreement and go back 
under the contract ? 

Mr. GoTFREDSON. We have, naturally, a minority number of drivers 
who don't favor it. 

Mr. Sheridan. But you never had a large group of drivers indicat- 
ing, anyway, that they wanted to change this arrangement ? 

Mr. (irOTFREDSON. If there was a large group, it hasn't been brought 
to my attention. Certain drivers have protested against the cent and 
a half, and that is probably natural. We didn't expect to keep 100 
percent of 1,000 drivers happy. 

Mr. Sheridan. Here is one of your bulletins, Bulletin Letter No. 
12-176, signed by Mr. Dennis, to all dry freight terminal managers,, 
in which he said : 

We held a meeting with representatives of the Central States Drivers Coun- 
cil yesterday regarding the cent and a half per mile Trans-American rider on 
Central States agreement. At this meeting, we were given the privilege of 
reading several letters written to Mr. James Hoffa, vice pjresident of the Team- 
sters Union, with copies to the Ceneral States Drivers Council concerning our 
cent and a half per mile arrangement. One of the big complaints seems to stem 
from the fact that many of our terminal managers and/or dispatchers, as alleged 
by the unions, are not considering the welfare of our drivers. 

The letters of criticism on the cent and a half rider have been written to Mr. 
James Hoffa by the local Teamsters Unions in Dayton, Louisville, and Columbus. 

First, is it customary for the union, or Mr. Hoffa or Mr. Fitzsim- 
mons, to show you letters that they receive from their membership,, 
complaining about how they are being treated by your company ? 

Mr. Gotfredson. That letter would probably go to Mr. Dennis. 

Mr. Sheridan. Mr. Dennis, have you found that to be the ]iractice-, 
that the Teamsters Union in Detroit, Mr. Fitzsimmons, would show 
you letters of complaint from your drivers, complaining about your 
actions ? 

Mr. Dennis. Would you please read where that meeting was held 
and with whom? 

Mr. Shehidan (reading) : 

We held a meeting with a representative of the Central States Drivers Council 
yesterday. 

Who would that have been ? 
Mr. Dennis. What is the date of the letter ? 
Mr. Sheridan. July 25, 1955. 

Mr. Dennis. I am sorry ; I can't remember back 4 years. 
Mr. Sheridan. Could we make that an exhibit also, Mr. Chairman?' 
The Chairman. Has it been identified? 
Mr. Dennis. What is the date of the letter again ? 
The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a photostatic copy of a 
document and asks you to examine it and state if you identify it. 
(The document was handed to the witness.) 
(The witne.ss conferred with his counsel.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19415 

The Chairman. Have you identified the document? 

Mr. Dennis. Yes, I have. 

The Chairman. You have identified it? What is it, please, sir? 

Mr. Dennis. It is a letter over my signature, dated July 25, 1955, 
to all dry freight terminal managers, advising them of a meeting held 
"with a representative of the Central States Drivers Council on July 24, 
1955, regarding the cent and a half Trans-American rider on the 
Central States agi-eement, in which 

The Chairman. I just wanted to identify it. It may be made 
exhibit No. 61. 

(Letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 61"' for reference and 
may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Any comment you wish to make about it, feel free 
to do so. Proceed. 

Mr. Sheridan. That bulletin indicates some dissatisfaction on the 
part of some drivers with the cent and a half proposal. In 1958, 
when the negotiations were again opened on the Central States con- 
tract, were there any indications at that time of dissatisfaction on 
the part of the members ? 

Mr. GoTFREDSON. There may have been. 

Mr. Sheridan. Do you recall any significant ones ? 

Mr. GoTFREDsoN. I think the percentage was insignificant. 

Mr. Sheridan. Have you recently or in 1958 obtained from the 
members — did you take a vote among the membership regarding the 
cent and a half agreement ? 

Mr, GoTFREDSON. Yes, sir ; we did. 

Mr. Sheridan. And you have turned the results of that vote over to 
us this morning? 

Mr. GoTTREDsoN. Ycs, sir ; we did. 

Mr. Sheridan. Are you sure that the results as indicated in the 
material turned over to us were the results as they actually happened 
in each instance ? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. GoTFREDsoN. I ouly attended two of the meetings at which the 
drivers voted, one in St. Louis — that is, personally — and one in Detroit, 
and at both of those meetings when the vote was taken it was unani- 
mous, unanimously in favor of the cent and a half. 

Mr. Sheridan. Mr. Dennis, did you attend the other meetings that 
were held ? 

Mr. Dennis. Yes, I did. 

]\Ir. Sheridan. Did you attend the meeting in Chicago? 

Mr. Dennis. No, I did not. 

Mr. Sheridan. Did anyone from the company attend the meeting 
in Chicago? 

Mr. Dennis. I am unable to answer that, whether we had a rep- 
resentative there or not, in Chicago. 

Mr. Shertoan. The vote in Chicago was 47 to in favor of the 
■cent-and-a-half annmgement ? 

Mr. Dennis. Tliat is correct. That was our advice. 

]\Ir. SHFJ^roAN. But there was no company official at that meeting 
that you are aware of ? 

Mr. Dennis. I just told you that to my knowledge there was not. 

Mr. Sheridan. AAHio told j'ou the results of that vote? 



19416 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Dennis, Our terminal manager in Chicago. 

Mr. Sheridan. What is his name? 

Mr. Dennis. At that time his name was Mr. Fixari, Edward 

Mr. Sheridan. F-i-x-a-r-i? 

Mr. Dennis. Yes. 

]Mr. Sheridan. Was he present when the vote was taken? 

Mr. Dennis. I couldn't answer that question. 

Mr. Sheridan. Were you present at the vote in Cincinnati? 

Mr. Dennis. Yes. 

Mr. Sheridan. You can certify to the vote in Cincinnati yourself, 
because you were there ? 

Mr. Dennis. Pardon? 

Mr. Sheridan. You can attest to the vote in Cmcinnati yourself? 

Mr. Dennis. Yes, I can. 

Mr. Sheridan. What was the result of that vote ? Do you recall ? 

(The witness conferred with his comisel.) 

Mr. Dennis. May I see the list on Cincinnati, the one you are 
asking me about? 

Mr. Kennedy. Maybe we can have them all made an exhibit for 
reference. These are the documents that were presented by the com- 
pany in connection with the vote taken on the cent and a half, about 
which we will have more testimony. 

The Chairman. I present you here in bulk a number of documents 
relating to this alleged vote that was taken on the cent and a half 
that is involved in this negotiation. I believe these documents came 
from the company file. 

I present them to you and ask joii to examine them and state if 
you can identify them. 

(The documents were handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. I believe they are documents that you turned over 
to the staff of the committee. 

Mr. Dennis. Yes; that is correct. 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibit No. 62 in bulk. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 62" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Are there any questions about them ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Mr. Dennis, would you look at the Cincinnati ballot 
and tell us what the results of that were ? 

Mr. Dennis. As I recall, there were two meetings held in Cincinnati. 

Mr. Sheridan. What was the date of the first meeting ? 

Mr. Dennis. One in March 23, 1958, and the second on June 1, 1958. 
As I recall, at the first meeting held in Cincinnati, it so happened 
there was a terrific snowstorm on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and a 
considerable portion of our equipment was held up in the snowdrifts 
for a period of 2,4 to 48 hours, with the result that many of the drivers 
involved and interested in this meeting were unable to attend. 

Mr. Sheridan. Did you take a vote at the meeting anyway ? 

Mr. Dennis. As I recall, a vote was taken. 

Mr. Sheridan. Was it in favor or against the cent and a half ? 

Mr. Dennis. Which was against the cent and a half, but it was 
unfavorable. 

Mr. Sheridan. So you had a second vote ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19417 

Mr. Dennis. No, it was unfavorable due to the fact that a true 
representation of the men was not there. 

Some of them wrote letters to our company, and others sent in tele- 
grams asking for another meeting. 

Mr. Sheridan. Do you have any record of those letters and tele- 
grams other than the one that is there ? 

Mr. Dennis. They are in here. 

Mr. Sheridan. There is only one there, isn't there, from Mr. Cisco ? 

Mr. Dennis. Here is a letter and a telegram in here, and Mr. 
Young 

Mr. Sheridan. Is there more than one letter from a member pro- 
testing ? 

Mr. Dennis. Here is a telegram signed by our Mr. Muller. 

Mr. Sheridan. Who is Mr. Muller ? 

Mr. Dennis. Mr. Muller is our Cincinnati terminal manager. 

Mr. Sheridan. But are there any letters ? 

Mr. Dennis. Advising that Raymond Bums would like another 
meeting. 

Here is a telegram by a William Parker for liis proxy vote in favor 
of the cent and a half. 

Mr. Sheridan. But that was counted, was it not ? 

Mr. Dennis. Here is a letter from a driver, William Risco, say- 
ing- 
It is my opinion that because all of the drivers did not get to attend that meet- 
ing, the vote taken did not represent the feeling of most of the drivers working 
out of Cincinnati. I certainly feel that the 15 or 16 who were not there would 
vote to retain the l^/o cents fringe benefit we are now receiving, at least this is 
the opinion of the absent drivers to whom I have talked. If possible could you 
call another meeting and make it so we can be there to represent ourselves. 

Mr. Sheridan. But there is actually only one letter from one driver 
protesting ; is that not true ? 

Mr. Dennis. That is correct. 

Mr. Sheridan. Now, Mr. Gotfredson 

Mr. Dennis. You didn't allow me to finish. 

Mr. Sheridan. I am sorry, Mr. Dennis. 

Mr. Dennis. We held the other meeting on June 1, at which time 
there was a representative group of drivers in attendance at the meet- 
ing in Cincinnati, and the majority voted in favor of the cent and a 
half rider. 

Mr. Sheridan. What was the vote on that ? 

Mr. Dennis. Eighteen to thirteen. 

Mr. Sheridan. Eighteen to thirteen ? 

Mr. Dennis. That is right. 

Mr. Sheridan. Now, Mr. Dennis, is it true that in order to get a 
job as a driver at Trans- American today, you have to sign an indi- 
vidual agreement agreeing to the cent and a half agreement? 

Mr. Dennis. Yes, it is. 

Mr. Sheridan. Is it also true that you are putting on a large num- 
ber of new Mack trucks as your company-owned equipment and that 
in order to get one of these new Mack trucks you have to sign an agree- 
ment agreeing to the cent and a half provision ? 

Mr. Dennis. Well, the reason for that 

Mr. Sheridan. Is that true, Mr. Dennis ? 



19418 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Dennis. The reason for that 

Mr. Sheridan. Is that true ? 

Mr. Dennis. Not the way you stated it, no. 

Mr. Sheridan. If you are a company driver, driving an old, or not 
a Mack truck, and you are putting on new Mack trucks, and if you 
want to get one of these new Mack trucks, is it not true that you have 
to sign one of these cent and a half agreements ? 

Mr. Dennis. You are not stating the full facts. 

Mr. Sheridan. Isn't that a part of the provision whereby a driver 
will get one of the trucks ? 

Mr. Dennis. The way you state it, I would say "No.'' 

Mr. Sheridan. What is the situation ? 

Mr. Dennis. The procedure is this: A new Mack truck costs our 
company $15,000. We cannot economically place a piece of equipment 
of that value on a short run where it will stand idle one-half to two- 
thirds of the time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you ask tlie question and then we can move 
on. He didn't ask you why, and he asked you if you did. You are 
giving us the reason for something. He asked you if you did. 

Mr. Dennis. Well, he is not asking a question. 

Mr. Sheridan. You are putting on a large number of Mack trucks, 
and if a company driver wants one of these Mack trucks he has to 
sign one of these cent and a half agreements ? 

Mr. Dennis. That is true. 

Mr. Sheridan. Now, also, in taking one of these Mack trucks, and 
he is a company driver, one of the prime things that a company driver 
is interested in is good runs, and in this February 13 meeting with Mr. 
Hoffa back in 1955, Mr. HoUa was quite definite and Mr. Gotfredson 
backed him up in the assertion that no matter what happened the 
drivers would never have to give up their good runs. What is in effect 
happening now with the new Mack trucks, not only are the drivers 
required to sign the cent and a half agreement, but are being required 
to give up the good runs, and they are becoming what is known in the 
trucking industry as "wildcatters." 

Mr. Hoffa said at that meeting that these drivers would never become 
"wildcatters." 

Now, isn't that true ? 

Mr. Dennis. Well, they seem to like their job, and they are running 
miles, and making good wages. 

Mr. Sheridan. I would like to run through with Mr. Gotfredson just 
a few other areas where the company is not living up to the contract. 

Now, in your agreements with your owner-operators, Mr. Gotfred- 
son, you do not have a lease directly with your owner-operator but you 
have a lease through the Highway Vehicles Corp., which is owned 
entirely by Trans- American ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Gotfredson. That is correct. 

Mr. Sheridan. Now, there are four articles in the Contral States 
contract, and I will just quote the articles. 

Mr. Gotfredson. That is subject to some explanation. 

Mr. Sheridan. In effect, you are paying your owner-operators 

Mr. Gotfredson. You are painting a picture which give the com- 
mittee the wrong impression. 

Mr. Sheridan. Let me state this fact and see where it is wrons:. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19419 

You are paying your owner-operator drivers for the rental of their 
equipment a 1214-cent fiat rate, and tlie Central States contract pro- 
vides you will pay anywhere from IO14 to I4I/2 cents, depending on the 
tonnage, starting at 23,000 poimds. 

Now, by leasing it through Highway Vehicle Co., you in effect are 
saying tliat you are not leasing equipment from the owner-operator 
but through a leasing from Highway Vehicles, and this did not come 
under the provisions of the contract ; is that not true ? 

Mr. GoTFREDSON. Tliose vehicles do not come under the provision 
of the contract. 

Mr. Sheridan. But Highway Vehicles is a wholly owned subsidiary 
of Trans-American. 

Mr. GoTFREDSON. That is correct, but they have no contract with 
the union. 

Mr. Sheridan. Article 1, section 4, of the contract provides: 

It is understood by this provision that the parties hereto shall not use any 
leasing device to a third party to evade this contract. 

Now, has the miion ever complained about this leasing arrange- 
ment ? 

Mr. Gotfredson. Not to my recollection. 

Mr. Sheridan. Have you furnished the union copies of your lease 
as pro^^ded in the contract? 

Mr. Gotfredson. So far as I know, the lease is no secret. 

Mr. Sheridan. Your personnel manager advised me that you did 
not furnish those leases to the union. The contract specifically pro- 
vides that you should. 

Article 6, section 2, states that : 

The employer agrees not to enter into any agreement or contract vpith his 
employees individually or collectively which would in any way conflict with the 
terms of the provisions of this agreement. 

Now, the 123/^ cents is in conflict with the terms of the agreement. 

Mr. Gotfredson. I do not interpret that as meaning that Trans- 
American is not permitted to lease from a strictly leasing company, 
which Highway Vehicles, Inc., is. 

Mr. Sheridan. Now, you pay your owner-operators for deadhead- 
ing, and you pay them 75 percent for the first 50 miles; is that correct? 

Mr. Gotfredson. That is not coiTect. 

Mr. Sheridan. Wliat do you pay them for the rental of your equip- 
ment ? I know you pay them full mileage for wages. 

Mr. Gotfredson. I believe I explained this to you at length last 
evening. 

Mr. Sheridan. I know there is a reason for all of these things, Mr. 
Gotfredson, but the fact remains that in each one of these instances 
although there may be a reason why you are doing these tilings, what 
you are doing is in violation of the contract. 

Mr. Gotfredson. Anything applying to equipment does not come 
under the contract, and therefore there can be no violation. 

Mr. Sheridan. Certainly. But there are several provisions and 
several articles in the contract devoted solely to the subject of owner- 
operators, which is what we are dealing with here noAv. 

Now, the fact is that you are leasing through this Highway Ve- 
hicles Corp., with the equipment still the property of the owner. 



19420 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IiST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. GoiTREDSON. We lease 1,000 trailers from Higliway Vehicles, 
and we also lease a large number of pieces of power equipment from 
Highway Vehicles. Highway Vehicles is a large corporation, and 
it has been in business for many years. 

Mr. Sheridan. What we are discussing is power equipment and 
by individual owner-operators, and the contract says first that this 
equipment shall not be held in the name of the company. In the case 
of Trans- American it is held in the name of the company, and the 
contract says that you shall not use a device to get around the provi- 
sions of tlie contract in relation to this equipment, and you are saying 
that the contract does not cover this equipment because of the device 
which you have set up. 

Mr. GoTFREDsoN. It is not a device. 

Mr. Sheridan. Just a summary, Mr. Gotfredson, again, we are not 
saying there are not reasons for it, but we are saying that the provi- 
sions of the contract as they exist are not being followed in some in- 
stances by your company. It is not only your company, but we foimd 
it in other companies in the Central States area. 

Some of them we have had testimony concerning and some we will 
have more testimony concerning it. 

The fact remains that the contracts in the Central States area, the 
ones we have looked at, are not being enforced, and yours is one of 
them. 

You have a separate agreement with the union, and that as far as 
the grievance procedure is concerned it not the same. 

Mr. Gotfredson. That is a matter of interpretation. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions? 

Thank you very much. 

Come around, Mr. Bender. 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth- 
ing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Bender. I do. 

TESTIMONY OP GEORGE H. BENDER 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and 
your business or occupation. 

Mr. Bender. My name is George H. Bender, and I live at 495 North 
Street, Chagrin Falls, Ohio. 

My Washington residence is 120 Schott's Alley, NE. 

The Chairman. "Wliat is your present occupation? 

Mr. Bender. I am president of the George H. Bender Insurance 
Co. in Cleveland. 

I liave other interests as well, and among them I happen to be an 
employee of the Teamstei-s Union at the present time. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you. 

You are a former member of the Senate, Mr. Bender? 

Mr. Bender. I was a member, Mr. Chairman, of your committee 
for several years before this committee, and served in the House for 
14 years preceding that as Congressman-at-large, and district Con- 
gressman for one term, and 10 years as State senator. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19421 

The Chairman. This morning in the course of some testimony 
your name was referred to, relating to an occasion when you were a 
Member of the House of Representatives, at a time when you headed 
a subcommittee that was investigating certain areas, possibly, of 
labor-management relations, and particularly at a time when some 
investigation was possibly being made of a Mr. Presser, and a Mr. 
Triscaro. 

This afternoon you appeared, I believe, and sent the Chair a note 
saying you would like to testify. 

jNIr. Bender. As a result of receiving a number of telephone calls 
from newspapermen and television people, and others, resulting from 
some comment that was made this morning before the committee, I 
came here because I wanted to tell the facts concerning what oc- 
curred at the time that was referred to this morning. 

The Chairman. The Chair would say to you mat under the rules 
of the conunittee, if anyone's name is used here in the course of these 
hearings, or any testimony given that anyone thinks might be de- 
rogatory or in any way reflect upon him, he can request to be heard. 
I do not think the committee would ever deny anyone the oppor- 
tunity to appear and testify. 

We are very glad to have you. We welcome you. I believe I furn- 
ished you, as early as I received it, or about as early as I received it, 
with a copy of the transcript of the testimony given here this 
morning. 

Mr. Bender. Our relationship, yours and mine, have always been 
most pleasant, and I regard you not only as a fine Senator, but a 
gentleman. 

I made the request because I felt that certain matters should be 
cleared up. 

(At this point Senator Gold water entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Bender. I served on the Government Operations Committee of 
the U.S. House of Representatives for 14 years, with Clare Hoffman 
during most of that time. Clare Hoffman was chairman of a sub- 
committee for a brief period and I was a member of that committee 
with Representative Condon from California. 

There was another subcommittee from the Labor Committee of 
the House. We held hearings in Michigan, and in Clare Hoffman's 
hometown, in Detroit, and a number of other places, in Washington 
and elsewhere. 

Later on, because of some turmoil within the committee, Mr. Hoff- 
man served as chairman of the Anti-Racketeering Committee. He 
named himself. The Government Operations Committee of the 
House met and there were 20 members present. Nineteen of them 
voted that I should be the chairman, Democrats as well as Republi- 
cans, of this Anti-Labor Racketeering Committee. 

I consulted with some people Avho seemed very much interested in 
the subject, including some of the newspapermen, among whom was 
Clark ]\Iollenhoff, whom you know very well, and they recommended 
that possibly it would be a good idea to hire some foraier FBI men 
to serve as counsel for this committee. So we engaged Downey Rice. 
In fact, it was, I think, on Clark Mollenhoff's suggestion. 

I told him to hire a staff of people and not discuss anything with 
us luitil the}' were ready to proceed with hearings. That is exactly 



19422 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

what happened. They had carte bhinche authority to make any 
investii^ations, and then we wonkl hold hearings. We would call a 
meetin<>- of the connnittee and tell them what we had in mind. 

Downey llice appeai'ed. ^Ve had hearings in Minneapolis, and I 
think in Pittsburgh, Washington, and several other places. There 
were three Democrats on this conmiittee and four Republicans. The 
four Republicans included the chairman of the full committee, Clare 
Hoffman, and Clare Hoffman was just a little sore about being replaced 
by me as chairman of this subcommittee. 

But in Minneapolis, Downey Rice almost got into a fist fight with 
one of the Democratic Congressmen, and they were all burned up 
and worked up. They met and Clare Ploffman joined them and de- 
cided to fire Downey Rice. Of course, I was a chtiirman without 
portfolio. I was a chairman of a committee but without a staff of 
my own. But Clare Hoffman did hire some good people. 

The ])eople that he did hire to take Downey Rice's place, I thought, 
including a Mr. McKenna and some others, Mr. Smith and others, 
were fine people, and I thought they were doing an excellent job. 

In connection with the hearing this morning, Mr. Kennedy said : 

T can straighten that out. 

Senator Capehart. Was it the Bender or Hoffman committee? 

Mr. Kennedy. I can straighten that out. Clare Hoffman, the Congressman 
from Michigan, had nothing whatsoever to do with this. This is a connnittee 
that was run by Congressman Bender. 

It wasn't run by me at all. It was run by the investigating com- 
mittee appointed by Hoffman, and Hoffman was present when the 
hearings involving the gentlemen mentioned this morning were held. 
Hoffman's men were in charge. I was the chairman, as you are, sir. 

But— 

This is a committee that was run by Congressman Bender. 

Congressman Hoffman liad nothing to do with this whatsoever. His name 
shouldn't even be injected into this hearing. 

The Chairman. Let me see if I can get it straightened out. What 
was the name of the committee ? 

Mr. Bender. The committee was the Anti-Racketeering Subcom- 
mittee of the Government Operations Committee. 

The Chairman. It was a subcommittee of the Government Opera- 
tions Committee. ]\Ir. Hoffman was chairman ? 

Mr. Bender. No, a member. I was the chairman. 

The Chairman. Was he chairman of the Government Operations 
Committee ? 

Mr. Bender. Yes, he was. 

The Chairman. And you were chairman of the subcommittee. 

Mr. Bender. That is right. 

Tlie Chairman. And Mr. Hoffman, Congressman Hoffman, was a 
member of the subcommittee of which you were chairman ? 

Mr. Bender. That is right. Mr. Dawson of Chicago, Congressman 
Dawson, was the other member of the committee. As I recall, Con- 
gressman Osmers, of New Jersey, and another Congressman, were 
members of the committee, sat with us, at the hearings that were held 
m Cleveland. 

Whatever the facts obtained were obtained by persons like Mr. 
Bellmo, and your staff members, and presented to "our committee, and 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19423 

a full airing was had of everything that they produced. There wasn't 
any effort made to shut off anyone. 

If you recall, in 1954 1 became a candidate to fill the unexpired term 
of Senator Taft, and I was very busy. Our State has 91/^ million 
people, and having to cover every nook and cranny in the State and 
then have this on my hands, too, I carried out my work and I was 
there, I was present, and presided at the meetings that were had. 

Incidentally, the so-called Bender committee made a report that I 
am sure your staff' has a copy of, and I am sure it would make good 
reading for every member of your committee because we are not a 
legislative — a legislative committee is not a prosecuting committee. 
We cannot enforce any laws. We can only bring attention, as your 
committee does, bring attention to the people and to the Senate and to 
the House, the facts as you find them, and whatever happens is a matter 
of local action. 

Now, these hearings were held in October of 1954. I ran against 
the man who former Governor Lausche appointed to fill Senator 
Taft's place, former Senator Burke, a very fine man, by the way, and 
I campaigned against him. But he had the entire labor support during 
that campaign. I had no labor support. Labor supported Burke 100 
percent. 

I had no official, financial or any other support from any segment 
of labor during that campaign, and after the campaign was over and 
they asked for a recount of votes, I am sure labor financed most of 
the recount effort, and that is quite expensive, that was made through- 
out the State. 

