Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Daniel M. Shanley, WSBA #41243 2 [email protected] DeCARLO, CONNOR & SHANLEY 3 A Professional Corporation 4 533 South Fremont Avenue, Ninth Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1706 5 Telephone: (213)488-4100 6 Facsimile: (213) 488-4180 7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 11 UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF ) 12 CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF ) Case No. CV-12-109-EFS AMERICA, SOUTHWEST REGIONAL ) 13 ) COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, ) 14 SOUTHWEST CARPENTERS JATC, ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGIONAL ) EQUITABLE RELIEF 15 ) COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, ) 16 WASHINGTON STATE UBC JATC, ) Demand for Jury Trial ) 17 NORTHEAST CARPENTERS ) REGIONAL COUNCIL OF ) 18 CARPENTERS, CARPENTERS AND ) ) 19 CARPENTERS’ DISTRICT COUNCIL ) OF GREATER ST. LOUIS AND ) 20 ) VICINITY, LARRY GOULD, WILLIAM ) 21 CLAYTON, JORDAN TRUMAN, ) BUTCH PARKER, SCOTT FLANNERY, ) 22 ) RICHARD BURWELL, EMANUEL LEE, ) 23 PAUL LEDYARD, JOSEPH EDNEY, ) WILLIE MARSHALL, JOHN LAKE, ) 24 ) ROGER JOHNSON, BRIAN ) 25 THOMPSON, CHARLES ) ) 26 MCWILLIAMS, BILLY COOLEY, ) SHERYL HOLLIS, BOOKER ) 27 STANDERFER, BOB SCOTT, and ) ) 28 )
1 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
JOE BACA, ) 1 ) ) 2 Plaintiffs, ) ) 3 ) -against- ) 4 ) ) 5 BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION ) TRADES DEPARTMENT, MARK ) 6 ) AYERS, ED HILL, JAMES WILLIAMS, ) 7 RON AULT and DAVID MOLNAA ) ) 8 Defendants. ) 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 PREFACE…………………………………………………………………………8 3 NATURE OF THE CLAIMS FOR RELIEF……………………………………...8 4 5 JURISDICTION AND VENUE ………………..…………………………………31
6 PARTIES AND NON-PARTY PARTICIPANTS………………………………..32 7 8 The Plaintiffs…………..…………………………………………………...32
9 The Defendants…..………………………………………………………...42 10 Non-Party Participants……………….………….…………………………44 11 12 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD………..……………………………………………68
13 FACTS REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL 14 EXTORTION SCHEMES……………………………...…………………………69 15 I. Background and Formation of the Unlawful Extortionate 16 Conspiracy to Obtain the Business and Property of the 17 Carpenters and Permit Them to Acquire and Maintain an Interest and Control over the Carpenters and 18 Development of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign………...... …69 19 A. Defendants’ Common Goals and Objectives………..…………...69 20 21 B. Defendants Devise Their Unlawful Scheme of Extortion Against the Carpenters to Obtain the 22 Business and Property of the Carpenters and Permit 23 Them to Acquire and Maintain an Interest and Control 24 Over the Carpenters……….…………………..………...……….70
25 i. Formation of the Push-Back-Carpenters 26 Conspiracy……………………………………………...……..70
27 1. Resolution 70………………….……...……………….…...79 28
3 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 2. Violence and Vandalism in St. Louis…………….………..….86
2 3. Threats, Violence and Vandalism Continue in 3 St. Louis…………………………………………………….…87
4 4. Unity Rally………………………………………………..…..89 5 5. BCTD Committee…….……………………………………....97 6
7 a. Laborers’ Playbook, and the BCTD Defendants 8 Implementation of Unlawful and Bad Faith Tactics to “Drive Up the Costs” of the 9 Carpenters……………………………………………....103 10 b. PNRCC and its Sponsored Apprenticeship 11 Program’s Attempt to Obtain State Approval to 12 Train Drywall Taping Apprentices…………...…………103
13 6. SWRCC and its Sponsored Apprenticeship 14 Program’s Attempt to Obtain State Approval to 15 Train Drywall Taping Apprentices………………………....117
16 7. IBEW Media Campaign…………………………….……....120 17 8. Amending the Sound Transit PLA…………………...……..121 18 19 9. The BCTD Defendants and Co-Conspirators Are Joined by the Metal Trades Department’s President, 20 Ron Ault, Kicking the Carpenters Out of the Metal 21 Trades Department So the Carpenters’ Dues, Members, and Other Rights Could Be Given to the 22 BCTD Defendants……….…………………..……………...123 23 24 10. BCTD Launches RespectOurCrafts……….……………....132
25 11. BCTD Defendants Invoke Resolution 70 to 26 Charter Carpenter Dissident Locals and Steal the Carpenters’ Confidential Membership 27 Information………………………………...…………….....138 28
4 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 C. Defendants Have Substantial Motive to Extort the Carpenters……………………………………………………...148 2 3 II. DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL ATTCKS AGAINST THE CARPENTERS...…………………………………………………...155 4 5 A. Nature of Defendants’ Actions………….…………………………….155
6 B. BCTD Defendants’ Unlawful Threats of Violence, 7 Vandalism and Demonstrations Against the Carpenters 8 Around the Country Constitute Acts of Extortion………….………..162
9 1. Seattle Threats of Violence, Violence and 10 Vandalism……...…………………………………………...163