So I had no connection whatever with any of these gentlemen, and 
our committee continued, as a matter of fact, after election, and the 
testimony this morning indicated there were no committee meetings 
after I was elected U.S. Senator, but that isn't true. 

We came to Washington. Mr. Presser, Mr. Triscaro, and the whole 
line of steelworkers from Youngstown appeared in Washington. We 
held hearings here for about a week in the House Office Building. 

So there was no disposition to shut off anything or to subdue anyone 
or to make any effort to have them pull their punches. As a matter 
of fact, everjT^ opportunity was given to everyone to — as a matter of 
fact, too, I think I am correct in saying we subpenaed Mr. Beck before 
the committee, and some of the members objected to Mr. Beck's being 
subpenaed. So he wasn't ever called. 

But I subpenaed him, and other members of union labor were sub- 
penaed at the time. He was never heard because of that situation. 
Now, IVIr. Hoffman was a member of my committeee. Mr. Hoffman 
attended every meeting of my committee. Mr. Hoffman knew all the 
facts. 

In fact, his personal appointees were the investigators of the com- 
mittee. "\^Tien I was elected to the Senate, and after the recount, I 
took my seat as a U.S. Senator sometime in December of 1954, and I 
liad to i-esign from the House. So I had to resign from every com- 
mittee and every activity that I was engaged in in the House when I 
became a Member of the Senate in December of that year. 

Regarding some inferences 

The Chairman. "What date did you become a Member of the Sen- 
iite? Do you remember? 



19424 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Bender. I tliink it was sometime around the middle of Decem- 
ber. I can't give you the exact date. But I can say, Mr. Chairman, 
that there is some reference made to their raising money for defense 
purposes and payoffs and so on. Of course, it is perfectly absurd. I 
know Mr. Luken, I saw him here today, and I have met him many 
times. I met every man and woman and child that I could meet in 
Ohio. I was running for office. 

I think I was elocted about as often statewide as any man in the 
history of Ohio. So, being a hard campaigner, I worked at the job. 
After I was elected, I resigned. But certainly I don't have any ac- 
quaintaince with Mr. Press^er or Mr. Triscaro personally at the dme, 
except as Mr. Presser appeared at the hearing held in Detroit when 
Clare Hoffman was chairman of the subcommittee of which I was a 
member, I think the year before. 

There was no money of any kind, I am sure, paid to any member 
of the committee or, as a matter of fact, it was used against us. No 
union supported George Bender. They didn't support Clare Hoff- 
man. Certainly in 1954 they were against us. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair point out that we are going to have 
to go and vote. This room is to be occupied at 5 : 30 by some other 
folks. We are not going to be able to conclude. 

Counsel had one question he wanted to ask you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive money from the labor organizations 
in 1954? 

Mr. Bender. I not only didn't receive money from them, I received 
money from no one. I had a campaign committee that handled funds, 
and the members of that committee, as I recall, were Arthur Genholtz, 
vice president of Eepublic Steel; Dave E. Jones, industrialist and 
president of the Cleveland Browns ; and Liv Ireland, who is a heavy 
stockholder in the M. A. Hanna Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. They filed a report indicating that they had received 
some $95,000, and we found in 1955, after your election, that there was 
some $108,996.78 not reported. 

Mr. Bender. I know nothing about that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Also, we have two affidavits here showing that in 
October of 1954 the Teamsters switched their support on the orders 
of Mr. Presser from Mr. Burke, your opponent, to you. 

Mr. Bender. Well, that isn't true. 

Mr. Kennedy. These are two affidavits. 

Mr. Bender. I don't know who signed them. Who signed them? 

]Mr. Kennedy. Union officials of the Teamsters. 

Mr. Bender. Well, they are not telling the truth because that is 
definitely not true. 

The Chairman. The witness is entitled to a copy of these affidavits. 
The Chair directs that the staff' prepare and give the witness a copy, 
and if the witness will return in the morning at 10 :30, we will con- 
clude. I am sorry about this interruption. We can't help it. 

The affidavits may be printed in the record at this point. 

(The affidavits referred to follow :) 

State of Ohio, 

Count If of IT am il ton, us: 

I, Walter Sohulz, make the following voluntary statement to Walter J. 
Sheridan who has identified liimself to me as an investigator with the Senate 
Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Lahor or Management Field. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19425 

In October 1954 I attended a meeting of the executive board of the Ohio Con- 
ference of Teamsters which was held in Columbus, Ohio. This meeting was held 
on a Sunday. At the meeting William Presser made an announcement that the 
Teamsters Union was throwing its support to George H. Bender for Senator. 
Prior to this announcement the Teamsters Union had been actively supporting 
Bender's opponent, Thomas Burke, and had been very critical of Bender because 
of his activities as chairman of the congressional committee which had held 
hearings in Cleveland involving William Presser. I had been spending a great 
deal of my spare time helping to send out literature for the Teamsters Union in 
support of Thomas Burke. 

When William Presser made this announcement at the meeting, I asked him 
why we were switching our support from Thomas Burke to George Bender. 
Presser's reply was that Bender was the man to support and he said that he 
could not say anything else about it. 

The members of the executive board were told to go back to their local unions 
and tell the membership that they should support George Bender rather than 
Thomas Burke. 

(Signed) Walter Schtjlz. 

Sworn and subscribed to before me this 14th day of September 1958. 

John E. Weller, 
'Notary Pvhlic, Hamilton County, Ohio. 

My commission expires August 30. 1960. 



Affidavit 
State of Ohio, 
County of Hamilton, ss: 

I, Otto Frobe, make the following voluntary statement to Walter J. Sheridan, 
who has identified himself to me as an investigator for the Senate Select Com- 
mittee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field. 

I am secretary-treasurer of local 100 and a trustee of Joint Council No. 26, 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Cincinnati, Ohio. In 1954 I was vice 
president of joint council No. 26. In October 1954 I attended a meeting of the 
executive board of the Ohio Conference of Teamsters which was held in Colum- 
bus, Ohio. Prior to that meeting the Teamsters Union in Ohio had been support- 
ing Thomas Burke as a candidate for the U.S. Senate. At this meeting William 
Presser announced that the Teamsters Union was switching its support to 
George H. Bender. 

Walter Schulz, a business agent with local 100 asked William Presser why 
we were switching our support to Bender after working so hard supporting 
Burke. Presser said that Bender was the man to support and he could not say 
anything else about it. 

( Signed ) , 

Sworn and ipubscribed to before me this day of September 1958. 

, Notary Public. 

Mr. Bender. I just want to say definitely Mr. Presser and Mr. 
Triscaro or the unions did not support George Bender in 1954, what- 
ever affidavits you have. 

The Chairman. The committee stands in recess until 10 :30 in the 
morning. At 10 o'clock in the morning there will be an executive ses- 
sion of the committee here in this room. 

(ISIembers of the select committee present at time of recess : Senators 
McClellan, Ervin, Capehart, and Gold water.) 

(A^^lereupon, at 5 p.m., the select committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 10 :30 a.m., Thursday, July 9, 1959.) 



IiWESTIGATIOX OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES L\ THE 
LABOR OR 3IAXAGEMEXT FIELD 



THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1959 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee ox Improper AcnviTuss 

In the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington^ B.C. 

The select committee met at 10 :4:5 a.m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 44, agreed to February 2, 1959, in the caucus room, Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Karl E, Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator Sam J. Ervin, 
Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Frank Church, Democrat, 
Idaho ; Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican, Arizona ; Senator Carl 
T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Paul J. Tierney, 
assistant counsel; Arthur G. Kaplan, assistant counsel; Walter J. 
Sheridan, investigator; Pierre E. G. Salinger, investigator: George H. 
Martin, investigator ; Sherman S. Willse, investigator ; Ruth Y. Watt, 
chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the select committee present at time of convening: 
Senators McClellan, Ervin, and Goldwater.) 

The Chairman. Call the first •witness. 

Is Senator Bender present ? 

Do you wish to resume your statment. Senator? 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE H. BENDEE— Resumed 

Mr. Bender. ^Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate very much if these 
people who want to take pictures, take the pictures now and then sus- 
pend during the hearing. 

The Chairman. All right, we will take them now. Make it snappy. 
I imagine they have plenty of pictures of all of us. Those who co- 
operate with the committee get the cooperation of the committee in 
return. 

All right, gentlemen, we will proceed. 

You will desist from snapping pictures while the witness testifies. 
All right, that ends it. 

Mr. Bender. Mr. Chairman, the hearing wound up rather abruptly, 
and after I was through, Mr. Kennedy had a score of newspapermen 
around him and he produced a couple of letters or alleged affidavits 
from a couple of Teamsters Union members that during the close of 

36751— 59— pt. 55 19 19427 



19428 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

the campaign Mr. Presser appeared in the union and asked them to 
reverse their position and support me. Frankly, if I needed to, I 
could get thousands of affidavits to the effect that the labor unions 
did absolutely nothing for me officially. 

I want to say that for 20 years I was Eepublican county chairman, 
for approxhnately 20 years, in Cleveland, and we have 2,200 elected 
precinct committeemen, and over half of them are members of labor 
unions. It is entirely possible that a good many of them were mem- 
bers of the Teamsters Union, and certainly when you run in North 
Carolina, or in Arkansas, or in Ohio, you have to have the votes of 
the washed and unwashed as well. 

If you don't get the votes, you don't win the elections. My purpose 
was to help to win elections. As far as this situation goes in Ohio, 
it seems that immediately after I accepted this responsibility with the 
Teamstei^ Union, and they called it an anti racketeering commission 
themselves, and they hired me for the purpose of making a survey 
and making recommendations to them about the union and wliat could 
be done. 

I am in the process of doing that. We had four or five meetings of 
our commission ; and in fact, when Judge Jayne of Detroit was named 
as a member of the commission, immediately someone from this com- 
mittee or the staff got out a report that Judge Jayne was on the 
Teamsters' payroll. 

I don't know what w^as said about Mr. Donohue, but I regard both 
men as honorable men. Along about December, when litigation in- 
volving the Teamsters and affecting the monitors was before the 
courts, the commission that I happened to be chairman of agreed not 
to hold any meetings. 

Now, as to my work : I was engaged before the other two gentle- 
men on this commission were named, and I was engaged on a 2-year 
basis. I didn't know who the other commissioners would be and I 
had nothing to say about them other than I regard both of them as 
honorable men. 

Now, I have devoted not only my full time, but plenty of extra time, 
to doing the kind of a job that I think is desirable to do because I 
believe that the Teamsters Union, with 1,500,000 or 1,600,000 mem- 
bers, should be a clean union. I don't believe that you can make 
Christians out of everybody, not even out of 1,500,000 Republicans or 
1,500,(X)0 Democrats. 

You are bound to find some characters among them, and it isn't my 
purpose to sliield any of them or protect anyone or to conceal any- 
thing that is wrong as far as tlie union is concerned. Certainly, like 
most of you, I have many shortcomings, and I don't pretend to know 
all of tlie answei-s, but 1 have tried to do a thorough job. 

Now, I read part of what Mr. Kennedy said yesterday, and I re- 
sented it dee}>]y for liim to infer by asking Mr. Luken about v/hether 
Senator P>ender received $40,000 as a bribe. Now, if Senator Bender 
received a bribe of any kind, even a dollar, lie should be prosecuted, 
and that was the reason. I came u]) here. 

There are at least 15 pages of this tesfimony, and I read it very 
carefully, whore obviously the vibration is that there is something 
wrong regarding my support, by the Teamsters Union in 1954. 



IMPROPER ACTI\^ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19429 

Mrs. Bender c<al]ed me from Cleveland and said the Cleveland Plain 
Dealer had me all over page 1, which obviously is the purpose of Mr. 
Kennedy — to be on page 1 all of the time. But I was on page 1 and 
I took his place yesterday. She said that Mr. Humphrey's name was 
injected. 

Now, one of the fine gentlemen of the press asked me if Mr. Hum- 
phrey was chairman of my committee in 1954. I never represented 
that. Mr. Hmnphrey was honorary chairman of my campaign in 
1956 and I didn't burn the midnight oil going over any files or records. 
In fact, I couldn't do that, and I don't need to. 

I am here voluntarily, and I am here to answer any questions you 
have to ask me. But I resent very deeply the implications that I was 
receiving some kind of favor because we concluded the hearings with- 
out making any recommendations. 

Mr. Chairman, one of the 55 members of your staff could spend a 
little time going to the House records. Congressman Dawson is a 
very fine man, and he is chairman of the Government Operations Com- 
mittee, but we issued this report and it was published in 1955 with 
recommendations, with the dates given as to who was present at the 
hearings. 

Mr. Hojffman was present at every hearing, and we had hearings not 
only before election, which was most difficult for me, as I was running 
for U.S. Senator. Even though we had a slight recession during that 
year, I won; even though I Avon by a majority, a tremendous majority 
of two or three votes, I won. 

But frankly, I don't appreciate the fact that Mr, Kennedy is en- 
deavoring to ride herd over me because I take on an assigimient. If I 
was employed by an oil company, or a utility, you would think that I 
was one of God's noblemen, but because I am interested in sometliing 
that involves God's poor, obviously with the Indian sign being on their 
door, I get the works. 

There are men on this staff that have spent time in Ohio checking 
and rechecking George Bender. He is loiown in Ohio as well as the 
public square. I have been in public life for 40 years. I have been 
elected, as I said yesterday, more often, or as often as, any other man 
statewide in the history of the State. 

Frankly, I wouldn't take an assignment where, if I chose to run for 
election again in Ohio — and I am young and vigorous, and perhaps I 
might choose to run again — where I want to be muddied up by in- 
nuendoes by any member of the staff or any other individual. 

Frankly, I am like Senator Ervin. I believe in fighting pretty 
tough, and there are no holds barred in a campaign, but certainly, as 
far as my Democratic colleagues are concerned, I have no quarrel with 
them. As a matter of fact, I think that a good many Democrats sup- 
ported me in 1954 as well as 1956. 

I did have labor support, individual labor support, in 1954 and in 
1956. because they disliked Lausche more than they disliked Bender. 
Bender got an endorsement from ihe AFL, of which the Teamsters 
Union is a part, and frankly th.ey did nothing about it. If they had, 
perhaps I would have won even though I gave liausche the toughest 
fight, and the Republican Party created Lausrhe in Ohio. They sup- 
ported him for 5 years, and he said he would vote to organize the 
Senate as Republican. Many Republicans voted for him on that basis. 



19430 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ervin. If I may interrupt at this point, Senator, it is not 
customary for any candidates for office to ask anybody to vote for 
them ; is that right ? 

Mr. Bender. If cats and dogs would vote, I would shake hands with 
them. 

Frankly, I never missed an opportunity to go to a meeting whether 
it was among the Baptists or the Catholics or the Democrats or Repub- 
licans, or Sons and Daughters of '"I will Rise," or whoever it is. I 
always went everywhere, and someone here said that I had my picture 
taken with Mr. Presser. It came out of this committee. 

Perhaps Mr, Presser was at some meeting where I was, and I don't 
want to dislike Mr. Presser. Mr. Presser is an important man in Ohio, 
and I aim to be helpful to him. 

We pray that we care for the dying and lift up the erring one, and 
so on, as they say in the church, and I sing that every Sunday. 

Whiy in the world shouldn't I try to be helpful if I can in this situa- 
tion? All I would like to have you do is read the conclusions and 
recommendations that my committee made, and read about the hearings 
here as to what we did when I was chairman of a comparable commit- 
tee to this. 

Now, we made recommendations, specific recommendations. In 1955 
the Democrats took over and I imagine this thing was pigeonholed, 
but I have one copy of it, and that is it. 

I will be glad to supply you with photostatic copies, but you should 
read some of these conclusions, and I am sure that your report will 
not be as strong or possibly if it is as strong it will be a good report 
after you are through with your labors. 

Now, that is all I have to say. I want to say this, however, that in 
1954 one of the gentleman who is most active in this committee wrote 
this, and this is from Clark Mollenhoff, Des Moines Register. 

Dear George: Political figures get kicked around enough by the press, and 
often they deserve it. However, the least we can do is pass a word to you when 
we feel a good job has been done. 

I can't speak too highly of the way you conducted the labor racket hearings 
In Minneapolis and I have never seen a committee chairman who had more 
trying circumstances to contend with. I felt you made your record clear as 
being in favor of a square deal for organized labor, and opposed only to racketeer- 
ing and unethical practices that prey on both the employer and the union member. 

When you were first given the job of investigating the labor rackets, I can state 
frankly that I was a little disappointed. I thought you were much too jolly a 
fellow to do the job in this field. I also figured you might have some political 
fear of even tackling the labor racketeers. You have proven I had nothing to 
fear. I've dealt with no one in Washington who has been more forthright and 
courageous in his approach to an investigation. I think your basic friendliness 
has been an asset rather than a liability. 

I hope that the rank and file of labor will show appreciation for what you 
have done for them in exposing bad officials, and that the appreciation will 
be reflected in the votes in Ohio. I have always felt that an honest courageous 
approach to corruption was in the end the best thing politically. I hope it works 
out that way for you. 

It would have been possible to see you and pass on my feelings about the way 
you've liandled the investigations, but that would have been too easy. This is 
for the record. 
Cordially, 

Clark. 

It is signed Clark Mollenhoff. 

I would appreciate it if some member of this committee would ask 
that these hearings be made a part of the record. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19431 

The Chairman. I will be very glad to make it an exhibit for refer- 
ence, and let it be a part of the permanent record. 

Mr. Bender. I would appreciate it if it could be returned to me. 

The Chairman. We will make it an exhibit at this time. We will 
make it exhibit No. 63 for reference so it will be a part of the proceed- 
ings of the committee, and I will instruct the staff to try to procure 
another copy of it if one is available anywhere, so that this may be 
returned to Senator Bender. If none is available, then we will photo- 
stat this one and make the photostat the exhibit. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 63" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the Select Committee.) 

(At this point Senator Mundt entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Bender. Before I left the hearing room, Mr. Kennedy made a 
great to-do about the fact that the expenses of my campaign and that, 
with considerable moneys not reported. I am not aware of that. 

However, I want to say this, that during the campaign, money was 
borrowed because things had to be done and I want to say at the close 
of the 1956 campaign Mr. Dave Jones brought a letterbox full of bills 
to me that my secretary here in Washington, as a matter of fact you 
remember my office was next door to the committee office, and v;e had 
hired offices downtown where we had people working day and night, 
and I wound up holding the bag to the extent of $53,000, which I have 
had to absorb myself. 

Now, frankly, I have nothing to conceal, and I have nothing up my 
sleeve, and what I am doing with this union is an honorable work, and 
I have had conversations, many of them, with Mr. Hoffa. I never 
knew Mr. Hoffa before August 15, and I think that I met him once 
at an Italian banquet where all of the Democrats and Republicans in 
Summit County were stumbling all over themselves to shake hands 
with him, and I was one of them that came in late and shook hands 
with him. 

But beyond that I have met Mr. Hoffa many times since that time, 
since August 15, and I have discussed some of the problems and some 
of the legislation before the Senate and the House with him, and I 
have met with Mr. John English and other officers of the union, and 
as a matter of fact, I have been so impressed with the manner in which 
that building is run, it reminds me of a church office. There is no 
gambling, and no liquor drinking or nothing of that kind going on 
there, and it is run very efficiently. 

I have had responsible positions as a department store executive 
like you, Senator Goldwater, and I know an office that is run well. 

Now, I am one person, with a very limited number of people, that 
do clerical work for me in connection with this position. 

I am trying my best to do what I think is right and make an honest 
report to the union at the close of my stewardship or sometime during 
the next few months. 

Tliat is all I wanted to say, and if you have any questions I will be 
glad to answer them. 

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the pro- 
ceedings: Senators McClellan, Mundt, Ervin, and Goldwater.) 

The Chairjian. Thank you very much. 

Are there any questions from any member of the committee? 



19432 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I might ask one question. Have you made any interim reports on 
your work ? 

Mr. Bender. I liave written up reports that members of our com- 
mittee have seen and have approved, but we have withhekl them pend- 
ing the outcome of the court cases. I have had other reports that 
we have made. Some of them would be jH-etty good reading for you, 
but I am not at liberty at the moment to provide them. 

The Chairman. We would be glad to cooperate with you. We will 
give you everything we have here. If you have a cleanup job to do, 
we will cooperate with you. We would like the same reciprocity, if 
you can supply us with anything you have. We would be glad to have 
it. 

Mr. Bender. Mr. Chairman, I have read the entire proceedings 
before your committee. I get a copy of your hearings as they are 
held. I have volumes and volumes of testimony that has come out of 
this committee. I am making my own observations on the basis of not 
only what is revealed here, but what prosecuting attorneys and dis- 
trict attorneys and local officials have to say about situations in this 
particular union. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Can I just ask a few questions? I just wanted to 
ask about a couple of the individuals. 

The Chairman. All right, ask your questions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you made any recommendations, for instance, 
on Sam Goldstein of local 239 in New York ? 

Mr. Bender. No, sir ; I have not. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is in the penitentiary for extortion, and he is still 
a Teamster official. 

Mr. Bender. Well, frankly 

Mr. Kennedy. He draws $375 a week and $25 expenses. 

Mr. Bender. Well, he is a good man to be able to do that. But I 
have not 

The Chairman. What we are trying to get at, and we will lay it 
on the line, is that all of these things are open out in the public. What 
are you doing about it ? You have a job to help clean up this union. 

Mr. Bender. I am paid by the union to do a job for them. I am not 
in public office, and I don't have to have a newspaper conference be- 
fore breakfast every morning 

The Chairman. I didn't ask you that. 

Mr. Bender (continuing). To tell them what is going on. 

The Chairman. I didn't ask you that, George. If you want to 
come in and state what you are doing to help clean up the situation, 
okay. If you don't, okay. 

Mr. Bender. That is exactly what I said. 

The Chairman. What are you doing with these cases that are open 
and aboveboard and everybody knows what is going on? What are 
you doing? 

Mr. Bender. I made a complete investigation of material, and in- 
cidentally there are volumes of it that I haven't even touched. But I 
have prepared — as soon as the court case is decided I expect to call this 
commission together and present the facts as I have gathered them to 
them for their reconnneudation to the union. 

Senator Goldwater. George, let me ask you a question. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19433 

Take the case of a man like Goldstein. Suppose you went to Mr. 
Hoffa and said, "Jimmy, you ought to kick this fellow out." Do you 
think he would do it ? 

Mr. Bender. Last week I went to him regarding a man, a matter 
came to my attention where a man was having relations with a 16-year- 
old prostitute, and speaking very bluntly, he said, "Well, frankly, 
that son-of-a-bitch should be kicked out." He said, "Pie is no good. 
No man should be in this union who is doing that kind of thing. 

Senator Goldwaiter. Was he kicked out? 

Mr. Bender. That I can't tell you. 

Senator Goldw^\ter. What I am trying to get at, George, is how 
much power do you actually have in this job ? Do you have the power, 
to get back to the case of Mr. Goldstein, to say to Mr. Hoffa, "This 
man should be discharged from the union" ? 

Mr. Bender. I think I have. If I didn't think I had, I would get 
out of the job. 

Senator Goldwater. Let me ask you: Have you made any such 
recommendations ? 

Air. Bender. I have at least 25 or possibly 50 recommendations that 
are waiting for the action of the commission to recommend to the 
union regarding situations that I think are bad. 

Senator Goldwater. The creation of your commission by Mr. Hoffa 
includes the powers necessary to help him clean up that union, does it, 
power such as I suggested in being able to do more than just to rec- 
ommend ? 

Mr. Bender. I was asked to take on responsibility to do that very 
thing, to do a policing job on the union as of this period. 

If the chairman will have the members of the committee read the 
report that I made in 1954, 1 am sure you will recognize that I don't 
pull my punches. 

Senator Goldwater. Let's take a man like Mr. Glimco, in Chicago. 
He is certainly no credit to the union movement. Have you made any 
recommendations relative to him ? 

Mr. Bendp:r. Frankly, no. That matter hasn't come to my atten- 
tion either. Incidentally, we have some characters in the Republican 
Party, Senator Goldwater 

Senator Goldwater. What? 

]Mr. Bender. We have some characters in the Republican Party who 
would look very bad if they were subjected to this sort of thing. 

Senator Goldwater. The trouble is they don't get elected. 

Mr. Bender. They do ; many of them. 

Senator Goldwater. Maybe I had better reregister. 

Well, I will admit that both parties have their characters. Just 
by the very nature of things, though, we are more fortunate. 

Mr. Bender. Senator, back in 1938, and I was the only county chair- 
man who supported Bob Taft for the Senate in Ohio, back in 1938 a 
ward leader from Lakewood, a suburban area in Cleveland, came 
to me and said, "George, I can't get a committeeman to run ward 4." 

I said, "What kind of people live there?" 

He said, "They are all Methodists." 

I asked for the registration book and foimd the Methodist preacher 
was a registered Republican. I called him up and said, "Would you 
nm for precinct captain?" 



19434 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

And he said, "Sure." 

Pretty soon another one came in from ward 31, and he is a Republi- 
can, too, and boy, what a character he was. He said he couldn't get 
a committeeman in precinct N in ward 31. I asked what kind of peo- 
ple live there, and he said, "They are all prostitutes." 

I said, "Get the best one of the lot, hire her and have her run for 
committeeman." 

Frankly, unless you get the votes of the washed and the unwashed 
you can't win elections. We found out last year on the right-to- work 
bill in Ohio what a horrible shellacking we got because we were wrong. 

Even my wonderful colleague John Bricker took a shellacking, and 
the Governor. We lost the legislature. We lost a number of Con- 
gressmen. 

You don't have to become a prostitute yourself, but sometimes you 
have to get their votes. 

I think some of Mr. Hoffa's trouble is that he is a provisional presi- 
dent and he can't go around kicking people in the teeth at the moment. 
I think if he is given a chance, I think he will do a clean-up job. 

Senator Goldwater. Let me get back to the commission. Do you 
meet regularly with this commission ? 

Mr. Bender. No. We haven't had a meeting since December. I 
am not sure as to the date. We deliberately decided not to hold meet- 
ings. But I was employed on a ditferent basis than the other two 
members. I am a regular employee and working daily for them. 

Senator Goldwater. Just what do you do in the course of a day ? 

Mr. Bender. Well, in the course of a day I receive correspondence 
not only from the unions but from people in the various areas, and 
review that correspondence and check with them and call them and 
meet with them and discuss matters with them. 

And, as a matter of fact, what I am trying to do during this period 
is having the union fly right at the present time. 

Senator Goldwater. In doing that, in trying to do that, does your 
job encompass the making of recommendations to Mr. Hoffa or to his 
staff relative to getting rid of some of the people that we have found? 

Mr. Bender. Definitely, that will be done. It hasn't been done as 
of this moment. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you plan to do it, you might say, en masse? 

Mr. Bender. En masse, yes. 

Senator Goldwater. When you get them all together? 

Mr. Bender. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. Suppose Mr. Hoffa does nothing about it ? 

^Ir. Bender. Well, frankly, we made a report to the Congress and 
they pigeonholed it. You can't — all you can do is do your best. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Hoffa made a report to the Congress ? 

Mr. Bender. No. I say I made the report as chairman of an anti- 
racketeering committee and gave them a list of things that I thought 
should be done. But the Democrats were elected, they run the show 
over there, and the report was pigeonholed. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you feel — I know you feel this way — that 
if Mr. Hoffa would tomorrow rid himself of the collection of goons 
and racketeers that he has aspembled, that he could emerge from this 
in a matter of time as a respected labor leader ? 

Mr. Bender. I am certain of that. I believe, with all my heart, 
that if he is given the opportunity, without having to endure what he 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19435 

has had to endure during the past year, that he will clean up this 
situation. 

Now, Bob Kennedy called me when I got this job, or I called him — 
I don't know who called who — but Bob said, "What are you going to 
do about Hoffa?" 

Clark Mollenhoff every five minutes called me up and said, "What 
are you going to do about Hoffa ?" 

I said, "Please mind your own business." 

Every day I have five or six newspapermen. "What are you going 
to do about Schmaltz, or Schuitz, or somebody else?" 

Frankly, I am doing the kind of job I w^as hired to do, and that is 
all. 

"What am I going to do about Hoffa ? That is up to the union, what 
the union does about Hoffa. I am not a teamster. 

Senator Goldwater. Don't you think you would be helping 
Hoffa 

Mr. Bender. I am helping him. 

Senator Goldwater (continuing). If you immediately went to him 
and implored him to get rid of these people that are blackening the 
name of his union ? 

Mr. Bender. I have discussed the matter with him privately on 
many occasions, and certainly I know what I believe is in his heart to 
do. ^ 

Senator Goldwater. Just to get back to one other subject, I knew 
a little bit about your campaign. If you will recall, I was chairman of 
the campaign committee for a w^hile. 

Mr. Bender. God bless you for it, too. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, I did my best. I tried to help you in 
your fmid-raising. 

Did you at any time, yourself, ask the Teamsters for money ? 

Mr. Bender. Definitely not. Never received anything from them. 
Not aware of any contribution that was made by any organization; 
possibly individual teamsters. For example, I know Jack Calina, who 
is head of the Electrical W^orkers Union. I know he is my good 
friend. I know he not only spoke for me and his union was against 
me, but I know he made a small contribution. 

Senator Gold^vater. Did your opponent that year receive help from 
the unions in the way of money ? 

Mr. Bender. Of course he did in 1954. There is no question about 
it. The record will show it. I have no quarrel with him either. I 
think Tom Burke — I am very fond of him, and he is a good man. I 
conducted a clean campaign against Burke. He was appointed by 
Lausche, and that was that. But he had all labor support. They 
were all against me. 

Senator Goldwater. That is all I have. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one question. 

Senator, I want to talk briefly about another kind of prostitution. 
Now, according to the information before this committee, Goldstein, 
who is president of the Teamsters local in New York, had been con- 
victed twice before, prior to the time he was convicted, on one charge 
of extortion and pleaded guilty to another charge of extortion, in 
shakedown transactions where aproximately $30,000 was involved. 



19436 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

He prostituted his power as a union officer, as a Teamster officer, 
to practice this extortion for his own enrichment. He has been con- 
victed in one case by a court or a jury. In the case in which he is now 
serving a sentence he pleaded guilty, so there can be no question about 
his guilt bcause he has confessed it. 

Notwithstanding that he pleaded guilty to prostituting his power 
as a union officer to practice extortion for his own personal enrich- 
ment, and notwithstanding that he has been confined in prison for 
approximately 3 months, he is still officially the president of a 
Teamsters local in New York State, and he is still drawing compen- 
sation by way of salary and expense allowance as a Teamster offi- 
cial, totaling, $20,800 a year. 

Mr. Hoffa admitted here the other day that as president of the 
union, that he would have the power, president of the international, 
that he would have the power to sever this man's connection with 
the Teamsters and deprive him of his office and put an end to his 
compensation. Yet he fails to do so. He tells us that when he gets 
rid of all these court cases and things that he may take some action. 

But this man's guilt is established. His court case has ended. 
This commitee does not understand why the powers that be in the 
Teamsters Union will permit a man to prostitute his power as a union 
officer for the purpose of practicing extortion, and be retained as an 
officer and be allowed to continue to draw his salary at the rate of over 
$20,800 a year, counting expense allowance, while he is actually serv- 
ing a term in prison. 

Mr. Bender. I can't disagree with anything you say. On the other 
hand, I want to say that we have a Governor, a Republican, who was 
convicted of murder. He is the Governor. We have a gentleman in 
Louisiana, by the name of Long, who acts like a nut. Perhaps he isn't ; 
I don't know. But you have to live with all kinds of people to under- 
stand ; and besides, when you are provisional president, and you have 
to run for president, you have to have the votes of the washed as well 
as the unwashed, and until that time, perhaps he is handicapped in 
doing the things that I believe in his heart he wants to do. At least 
that is the conversation I have had with him; they indicate that to me. 
Besides, Mr. Hoffa, I am convinced, is not seeking political power. 

Senator Ervin. In this country, most prosecuting attorneys have 
to rim for office, and if a prosecuting attorney refrains from putting 
people in prison because they need their votes, there would never be 
anybody sent to prison. 

Mr. Bender. I want to say this : I got the names of 4,900 prosecut- 
ing attorneys throughout the country. Much has been said about my 
having sent letters to the members, the head men, in the locals, asking 
them to state their case. Of course, I expected that they would say 
that they were good people. But I took photostatic copies of their let- 
ters in many instances and sent them to prosecuting attorneys. 

The thing that amazed me was the number of prosecuting attorneys 
who replied who said the union was clean in his particular area. Dem- 
ocrats as well as Republicans. Certainly there are some bad people 
among them. That is obvious. I am not protecting them, I haven't 
at any time protected anyone that I thought in the union was doing 
wrong. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19437 

Senator Ervin. I would tliink that it would help Mr. Hoffa's 
chances for reelection if he would kick some of these convicted felons, 
the ones that are serving prison sentences 

Mr. Bender. My dear friend, Senator Ervin, if Hoffa would run 
today, he would win by acclamation. 

Senator Ervin. And undoubtedly with the help or on the basis of 
the moral support from the prisons. 

Mr. Bender. Mr. Hickey, and his supporters in New York — in 
fact, I had a group of them in my office at the Standard Oil Building, 
where Bob Kennedy is going to run his brother's presidential cam- 
paign from, and he will be my neighbor — in any event, certainly as 
far as this group is concerned, they complained bitterly about an 
individual in the union, and I conveyed that to Mr. Hoffa and they 
said they were for Mr. Hoffa, but they wanted housecleaning done. 
I can't give you the names of the people at the moment. I don't have 
them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I ask a question? 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Senator Er\t[n. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has anybody been ousted from the Teamsters Union, 
Mr. Bender? 

Mr. Bender. Well, I recall— — 

Mr. Kennedy. That is on your recommendation. Has anybody 
been ousted? 

Mr. Bender. That I am not at liberty to say at the moment, but I 
do know this : that we have recommended that certain people be 
ousted and then they go back and they get an injunction from the 
Federal judge preventing the ousting. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did you recommend be ousted ? 

Mr. Bender. Well, I am not at liberty to discuss that. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is a fact that you never recommended anybody 
to be ousted ? 

Mr. Bender. Well, it isn't a fact. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who have you recommended to be ousted ? 

Mr. Bender. I am not going to go into that. Mj report is to Mr. 
Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. You came as a voluntary witness. 

Mr. Bender. That is right, but on this matter, not to discuss my 
work or what I am doing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you recommend that William Presser be 
ousted ? 

Mr. Bender. No, I did not. I think William Presser, by the way, 
during the past year, if that man isn't doing right — every morning, 
for breakfast, dinner and supper, he has Federal agents, income tax 
people, Kennedy staff members, local investigators. They have all of 
his books. I saw him the other day and I said, "How are things 
going?" And he said, "How can they help but go right?" 

Mr. Kennedy. You have not recommended him. Have you rec- 
ommended anything on Mr. Triscaro, that he be ousted from the 
union ? 

Mr. Bender. I have not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you recommended 



19438 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Bender. As a matter of fact — just let me finish— each of us. 
when Judge Jayne and Mr. Donohue and I met, all the Ohio oases 
were assigned either to Mr. Donohue or Judge Jayne, and I took cases 
other than in Ohio, because I didn't want, frankly, to have anything 
that I would say to be used as being prejudicial. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had a witness before your own committee— 
you don't even have to wait for the testimony before this committee — 
you liad a witness before your own committee that stated, an em- 
ployer who stated that he had to pay William Presser $G50 a month. 
You had that information long before you took this job. 

Mr. Bender. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you recommended nothing on Mr. Presser? 

Mr. Bender. Check the report and you will see what I recom- 
mended. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about whether you tried to get rid of 
him. 

Mr. Bender. Frankly, I made the recommendation in 1955 after the 
hearings. Read them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you recommended that Mr. Hoffa withdraw 
or be ousted from the union based on his personal corruption? 

Mr. Bender. Certainly not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliy not ? 

Mr. Bender. Well, because Mr. Hoffa is elected president of the 
union, and I have nothing to do with his situation, except as 

Mr. Kennedy. I thought you were supposed to deal with corrup- 
tion ? 

Mr. Bender. My friend. I don't approve of corruption on the part 
of anyone. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. Have you recommended that Mr. Hoffa 
be ousted from the union ? 

Mr. Bender. Have I recommended to him that he fire himself ? No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you recommended that James Blumetti from 
Ohio, who has been convicted of white slavery, be ousted from the 
union ? 

Mr. Bender. James Blumetti, the man from Youngstown? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Bender. Incidentally, I have 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you answer the question ? 

Mr. Bender. Yes, I will answer the question, but I will do it in my 
own way, if you don't mind. I know of that controversy, that conflict 
that existed in Youngstown. I had a meeting with Mr. Presser and Mr. 
Hoffa regarding the matter, and I asked that the matter be resolved 
and the situation be cleaned up. 

lyir. Kennedy. Have you recommended that he be ousted ? 

Mr. Bender. I say T recommended the matter be cleaned up, not 
only involving one individual, but many. 

iNIr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, as the record shows, Senator Bender 
received some $58,000 from the Teamsters Union through, I believe, 
May, in connection with 

Mr. Bender. I have another bill that is going in today, by the way. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have some information regarding the activities 
of the Teamsters Union in connection with his campaigns in 1954, and 
agam in 1956, including financial contributions in 1956. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19439 

The Chairman. The Chair is not going into that. 

Mr, Bender. Well, I don't believe 

The Chairman. The testimony here yesterday carried an implica- 
tion that possibly yon got a payoff, period. 

Mr. Bender. That is right. That is why I came here. 

The Chairman. You asked to come here. It was nothing but right 
that you be lieard. 

Mr. Bender. Thank you, and appreciate it. 

The Chairman. We permitted you to be heard. You say you did 
not get a payoff. 

Mr. Bender. I say it is a damnable lie and I resent it. 

The Chairman. I did not make the implication. The record made 
it and the witness made it, as you know. 

Mr. Bender. The witness did not say I was paid off. 

The Chairman. He did not say you were, no. He said they under- 
took to raise money to pay for pulling strings to get the charges 
dropped. That is just about his exact language. 

]\Ir. Bender. But no charges were dropped. The report was made 
to the Congress as is customary for a congressional committee to make. 

The Chairman. This is the notation he made at the time, and it is an 
exhibit. It says — 

Mr. starling said, "Other mouey was spent to pull certain strings to see that 
these charges were dropped." 

That was the testimony that was here. 

Mr. Bender. Certainly, as far as I am concerned, no strings were 
pulled with me. 

The Chairman. You have been given the opportunity to appear and 
make your statement. 

Mr. Bender. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I ask you if Mr. Presser or Mr. Triscaro were 
cited for contempt by the committee? 

Mr. Bender. Frankly, the report is there. I can't tell you. There 
are a number of people that we recommended contempt citations for 
in that report. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Presser and Mr. Triscaro are not included. 

Mr. Bender. You read what we say about Mr. Presser and I think 
you are a little mistaken. 

The Chairman. The report has been made an exhibit, has it not ? 

Mr. Kennedy. It has. 

The Chairman. All right. It speaks for itself. 

Are there any further questions ? All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Bender. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kirkwood Yockey and Mr. Pickett. 

The Chairman. Come forward, please, gentlemen. Be sworn. 

Do you and each of you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give 
before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Yockey. I do. 

Mr. Pickett. I do. 



19440 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF SCOTT PICKETT AND KIRKWOOD YOCKEY 

The Chairman. Beginning on my left, will you state your name, 
your place of residence, and your business or occupation, please, sir? 

Mr. YocKEY. My name is Kirkwood Yockey. I reside in Indiana- 
polis, Ind. I am an attorney at law and practice in Indianapolis. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

And you, sir ? 

Mr. Pickett. My name is Scott Pickett. I reside in Indianapolis. 
My occupation at present is a mechanic, a truck mechanic. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. You gentlemen waive coun- 
sel, do you ? 

Mr. YocKEY. That is right. 

Mr. Pickett, Yes. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

(At this point Senator McClellan withdrew from the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Yesterday and the day before, Mr. Chairman, we had 
testimony in connection with contracts that have been signed in the 
central conference of Teamsters and the fact that the contracts in the 
other sections of the country have been found to be higher than those 
negotiated by Mr. Hoffa. 

We also had testimony yesterday by Mr. Luken that one of the 
most important parts or sections of the contract is the section dealing 
with grievances, and that a section dealing with grievances should be 
approved by tlie membership. 

Then we had the official from Trans- American, who stated that 
their grievance section is different from the grievance sections of other 
contracts ; that this grievance section was not approved by the member- 
ship ; that the grievances go to the local union and then immediately 
go to Detroit, no matter what section of the country is involved, and 
are handled by either Rolland McMaster or Frank Fitzsimmons, both 
of whom are officials of local 299 of the Teamsters, Mr. Hoffa's local. 

Instead of going through the usual grievance procedure, from the 
local level to the State level to the conference level, they go immedi- 
ately to these two officials of local 299, Mr. Ploffa's local. It is a very 
unusual procedure. 

Based on our investigation, we have found that a number of these 
grievances have not been processed, and that the local driver who feels 
tliat he is not being paid his full salary by Trans-American has had 
difficulty collecting from the company. 

It is supposed to be paid within io days. The local takes it up, 
and if it is not paid, it goes then to local 299, to these two officers, and 
often these people never receive their money. 

We are now going to inquire into that situation with the next few 
witnesses. 

Mr. Pickett, you are employed as a mechanic, or were employed up 
until the last couple of days by the G. & G. Leasing Co. ? 

]\Ir. Pickett. I am at present employed there. 

INIr. Kennedy. You are at present employed there? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were reinstated after being laid off for a day ? 

Mr. Pickett. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were laid off the day after our staff member 
contacted you; is that correct? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19441 

Mr. Pickett. That is correct. I ^Yas laid off for a period of 4 
weeks. 

Mr. Kennedy. For a period of 4 weeks ? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you given the reason as to why you were laid 
off? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. IVliat reason was given to you ? 

Mr. Pickett. A union agent informed my superior to lay me off. 

Mr. Kennedy. A union agent had told your superiors in the com- 
pany to lay you off; is that correct? 

]\Ir. Pickett. That is what my superior told me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was your superior ? 

Mr. Pickett. Mr. George Gigax. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they tell you what union official had contacted 
them? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. 

jNlr. Kennedy. "\'\^iat union official ? 

Mr. Pickett. Robert Martin. 

Mr. Kennedy. "W^iat is his position ? 

JNlr. Pickett. Business agent. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of what local ? 

Mr. Pickett. 135. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Had you ever had any conversations with Mr. 
Martin ? 

Mr. Pickett. Relative to what, sir ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Relative to your testimony or relative to what you 
might tell the investigator ? 

Mr. Pickett. Well, the only thing there I did tell him that I talked 
to Mr. Sheridan, and he wanted to know what I had to tell him. I 
said only the facts that I knew and I wasn't going to lie to him or 
anybody else. 

Mr. Kennedy. "What did he tell you ? 

Mr. Pickett. Well, at that time he told me he would talk to Gene 
San Soucie and talk to me later. Later he did talk to me by tele- 
phone, of course. It wasn't face to face. 

Shall I relate the full conversation to the best of my remembrance ? 

jNIr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Pickett. He told me not to have anything to do with Mr. Sheri- 
dan, that Mr. Sheridan was a phony; that if anybody wanted to talk 
to me relative to this committee, to refer them to San Soucie. 

Mr. Kennedy. If anybody wanted to get any information from you, 
you should refer them to Gene San Soucie ? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What else did he tell you ? 

Mr. Pickett. Well, he told me he was on the way to the racetrack, 
which was May 30, and he couldn't talk any longer, and for me to 
get lost. 

Mr. Kennedy. He told you to get lost ? 

Mr. Pickett. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then subsequently you lost your job and your su- 
periors told you that you lost your job because the union officer came, 



19442 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

the business agent, Mr. Martin, came and suggested that you be let 
go? 

Mr. Pickett. Mr. Gigax's very words were, "I am sorry to lay you 
off, Scott, but Martin said I had to." 

(At this point Senator McClellan entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. That is one of the great difficulties we have, retalia- 
tion that the Teamsters Union takes against any individual who is 
willing to cooperate with this committee. They can lose their jobs, 
lose their livelihoods. 

Here is a man who was being interviewed by a staff member of the 
committee, and he was told to get lost, to get out of town. He did talk 
to us, and then the business agent of the local came by and told his 
superior to fire him. 

Mr. Pickett. No, sir ; it was not fire. It was to lay off. 

Mr. Kennedy. To lay him off. He was laid off. 

The Chairman, When did this occur ? 

Mr. Pickett. May 29 1 was laid off. 

The Chairman. That recently ? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, you may have the staff pursue it witli 
a view of contempt proceedings against the person. 

Who laid you off ? Wlio was it ordered you laid off ? 

Mr. Pickett. Business agent. 

The Chairman. "What is his name? 

Mr. Pickett. Robert Martin. 

Tfie Chairman. Was it due to the fact that you were cooperating: 
with the committee ? 

Mr. Pickett. Naturally, I have to assume that, sir. 

The Chairman. There was no other reason given, was there? 

Mr. Pickett. No. 

Tlie Chairman. He told you not to cooperate with the committee;, 
did he? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir ; he had. 

The Chairman. He told you not to talk to the investigators ? 

Mr. Pickett. He told me not to talk to Mr. Sheridan. 

The Chairman. One of the investigators of the committee?' 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. One of the staff members ? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. When did he tell you that ? 

Mr. Pickett. May 30. 

The Chairman. Of this year? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. He told you not to talk to him ? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. 

(At this point Senator Gold water withdrew from the hearing; 
room.) 

The Chairman. Why ? 

Mr. Pickett. He said he was a phony. 

The Chairman. He said he was a phony ? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I guess he would say the whole committee was ai 
phony. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19443 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. He did not say that, sir. I am sorry. 

The Chairman. Well, anyway, immediately after you did talk to 
Mr. Sheridan ; is that right ? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir ; I did talk to Mr. Sheridan. I never refused 
to talk to Mr. Sheridan. 

The Chairman. After you did, he went to your employer and asked 
that 3^ou be laid off ? 

Mr. PiGKEi'T. Senator McClellan, I can't accuse the man of telling 
why to lay me off. 

The Chairman. Did he go to your employer and ask that you be 
laid off? 

Mr, Pickett. No, sir ; it didn't happen that way. 

The Chairjman. I wasn't in here a moment ago ; I am sorry. 

Mr. Pickett. My employer told me on Friday night when he 
handed me my check, he said, "Scott, you have to be laid off." 

The Chairman. Who was it who told you tliat ? 

Mr. Pickett. George Gigax. 

The Chairman. He is what in the company ? 

Mr. Pickett. He is superintendent of the garage. 

The Chairman. Superintendent of the garage ? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did he tell you how long you would be laid off ? 

Mr. Pickett. No, sir. I didn't ask him. 

(At this point Senator Ervin withdrew from the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. You go back immediately when you leave here and 
ask to be reinstated. 

Mr. PicKETr. Sir, I am working there. I have been reinstated 
since. 

The Chairman. All right. Let's keep it that way. 

Mr. PiCKETF. Well, I would like to. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long were you laid off ? 

Mr. Pickett. Approximately 4 weeks, sir. I didn't keep an exact 
record of it. I was working at other jobs. 

Mr. Kennedy. I presume when your employer told you Martin said 
you had to be laid off, you didn't just put your tools down and walk 
out. You must have said, "Well, why?" 

Mr. Pickett. The thing I did do was load my tools in my car and 
drive away. I was pretty burned up and I didn't talk. Anything 
I say when I am mad is usually wrong. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't say anything ? 

Mr. Pickett. No, sir ; I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just picked up your tools and walked out. You 
didn't ask why, who said so, how long, or nothing ? 

Mr. Pickett. That is right. He gave me the reason to start with. 

Mr. Kennedy. "\Yhat were the circumstances of your being laid back 
on again? 

Mr. Pickett. He said he needed me. 

Mr. Kennfjdy. He called von up, the same man who fired you ? 

Mr. Pickett. Sir, he did not fire me. 

Mr. Kennedy. The same man who laid you off ? 

Mr. Pickett. The same man who laid me off. 

36751 — S9 — pt. 55 20 



19444 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. He called you up and wanted you to come back to 
work ? 

Mr. Pickett. That is right. And I told him the morning I re- 
ported to work if he thought I was going to cause him any trouble, 
any inconvenience, in any way, due to my cooperation with this com- 
mittee, that I would sign a letter of resignation and walk out. He 
said for me not to do it, that he liked my work, he waMed to keep me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did anybody talk to you from the union angle since 
then? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did they say ? 

Mr. Pickett. Well, San Soucie was the only one concerning this. 
Well, I will take that back. He wasn't the only one. There was one 
other agent present — Mr. Dunninger. But San Soucie did inform 
me that I should come over here under subpena — I should testify, I 
should tell the straight truth and stick to the facts, and he would 
support me 100 percent. 

Mr. Kennedy. San Soucie told you that ? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. l^Hio is San Soucie ? 

Mr. Pickett. President of our local 135. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell him the last time you talked to the 
committee that Martin said you had to be laid off ? 

Mr. Pickett. No, sir. As a rule, I only answer questions. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he know that Martin had caused you to be 
laid off? 

Mr. Pickett. I doubt very much if he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. You doubt if he did ? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Martin try to cause you any trouble since then ? 

Mr. Pickett. No, sir ; he hasn't. 

(Members of the select committee present at this point: Senators 
McClelland and Mundt.) 

Mr. Kennedy. You were employed as an owner-operator by Trans- 
American Freight Lines, Inc., in Indianapolis from January 13, 1953, 
to July 22, 1957? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennfj)y. At that time, in 1955, this cent and a half arrange- 
ment that we discussed yesterday went into effect ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Pickett. To the best of my remembrance, it is. Prior to that 
we had a cent and a quarter under the same conditions. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat that meant was that in lieu of fringe 
benefits 

Mr. Pickett. In lieu of all fringe benefits. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would receive a cent and a half more each mile ; 
is that right? 

Mr. Pickett. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. However, if you found by keeping your books or trip 
sheets — if you found by keeping them that you had more coming under 
the regular contract, you could put a grievance in and collect the 
money; is that correct? 

Mr. Pickett. Collect the difference, and that was over any period 
of 28 days and the grievance was to be settled in a period of 10 days. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19445 

Mr. Kennedy. That was a grievance to be handled and those griev- 
ances were to be settled within 10 days under the contract? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was a cent and a quarter before 1955, and then it 
became a cent and a half in 1955, which was in lieu of all vacation, 
holidays, all of the meals, all of that ? 

jNIr. Pickett. Hotel, meals ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You would collect a cent and a half per mile. But 
if you kept your trip sheet, you could show that you would collect 
more under the regular contract with all of these things if you put in 
a grievance ? 

Mr. Pickett. That is right. 

Mr. Ivennedy. The grievance was to be handled at the local level 
and you were to be paid in 10 days. 

Mr. Pickett. That is right. 

Mr. Ivennedy. In 1953-54, you did pretty well under the cent and 
a half arrangement ? 

Mr. Pickett. Well, yes ; we did. 

ISIr. Kennedy. After that, because the company changed its method 
of operation, put in some new trucks, it was more difficult to make 
money under the cent and a half arrangement ? 

Mr. Pickett. Well, you couldn't. 

Mr. Ivennedy. You could not ? 

Mr. Pickett. You couldn't even come close to breaking even under 
that. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you started to put in grievances; is that right? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. I^nnedy. The first group that you put in was paid by the 
company ? 

Mr. Pickett. They were paid by the company, handled through the 
local, and the local handled it through Detroit. 

Mr. Kennedy. The second group they put in, they offered you a 
settlement of 60 percent of the grievances ? 

Mr. Pickett. Approximately that, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you accept it ? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The third group that was put in, amounting to some 
$1,400, is the one we will be discussing now. 

You put in this third group of $1,400. Wliat was that for — vaca- 
tions, holidays, turnaround ? 

Mr. Pickett. That was for vacations, holidays, paid holidays, and 
hotel bills, layover time, and breakdown time. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you had a bill of some $1,400; is that right? 

Mr. Pickett. $1,400 and some; I don't remember exactly. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien you put that grievance in, were you contacted 
by the company and offered a settlement ? 

Mr. Pickett. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they state to you that they would settle for 40 
percent of that ? 

Mr. Pickett. No ; the grievance was mailed by Mr. Dunninger. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Richard D-u-n-n-i-n-g-e-r, business agent 
for local 135? 



19446 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Pickett. That is correct, sir. It was mailed to Mr. Frank 
Fitzsimmons in Detroit to be handled there. I couldn't say exactly 
how lon<r, but approximately 4 to 5 months later it came back with 
from 30 to 40 percent settlement. 

Mr. Kennedy. That came back from the union ? 

Mr. Pickett. It came back from Detroit to our local union in In- 
dianapolis. A business a^xent called me and I went down and ex- 
amined them and refused them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Your own union recommended that you accept it? 

Mr. Pickett. No, sir ; my own union did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien I talk about your own union, I mean the 
Teamstei-s Union representatives. 

Mr. Pickett. That was Mr. Frank Fitzsimmons' recommendation, 
I was told. 

Mr. Kennedy. From local 299 ? ^ 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. Mr. Dunninger did not recommend either 
way. 

Mr. Kennedy. But when it camr^ out of Detroit by Mr. Frank Fitz- 
simmons, the recommendation was that you take 40 percent of the 
grievance? 

Mr. Pickett. That is right, sir. I don't know about the exact per- 
centage, but that was it approximately. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did Mr. Dunninger say about that? 

Mr. Pickett. Mr. Dunninger has always taken a stand that it was 
up to the individual to accept or reject. He has never recommended 
either way. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you that this was all controlled by Frank 
Fitzsimmons in Detroit? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that there was nothing he could do? 

Mr. Pickett. That is right. He was the mail boy, the way he would 
put it. I would bring them in and he would mail them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the testimony of this witness and 
the next witness is of extreme importance in connection with this be- 
cause of the pattern that it establishes. Here the grievance that this 
member of the Teamsters put in was sent up to Detroit, outside 
the regular grievance procedures of most contracts, something that 
had never been approved by the membership. It went up there, and 
Frank Fitzsimmons, who would not have any interest in it except 
that tliis was agreed by Mr. James Hoffa and the representatives of 
this company, sends back and recommends that he accept only 40 per- 
cent of the grievance. 

\^^lat did you do then? Did you call Frank Fitzsimmons? 

Mr. Pickett. I called Frank Fitzsimmons. I sent him proof, and 
I mean it was proof without a doubt that I actually had the money 
coming, the full amount, and that I would not accept anything else. 

He gave me an argument at that time and I made four individual 
trips to Detroit to see the man and was unable to see him. I was un- 
able to see Mr. Dennis. I called him and I couldn't even talk to him. 
He refused to talk to me and referred me to the local terminal man- 
ager. The local terminal manager wouldn't commit himself either 
way. 

Mr. Kennedy. You couldn't get any satisfaction ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19447 

Mr. Pickett. No satisfaction whatsoever, so I hired an attorney 
and filed suit. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had been unable to make payments on your 
truck that you had purchased for $12,000 ? 

Mr. Pickett. If I had the money due me, I could have saved my- 
self at least $4,000. 

Mr. ICennedy. Did you consequently lose your truck ? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you hired your attorney ? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was his name ? 

Mr. Pickett. Mr. Kirkwood Yockey. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is this gentleman ? 

Mr. Pickett. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. He has already been sworn. You are in the law firm 
practicing where, Mr. Yockey ? 

Mr. Yockey. I practice in Indianapolis, Ind., in partnership with 
my father, Harry E. Yockey, and my brother, Eugene Yockey. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. How long have you been a member of the bar? 

Mr. Yockey. Twenty-two years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Yockey, you were approached by Mr. Pickett 
in connection with this job ? 

Mr. Yockey. I was, and authorized to divulge any information to 
the committee and appear here today in response to the subpena. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are under subpena and Mr. Pickett has given 
you authorization to testimony in connection with this matter ; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Yockey. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us what steps you took after you were 
contacted by Mr. Pickett ? 

Mr. Yockey. In July 1957, Mr. Pickett employed us to collect 
claims for wages which were embraced in grievances which he had 
filed with the Teamsters Union for the years 1955 and 1956, and these 
matters covered vacation pay for 2 years, hotel expenses, and other 
matters, layover expenses, and so forth. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you relate what happened; what steps you 
took? 

Mr. Yockey. We checked the carbon copies of his grievances that he 
had filed through the local 135 which had been forwarded to Mr. Fitz- 
simmons in Detriot, and then we wrote Trans- American Lines, Inc., at 
Detroit, and made a demand for the payment of these amounts which 
totaled around $1,400. 

After considerable correspondence back and forth with Mr. 
Chawke — he is the attorney for Trans- American — we were getting 
no place in negotiations; so we served a final notice that if some 
arrangement wasn't made for paying these claims, that we would have 
to file suit against the company and also to make application for the 
appointment of a receiver in the Indiana State courts. 

In response to this letter to Mr. Chawke, he called me on the tele- 
phone on September 12, 1957, and indicated that he couldn't get the 
company to do anything about paying any of these claims, and that 
we should take the matter up with either Mr. Dennis of Trans- Amer- 
ican, or with ]Mr. Fitzsimmons, of 299 in Detroit. 



19448 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I explained to Mr. Chawke that I appreciated the fact that as attor- 
ney for his company, if he couldn't get them to act there wasn't any- 
thing else he could do, but there was no point in me taking the matter 
up further with Mr. Dennis or with Mr. Fitzsimmons, that as far as 
the Teamsters Union was concerned, under the contract, the time had 
expired for them to do anything about it, and it was a matter of legal 
question, pure and simple. He said that he would have Mr. Fitzsim- 
mons contact me and that day I received a telephone call from Mr. 
Fitzsimmons in which he indicated that the only procedure Mr. Pickett 
had available to him was to proceed through the grievance committee, 
and I informed him that mider the contract the time had long expired 
and that the union was doing nothing about it, and if they weren't go- 
ing to act on the matter, we were going to go ahead and file a suit and 
also make application for a receiver. 

He then told me not to do that, to contact either Mr, San Soucie 
or Mr. Hoffa, who were in the Shoreland Hotel in Chicago. 

I didn't know Mr. Hoffa, but I did know Mr. San Soucie. I put in 
a call for Mr. San Souci on the telephone at the Shoreland Hotel, on 
the same day, and was informed that he and Mr. Hoffa had left for 
Detroit. 

They told me to call him there, and I said no, if they wanted to talk 
to me about this matter, they could contact me. 

In the meantime, I received a telephone call from a man who said 
his name was Barney Trefts, who indicated over the telephone that 
he was a business agent for local 135, and he told me he couldn't talk 
to me there at the Teamsters Union hall ; but he gave me the nmuber 
of a pay phone, and if I would call him in a few minutes, he would 
be tliere and he would discuss the matter with me. 

So I did. 

He told me that there was an arrangement between Mr. Hoffa and 
Trans- American Freight Lines whereby they weren't paying any of 
their grievances, that they were sitting tight on them for a year or 
two, until they starved the drivers out 

The Chairman. Until they what ? 

Mr. YocKEY. Until they had starved the drivers out. In other 
words, imtil the driver got hungry and he had to settle. Then they 
would settle the claims on a 60-percent basis with Trans-American, 
and that Mr. Hoffa was keeping 10 percent of it and giving the 
drivers 40 percent. 

The Chairman. T\Tio told you that ? 

]Mr. YocKEY. A man who said his name was Barney Trefts, of 135. 

The Chairman. Wlio is he ? 

Mr. Kennedy. A Teamsters official of local 135 in Indianapolis. 

The Chairman. In other words, there was collusion between Mr. 
Hoffa and this company to hold up all claims, not settle them until 
the labormg people, the drivers, got hunorry, using that term to 
illustrate that they needed the money badly, and then they would 
settle them on a 50-percent basis, with Mr. Hoffa getting a knockdown 
of 1 percent of the 50 ? != fe 

Mr. YocKEY. That is what this man told me. Senator. 

The Chairman. I mean, that is what he told you. You don't 
know whether it is true or not ? 

Mr. YocKEY. That is right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19449 

The Chairman. But you know you were having trouble getting a 
settlement ? 

Mr. YocKEY. That is right. They refused to pay anything. 

The Chairman. Refused to pay anytliing? 

Mr. YocKET. That is right. 

The Chairman, And this man wouldn't talk to you. You called 
him at the union hall ? 

Mr. YocKEY. No ; he called me. 

The Chairman. He called you ? 

Mr. YocKEY. That is right. 

The Chairman. And had you call liim back at a pay station ? 

Mr. YocKEY. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You will see, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Yockey had a con- 
versation with Mr. Hoffa personally, which he was going to go into 
subsequently. 

Mr. Yockey. Then Mr. Trefts told me, "Don't let those fellows 
scare you, sit tight. Make them pay this man what he has coming 
to him. He has this 2 years' vacation pay and so forth. Make the 
company pay him. They are beating their drivers down and not 
paying them what they owe them." 

He suggested just to go ahead and file a suit. I said, "Well, I al- 
ready have a call in for Mr. San Soucie," and that I would make up 
my mind on it. 

In the meantime, Mr. Hoffa calls me from Chicago, and he told 
me — or, I mean, a man who said his name was HolTa — I assumed it 
WEis James Hoffa of the Teamsters Union. He said if I would meet 
him in Chicago the next morning, that they would settle this claim 
for 40 cents on the dollar. I said, "Well, Mr. Hoffa, it is hard for 
me to understand how you can represent these men in the Teamsters 
Union and recommend that a man take 40 percent of his vacation pay 
for 2 years or 40 percent of his hotel bill or 40 percent of items like 
that. There are other items tliat might be in controversy and I 
could see where there might be a realm of bargaining on those points. 
But on those other items I can't see how you can represent a man and 
conscientiously recommend that he take 40 percent of those items. 

The Chairman. You were speaking to Hoffa as a representative of 
the man that you were representing ? 

Mr. Yockey. Absolutely, Senator. 

The Chairman. In other words, he was in that capacity from your 
standpoint, the head of the union ? 

Mr. Yockey. That is right. He is supposed to represent them. 

The Chairman. This is one of his members that he is supposed to 
protect ? 

Mr. Yockey. That is exactly right. 

The Chairman. Yet he was trying to get you, as his attorney, to 
accept 40 percent of what the man is entitled to ? 

Mr. Yockey. That is right. 

The Chairman. Even for reimbursement for hotel expenses ? 

Mr. Yockey. That is right, and vaciition pay, too. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are entitled under the contract to 2 weeks, 1 
week up to 3 years and 2 weeks after that. 



19450 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. But I am talking about all the out-of-pocket 
expense the man had gone to, out of his hotel bill, to which he is 
entitled. They wanted him to accept 40 percent of that. 

Mr. Kennedy. There are definite provisions in the contract where 
the man was entitled to this money. 

Mr. YocKEY. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. When they offered 40 percent, it didn't make any 
sense whatsoever ? 

Mr. YocKEY. He said this man might have stayed with his aunt 
and didn't spend that much. I said it didn't make any difference. 
The contract provides he gets so much for vacation pay. 

I said, "I can't understand how you can represent a man m the 
union and ask him to take 40 percent. Will you just give me one 
good reason v^diy this man should take 40 j)ercent?" 

And he said, "Because I said so," and I said, "Mr. Hoffa, that is not 
a good enough reason as far as I am concerned, and if that is the best 
you can do, I will recommend that we file a suit," and we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he say that if you did accept the 40 percent, he 
would have the cash available for you? 

Mr. YocKEY. In Chicago the next morning. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell in your own words what he said 
about that ? What did he say ? 

Mr. YocKEY. Just what you said. He said, "If you can settle this 
matter, it has been pending for a couple of years, I can settle this 
thing for you for 40 percent and the cash will be available for you if 
you will meet me in Chicago in the morning." 

The Chairman. 40 percent of $1,000? Was that in round numbers 
what was involved ? 

Mr. YocKEY. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened then? Would you tell us what 
happened ? 

Mr.YocKEY. We filed suit and asked for the appointment of a re- 
ceiver. And then the matter was settled. 

Mr. YocKEY. Around $1,200. 

The Chairman. In other words, instead of getting 40 percent, you 
got around 90? 

Mr. YocKEY. That is right. And the attorney for Trans- American 
told them then on the spot to pay the vacation pay and these other 
items I have testified to immediately or the court would appoint a 
receiver. They did immediately ; they sent a check on that and the rest 
of it was negotiated. 

The Chairman. How long was it after you had your conference 
with Mr. Hoffa when he was trying to get you to accept 40 percent? 
How much time elapsed between the time you actually got the suit 
filed and the time you talked with Hoffa ? 

Mr. YocKEY. I talked to Hoffa on September 12. We filed suit on 
October 8. I can give you the date 

The Chairman. Just approximately. 

Mr. YocKEY. Within 2 weeks. They paid the vacation pay and the 
other items, which was around $700. 

The Chairman. Do you know how many men they may have 
settled with at 40 percent that had grievances comparable to that? 
Do you know of others that they did settle with on that basis? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19451 

Mr, Pickett. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, they were able to beat a lot of them 
down to the 40 percent settlement ? 

Mr. Pickett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it a fact that after the first settlements were 
made, almost everyone has had to rely on 40 percent ? 

Mr. Pickett. EA^eryone that filed grievances. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. You never could get all your grievances settled ? 

Mr. Pickett. Only the first bunch were settled at the full amount. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then you would wait a year or a year and a 
half before you got settlement and nobody, with the possible exception 
of yourself, ever got 80 percent or 90 percent ? 

Mr. Pickett. Ko one except me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nobody else, Senator. 

Once again, the union did not process the grievances, did not protect 
the employees of the company, and only this gentleman, who went and 
got a lawyer, with the fine work that the lawyer did, was able to get 
this for liim. 

The Chairman. You state, Mr. Yockey, that you talked to Hoffa 
personally ? 

Mr. Yockey. I stated that a man called me on the telephone from 
Chicago and said his name was Hoffa. 

The Chairman. Did you talk to Mr. Hoffa personally where you 
saw him and identified him as Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Yockey. I did not. 

The Chairman. All of this was telephone conversation ? 

Mr. Yockey. That is correct. 

The Chairman. From a man who said he was James Hoffa ? 

Mr. Yockey. That is right. I can give you his room niunber in the 
Shoreland Hotel, if you want that. 

]\Ir. KJENNEDY. We already have it. We checked it and he was 
there. 

Mr. Yockey. I gave that information to the investigator, his room 
number. 

The Chairman. He gave you his room number where he was at the 
time? 

Mr. Yockey. Mr. Trefts did, and that is the room number. I gave 
that to Mr. Sheridan and they checked it out, I understand. But I 
don't know that to be a fact. 

The Chairman. All right. 

The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12 :08 p.m., the select committee recessed, to recon- 
vene at 2 p.m., the same day.) 

(^Members of the select committee present at the taking of the recess 
were Senators McClellan and Mundt. ) 

afternoon session 

(The select committee reconvened at 2 p.m., in the caucus room of 
the Senate Offic^ Building, Senator John L. McClellan, chairman of 
the select committee, presiding.) 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

(Members of the select committee present at the convening of the 
afternoon session were Senators McClellan and Church.) 



19452 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hershell Hinkley. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hinkley, will you come around, please ? 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Hinkley. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HERSHELL S. HINKLEY, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, THOMAS F. CHAWEIE 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation. 

Mr. Hinkley. My name is H. S. Hinkley. I reside in Indianapolis, 
Ind., and I am terrninal manager for Trans- American Freight Lines, 
Inc. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel ? 

Mr. Counsel, will you identify yourself for the record, please. 

Mr. Chawke. Thomas F. Chawke, and I am an attorney at law, 
with offices in the city of Detroit, 1724 Ford Building. 

The Chairman. Thank you, sir. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hinkley, how long have you been with Trans- 
American Freight Lines ? 

Mr. Hinkley. Approximately 15 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is your position now ? 

Mr. Hinkley. Indianapolis terminal manager. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hinkley, do you remember the case of Mr. G. K. 
Curtis, who was a driver of Trans-American ? 

Mr. Hinkley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it correct that Mr. Curtis was laid off from his 
job because of the fact that he submitted so many grievances, in his 
attempts to collect for overtime, vacation, and holidays ? 

Mr. Hinkley. No, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy. Why was Mr. Curtis released ? 

Mr. Hinkley. He submitted a resignation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had Trans-American Freight Lines been trying to 
get him fired or had they been trying to get to him ? 

Mr. Hinkley. He was a very unsatisfactory employee. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had been trjdng to get him ? 

Mr. HiNKi.EY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you been laying off other drivers that had less 
seniority — do you want to give him some legal advice? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

IVIr. Hinkley. Mr. Kennedy, we weren't trying to fire him or get 
him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you want to change your testimony ? 

Mr. HiNKT.EY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say you were not trying to fire him ? 

INIr. Hinkley. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you trying to get rid of him ? 

(The witness conferred witli his counsel.) 



IIMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19453 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have to ask your attorney whether you 
wanted to get rid of him ? I do not think that would be a legal ques- 
tion. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair make this statement : 

You have a right to consult with your attorney regai'ding any of 
your rights as you testify as a witness. Now, we have just observed 
that you make one statement under oath, to answer a question and say 
you were trying to get somebody, and then after you conferred with 
your attorney you changed your statement to say that you were not 
trying to get him. 

Now, to confer with your attorney, the Chair is going to permit you 
to do that. But I do say this to you, that these questions that purely 
call for an answer stating facts, it seems that you should be able to 
answer them as a witness rather than to seek or ask your attorney 
how to answer them, if that is what you are doing. 

Now, we are going to go ahead, but I expect as to the questions of 
fact or questions designed to elicit a fact that is within your knowl- 
edge, you should be able to answer. Now, if you want to consult 
your attorney about whether in that situation you ought to take the 
fifth amendment or something, that is another thing. But let us pro- 
ceed now, and try to answer the questions that are asked you. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Were you trying to get rid of Mr. Curtis ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were not. The answer is that you were not ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. That is correct. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. You had no interest in trying to get him fired ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was no campaign to get him by Trans- 
American ? 

Mr. HiNKEEY. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not dismiss or release other drivers or lay 
off other drivers who had less seniority than Mr. Curtis, in order to 
get Mr. Curtis ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to have you examine this document. 

The Chairman. The Chair hands you what purports to be a carbon 
copy of a letter dated June 7, 1957, addressed to Mr. J. L. Totten, and 
apparently it is signed H. S. Hinkley, by a typewriter. 

Will you examine that docmnent, and state if you identify it? 

(The docmnent was handled to the witness.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you identify that? 

(The witness conferred with liis counsel.) 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What is the document, please ? 

Mr. Hinkley. It is a letter from myself to Mr. Totten. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. The letter may be made 
exhibit No. 64. 

(letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 64" for reference and 
will be found in the Appendix on p. 19501.) 

The Chairman. Now you may quote from it. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is from yourself, is it not ? 

Mr. Hinkley. A carbon copy of a letter. 



19454 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Would you read the first sentence of the second par- 
agraph, in view of the answers you have just given to the committee? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Kennedy. In view of the answers you have just given to the 
committee, would you read the first sentence of the second paragraph 
to the committee? 

Mr. HiNKLEY (reading) : 

One of the actions taken by Mr.Dennis in his recent campaign to get former 
driver G. Curtis out of our employ was to issue letters to owners of all per- 
manent-leased units operating out of Indianapolis that we were terminating our 
lease with him upon 5 days notice from the date of the letter. 

The Chairman. Could I see that document? 

(The document was handed to the Chair.) 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Hinkley, you had just testified that there 
was no campaign on to get this man Curtis ; is that not correct ? You 
just testified to that a few moments ago, didn't you ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, let us see what your letter says. 

One of the actions taken by Mr. Dennis is his recent campaign to get former 
driver G. Curtis out of our employ was to issue letters to owners of all perma- 
nently leased units operating out of Indianapolis that we were terminating our 
lease with him upon 5 days notice from the date of the letter. 

Now, that seems to me is contradictory to what you have just testified 
to, that you were making no effort to get this man. 

What do you say about it ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Does that letter say it is my campaign ? 

The Chairman. Wlio is Mr. Demiis ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. He is vice president of Trans- American. 

The CiLMRMAN. Is he over you or are you over him ? 

Mr. HiNKijJY. He is the vice president, sir. 

The Chairman. What are you ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Terminal manager. 

The Chairman. He is over you, then ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. At this time you knew of his campaign to get 
Curtis out of the employ of the company ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. "\Yliy did you just testify a while ago that there 
wasn't any effort to get him out ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. You asked me if there was any effort on my part. 

Mr. Kennedy. I said Trans- American. 

The Chairman. Are you going to split hairs like that ? 

Mr. HiNKi.EY. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Are we gong to liave to examine you that closely 
all the way through ? 

Mr. HixKLEY. No, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was a campaign to get Mr. Curtis out? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you did fire or lay off all of the drivers that 
had less seniority than he did in order to get to him ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. I don't think we got all of them off ; no, dv. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19455 

Mr. Kennedy. You did have a campaign to lay them off in order to 
get to Mr. Curtis ? 

Mr. HiNKLET. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you did try to get to Mr. Curtis because he was 
putting in so many grievances against the company, did you not? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now we liave testimony in the record, Mr. Chairman, 
which was quite different from tlie testimony we started with this 
afternoon with this witness. 

You made some notes at the time you had a conversation with Mr. 
Curtis ; is that correct ? In view of the fact that you were letting go 
all of these other drivers, and Mr. Curtis finally realized the reason 
was that you were trying to get to him, and you and he had a con- 
versation, did you not ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes, we had several conversations. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it was decided at that time that he would re- 
sign from the Trans-American ? 

Mr. HiNELLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that you would then rehire these other drivers ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you make some notes at the time of that con- 
versation with Mr. Curtis ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. I don't recall. 

The Chairman. I hand you here some penciled notations in hand- 
writing. I ask you to examine the document and see if you identify it 
and, if you can, to state whose handwriting it is. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. HiNKLEY. It appears to be my handwriting. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. The document will be 
made exhibit No. 65. 

(Notes referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 65" for reference and 
will be found in the appendix on p. 19502.) 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Chawke. May I address the Chair ? 

The Chairman. Yes, you may. 

Mr. Chawke. May the witness have an opportunity, if he desires to 
do so, before the completion of these hearings, to give an explanation 
of the answers that he has given ? 

The Chairman. He certainly may. He will be given every oppor- 
tunity. 

Mr. Chawke. I appreciate the circumstances under which the wit- 
ness is before the committee. There is, in Mr. Kennedy's questioning, 
an implication which might not be correct, and if the witness can be 
given an opportunity to explain his testimony it would be appreciated. 

The Chairman. The Chair will state that it is not now and has 
never been, and will not be, so long as I preside over this committee, 
the purpose or intention of the committee to get wrong implications. 
Any witness who appears will be permitted, after answering a question, 
to give explanation if he desires. 

That has been the rule and practice from the beginning. It will 
continue to the end. 

Proceed. 



19456 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Chawke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. . • o 

The Chairman. Do you want to give any explanation at this time ? 

Mr. Chawke. May the witness confer with his counsel ? 

The Chairman. He may ; yes. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Not at this time. 

The Chairman. All right ; proceed with the questioning. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand, then, as the record stands now, that 
you don't have anything to say, any more statements to make, on the 
questions that I have asked you ; is that correct ? 

You can answer that as to whether you do or not, I would think. 

Mr. Chawke. May I confer ? 

The Chairman. Do you want to make explanation now or do you 
want to make it later ? 

Mr. Chawke. May the witness confer with his counsel ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. HiNKLEY. We don't want to make any explanation at this time. 

The Chairman. We just interrupted the questioning to assure your 
counsel on tlie request that you might make explanation. 

All right ; proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. This document, Mr. Chairman, exhibit No. 65 

The Chairman. You may read from it. 

Mr. Chawke. May I address the Chair again ? 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Chawke. I took it from the Chair's ruling that before the 
hearings of this committee would be completed, the witness would 
have an o]:)portunity to confer with his counsel, and after so doing he 
could advise the committee as to whether or not he wished to appear 
here to correct, if he so cared to do, the testimony that he has given. 

To ask the witness now, "Do you care to explain your testimony 
at this time?" — it seems to me that the witness should be given an 
opportunity, as a witness should be, before the committee's hearings 
are completed, and as promptly as possible, to make the explanation. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair say this to you now : I had a little 
experience in the courtroom. You go in court and testify. You 
answer questions. You are asked a question that may call for a yes 
or no answer. The court would probably require the witness to an- 
swer yes or no and then give him immediately the opportunity to 
explain his answer. We ti*y to follow that procedure here. 

If I understand what you are asking me is let the witness testify 
today and then tomorrow or the next day, after he has consulted with 
his attorney, come back and make his explanation. Is that what 
you ask? 

Mr. Chawke. Yes, sir. 

The Chair:man. You don't do that in a courtroom. 

Mr. Chawke. If Your Honor please 

The Chairman. I would say this to you : If a witness comes here 
and testifies, and after he has been excused or after his testimony has 
been recorded, he discovers that he made an honest mistake and wishes 
to correct the record, upon request I think the committee would per- 
mit him to do so. We would not refuse to grant his request. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19457 

But from the standpoint of letting him come back to make expla- 
nations after he is through here, I don't know. I will not pass on it 
finally at this time. That is a matter that will address itself to the 
committee. But everybody know^s that in a courtroom j^ou go in, you 
are sworn, you testify, you answer a question "Yes" and then the 
court will permit "Yes, but," so-and-so, and you can explain why you 
answered yes or why you didn't, whatever the case may be. 

That is courtroom procedure. But in these hearings, what we want 
to get is the truth, and if a w^itness makes a mistake and comes in 
here and says, "I gave you testimony yesterday or last week that I 
now find out, or upon reflection, upon remembering, I was in error, 
and the facts are different," and is in good faith, I don't think there 
is a member of this committee but what would want to grant him the 
opportunity to correct his testimony. 

I think that is the way we proceed. Am I right ? 

Senator Church. Agreed. 

The Chaieman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

No. 1, you are mad at the company. No. 2, the drivers are upset. No. 3, a 
lot of them may lose their jobs. No. 4, you are not going to be happy with any 
job we may give you. No. 5, we will give you a letter of recommendation if you 
will resign. No. 6, escrow money promptly; No. 7, $600. No. 8, grievances up 
to the most recent have been settled and will try to get them settled promptly. 

That is what this reads. That was the arrangement you made with 
Mr. Curtis on his resignation ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to have you identify this document. 

The Chairman. I hand you another document. It is dated Detroit, 
Mich., January 17, 1957. It is listed as personal and confidential and 
addressed to all terminal and regional managers, dry freight division. 
It appears to be signed by Mr. R. T. or R. I. Dennis, vice president. 

I will ask you to examine this document, together with the list of 
uniform rules and regulations attached, and state if you identify 
the document and the list of rules. 

(The document was lianded to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

(At this point Senator Church withdrew from the hearing room and 
Senator Curtis entered the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. Have you examined the document ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you identify it ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What is it? . ' 

;Mr. HiNKLEY. It is a letter addressed to all terminal and regional 
managers from Mr. R. I. Dennis. 

The Chairman. The letter and the list of rules attached, do you 
identify that, too? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. The rules and regulations, yes, sir. 

Tlie Chairman. Do you identify those? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The letter and the list of rules and regulations 
attached may be made exhibit No. 66. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 66" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 



19458 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy ; proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is dated January 14, 1957, to all the terminal 
managers, and regional managers, a confidential letter, enclosing a 
list of drivers, and also some rules and regulations. 

What was the purpose of this document and the names and addresses 
of the drivers that is attached thereto ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Would you let me have that back, please ? 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Briefly, what was the purpose of that document? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. It gave us a list of drivers who were habitual vio- 
lators of company rules and regulations, encompassing their conduct 
and general work performance, performed their work in a slipshod 
manner, operated our road schedule to suit their convenience, come 
and go as they pleased, used any routes of travel they desired, delay 
the freight, and spend unauthorized time off at intermediate rest stops, 
resulting in Trans-American losing customers faster than we can 
regain them. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was a list of drivers, then, that you were trying 
to lay off? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was some rules and regulations whereby you 
might be able to lay them off ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can he identify this document ? 

The Chairman. I hand you another document 

Mr. Kennedy. Maybe Mr. Sheridan can identify it. 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER J. SHERIDAN— Resumed 

The Chairman. You have been previously sworn ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes. 

The Chairman. State what the document is you have before you. 

Mr. Sheridan. A letter dated March 5, 1956, from R. I. Dennis, 
executive vice president, to Mr. R. A. Mueller, manasrer, Cincinnati, 
Ohio. 

The Chairman, What is attached to it ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Another letter attached dated February 26, 1956, 
from R. A. Mueller to Mr. R. I. Dennis. 

The Chairman. How did you procure those letters ? 

Mr. Sheridan. From the files of the Trans- American Co. 

The Chairman. In your capacity as an investigator for this com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, sir. 

Tlie Chairjian. Were they procured by subpena ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes, sir. 

T]ie Chairaian. They may be made exhibit No. 67 and 67A. 

(letters i-eferred to \vere marked ''Exhibit No. 67 and 67 A" for 
reference and will be found in the appendix on pp. 19503, 19504.) 

Mr. Kennedy. I miglit rend the second paragraph, which has 
some significance : 

As you know, under the Central States rider, we have an agreement that any 
and all grievances are to be handled hy the local union and our terminal man- 
agers on a local basis. If they cannot be settled, the union should forward their 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19459 

grievances to Mr. Fitzsimmons in Detroit for discussion and settlement. There 
will be no changes on this arrangement, and it is not our desire to have our 
grievances handled by the Cincinnati local joint grievance committee. Yours 
truly, 

And it is signed 

R. I. Dennis, executive vice president. 

Would 5^ou identify this document ? 

The Chairman. I present you the document counsel has referred 
to. I ask 3'ou to examine it and state if you identify it. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counseL) 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes, I can identify it. 

The CiiAiRj,iAN. Have you examined the document ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you identify it? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What is it, please ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. It is a letter addressed to me concerning deliveries 
in Noblesville. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 68. 

(Letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 68" for reference and 
will be found in the appendix on p. 19505.) 

Mr. Kennedy. This is addressed to Mr. Hinkley, Indianapolis, Ind., 
subject "Deliveries in Noblesville, Ind." 

Attached hereto is a self-explanatory note. Look it up, take it home, but 
whatever you do, don't let anyone get hold of it. You will note E. I.'s decision 
and you have no choice but to be guided accordingly. 

It is signed 

J. A. Kinger, regional manager. 

Then it reads : 

To John Klinger: Let's deliver anyway vintil it becomes a constant pain deal. 
If gi-ievances are filed, we will have to cross that bridge when we come to it. 

It is signed "E. L. G." What does all that mean ? 

Mr. Hinkley. I really don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. You know what this means. 

Mr. Hinkley'. I am sorry, Mr. Kennedy, but I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy\ You don't have any idea ? 

Mr. Hinkley^ No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you talk it over with Mr. Salinger — what it 
means ? 

Mr. Hinkley. With whom ? 

Mr. Kennedys Mr. Salinger, of the staff ? 

Mr. Hinkley. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy'. I mean Mr. Sheridan. Didn't you discuss this with 
Mr. Sheridan? 

Mr. Hinkley'. I don't recall discussing it with him. 

Mr. Kennedy-. Did you discuss the situation in Noblesville at all 
with Mr. Sheridan? 

Mr. Hinkley-. I don't recall discussing it with him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss with Mr. Sheridan the fact that 
Trans-American, in violation of the contract, was coming in with 

36751— 59— pt. 55 21 



19460 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

over-the-road drivers and making deliveries, while under the contract 
they are not to make deliveries within a 25-mile area? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't that the situation in Noblesville? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes, that is the situation that would be applicable 
to Noblesville. 

Mr. Kennedy. And wasn't that in violation of the contract? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes, it was in violation. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. When he said, 

Let's deliver anyway until it becomes a constant pain deal. If grievances are 
filed, we will have to cross that bridge when we come to it. 

what happened ? Did the union object to this? Did the union object 
to the fact that you were using over-the-road drivers to make deliveries 
in Noblesville ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes, some of the other terminals in our system were 
not aAvare of the fact that Noblesville was within the 25-mile radius 
of Indianapolis, and they were having the road drivers perform the 
deliveries at Noblesville, Ind. 

Mr. Kennedy. It would appear from this note that at least the 
higher executives of Trans-American were well aware of the fact that 
you were violating the contract — that you were making the deliveries 
with over-the-road drivers. 

What was finally the result of this situation ? What was the result ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY". We asked the terminals to send the loads to Indian- 
apolis so we could deliver them with city men. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there grievances filed ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened to the grievances ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY". They were settled. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were what ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. They were settled. 

Mr. Kennedy. And how were they settled ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. The men were paid the money. 

Mr. Kennedy. All the men individually were paid the money ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy'. You didn't form a picnic fund, tell the men 

]Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes, we formed it, but the grievances on the Nobles- 
ville thing were paid to the men. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat was the picnic fund for ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. There were loads that were reported to me to have 
been delivered within the radius of 25 miles of Indianapolis by road 
drivers. We agreed that we would put that money in a picnic fund 
so that all employees would get the benefit of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who agi-eed on that ? Do you mean instead of paying 
the individual grievances, you would put the money in a picnic fund? 

Mr. HiNKLEY". Til at is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who agreed to that ? 

Mr, HiNKLEY". Mvself and my steAvard. 

Mr. Kennedy". What was your steward's name ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY, Jay Williamson. 

Mr. Kennedy. Instead of paying the individual drivers their griev- 
ances, you put it in a picnic fund and then you said you would give 
them a picnic ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19461 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes ; because, you see, under the contract all of my 
men were working 8 hours a day and were not entitled to the money. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were what ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Were not entitled to the money. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are entitled to the money under the grievance 
procedure ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. No, sir , as long as you are working every day. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are still entitled to your grievances. You are 
still entitled to your grievances, and more men could have been em- 
ployed ; isn't that correct i 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Possibly. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you and your steward — under what terms 
of the contract do you and the steward have the right to settle the 
situation in that fashion ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. We like to settle things on a local basis. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is another situation, Mr. Chairman, where the 
contract is not being enforced. 

Do you know why it was necessary in this particular case to — 
lock it up, take it home, but, whatever you do, dou't let anyone get hold of it? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. No, sir. 

The Chairman. It wasn't a rattlesnake, was it ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Not quite. 

Mr. Kennedy. The true situation is that you knew it was in viola- 
tion — that you were operating in violation of the contract ; is it not ? 
and you wanted to continue to do so ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. No, I didn't want to, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. Yv'^ho wrote this note ? Mi\ Gotf redson ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. The initials are what ? 

Mr. Kennedy. E. L. G. 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Mr. Robert L. Gotf redson. 

Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat is his position ? 

Islx. HiNKLEY. Vice president of Trans- American. 

Mr. Kennedy. He evidently knew about it and wanted to keep it 
liushed up. Gotf redson ; is that right ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Ciiair:man. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Mr. Kennedy, Mr. R. L. Gotfredson is the son of 
the president of Trans-American. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he is vice president ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. That is correct. 

The Chairman. If there are no other questions, Mr. Hinkley — • 
if you have any statements or explanations you want to make at this 
time, the committee will be glad to hear you; if you have anything 
to comment on. 

Mr. Chawke. May the witness confer with counsel, please ? 

The Chairman. Yes, indeed. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Let the record show the witness has conferred with 
counsel and advises us as follows : All right. 

Mr. HiNKLEY. What did you want from me, Mr. Kennedy ? 

The Chairman. I beg your pardon ? 



19462 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I don't want anything, except I gave you an opportunity if you 
had any explanation you wanted to make. Counsel asked for the op- 
portunity to make explanation. I said before you left the witness 
stand, there are no further questions, did you have any explanation 
you wished to make at this time. 

Mr. HiNKLEY. No, sir ; I have none. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. Before you leave, how much money went into the 
picnic fund ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. I don't recall, Mr. Kennedy. I would have to have 
the file. 

Mr. Kennedy. You what ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. I say I don't recall. I would have to have the file. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you actually put any money into the picnic 
fund? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes. We spent considerable money. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you actually put the money in the picnic fund ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. We took the money to cover the expenses for the 
picnic. 

Mr. Kennedy. You gave everybody a picnic ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes, we invited all of the drivers and their wives and 
their families, and we paid the bills. 

Mr. Kennedy. All of the company employees came to the picnic ? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wliat year did you give them the picnic? 

Mr. HiNKLEY. In 1957. 

Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Curtis, please. 

The Chairjvian. Mr. Curtis, will you come around, please ? 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before 
this Senate Select Committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Curtis. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF GILBERT K. CURTIS 

The Ciiairjian. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation, please. 

Mr. Curtis. Gilbert K. Curtis, Indianapolis, Ind. I am a truck 
driver. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are you the Mr. Curtis that we have been inter- 
rogating the previous witness about? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

The ('hairman. You were present and heard his testimony? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed, 

Mr. Kennedy. Xow, you were employed as an over-the-road owner- 
operator with Trans- American Freight Lines ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19463 

Mr. Kennedy. And operating out of Indianapolis, from 1953 to 
1954; is that right? 

Mr. CuKTis. Yes, sir. I think it was to 1955 and 1956. 

Mr. Kennedy. Right through 1957 ? 

Mr. Curtis. In 1957, I believe. 

Mr. Kennedy. 1953 to 1957? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You submitted grievances in 1957 for layoff and 
breakdown time in excess of the li/2-cent agreement? 

Mr. Curtis. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. They totaled some $1,800 or $2,000? 

Mr. CiTRTis. Something around that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get these grievances settled in the 10 days 
that is provided for under the contract ? 

Mr. Curtis. No, sir. 

Mr, Kennedy. What happened? 

Mr. Curtis. I believe that the first grievances that I turned in, 
I got through the local unions. Those were small ones. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then what happened ? 

Mr. Curtis. When I turned in the bigger one, why I didn't hear 
anything. 

The Chairman. By grievances, you mean a claim for extra money 
as provided under the terms of the contract, money in addition to 
wages as such ? 

]\Ir. Curtis. That is right. 

The Chairman. You call it grievances, the same thing as sub- 
mitting a claim. You say, "Well, I had this happen or that happen, 
and under the contract you owe me in addition to my wages, so much." 
That is what you mean by a grievance; is that correct? 

Mr. Curtis. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You collected your first grievances, and what hap- 
pened subsequently when you put in these other grievances for $1,800 
or $2,000? 

Mr. Curtis. I turned those into the union hall and Mr, Hinkley got 
a copy. 

Mr. Kennedy. 'Wliat happened after you turned them into the 
union hall ? 

Mr. Curtis. They couldn't settle those at the local level. Local 135 
couldn't do it. 

Mr. Kennedy, What did they tell you ? 

Mr. Curtis. That they would have to go to Detroit. 

Mr. Kennedy. \Miat happened then ? 

Mr. Curtis. Mr, Fitzsimmons looked them over. 

The Chairman. Pull that microphone up a little closer. 

Mr. Kennedy. For Mr. Frank Fitzsimmons to review them? 

Mr. Curtis. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he arrange for you to collect your grievances? 

Mr. Curtis. He didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. He did not? 

Mr. Curtis. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened; did you hear from Mr. Fitzsim- 
mons ? 

Mr. Curtis. Nothing, only tlu'ough our business agent. 



19464 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Kennedy. What did you you hear from your business agent ? 

Mr. Curtis. That we could get a certain percent of it, and I don't 
know what percent it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember what percentage it was ? 

Mr. Curtis. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that acceptable to you ? 

Mr. Curtis. Well, I finally did settle for part of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did you settle for? Was it some $800? 

Mr. Curtis. I think the last one, when I turned in my resignation, 
I think that I got three checks, two of them for $300 apiece, and one 
for $200. 

The Chairman. How much did your total amount come to ? 

Mr. Curtis. I couldn't tell you without looking at my records. 

The Chairman. Some $1,800 ; is that in round figures correct? 

Mr. Curtis. I believe that would be close. 

The Chairman. So you got about $800 out of an $1,800 claim; is 
that right? 

Mr. Curtis. I figured that would be better than nothing. 

The Chairman. You thought it would be better than nothing ? 

Mr. Curtis. That is right. 

The Chairman. Why were you not settled with on the basis of the 
contract ? 

Mr. Curtis. I don't know. 

The Chairman. Who asked you to take the reduction ? 

Mr. Curtis. Nobody asked me to take it. I believe that I did take 
one or two that were settled under what I had coming, that came from 
Detroit. 

The Chairman. I am talking about this final settlement. You got 
a settlement of $300 and $300 and $200, a total of $800. 

Mr. Curtis. Mr. Hinkley came out to my house, and we sat down 
and went over these, and I told him that I would take the $800 and 
forget it. 

The Chairman. How long had your claim been pending ? 

Mr. Curtis. I don't remember exactly. 

The Chairman. Well, under the arrangement, was not your local 
lodge supposed to handle these grievances for you ? 

Mr. Curtis. They are su])posed to. 

The Chairman. Wlio in the union is supposed to pursue this matter 
and get settlements for the union men with the employer? 

Mr. Curtis. Our business agent. 

The Chairman. Who was your business agent ? 

Mr. Curtis. Dick Dunninger. 

The Chairman. Did he do anything to get it settled for you ? 

Mr. Curtis, I think that he did all that he could do. 

The Chairman. Wliat was it that he could do or who stopped him 
from doing more ? 

Mr. Curtis. All that I figured he could do was to turn them in and 
if there was anybody over him 

Tlie Chairman. Wlmt I am trying to find out did the union do its 
duty and did those officers actually pursue it and try to get your 
money for you ? 

Mr. Curtis. I don't know. 

The Chairman. How long was it after you submitted the claim 
before you finally took the $800 ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19465 

Mr. CuETis. I imagine fi'om 6 to 8 months, the best I can remember. 

The Chairman. From 6 to 8 months ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Were the union officers whose duty it was to follow 
it up and try to get your money, were they active and were they doing 
anything to try to get your money and reporting to you as to their 
efforts? 

Mr. Curtis. He showed me a letter that he had from Fitzsimmons, 
that he had turned them in to him. 

The Chairman. Well, they had turned them into Fitzsimmons. 
Now, Fitzsimmons was supposed to follow up and settle with you, 
and get your settlement ? 

Mr. Curtis. That is the way I understood it. 

The Chairman. And Fitzsimmons was in Detroit ? 

Mr. Curtis. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And yet you were working for an Indianapolis 
firm? 

Mr. Curtis. I was working out of Indianapolis. 

The Chairman. Out of Indianapolis ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Why would you have to go to Detroit, then, to 
get a settlement ? 

Mr. Curtis. I don't know. 

The Chairjian. That wasn't your union. Your union, the head- 
quartei^ weren't in Detroit ? 

Mr. Curtis. It was my argument all of the time. 

The Chairman. You were arguing that you ought to settle it there 
where you did the work and where the headquarters of your com- 
pany was? 

JNIr. Curtis. That is what I thought. 

The Chairman. And where your union was located ? 

Mr. CuRiis. That is what I thought. 

The Chairman. And they were sending the matter from Indi- 
anapolis out to Detroit and Fitzsimmons was handling it? 

Mr. Curtis. That is right. 

The Chairman. And he got no results for you ? 

Mr. Curtis. If he did, I didn't see any of it. 

The Chairman. Can't you say he did or didn't ? You got no re- 
sults from his efforts, did you ? 

Mr. Curtis. No. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And actually, while you finally settled, it was be- 
cause the company was laj'ing off the drivers that had less seniority 
than you ; isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Curtis. That is riglit. 

Mr. Kennedy. In order to get to you ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You knew these people were going to lose their 
jobs and so finally you made a settlement with the company and took 
$800 and resigned. 

Mr. Curtis. Two or three other drivers told me that Mr. Hinkley 
told them if they could talk me into the mood to quit, he would stop 
that laying off. 



19466 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. I^NNEDY. You mean drop your grievances ? 

Mr. Curtis. If I just resigned, 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Quit your job? 

Mr. Curtis. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That he would stop laying them off ? 

Mr. Curtis. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you went in and you agreed to quit ? 

Mr. Curtis. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he made the settlement and gave you a letter 
of recommendation? 

Mr. Curtis. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you talked about whether the miion followed 
up and handled your grievances, the local union, as far as you know, 
did what they could, local 135 ? 

Mr. Curtis. That is what I mean ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. But as they explained it to you, the final say on this 
was going to be made out of Detroit, with Frank Fitzsimmons ? 

Mr. Curtis. That is what I was told. 

Mr. Kennedy. \Vlien you are talking about union officers, you are 
separating the ones for your own local union who, as far as you know, 
did what they could to try to collect ? 

Mr. Curtis. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. From Mr. San Soucie's local, and they did attempt to 
collect, but then it had to go through Detroit and there is where it 
broke down ? 

Mr. Curtis, That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there the word came back to you that you would 
have to accept a certain percentage ? 

Mr. Curtis. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy, Did you find as a general practice among the drivers 
that they could not collect their grievances ? 

Mr. Curtis. No ; I would say that they had quite a few grievances 
that were never settled. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were never settled ? 

Mr. Curtis. No, 

Mr. Kennedy. They were just sent up there and they w^ould have to 
take a certain percentage or take nothing ? 

Mr. Curtis. Some of the boys didn't want to lose their job and so 
they wouldn't press them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand it is common information and 
knowledge that when you put your grievances in and tried to press 
them that you would lose your job ? 

Mr. Curtis, That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't there general dissatisfaction with this lu- 
cent agreement that was made ? 

Mr. Curtis. You would lose around $2,000 a year. 

The Chairman. You mean that you lost $2,000 a year under what 
you had been getting under the previous contract ? 

Mr. Curtis. Between the li/^-cents and the union contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. Perhaps I could clear it up. 

As we pointed out yesterday, Mr. Chairman, under the contract they 
were to be paid for layover time and vacations and holidays and the 
other frinore benefits. Then an agreement was made between Mr. 



IIVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19467 

Hoffa and the officials of this company that in lieu of all of those 
fringe benefits the driver would receive a cent and a half for each 
mile. There was also the provision in the contract that if the driver 
found that he would make more under the regular contract, he could 
put in a grievance and collect the difference. He could collect under 
the old contract rather than under the cent and a half. 

We have found from testimony of this witness and the testimony 
that we will have, as well as the testimony that we had this morning, 
that when the driver put in for his grievance, if he found that he would 
have made more under the regular contract, that in the first place they 
wouldn't pay him, the company would not pay him the grievance, or 
they would offer him only a small percentage of the grievance. 

No. 2, that the drivers were harassed and were threatened with the 
loss of their jobs if they put in their grievances. 

The result was that the membership would rather take the cent and 
a half and go along with that and not take the chance that they 
were going to lose their jobs if they put in a grievance. 

The Chairman. Do I understand that this arrangement was all 
made after the contract had been entered into providing for these 
fringe benefits? 

Mr. Kennedy. No; this was made at the same time. We will be 
going into another contract which was made after the original con- 
tract, but this arrangement with Mr. Gotfredson was made at the 
same time. It was different from the contract that most of the carriers 
received. 

Now, either late this afternoon or tomorrow we will be going into 
some carriers who made the agreement with Mr. Hoffa subsequently 
about the cent and ahalf. We have now had a couple of driver and 
we will be having some more to show what the effect was in their par- 
ticular area. We plan then to go to some Teamster officials, as to 
their opposition to it. 

The Chairman. You just spoke a moment ago about losing $2,000. 
In other words, under the cent-and-a-half arrangement you would 
make around $2,000 less each year than you would have under the 
other? 

Mr. Curtis. That is right. 

The Chairman. And it was for that difference that you were putting 
in these claims or grievances ; is that right ? 

Mr. Curtis. That is right. 

The Chairman. And because you were putting in these grievances, 
you were not being settled with and they were undertaking to lay off 
those with less seniority than you so that they could get up to you to 
lay you off ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Curtis. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And they were telling them that if they could get 
you to just resign, get out of the way, they would not be laid off? 

Mr. Curtis. That is correct. 

The Chairman. That is the way it was operated. So finally, on 
the basis of these notes made here, they would give you a letter of 
recommendation, and $600 or $800, whatever it was, to settle your 
claim for about 40 cents on the dollar, you would go ahead and resign 
and not cause your fellow workers any trouble ? 

Mr. Curtis. That is risrht. 



19468 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The CHAiRMAisr. That is what you did ? 

Mr, CuRns. That is exactly what I did. 

The Chairman. You did it for that reason ? 

Mr. Curtis. For that reason. 

Now, something else: On some of the testimony of Mr. Hinkley 
that I was being late with freight, in other words, leaving Indian- 
apolis and getting on the other end late, I do not think he has any 
record where I ever done that. 

The Chairman. "Wliere what ? 

Mr. Curtis. I don't think he has any record where I ever was late 
with freight. 

Tlie Chairman. In other words, you claim you operated on 
schedule ? 

Mr. Curtis. That is right. 

The Chairman. Unless there was actually a breakdown. 

Mr. Curtis. That is right. 

The Chairman. Well, I guess you do have a breakdown occasion- 
ally, don't you ? 

Mr. Curtis. Well, I have laid 10 or 12 hours waiting for them to 
bring me a tire for their trailer 35 miles out of town. 

The Chairman. Well, I mean, those are the things that normally 
happen. 

Mr. Curtis. That is right. 

The Chairman. No one is to blame for it. It is just part of the 
hazards incident to the operation. 

Mr. Curtis. That is correct. 

The Chairman. But so far as delays through negligence, care- 
lessness, or inefficiency on your part, not doing your job, you say 
they have no complaint about that? 

Mr. CuRiTS. No. I couldn't afford to. I had a $12,000 truck. 
I couldn't afford to. I was trying to make payments on it. 

The Chairman. You were trying to make payments on your truck? 

Mr. Curtis. That is right. 

The Chairman. It was as much to your interest to get there on 
time? 

Mr. Curtis. It was all to my interest to get there and get back. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. You were an owner-operator, were you ? 

Mr. Curtis. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Were you an employee, then, of the Trans-Ameri- 
can Freight Lines ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What did the owner-operator situation amount to 
there? 

Mr. Curtis. About the only way I could figure it is you bought a 
job. You bought a truck and they put you to work driving it. 

Senator Curtis. Weren't you an independent contractor? 

Mr. Curtis. In a sense of the word, yes. They leased the truck and 
hired you as a driver. They didn't put somebody else on it unless you 
wanted them to. 

Senator Curtis. They leased the truck and you drove your own 
truck ? 

Mr. Curtis. Right, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19469 

Senator Curtis. Did you drive for wages or for a portion of the 
freight ? 

Mr. Curtis. You drove for wages, so much a mile. 

Senator Curtis. For so much a mile ? 

Mr. Curtis. Correct. 

Senator Curtis. Did they have other drivers that were employees ? 

Mr. Curtis. They had other drivers that drove their own tractors. 

Senator Curtis. Did they have any that didn't have their own 
tractors ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes, they had a few that drove for other brokers. 

Senator Curtis. But you were all covered by the same contract 
with the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes. Supposed to be. 

Senator Curtis. "What was the purpose of this owner-operator 
arrangement? 

Mr. Curtis. I think — my idea would be that an owner-operator 
would take a lot better care of his tractor than a company driver 
would with one of theirs. 

Senator Curtis. And he was paid on a mileage basis rather than an 
hourly basis ? 

Mr. Curtis. Yes. He was supposed to be paid hourly wages for 
any dropoffs or pickups that he made, but they didn't do that. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I point out again, Mr. Chairman, that the 
great significance of this is in connection with the grievance pro- 
cedure. The contract with Trans- American states specifically that 
the dispute or grievance arising out of operations under this agree- 
ment in the territory as outlined in the master agreement are to be 
referred to the Central States Drivers Council in writing, and after 
such reference shall be handled under the usual procedure by repre- 
sentatives of the company and the Central States Drivers Council. 

That is a different grievance procedure from what anyone else had. 
Ordinarily it would have to go to the State level and then go up to the 
Central States Drivers Council. 

So Trans-American had a different grievance procedure, and this 
grievance procedure, which is the heart of the contract, was never 
submitted to the m.embership. It is merely initialed by James R. 
Hoffa. That is number one. 

The second thing is that even this grievance procedure was not 
followed, because, as the executives of the company admitted yester- 
day, and as we have seen from these witnesses, instead of submitting it 
to the Central States Drivers Council in writing, it went right from 
the local union up to Frank Fitzsimmons and Rolland McMaster in 
Detroit, who had nothing to do with this at all. They were local 
officers of Mr. Hoffa's local. 

So this is a g]"oss violation of the contract, known to Mr. Hoffa, 
known to the top Teamster officials, and the results were, as we have 
seen today, that the drivers did not have their grievances processed 
and did not receive adequate representation by the union. 

The Chairman. Do you feel that when 3'OU settled for $800 you 
actually settled for far less than was due you under the contract? 

Mr. Curtis I think so, yes. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 



19470 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. 1 would like to call Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Chairman, to 
summarize some of the other known violations of the contract. 

This, again, is on Mr. Hoffa's statement that he has the best con- 
tracts, and contracts depend upon how well they are enforced. 

"We have shown. No. 1, that they are not the best contracts, 
and today and tomorrow we will show that even those contracts are 
not being enforced. 

I would like to have Mr. Sheridan just give you some of the most 
obvious violations of the contracts which are known to the top Team- 
ster officials. 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER J. SHERIDAN— Eesumed 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. SHERmAN. There was a question yesterday, first of all — there 
was a question of whether the leasing arrangement between the com- 
pany and the individual owner-operators was actually in violation of 
the agreement. 

The way the arrangement works is that Trans- American leases the 
equipment through a corporation which they wholly owned called 
Highway Vehicles. This has the result of removing the owner-ope- 
rator out from under the contract, whereas actually this is a viola- 
tion of the contract in itself because the contract provides that they 
shall not set up third party devices for schemes in any way to get out 
of paying the owner-operators what is due to them. 

Mr. Kennedy. "What happens is that under the contract the owner- 
operators are to be paid a certain amount; correct? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. They are to be paid a certain amount 
in wages and a certain amount for rental of their equipment, accord- 
ing to the contract. 

Mr. Kennedy. What Trans- American has done is set up a third 
party, which is a leasing arrangement? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is it called ? 

Mr. SHERmAN. Highway Vehicles, Inc. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the owner-operators now work for Highway Ve- 
hicles, Inc. ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And, therefore, the company claims, Trans- Ameri- 
can now claims, that these drivers don't actually work for them, so, 
therefore, the contract does not haA^e to be enforced? 

Mr. Sheridan. In effect, that is what they are saying. 

Mr. Kennedy. Actually, this is a wholly owned subsidiary? 

INIr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Doesn't it stipulate in the contract that this kind of 
an arrangement is prohibited ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What article? 

Mr. Sheridan. Several articles. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19471 

Article 1, section 4. It is understood by this section that parties hereto shall 
not use any leasing device to a third party to evade this contract. 

* * * * * * * 

Article 6, section 2. The employer agrees not to enter into any agreement or 
contract with employees, individually or collectively, which in any way conflicts 
with the terms and provisions of this agreement. Any such agreement shall be 
null and void. 

******* 

Article 32, section 16. It is further agreed that the intent of this clause and 
this entire agreement is to assure the payment of the union scale of wages as 
provided in this agreement, to prohibit the making and carrying out of any 
plan, scheme, or device to circumvent or defeat the payment of wages and 
scales provided in this agreement. 

Mr. I^NNEDY. Do we find that in fact these owner operators are 
not paid union scale ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes ; we do. 

Mr. IvENNEDY. Would you just give us that ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes. For the rental of their equipment, they are 
supposed to be paid on a graduated basis from 10^4 to 141/^ cents, 
depending on the weight of the load. 

The minimum weight being 23,000 pounds. 

What the company is doing is paying 12'i/^ cents flat rate, which, 
depending on the weight, may or may not come up to the contract. 

In addition to that, in dead-heading; that is, pulling an empty 
load 

Mr. KJENNEDY. In other words, the driver under the contract can get 
paid more than 121/^ cents, while under the arrangement that Trans- 
American has they cannot possibly get paid more than 121/2? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. On dead-heading, pulling an empty 
load, they are supposed to be paid 75 percent of the contract rate 
which, of course, they are not paying anyway, for the entire load. But 
Trans- American has a special arrangement with their owner-operators 
which they make their owner-operator sign which provides that they 
will only be paid the 75 percent for the firet 50 miles. 

Here is an example of one of those agreements. 

The Chairman. That may be made exhibit No. 69. 

(Agreement referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 69" for reference, 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 19506.) 

Mr. Ivennedy. When this cent and a half was first considered in 
1955, Mr. Hoffa stated that there was, as you pointed out yesterday 
in the minutes that were taken, great opposition by the union mem- 
bership to the cent and a half arrangement ? 

Mr. Sheridan. It actually said that the majority of the locals were 
opposed to it. 

Mr. KJENNEDY. He stated at that time that there would be another 
meeting, that they would try it out for a period of 90 days and there 
would be another meeting in 90 days ? 

Mr. Sheridan. In 12 weeks, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they would then take up with the local mem- 
bership whether they wanted to keep the cent and a half or not? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do we find that another meeting was called in 12 
weeks ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Another meeting was never held. 



19472 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr, Kennedy. They never held another meeting to get the ratifica- 
tion by the union members of the cent and a half ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. So the membership never ratified this cent and a 
half arrangement in 1955 ? 

Mr. Sheridan. No, they didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. This was true not only for Trans-American but 
some other companies who received this right ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

(At this point Senator Ervin entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. The membership was assured they would have the 
right to keep their bid runs ? 

Mr. Sheridan. They were assured they would be able to keep their 
bid runs under any circumstances. This was a big point that both 
Mr. Hoff a and Mr. Gotf redson made at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have we found in fact that the membership has had 
to give up their bid runs ? 

Mr. Sheridan. They are currently giving them up. 

Mr. Kennedy. In order to get the new Mack trucks, they have to 
agree to run the whole system ? 

Mr. Sheridan. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which means they might not get home again for 
3 or 4 weeks ? 

Mr. Sheridan. That is correct. 

(At this point Senator Curtis withdrew from the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. All right. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Young and company, Mr. Mead, Mr. Schulz, 
Mr. Frobe, Mr. Eichhold. 

The Chairman. Those of you whose names have been called, raise 
your right hand and be sworn. 

Do you and each of you solemnly swear the evidence you shall 
give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Schulz. I do. 

Mr. Frobe. I do. 

Mr. Young. I do. 

Mr. Mead. I do. 

Mr. Eichhold. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER SCHULZ, OTTO H. FROBE, JAMES YOUNG, 
JOHN W. MEAD, SR., AND LOUIS A. EICHHOLD, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, BENJAMIN GETTLER 

The Chairman. All right. Beginning on my left, will you identify 
yourself by stating your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation, please, sir? 

Mr. Young. My name is James Young. I am a business repre- 
sentative for local 100 in Cincinnati, Ohio. I reside in Cincinnati, 
Ohio, also. 

The Chairman. Thank you. The next witness ? 

Mr. Schulz. Walter Schulz, president of local 100, I reside in 
Cincinnati, Ohio; business representative since 1942, a member for 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19473 

some 30 years of the Teamsters Union, and president since November 
29,1958. 

The Chairman. Thank yon. 

And the next one on my right ? 

Mr. Mead. John W. Mead, Sr., 3642 West Liberty Street, Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio, business agent for Teamsters Local 100 for about 131/2 
years. 

The Chairman. Thank you, sir. 

Beginning on my left in the rear row, state your name, place of 
residence, and business or occupation, please. 

Mr. EiCHHOLD. My name is Louis A. Eichhold, 1233 Carson Avenue, 
Cincinnati; secretary-treasurer of Local 152, Beverage Drivers. 

The Chairman. And the next witness ? 

Mr. Frobe. Otto H. Frobe, secretary-treasurer of local 100, Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, do you have counsel? You have the 
same counsel, all of you ? The same attorney represents all of you. 

Mr. Counsel, identify yourself for the record, please. 

Mr. Gettler. My name is Benjamin Gettler, attorney at law, 1505 
Fountain Square Building, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. What I would like to discuss with you gentlemen is 
this situation regarding the cent and a half arrangement that was 
made by Mr. Hoffa with some of the truckowners. I would like to 
find out from you what the effect has been in your local area, and 
what the attitude of the rank and file membership is to the cent and 
a half, and what the difficulties or problems, if any, have been. 

I believe, Mr. Young, you were an over-the-road truckdriver for 
Trans- American Freight Lines ; is that correct? 

Mr. Young. Right; for 13 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. For 13 years ? 

Mr. Young. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The whole period of time, 13 years with Trans- 
American ? 

Mr. Young. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were steward, were you ? 

]\Ir. Young. For 9i/2 years. 

]\[r. Kennedy. AVhen did you first hear about the situations in 
connection with the cent and a half, Mr. Young ? 

Mr. Young. Februai-y 1, 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what did you first hear about it? Could you 
tell us? 

Mr. Young. That the company had made a proposal to eliminate 
all the fringe pay and put in effect this contiact for a cent and a half 
a mile in addition to the regular wage^. 

Mr. Kennedy, What was the attitude of the membership toward it 
at that time ? 

Mr. Young. It was very poor. In fact, in Cincinnati, on the night 
of February 1, when this went into effect, we had a wildcat strike at 
our terminal. 

]\rr. Kennedy. How did it start, the wildcat strike? 

Mr. Young. It started under my direction. 



19474 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive a telephone call prior to starting 
the strike? 

Mr. Young. Yes, sir. I received a telephone call from the steward 
of local 299 in Detroit, asking me what action we were taking in view 
of (he fact that we were getting this forced on us. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is local 299, which is Mr. Holla's own local ? 

Mr. Young. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he opposed to it ? 

Mr. Young. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Everybody was opposed to it; is that right? 

Mr. Young. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you went out on strike. What was the next 
event ? What happened then ? 

Mr. Young. I think we were out about 4 or 5 days in Cincinnati, 
and due to our opposition to it in the Cincinnati local, there was a 
meeting set up in Detroit, I think it was Februaiy 13, 1955, in the 
company offices, with Mr. Dennis and Mr. Gotfredson and Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. It had actually gone into effect on February 1st? 

Mr. Young. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had the membership approved of it before? 

Mr. Young. They never have to this day. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you laiown that this was going to go into 
effect ? 

Mr. Young. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you known anything about the cent and a half 
up until the time it was instituted ? 

Mr. Young. We knew that there was a proposal by the company 
to the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had you known that Mr. Hoffa had agreed to it ? 

Mr. Young. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the membership — it had never been put before 
the membership to determine whether they would approve of it; is 
that right? 

Mr. Young. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you went to the meeting on February 13th? 

Mr. Young. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you relate what happened at the meeting? 

Mr. Young. Well, tliere was an address b}^ Mr. Gotfredson and 
also by Mr. Hoffa. I think you have some notes of the meeting. 
They are not the actual minutes. Mr. Frobe attended the meeting 
as a representative of local 100 with me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he took some notes ? 

Mr. Frobe. He took the notes and that is transcribed there, that 
you have. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, that was made an exhibit yesterday. 

The Chairman. Do you rememl^er the exhibit number ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We have the exhibit from yesterday. 

There was a discussion, according to these notes, and at this point 
Brother Hoffa read Gotfredson's proposed agreement which included 
a cent and a half per mile above the Central States drivers' agree- 
ment, in lieu of hotels, liolidays, vacations, et cetera. 

He further stated that most of the locals had turned down the com- 
pany's proposal, but he didn't know why they turned it down. He 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19475 

told the men that anyone who cared to do so conld speak to the matter, 
with the understanding that they talk one at a time, but when Gotf red- 
son came in they would not talk, because by so doing a man might hurt 
himself. 

What was agreed to at that meeting? 

Mr. Young. It was agreed — I think the minutes are incorrect or the 
supposition heretofore. I think at that time there were three 21-day 
periods wliich was later corrected to three 28-day periods, and then we 
would have a return meeting in Detroit. 

This meeting was attended by the members, by the representatives, 
and the stewards, from 22 locals involved, I believe, and every man 
was instructed to go back to liis home local and tell the men to keep 
adequate records, to get a book and keep track of everything. 

If, under this contract, they did not receive their proper wages, we 
would be back in Detroit in 3 months, or approximately 90 days, and 
we would have our discussion and be able to turn it down. The com- 
pany would return to the regular contract. 

The Chairman. In other words, they let them put it into effect 
tentatively, subject to trial ? 

Mr. Young. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. And you would have another meeting at the end 
of approximately 3 months and then determine whether you would 
accept or reject the proposal ? 

Mr. Young. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you went back to Cincinnati thereafter ? 

Mr. Young. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. \ ou were also assured at this meeting by Mr. Hoffa 
that you would be able to keep your bid runs if you accepted this pro- 
posal ? 

Mr. Young. That was definite. There would be no — I think his 
words were that definitely the drivers of Trans-American would not 
be made gypsies of, we would not return to the levels of the depression 
in the tmcking industry, and the men were definitely not to give up 
their bid runs. 

Mr, Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa was pushing the proposal for the cent 
and a half, was he not, at this meeting ? 

Mr. Young. I agree with that; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was ? 

Mr. Young. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You went back and you kept these books and rec- 
ords. Did you have another meeting after the three 28-day periods ? 

Mr. Young. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you had a meeting up to this date ? 

Mr. Young. I think at the opening of the wage clause of the con- 
tract in February 1958, I submitted to the international president 
and to Mr. Mike Healy a copy of a petition by a majority of the com- 
pany drivers of Trans-American requesting that we be returned to 
our regular contract. 

The Chairman. That was 1958? 

Mr. Young. That is right. That contract originally was for 6 years, 
from February 1, 1955, until February 1, 1961, with a wage opening 
clause in 1958. 

36751— 59— pt. 55 22 



19476 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. What time in 1958? 

Mr. Young. February 1, 1958. 

Mr. Kknnedy. Did anybody approach Mr. Hoffa and request that 
a meetiuii" be lield? 

Mr. Young. Do you mean prior to 1955? I mean prior to 1958? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Young. Yes; I do not know. I have been told. I do not know 
that for sure. 

Mr. Kennedy. By whom were you told? By another Teamster 
official? 

Mr. Young. By other members of different locals. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did they say the response was ? 

Mr. Young. That they were told that he ran the international, and 
that he woidd arrange the meetino- when he felt there was a need for 
one. 

]\Ir. Kennedy. But he never called a meeting ? 

Mr. Young. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there dissatisfaction amongst the drivers ? 

Mr. Young. Yes, sir, 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this dissatisfaction just in your area, or was 
the dissatisfaction widespread? 

jNIr. Young. In the entire Central States area where this contract 
affects. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you put in grievances? 

Mr. Young. Yes, sir; we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any difficulty collecting the griev- 
ances ? 

Mr. Young. At the first, when Mr. Fitzsimmons handled the griev- 
ances, we were very fortunate. We were slow in getting them, but we 
did get all of our settlements to our local. But since Mr. McMasters 
has taken over, since Mr. Hoffa came to Washington, we don't get 
anything now. 

Mr. Kennedy. You never get your grievances settled ? 

Mr. Young. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You spoke about this January meeting in 1958, and 
you said you had a petition. 

INIr. Young. I mailed a copy of the petition, which I am sure you 
have. 

j\Ir. Kennedy. Wlio was the petition from? 

Mr. Young. From the drivers, the company drivers, and there 
are a few owner-operators who signed it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were those company drivers and owner-operators 
just in the Cincinnati area ? 

IVIr. Young. No, sir ; for the the entire Central States area of Trans- 
American. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it a fact that this petition has the names of all 
of the drivers for Trans- American from Mr. Hoffa's own local 299 ? 

Mr, Young. Yes, sir; it does. 

Mr. Kennedy. All of them petitioning to him to have this cent and 
a half changed? 

Mr. Young. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I hand you what appears to be a photostatic copy 
of that petition, together with two letters, one from you to Mr. Hoffa, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19477 

dated Jaiuiarv 13, 1958, and the otlier from you to Mr. Hoffa dated 
January 27, 1958. 

I ask you to examine these documents and state if you identify them 
as photostatic copies of the orio-inals about which you have testified. 

(The documents were handed to the Avitness.) 

Mr. YoFNG. That is right, sir. 

The Chairiman. The letters and the petition may be made exhibit 
No. 70. Make the petition exhibit No. 70, and the letters exhibits 
70A and 70B in the order of their dates. 

(Documents referied to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 7(), 70-A, and 
70-B'' for reference and may be found in tlie files of the select com- 
mittee.) 

Mr. Kexxedy. Could I read tlie letter, Mr. C^hairman ? 

The CiiAiEMAN. You may. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is to Mr. James Hoffa. 

Deae Sie and Brother — 
Mr, Salinger (reading) : 

I am writing to you in reference to our over-tlie-road contract with Trans- 
American Freight Lines. 

As you know, we have repeatedly voiced our objections to the cent and a 
half arrangement with this company and we have been assured that when the 
present negotiations are concluded we would be out from under this cent and a 
half business and would operate under the standard contract. 

It is my understanding that at the meeting at Chicago last week, Trans- 
American refuse to operate under the contract, stating that they have paid 
quite a sum of money out, over and above what it would cost them under the 
regular agreement, and that they wished to give this amount of money to the 
men. 

I cannot belie\ e this to be a fact, inasmuch as we have continually had claims 
against the company for the past 3 years and have found out that, although 
there are rumors that some people seem pleased with it, insofar as I can learn 
there is a great deal of dissatisfaction on the part of both company drivers and 
owner-drivers with the cent and a half arrangement. 

I am enclosing copies of petitions signed by both company drivers and owner- 
operators who are very much opposed to the cent and a half arrangement. These 
petitions were gotten up by me at the request of these drivers and their signa- 
tures were given willingly. I still have the originals ; therefore, we would like 
for you to place us under the regular Central States loads contract under which 
competitors of Trans-American are operating. 

Thank you sincerely for your efforts. I am 
Fraternally yours, 

James Young. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does this petition encompass some 98 percent of the 
company drivers? 

Mr. Young. I would say very close to it, sir, 

3ilr, Kennedy. Of all of Trans- American ? 

Mr, Young, It has been some time. I don't remember how many 
company drivers' names are on there, but I am sure it is well in the 
nineties. 

Mr. Kennedy, As well as some drivers who were on a contract 
basis? 

Mr, Young. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the result of that? You sent the petition 
up. What was the result? 

Mr. Young. From there on, I would like to turn that over to Mr. 
Mead. He attended the meeting they had in Detroit and I didn't. 
That is one meeting I didn't attend, so T can't answer. 



19478 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Mead, you may answer. 

Mr. Mead. Shortly after this letter with the petitions was sent 
to Mr. Fitzsimmons m Detroit, a telegram was sent to all local unions 
involved, asking them to come to Detroit, agents only, to talk about 
the Trans-American petitions. 

The Chairman. Agents only meaning business agents ? 

Mr. Mead. Business agents only; yes. They specified it in the 
telegram. 

Walter Schulz, who is now our president, and who was then an 
agent, accompanied me to Detroit, and the petitions were discussed. 
Some business agents stated, "Well my men didn't sign anything like 
that," but their attention was called to the fact that there were papers 
sitting there with their men's names on them. 

There was quite a bit of discussion on it, and the agents from dif- 
ferent locals stated, "My men don't want this. My men don't want 
that." So then we asked we be given strike sanction against Trans- 
American if they did not comply with the regular contract instead of 
the cent and a half. 

We were told it would be referred to the 24-man board of the 
Central States Drivers Council. We went home with that. The 
next we knew was we had received a telegram stating that Central 
States Drivers Council had granted strike sanction but it was sub- 
ject to the approval of Mr. Frank Fitzsimmons. 

I have to rack my brain for this, because I didn't get to talk to 
the investigators in Cincinnati when they were in and I didn't know 
what I would be asked. So I might be a little bit slow at this. 
Anyhow 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive a letter from Frank Fitzsimmons, 
or a telegram ? 

Mr. Mead. A telegram stating that they would grant it. 

Mr. Kennedy. First you received a letter from Frank Fitzsimmons, 
I believe. 

Mr. Mead. We were in Detroit at a meeting and we were told at 
that meeting that it would be referred to the 24-man board, and we 
received a telegram from the 24-man board stating that the strike sanc- 
tion was granted, but it was subject to the approval of Frank Fitz- 
simmons. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you got the letter from Frank Fitzsimmons? 

Mr. Mead. Yes. 

The Chairman. Here is a photostatic copy of the letter, I assume. 
Will you examine it and state if you identify it ? 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Is that the photostatic copy of the letter ? 

Mr. Mead. Yes. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 71. 

(Letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 71" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 19507.) 

The Chairman. We will proceed. 

Mr, Kennedy. Then subsequently, you got the telegram; is that 
right ? 

Mr. Mead. That is right. 

The CiiAiRiSiAN. I hand you here a photostatic copy of a telegram 
from Einar Mohn, dated February 7. Will you examine it and state 
if that is a copy of the original you received ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19479 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Mead. That is correct. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit 71-A. 

(Telegram referred to was marked "Exhibit 71-A" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 19508.) 

The Chairman. We will proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, the letter on February 4, signed "Frank Fitz- 
simmons,-' we will have read the pertinent parts. 

Mr. Sheridan. This is a letter dated February 4, 1958, from Frank 
Fitzsimmons to local 100. 

Mr. Kennedy. Perhaps you can summarize it. 

Mr. Sheridan. It states rather than having a strike, it acknowledges 
that the strike sanction has been given, and then he said, "However, 
we are going to try this procedure," and the procedure was that Mr. 
Dennis, the vice president of the company, and Mr. McMaster, the 
business agent for local 299, would make a tour of the various termi- 
nals of the company to re-discuss the matter with the people who had 
signed the petition. 

The Chairman. Is that the same McMaster who has testified here 
or appeared as a witness and took the fifth amendment? 

Mr. Mead. Yes, sir; I would say it is. There is only one Rolland 
McMaster in the Teamsters Union in local 299. 

The Chairman. He had some business enterprises and association 
with Mr. Hoffa, also? 

Mr. Mead. That is something that I cannot say. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr, Chairman, we have found that he had some in- 
terests in trucking businesses at the same time he was a Teamster 
Union official. I know of no financial transactions. 

The Chairman. I withdraw that remark then. 

I knew that he had some connection here that was a conflict of in- 
terest. That is what it amounts to. 

Mr. Kennedy, That is correct. 

The Chairman, Proceed, 

Mr. Kennedy. You got the strike sanction ; Einar Mohn confirmed 
the fact that you were going to have strike sanction. Mr. Fitzsim- 
mons then wrote and said that "rather than going out on strike, we 
are going to follow this other procedure. We are going to send down 
an official of the company and send down Rolland McMaster to see 
if it can't be straightened out," and they came down. What was the 
result of that ? 

Mr. Mead. Well, I think we were one of the last ones they visited, 
because at the meeting in Detroit Mr. Fitzsimmons sort of empha- 
sized the fact that the petitions had been circulated and the letter had 
been sent by Mr. Young and asked if I knew about it. I said, "I cer- 
tainly do know about it." 

I had talked to several at different times and said that our people 
were dissatisfied, and I wondered how we could go along accepting 
something which our people didn't want. Votes were taken in Cin- 
cinnati on this matter at our own local union, and it was turned down 
100 percent by the membei-ship, that attended the meeting. 

The Chairman. You mean in Mr. Hoffa's union ? 

Mr. Mead. Local 100; in our union. 

The Chairman. You had taken a vote of the membership ? 

.36751 O— 59— pt. 55 23 



19480 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Mead. We took a vote on the cent and a half Trans- American 
on the same date that they voted on the regular Central States con- 
tract. 

The Chairman. Was that while it was under this trial inin? 

Mr. Mead. This was previous to that. 

The Chairman. Prior to the trial run ? 

Mr. Mead. But then they agreed on the trial run and in regard to 
that trial run, I will say this : I asked later on why another meeting 
wasn't held as had been promised in Detroit and the answer given 
to me by Mr. Fitzsimmons, was that no local had complained. 

Now, we had been filing grievances and I couldn't see why filing 
grievances w^asn't a complaint. Maybe I am a little bit wrong in my 
job and I don't know how I stayed here that long. But to me it 
wasn't a way of handling business. 

The Chairman. A grievance is a complaint, is it not ? 

Mr. Mead. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And also sometimes there is a claim. In other 
words, it is a grievance about something, and it can also be a grievance 
about money owed you and not paid ? 

Mr. Mead. I think what the statement was — maybe I would like to 
correct myself — I think that the statement he made was that no one 
had requested a meeting. And to my knowledge I didn't think it was 
ever anybody had been told to request a meeting, and they were told 
when they were in the meeting that the meeting would be held after 
the three trial periods. 

The Chairman. A meeting was expected to be called from the as- 
surances given at that time ? 

Mr. Mead. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And it wasn't considered that a request for it was 
necessary ? 

Mr. Mead. That is correct. 

The Chairman. For that reason, no request had been made? 

Mr. Mead. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. McMaster came down and what was the 
result of that? Did the membership still not want to go along with 
the cent and a half ? 

Mr. Mead. The meeting was held in Cincinnati, at the company 
terminal, which is about 11 miles out from town, and it was attended 
by about seven of our own business agents, plus our membership at 
Trans- American, and also the members of Dayton and Columous, 
Ohio. 

They were to attend the meeting. After this thing was discussed 
pro and con, a vote was taken. We asked that the vote be counted 
separately, and after a bit of argument it was decided to count the 
vote separately. The vote in Cincinnati was strictly against the 
taking of the cent and a half, and the Columbus boys voted against 
taking it, and the Dayton boys voted to accept it. 

The Chairman. The Dayton, Ohio, boys? 

Mr. Mead. Yes ; members of local 957 at Dayton. 

I would like to say this, at the start of this meeting, or previous 
to the start of the meeting, I had with me a tape recorder and I happen 
to be one of those people that believe if you have it on paper or have 
a record somewhere, you don't have to stop and recall from your 
memory, and I asked if it could be used. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19481 

After a discussion, I think a vote was taken, and we didn't use the 
tape recorder. 

The Chairman. They didn't want it to be too exact ? 

Mr. Mead. The company was asked, and Mr. McMaster asked the 
men, and after it was talked backward and forward, and discussed 
quite a bit, the vote was taken, and they said "No." 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the membership ever approve of this in Cin- 
cinnati ? 

Mr. Mead. After the meeting, and after it was turned down, the 
company asked if we would go along for a 90-day period. After we 
discussed this later on among ourselves we agreed to go along for a 
60-day period. So that would have brought it up approximately 
about the 1st of May or the 1st of June, because this was the end of 
March when this happened. 

We generally have a meeting every year around the 8th, the second 
Sunday of June, to bid our runs, and so knowing this was coming up 
and rather than have two metin^s, I wrote the company asking them 
what had been done about setting up the meeting and asked them 
if the meeting could be held on the 8th instead of the 1st, so that I 
could hold he two meetings together. 

There is correspondence there on that, in your files, that Mr. Sheridan 
has, and I just don't recall oflFhand about it. But I do know that a 
meeting date was set up and then later on I received a telegram from 
the company, from Mr. Dennis, stating that they could not be in 
Cincinnati on that particular date. There was no meeting held any- 
where around the 1st of June and the meeting was held on the 24th 
of August, and in fact I was on vacation and I came back on a Sunday 
to have this meeting, and it was held in the Gibson Hotel downtown 
in Cincinnati. 

At this meeting, the company had protested, as you heard from their 
testimony here yesterday. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the meeting on June 1 ? 

Mr. Mead. There was no meeting on June 1. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Dennis testified yesterday that the membership 
of your local in Cincinnati approved of this at a meeting on the 1st 
of June. 

Mr. Mead. I would like to know who was in attendance, then. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did your membership ever approve of this? 

Mr. Mead. No ; they never have. 

Mr. Kennedy. He said a vote was taken, as I recall. 

Question. Was it in favor or aprainst? 

Mr. Dennis. Against the cent and a half, but it was unfavorable. 

Mr. Mead. I think that you will find in the data that Mr. Sheri- 
dan secured from our files, I think you find a letter in there where I 
even wrote and asked them when is this going to be held. You can- 
celed the meeting out by telegram. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was a letter dated July 30, 1958? 

Mr. Mead. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where he states the vote was taken in Cincinnati, 
and the vote was 18 to 13 in favor of accepting the cent and a half, 
this letter of July 30 indicates that there was no such vote during 
that period of time. 



19482 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Mead. I think in Ireland they call it a little prevaricating. 

The Chairman. Let us get your letter into the record here. 

Here is a ])hotostatic copy of what purports to be a letter from 
you to Mr. Hoffa dat«d July 30, 1958, and will you examine it and 
state if it is a photostatic copy of the original ? 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Mead. That is my letter. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 72. 

(Letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 72" for reference and 
may be found in the files of tlie select committee.) 

The Chairman. At that time, then, on July 30, there had been no 
meeting held ? 

Mr. Mead. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And you were writing and inquiring about it? 

Mr. Mead. That is correct. 

The Chairman. You were wanting a meeting held ? 

Mr. Mead. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then here we have a letter of October 30, 1958, a 
letter to Mr. Hoffa himself from John W. Mead, business representa- 
tive, stating that your local membership was still against the cent and 
a half. 

Mr. Mead. That is correct. 

The Chairman. I hand you this letter of October 30, or 28, I can't 
be sure which, of 1958, and ask you to examine this photostatic copy 
and state if you identify it. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Mead. That is correct., that is my letter. 

The Chairman. That is the letter that you received ? 

Mr. Mead. The one I sent to Mr. Hoffa. 

The Chairman. The letter you sent to Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Mead. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 72-A. 

(Letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 72-A" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. It states specifically that your membership still op- 
poses the cent and a half ? 

Mr. Mead. That is correct. Mr. Kennedy, I wanted to say this be- 
fore, in explaining there was a meeting held on August 24, on August 
24 there was quite a bit of discussion, and the company had claimed 
at the earlier meetings that some of these drivers had not been able 
to attend the meeting, and they were talking mainly about the owner- 
operatoi"s and not the company drivers. And quite a few of the 
drivers, the company saw to it that they were laid over in Cincinnati, 
and were not sent out on runs so they could attend the first meeting 
in March, and some of them were turned back, but in most meetings 
you have to take a vote and take the result of the members that are 
present. 

These letters that they stated were sent in, where these people said 
they didn't get to attend the meeting, they were sent to the company 
by certain owner-operator drivers and not by any company driver, 
and I did no receive any copies of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. The membersliip never voted in favor of the cent and 
a half? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19483 

Mr. Mead. Nobody has ever voted in favor of the cent and a half. 
In fact, on the 24th, on August 24, I wanted to bring out that there 
was no vote taken then. The vote was taken at that time when the 
argument ensued, there was quite a few more drivers in there, and 
the argument came up as to whether we would take a vote, and we 
had taken a stand that we liad taken one vote and as far as we were 
concerned we were standing on it. There was such an argument that 
George Starling, then president, then asked for a vote, and as to 
whether we should take a vote, and that was turned down, that we 
shouldn't take a vote. 

The Chairman. You had already voted and you weren't going to 
vote any more. 

Mr. Mead. That is correct. That was as bad as our election. 

Mr. Kennedy. And, Mr. Young, the membership is still opposed 
to it ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Young. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe that is the situation. We have already 
had the testimony by Mr. Luken in connection with the harassment 
against some of these individuals. 

The Chairman. Do either of you other witnesses have anything you 
wish to add to what has been said ? 

I am addressing the three that have not testified. 

nf„ T?^^^^ T ^c,. ^r.iAr coat tViRt T veHfv that I took those minutes 
in the meeting in Detroit at the company's terminal. 

The Chairman. The minutes that were made an exhibit here? 

Mr. Frobe. That is right. 

The Chairman. They are accurate so far as you know ? 

Mr. Frobe. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Anything from you, Mr. President ? 

Mr. fecHULZ. Only to tne extent that I was pinchhitting in and 
out of those meetings, and those meeting in Detroit and those held 
in Cincinnati where the vote was taken by the Cincinnati local, the 
Columbus local, and the Dayton local, and the meeting in the Gibson 
hotel. 

I verify that Brother Mead has brought that out in detail. 

The Chairman. In other words, you support his testimony with 
respect to those meetings? 

Mr. Schulz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. EiccHOLD. I have nothing to add. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you, gentlemen, very much. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I ask Mr. Dearwester to step forward ? Mr. 
Frobe might stay there. 

The Chairman. You have not been sworn, I believe. 

Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this Senate 
select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Dearwester. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM DEAEWESTER 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation. 

Mr. Dearwester. William Dearwester. I live at Flint, Mich. I am 
a truckdriver for Complete Auto Transit Co., of Flint, Mich. 



19484 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel ? 

Mr. Dearwester. No, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we had testimony yesterday that the 
contracts in the Ohio Conference of Teamsters have been higher than 
the contracts in the rest of the Central Conference of Teamsters, and 
that over the period of the past 8 years or so Mr. Hoffa has been 
attempting to bring the contracts in Ohio down into line with the 
contracts that he has negotiated in the rest of the States of the Central 
Conference of Teamsters. 

The man who is chiefly responsible for the high contracts that they 
had in Ohio was Mr. Murphy, who was vice president of the Inter- 
national Brotherhood of Teamsters and head of the Teamsters in 
Ohio. 

Is that correct ? 

Mr. Dearwester. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. The influx of Mr. Hoffa and his people, and the 
employers that were close to him, started in 1948, as I understand. 

You knew Mr. Murphy quite well, did you not ? 

Mr. Dearwester. Well, I had met him on two or three occasions; 
yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there a strike against a company in 1948 that 
w^as represented by Mr. Carney Matheson ? 

Mr. Dearwester. That is right. It was against Complete Auto 
Transit of Norwood, Ohio, and the Anchor Motor Freight. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Carney Matheson was representing those 
companies; is that correct? 

Mr. Dearwester. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. In fact, our records show that he had a financial in- 
terest in Complete. 

Mr. Dearwester. That I don't know. 

Mr. Kennedy. During that period of time, Mr. Chairman, he was 
in financial businesses with Mr. Hoffa himself. 

Mr. Matheson came down and told your unions that he was going 
to institute a $3 million suit against the unions, is that correct, for 
going out on strike ? 

Mr. Dearwester. That is what we were told by our officers at a 
meeting of the local. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were against accepting the propositions, the 
proposals, that had been made by the company and by Mr. Matheson ? 

Mr. Dearwester. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Murphy then called to Detroit for a meet- 
ing in Detroit? 

Mr. Dearwester. Yes, he was. He was called in to help our repre- 
sentatives who had flow^n to Detroit to negotiate. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the result of all of this that you had to concede 
your points to management and to Mr. Matheson ? 

Mr. Dearwester. That is right. We settled for just w^hat Hoffa 
settled for in Detroit. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell what Mr. Murphy stated when he 
got back from Detroit? 

Mr. Dearwester. He came back to Cincinnati and we had a meeting 
there of, I believe, both Anchor and Complete drivers. He got up 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19485 

before us and made a statejnent. I will try to remember it word for 
word as near as possible. He stated : 

"I have been a member of this organization for 35 years, most of 
the time as an official. I have seen some pretty rotten things pulled 
both by management and labor. But," he said, "this man Hoffa, and 
I don't know where he gets his authority, just pulled the rottenest 
deal on you fellows that I have ever seen an official pull on members 
of his own union. 

"If it is the last thing I ever do, I am going to find out — I am leaving 
here by plane, going to Indianapolis, and I am going to find out where 
he is getting his authority. If it is the last thing I ever do, I am going 
to try to take the wind out of that man's sails." 

Shortly after that he left the meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Murphy died shortly afterward ? 

Mr. Dearwester. I would say a little over a year or around a year 
after that, yes, and Mr. Hoffa seemed to skyrocket then. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Hoffa's power increased thereafter? 

Mr. Dearwester. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. But that was the first inroad into Ohio ? 

Mr. Dearwester. To my knowledge ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The next witness will give about as important testi- 
mony as we have had, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Proceed. Call the witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Maxwell. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give 
before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Maxwell. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE S. MAXWELL 

The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your 
business or occupation. 

Mr. Maxwell. George S. Maxwell, 1145 East 74th Street, Cleve- 
land, Ohio ; an attorney at law. 

The Chairman. Then I assume you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Maxwell. I waive counsel, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Maxwell, what is your position ? 

Mr. Maxwell. With respect to what, Mr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I will start over. 

You were born in Rawal Pindi, India ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Maxwell. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. I mentioned to him yesterday, Mr. Chairman, he is 
the first witness from that location. 

Your parents were Presbyterian missionaries ? 

Mr. Maxwell. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you returned to the United States after the 
First World War and went to Princeton Theological Seminary ; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Maxwell. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were ordained and occupied a position as a 
Presbyterian minister until the middle of World War II ? 



19486 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Maxwell. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then, unable to get into the service in World 
War II because of physical disability, you resigned your ministry and 
became an official of the National War Labor Board; is that right? 

Mr. Maxwell, That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And where you served through the end of the war? 

Mr. Maxwell. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You settled in Cleveland in 1947 and began practic- 
ing as a labor relations consultant ; is that right ? 

Mr. Maxwell. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under the name of George Maxwell & Associates? 

Mr. Maxwell. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The majority of your clients were and still are 
trucking companies engaged in the hauling of iron and steel ? 

Mr. Maxwell. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. From the producing mills in the Ohio area to the 
fabricators of steel products ; right ? 

Mr. Maxwell. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You helped to organize the Steel Truckers Employ- 
ers Association, Inc. ? 

Mr. Maxwell. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And which is presently composed of some 25 com- 
panies engaged in the hauling of iron and steel ? 

Mr. Maxwell, That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You went to law school at night and graduated in 
1954 and admitted to the Ohio bar ? 

Mr. Maxwell. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. In your capacity as labor relations consultant for 
this association, you handled the contract negotiations with the Inter- 
national Brotherhood of Teamsters; is that correct? 

Mr. Maxwell. The Central States conference of the international 
brotherhood ; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy, The contracts that are negotiated and sigried on be- 
half of the Teamsters, are those contracts enforced and lived up to 
as a general proposition ? 

Mr. Maxwell. They are frequently modified by negotiations sub- 
sequent to their being signed with respect to particular conditions 
which are an aggravation or make it impossible for particular com- 
panies to operate in compliance therewith. 

Mr. Kennedy. What does that all mean ? No ? 

Mr. Maxwell. It means this : No is the answer. However, I don't 
need to explain to you, sir, or to the Senator, as lawyers, that fre- 
quently when a contract contains terms that are too onerous for the 
parties to continue in effect, those -contract terms can be modified by 
subsequent negotiations, and as representative of the Steel Truckers 
Association, I did, in behalf of the association as a group, and of 
individual companies, negotiate modifications of the Central States 
area agreements on behalf of and for the association and these in- 
dividual companies. 

Mr. Kennedy. In other words, you would obtain changes in the 
contract for the association members and for the individuals ? 

Mr. Maxwell. That is correct, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19487 

Mr. Kennedy. Were those changes that were made in the contract 
on behalf of these individual members of the association always put 
in writing, the changes ? 

Mr. Maxwell. No, they were not always reduced to writing. 

Mr. Kennedy. With whom were the changes in the contracts 
negotiated ? 

Mr. Maxwell. In nearly every instance, negotiations terminated 
at least with Mr. James Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it a fact that the negotiations themselves in 
changing or altering the terms of the contract were conducted with 
Mr.Hoiia? 

Mr. Maxwell. In a majority of instances they were conducted only 
with Mr. Hoffa. But in all instances they required his approval be- 
fore they could be made effective. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it a fact that in many of the cases where modifi- 
cations or changes in the written contract were made with Mr. Hoffa, 
they werC'Uot sent back to the membership for approval ? 

Mr. Maxwell. Mr. Kennedy, let me say this: To my knowledge, 
there were cases in which no subsequent approval of the members of 
the unions were secured. However, this was not a part of my re- 
sponsibility and I cannot say how many times that occurred. There 
were instances when they were submitted to the members who were 
employees of the particular companies I represented, and of that I do 
know from personal knowledge. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. For those where the approval was actu- 
ally gained, from somebody who has had experience in the business, 
isn't it a fact that the truckdrivers to whom this proposition is being 
proposed, after Mr. Hoffa has already agreed to it, have very little 
choice, as a practical matter, of approving or disapproving? 

Mr. Maxwell. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. I mean, this is almost a perfunctory step even where 
the approval is gained ? 

Mr. Maxwell. To use a legal term, because I don't like quite the 
lightness of j>erfunctory, let us say it was pro forma, if I may use 
that word. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is an improvement. 

Mr. Maxwell. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And in other cases, as you point out, the membership 
was not consulted ; the agreement was made with Mr. Hoffa himself ? 

Mr. Maxwell. I said to my knowledge there was no subsequent 
approval of the members, and the agreement was complete when 
reached with Mr. Hoffa. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is understood, for instance, that the owner-brokers, 
although it is not specifically written into the contract, it is understood 
that the owner-brokers will receive a 75 percent return on the work 
that they do and the trips that they make? 

Mr. Maxwell. A fixed percentage. That is not always 75 percent. 
Right. It varies. But there is in nearly every case with the owner- 
operator a lease form signed covering his equipment in which a spe- 
cific percentage of the gross revenue derived from the operation of 
that equipment is to compensate him for his services as a driver and 
for the rental of that equipment. 



19488 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Hasn't it been possible where you have had a fixed 
percentage, that you can make an arrangement with Mr. Hoffa, him- 
self, to lower the fixed arrangement on behalf of certain companies? 

Mr. Maxwell. That is correct, sir, and that has been done, in behalf 
of certain companies. The permission of- Mr. Hoffa has been se- 
cured — I say the permission — the concurrence of Mr. Hoffa in the 
amendment of those agreements to reduce that percentage has been 
secured. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that if you had an absolute enforce- 
ment of the contract as it is written that these companies would be 
put out of business, the contract as it is written ? 

Mr, Maxwell. In many cases this would be true, that had they to 
comply with all of the terms of the contract it would be economically 
impossible for them to continue in business. 

Mr. Kennedy. So to obtain these modifications is a tremendous ad- 
vantage, for one company to obtain the modifications and for another 
not to obtain them ? 

Mr, Maxwell. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is a great advantage for the company who can 
obtain them? 

Mr. Maxwell. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The second point which would logically follow is if 
you are close or an associate or friend of Mr. Hoffa, you can obtain 
these modifications, while perhaps if you are not friendly you will 
be turned down on the modification ? 

Mr. Maxwell. Let me say this, Mr. Kennedy : I have not always 
been successful in securing the relief that I requested. I think your 
statement is correct, that being on friendly terms with Mr. Hoffa is 
an aid in securing his concurrence in these modifications. 

Mr. Kennedy. Doesn't he in fact have a life and death control 
over these companies, the operations of these companies? 

Mr. Maxwell. That is perhaps an extreme statement, but as I 
have indicated to you, did he elect not to modify the agreement and to 
enforce all of their terms, many companies would find it economically 
impossible to continue. To use the words "life and death" carries, 
again, connotations that perhaps seem a little harsh. 

Mr. Kennedy. The death of the company. I don't mean the death 
of the individuals at this moment. 

Mr. Maxwell. Economically the company would die. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, this is a memorandum which he will 
be able to identify. 

The Chairman. I hand you herewith a memorandum with some at- 
tached figures or calculations. 

Mr. Kennedy. Maybe Mr. Kaplan can identify it. 

The Chairman. Have you been sworn in this hearing ? 

Mr. Kaplan. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give 
before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Kaplan, I do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19489 

TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR G. KAPLAN 

The Chairman. State your name, please. 

Mr. Kaplan. Arthur Kaplan. 

The Chairman. You are a member of the staff of this committee? 

Mr. Kaplan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. As such, have you assisted in conducting the in- 
vestigation that is now under inquiry ? 

Mr. Kaplan. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I present to you here a document which is in the 
nature of a carbon copy of a memorandum. I ask you to examine it 
and state if you identify it, and where you procured it and what it is. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Kaplan. Yes, sir. This is a carbon copy of a memorandum 
which was secured on an examination of files of the Glenn Cartage 
Co. in their offices in Cleveland, Ohio. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 73. 

(Memo referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 73" for reference and 
may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I read this memorandum dated June 20, 
1955? 

The Chairman. Is that the one that has just been made an exhibit? 

Mr. Kennedy. It was part of the document which has been identi- 
fied. 

The Chairman. It is a part of exhibit No. 73. It may be read. 

Mr. Kennedy (reading) : 

This memorandum pertains to a telephone conversation I had the above date 
with George Maxwell. George confirmed my opinion that no steel representa- 
tive sits on the grievance committee and, likewise, that the grievance com- 
mittee consists of all dry freight carriers, none of whom are sympathetic to 
the broker problem. 

George told me that in 1954 he made five separate deals with Hofifa, concern- 
ing percentage pay rates for major carriers who are members of his associ- 
ation. He had one company decreased from 74 percent to 70 percent, three 
companies decreased from 75 to 72 percent, and one company decreased from 
80 percent to 72 percent. 

This does not include Hess, who was decreased through their own deal with 
Hofifa from 75 percent to 72 percent. George further said that Hofifa is very 
tough in these open meetings, but you can talk to him in a closed, private session ; 
that this is the way in which most of the steel carriers operate. 

Is that correct, Mr. Maxwell ? 

Mr. Maxwell. To the best of my recollection, that is a fair state- 
ment of my conversation with Mr. Gurin. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does that summarize the situation ? 

Mr. Maxwell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Maxwell, have you found any instances where 
companies in Ohio have had difficulty sending certain drivers into 
Detroit? 

Mr. Maxwell. We have two kinds of difficulties, Mr. Kennedy. 

As you know, the contract has a union shop clause. Carriers who 
send drivers in frequently have those drivers stopped and inquired of 
as to whether they are in active membership. If they are found to be 
delinquent in the payment of their dues, a complaint is made of this, 
frequently to the carriers; sometimes, if it is repeated by any one 



19490 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

carrier, a complaint is brought to me if they are members of the asso- 
ciation. 

On one occasion, and only one occasion that I recall, the question was 
raised as to the use by a particular carrier member of our association 
of drivers of the Negro race, colored drivers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us what occurred in connection with 
that? 

Mr. Maxwell. I was called and told something to this effect — I do 
not at this late date recall the conversation verbatim. 

Mr. Kennedy. By whom were you called ? 

Mr. Maxwell. I was called by Mr. Hoffa, and I was told that 
local 299 did not like over-the-road drivers of the colored race coming 
into Detroit; that if this were repeated, it might not be healthy for 
those drivers. I was asked to call their employer and to convey this 
message to him, which I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the name of the employer at the time ? 

Mr. Maxwell. The Ohio Northern Trucking Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he had sent a colored driver into Detroit ? 

Mr. Maxwell. As I recall it, there were two colored drivers men- 
tioned by Mr. Hoffa in his conversation with me. 

The Chairman. Do you mean Mr. Hoffa 

Mr. Maxwell. I said Mr. Hoffa. 

The Chairman. The great friend of Joe Louis ? 

Mr. Maxwell. I said, Senator, that Mr. Hoffa called me. 

The Chairman. And objected to colored people driving trucks 
into Dertoit ? 

Mr. Maxwell. And advised me that 299 did not like colored over- 
the-road drivers coming into Detroit. 

The Chairman. And that it might not be healthy for them if they 
continued ? 

Mr. Maxwell. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, we get a revelation now and then. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you get in touch with the owner ? 

Mr. Maxwell. I said, sir, that I called Mr. Protetch, then the 
owner. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Jacob P-r-o-t-e-t-c-h ? 

Mr. Maxwell. That is correct, of Youngstown, Ohio, the then 
owner of Ohio Northern Truck Lines. 

Mr, Kennedy. What did you tell him ? 

Mr. Maxwell. I conveyed to him Mr. Hoffa's message that it would 
not be wise to send colored drivers into the jurisdiction of 299 because 
it might not be healthy for them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that he called off the drivers 
from local 299 ? 

Mr. Maxwell. I never heard any more of it, Mr. Kennedy, and I 
presumed that no further colored drivers were sent into Detroit by 
Mr. Protetch's line. 

Mr. Kennedy. What you are saying, so that we get is correct, is 
it wasn't a question of just colored drivers driving into Detroit or 
driving around Detroit. This was a question of colored drivers who 
would be associated with local 299 ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19491 

Mr. Maxwell. It would be colored drivers coming into the juris- 
diction of 299 to make deliveries of iron and steel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Specifically 299, Mr. Chairman. 

For instance, local 337 and certain other unions do have colored 
drivers. 

Isn't that your understanding ? 

Mr. Maxwell. I recall, Mr. HofFa used the words 299. 

Mr. Kennedy. Local 299 is Mr. Hoffa's local. 

And it would be a question of bringing truckdrivers into their 
terminals that they operate ? 

Mr. Maxwell. Within their jurisdiction. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. We have an affidavit, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Is the affidavit duly verified ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Who is the affidavit from ? 

Mr. Kennedy. From a driver in Pittsburgh in connection with the 
Eazor matter that was discussed yesterday. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 74. Excerpts of it 
may be read into the record. 

(Affidavit referred to marked "Exhibit No. 74" for reference and 
may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy, That is all. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 10 : 30 in 
the morning. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Maxwell, what year was this ? 

Mr. Maxwell, I don't specifically recall the year, but Mr. Protetch 
sold Ohio Northern Trucking Line to another trucking company in 
about 1956, I would say it was either in 1954 or 1955, Mr. Ken- 
nedy, 

The Chairman, Thank you very much. 

The committee will stand in recess until 10 : 30 in the morning. 

(Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the select committee recessed, to re- 
convene at 10 : 30 a.m., Friday, July 10, 1959.) 

(Members of the select committee present at the taking of the re- 
cess were Senatoi-s McClellan and Ervin.) 



APPENDIX 



Exhibit No. 48 







• •• 

• • • 

• • • 

• •• 

• • • 

• • • 

• • • • 

• • • • 

• • • 
« • • 

• • • • 



19493 



19494 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 50 




IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19495 

Exhibit No. 54 A 

.,7 DOiDN** TI?ANSE>CCTATICN INC... 

j,ro' MOTOR PRSieHT 

itti ' *(NSS(L*CII. N(« rOIIK 



Febtaary 18, 1957 




Miduel Commuaale, AttorDey at Law 
591 Simimtt Avenue 
Jersey City, New Jersey 



Our auditors, George J. Dorfman (t Company, 34 North Mala 
Street, Gloversvllle, New York, are making flielr regular audit of 
our books as of December 31, I9S6. 

In oonnecxlon ttaerewttfa, will you please furnish them with the ' 
following Information as of December 31, 19S6: 

Statement of our Indebtedness to you; — ptii^ <^ UM CtJ /J &c^b ^ /^O^ 
Sulu In which we are Involved; "A-tr^Jt^ V ' 

Claims or Judgments pending against us; ""Tl^T^t-X — 
Accounts held for collection, "Tt-cfy^-Ji,^^ 

A stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience. 

Very truly yours, 

DORN^ TRANSPORTATION, INC. 



Walter A. Dom >»•»>-' 

Presides 



WAO:Jma 









/^ 



36751 O— 5!) — pt. 55—24 



19496 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 54B 






STATE OF NEW JERSEY 



MirARTMCNT OF 8TATC 



February 25, 1957 



Trenton, 7, N.J, 






In Re: 


Dorn • s 


Transportation, Cio* 


Michael G. Comunale, Esquire 
591 Summit Avenue 
Jersey City, New Jersey 






Dear Sir: 








The record* of this Department 


do not 




Bho« that the 


above corporation has 


ever been 


incorporated ; 


Ln New Jersey or is it 


a foreign 


corporation authorized to traneact 


businese 


I is 


this State. 


Very truly yours. 






cw 


^ 


■:^ 


^&fe 


jHHHB 


SECRETARY OF 


STATE. 





IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19497 

Exhibit No. 54C 




• 4> 

f4» m 
m <P 
4» m 



H^u 








ik%4 o 






o 




• • d ' 




• 40 




n*^u u 




mS9 


8 


AH • 


•• 


.s& 




«^8 


do 0. 




1 




19498 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 54D 

February 26, X957 



Dom** Traiiiporatlon Iutt* 
First AT«xm» 
R«n«««lMrf N«w York 

R«t 0«r tlfloAt* of Xnoorperatioa 

Doatr Mr. Donit 

In r«plT to your lottor of Pobruary 18, 19$7, 
M of Dooombor 31* 1956, all faaa, ohargaa and azpanaaa 
due this office have been paid in full and I an pleased 
to advise that there are no olalBS against you whioh 
have been referred to ae nor is there any litigation 
now in suit* 

As of this date I know no olais or Jud^aent 
against Dom*s Trsusporation Ino. in Hudson Oouaty or 
lev Jersey* 

Please indicate whether I an suthorited to eon« 
tiane the listing of your oerporation in ay offioe Direotory 
nd also if you desire f appoint ae as the registered agmi* 

Tery truly yours. 



MOCtlB IHHi MIORASL 0. COMmiAIil 




IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19499 

Exhibit No. 56 



/ 



>-^&4J 





KASTEItN CONFBItBNCB OP TKAMSTBItS 



lOO INDIANA AVENUE N W WASHINGTON I O C 



June 21. 1955 



NATIONAL a.i»oa 

THOMAS E FLVNN 



JOSEPH TREROTOLA 



b'1 



Mr. F. J. O'Neill 
Anchor Motor Freight Corporation 
11700 Shakrr BoiUevard 
Cleveland 20, Ohio 

Dear Mr. O'NeiU: 

Enclosed is a copy of the proposed Eastern Area Truckaway 

and Driveaway agreement prepared by the Commiittee on behalf 

of the five local unions whose members are employed by the 

Anchor Motor Freight Corporation. 

This letter will also confirm the fact that we will meet with 

you again at the time and place agreed upon. 

Sincerely yours. 



N^^^JT^l-^iJ^'^ V^ 



TEF-.thw 
Coc. 




Thomas E. T;;i^n 
Chairman 



19500 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 57 



iwtwuo atn. • 







tk* tmril BsMtttiv* IMMI M it* ■■•tlig M4 i« 
iMiaaftM. ». €. , fclti a tM fmm S. tM», i mi tin It 



iti^ BmM wI— ■■if laiiH ttet JntlM«f 

Ml— f , ia fMltMTlJIi li 



to fMa« fiftiltf of 

«aioM( ttot mtmom TopMio tea Mm 4«friv«« •* 
■■■fciirtif frM fMrwnr M, 1»M, tlM OMWral IMmUv* 
■Mt« Is •§ tk« •piaiM ttot tUM i— Iitoin t U ta yart 
•altUlMt m4 Uat Im to r«iaat«to« tmtm mm ^m m ht§ w^m 
••titioatiM of iia« tooislM to fto OtMral atofvtorf- 
TMMMr«r; fwrttor, ttot to atoll to iaaiiclUa ta to a 
•aaiUteta far any affioa la tto toaal tolaa far a pmU^ 
of too yaara twtm tto aata af tlila toalalaa. 

Vvataraallf 



ovBiAb ucnrAif-'Tnuunui 

^B:rr:a# 

ee: ?.P. O'loorlto 

Baa tarn Oeaf arwuea 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19501 

Exhibit No. 64 




Mr. J. L. Tott«n 
Datrcit, Miehlgan 






Indianapolis, Indiana 
Juna 7, 1957 



Sttbjeeti Raqu«st from rrlvcr Dave Vfomoy, Tractor 5231 III for 

Transfer to Cincinnati Btaal Tamiaal, Mlddlato%m, Ohio 

Daar Sirt 

Sttbiect naiaad operator made a personal raauest to tha writer, as veil 
as to Hr. Drain, for transfer to the Cincinnati Steel Tendnal. 

One of the actions taken br Nr« Dennis, in his recent eaapaifn to set 
foraer driver G. Curtis out of our eBployee. was to issue letters to 
owners of all permanent leased tmits operating out of Indianapolis 
that vs were terminatinc our lease vltn them upon five days notiet 
from the date of the letter. Mr. Vannoy, in att«Bptlnff to proteet 
his family, laaediately vent out and bought himself an op«i top seal 
so h* would have something to pull when his lease was terminated. 
Fortunately, ws were able to gat rid of Curtis with out foUofWing 
tlffottgh with our notice to the drivers. Bowerer, Vanoojr now has m 
this trailer and vants to put it to work. || 

I do not want the unit at &idlanapolia due to the headaches inyolTsi, 
so far as operators pulling their own trailers is concerned snd 
partieularly the problems they have relative to having to lay over 
beoanae the destination terminal could not set their tralXers unloaded 
ttvottgh no fault of ours. Another problem thay have is the fact that 
the destination terminal maybe tmloading a company im^ in the sama 
naifhborhood of a volume piekup and will make the pickup on a eompany 
body while the man's cum trailer maybe setting bade at the terminal 

Sty. When tha operators see drivers pulling ewf own seqds osaw in 
go out aroimd him, because of situations mentiooad above, ha narta 
ao^>lalning and I am trying to avoid any oompXaints with tha IndianapolM 
local. Conaequently, I told Vannoy I would not oonsidar letting hia 
put his own trailer on at Indianapolis. X suggested that l^a MO^^t 
Hr. Drain, which he did and Mr. Drain called ma to tmrttj this iitnatictt. 
I gave him the information that I have indicated to yott abova. 

8o f ar as Indianapolis is concerned, driver ftanoy itarted f or us cm 
January 9, 1953 and we have l^d very Uttle trotibla With Mm. Ws haft 

received no complaints from ether terminals, aa to hla t»n$M to 

arrive on time with loads or his unvilllngness to •©operate vlth them 
vhenever aaked. I votdd say that be has been one of our bett« drivers 
and haa, what I consider, a very good record. Our files shew bin to 
have a very good acoidant reeord. the only thing we have on «■• iB . 
this category, is a rear end eolllaloa where * PMacMer earhlt him in 
tha rear while he was vaitinf for a liaht to^««f« ft ^5» ^^ojl^ of 
Ohio #9 and #1>* at Balem, oSe en Mereh 6, 195W. fhla certainly can 
net be charged to Save Tennoy* 

Xbur earliest consideration te this request vill be appreciated, aa X 
know Vannoy wlU make Mr. Drtln a good operator. 

lours truly, 

I. •• Biakley 

BBVjh cci Mr. B. A. Brain, Cincinnati Btl. 



19502 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 65 




-K. 







' u^^^^^^^^^A -^-'^- 



(J XcTT:^ 







IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19503 

Exhibit No. 67 



Detroit, Michigan 
March 5, 1956 



i 



Mr. R* A. Mueller 
Manager 
Cincinnati, Ohio 



This will aeknovl«dga your Iett#r of February 26 
advising that Mr. O#org« Starling. Pr#8ld*»nt of | 
Local 100 in Cincinnati, has asked you if we were 
goi^g to participate in the Loeal Joint Grievance 
Cooaittee Hearings held in Cincinnati on a looal 
level. 

As you know, under the Central States rider, we hinym 
an agr<»eraent that any and all grievances are to be ; 
handled by the looal union and our terminal manager^ 
on a local basis. If they cannot be settled, the 
union should forward th*»lr grievances to Mr. Pit«- 
slamons in Detroit for discussion and settlefflent* 
There will be no changes on this arrangement, and it 
is not our desire to have our grievances handled by 
the Cincinnati Local Joint Orievane,e Committee. 

Tours truly, 



R. I. Dennis 

Sxeoutive Vice President 



19504 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 67A 



Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc. 

,^ Feb. 2«, 1956 



INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 



To^ 



Detroit 






Cincinnati 



To Mr , R , I , D a aal a 

Pmnam 



__„ R. A, Mueller 
TO i ^r , n , .1 , " e niin * ^^°^ — * — fwi 

a.^, Grievance Committees, Joint, Cincinnati, Ohio 

Subjoct , — — • — — 



Dear ^t . Dennis! 

Dtiring the conversations I have had v/lth George Starling, President, 
Local 100. Cincinnati, he asked me if we were going to participate in 
the Local Joint Grievance Committee Hearings If end when we have a local 
complaint to settle insKofar as City Drivers and Dockmen in Cincinnati 
are concerned. 

The Committee is made up of 7 representing Employers and 7 from Local 100. 
If the decisions are tie, they are referred to the Columbus Ohio Joint 
Council. 

The Cincinnati Motor Transporation Association has a Labor Committee for 
this. There are 12 on the'^Commlttee. If a Common Carrier is complained 

against. 4 of the members are from Common Carriers and 3 from the other 

cfrriers which consist of Contract, Private and Cartage Companies. If one 
of thllatter is complained against, then there are 4 from this group and 
3 from the Common Carrier group. 

I informed George that I thought we would continae *» ^^«f 1« °^.^1«^«°°^« 
as in the oast but since he suggested that I write you at Detroit to 
vlrlfyri wSd do so. It is^derstood that this group would not meet 
on Grievances concerning Highway Drivers. 

Your attention to this matter will be appreciated. 




R. A. Mtfoller 
Manager . 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19505 

Exhibit No. 68 




19506 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 69 



^.J^^^Li^'^^i^^ 




ib'-^' 



•quip««nt linder a 30 day laase for Transaverloan Pralght 
Iilnaa, Inc. 

Wtitn loads from time to time are made available to 
■e In order to keep i^ equipment busy, I do hereby eleot 
to deadhead to those points where the loads are available 
for whioh I will receive the full 'mileage rate of pay 
assigned to wages as provided for in tho Central States 
Over The Road Agreement, plus \\i por mile for fringes. 

It is my understanding that when deadheading, it 
will be without compensation for my equipment for anything 
over 50 miles. — For the first 50 miles I will reo«liBq« 
in addition to my full wages, 75/^ of the mileage rat«um4 
provided for in the Central States Over The Road Ag] 
for my equipment. 

I am signing this agreement of my own volition. 



Signed 



iLAJM^ 




Acoguntm^er/ 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 19507 

Exhibit No. 71 

noBK ottTJUM mim uocaj. w. at* 

4, 19M 
HT V. lath M., 

liMMtl 10, Ohio 

Mt Tra«>MiriiO«B rrmi^t Hum 

•Ir aad lowUwri 

la rMpMt to tte atav* MtWr, it la ar ■■MMtMiiac tkat U vMpMt 
%m MHMtl«a (M- strilw Mt tM« MapMr, tlM M aa •Mvi •< Ontavl t — >• 
•vivwr* CtMiacll ten mmwiw* •••h • atrllM. 



■aw aftsr a^kumIw «tf all pwrtiM MMMnM Mi dw MmMaamtlwa toUag 
gtirm t* th* ititor tkis ••WMgr tea •!««« !•« tto l|# aMitMB t* tJw acfWMMt. 
vMife «M (tlMUMvC 9«lt* tfcarwttiilly at ««r ■•vttev, «• ^mI ttat >■■ ■ < ipsa 
tta Xaata aarroiMili^ tkfta am*, it la ainMMy Uat w f»ll«v tlw 

•a «• will a>itc"»t. 

•bv la rasanla to ta« yatltloa aalliac *W tka ••■•«111<« of tha l^f 
pvagna and taa >iabar of aaaaa oa tka yatltla*, tlMt aftar ahaaklac tka ' 
patitlao «a ftad ituyliaatftM of ntrnm aad alaa aaaac af aaalwn o«t al tfea 
•aatoat^ DlTlsloa wklah ara aat aa'vaaad hf tW Oaatral ftataa A»M 
Alao tkat tlM patltlaa, aa avak, vaa aarar aaiMtlaaad ky th^ 



Wm »m I aaid baCara, tba praaadara tkat va ka«a Wiraad ir* *ill to Jaa* 
«Ma, ttet a rapraaatatlaa •< aaaiwaaaat aatf a ««9a«aaa»attva af tte laftaa 
«U1 to ■aalga^d ta aaataot yaa aitta tka aast taa «aya aai far jrwi ta aalM 
•ataBiaaaata tmr a a<atta« aa« U amataiy, fall 4Aaaaaataa with yaa aad 
fHV awiliiBhij ate af« aapli^raaa af tkla aHpair* aai anar tflaetaMlaa yaa 
atU tfeaa ilalaralaa akat »aalttaa fmm » <»» > ■ aUk ta takala t aa p a at ta tfea 
I|# additlaa. Brattor t. IMiHir law »aaa iMtpi 
Mi 1 M aii l a n that Mr. ■• •attaadaaa, Sa., viU 
• a^atfita tMa it ia vatag ta ha aaaaaai 
fttaaa, «U1 tiprtaiili ail afiaata ta «at ttia aattav aattlaa 1* 
1 aatf allBiaata atr flfci iiaaaaalaa aaa aair ar tlw a«feaa. % 

•mM aaaaaaiata aU aaMpaaatiaa aai if tt< 



19508 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Exhibit No. 71A 




WESTERN 
UNION 



f tnmx M ^ 



CTA0G5 






/^E3*7 



lm-|Vv»^Ul. 



.Sab>l ift,Jfcaia 



or HA017 LONG PD-FAX WASHINGTON DC 7 925AUE" 
OTTO H FROBE, SECRETARY TREASURER LOCAL UNION NO 100" 
217 V-tST 12 ST CIN« 

•STRIKE SAIiaiOtl IS H^REflTH QfMNTED LOCAL NION 10#*TO^ | 
COVER FOURTEEII (U) IJEUBEftS .EUPtiOTfto'BT TRA|l$>*All^ilCM| j 
FREIGHT LINES, GUBJEa TO THE APPROVAL OF IIIU J 

F H FITZC lf.lMOIiS» 1 

<1 aHEi; STRIKE OCCURS NOTIFY THIS OFFICE CIVINC OATr 
OF AaiOU A:;C listing MEMUERS INV0L"<;E0» LTMBCr" ».!ff?^T ?.;c, T 
REOUinE!'E;:Tn Cin lilTERNATiaNAL COHGT ITUTICfi Ar*,a.E X.l I 
SEaiOUC 4 Alirj -J: (3) 10 to be eligible FOR .4 :IEFITS« IT 
IS UAIJDATCnV T::AT UEMBERS personally sign CT»li<E BCiEFIT 
RECEIPT 3MEETC FOR PROTEaiON OF UEMBERS, TUT LOCAL { 

^J||*10N, AND TO }.!EET LEGAL REQUIREKENTS OF THE 3UREA; OF 1 
RNAL REVENUE. DURING STRIKE FURNISH THIS :)FFia A ^ 

KLY REPORT lUDICATING STATUS OF NtGOTIATIOriS OR ANY ; 
no CHANGE IN NUUBIK MCUBERS INVOLVED* VMEN : 

iT IS REACHED fflTH Ml flTNOUT STRIKH NOTIFY THIS^^ 

L^: |t«Mt,o «<iM^.. ^J 



fi.} 




X 



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 

, llllfililllll 

3 9999 06352 034 8