11 2. St. Louis Threats of Violence, Violence and 12 Vandalism………….…………………………………….....166
13 C. BCTD Defendants’ Implementation of the Laborers’ 14 Playbook of Bad Faith and Unlawful Tactics Through 15 Pursuit of Frivolous Claims Against and Objections to the Carpenters’ Sponsored Apprenticeship Programs 16 Constitute Acts of Extortion………..………………………………...167 17 D. BCTD Defendants’ Stealing the Carpenters’ Confidential 18 Membership Information in Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1080, 19 the Faithless Servant Doctrine, and Rights of Privacy Constitutes Acts of Extortion………………………………..………...167 20 21 E. BCTD Defendants’ Interference with Plaintiff’s Business Relations With Its Attorneys Constitutes Acts of Extortion………...... 168 22
23 F. BCTD Defendants’ Attempt to Control Plaintiffs’ First 24 Amendment Rights Constitutes Acts of Extortion…………....……....171
25 G. BCTD Defendants’ Attempt to Control Plaintiffs’ Rights to 26 Negotiate Contracts on Their Behalf Constitutes Acts of Extortion…………………………………………………………...... 181 27 28
5 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 H. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa’s Violations of Section 501(a) of the LMRDA and Common Law Fiduciary 2 Duties Also Constitute Acts of Extortion…………..…………….…...185 3 I. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams’ Violations of Section 4 501(c) of the LMRDA Constitute Independent Predicate Acts 5 and Also Acts of Extortion……………………..……………………..203
6 J. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams, and Molnaa’s Violations 7 of Section 411 of the LMRDA and Similar State Common 8 Law Rights in Which the Metal Trades Department and Councils Operate Constitute Acts of Extortion………………..…..…209 9 10 K. Boilermakers’ Violations of Section 302 of the LMRA Constitute Independent Predicate Acts And Also 11 Acts of Extortion……………………..……………………………..…215 12 L. The BCTD Defendants Have Directly and Proximately 13 Caused the Carpenters Significant Concrete Financial 14 Losses and Injuries………………………..……………………….…..219 15 EFFECT OF DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT…………………..…………………220 16 17 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) by Conspiring to Violate 18 § 1962(a)) by the Carpenters Against Each of the Defendants………………….222 19 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 20 (Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) by Conspiring to Violate 21 § 1962(b)) by the Carpenters Against Each of the Defendants……………….…225
22 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 23 (Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)) by the Carpenters Against 24 Defendants Ayers, Hill, Williams, Ault and Molnaa……………………………227
25 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 26 (Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) by Conspiring to Violate § 1962(c)) by the Carpenters Against Defendants Ayers, Hill, 27 Williams, Ault and Molnaa……………………..…………………………...…..228 28
6 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.080(3)(a) by Conspiring 2 to Violate Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.080(1)(a) by the Carpenters 3 Against Each of the Defendants)………………………………………………...230
4 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 5 (Violation of Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.080(3)(a) by Conspiring to Violate Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.080(2)(a) by the Carpenters 6 Against Each of the Defendants)…………….…………………………………..233 7 8 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Tortious Interference with Contract by the PNRCC Against 9 Defendant BCTD………..……………………………………………………….235 10 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 11 Violation of LMRDA Section 411 by the Carpenters and the 12 Individual Plaintiffs Against Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa………………………………………………………………………..….237 13
14 NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 15 Violation of Common Law Fiduciary Duties by the Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs Against Defendants Ault, Hill, 16 Williams, and Molnaa..……………………………………………………….…240 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
7 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 PREFACE
2 The “Carpenters” (as specified below) are suing the Building and 3 Construction Trades Department (“BCTD”) and individual Defendants for 4 5 damages and equitable relief because their unlawful extortionate conspiracy and 6 resulting violent threats and devastating unlawful attacks have directly and 7 8 proximately caused concrete financial injuries in violation of Pub.L.No. 91-452, 9 codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq., and Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.080, et seq. 10 The Carpenters and the individual Plaintiffs are also suing the individual 11 12 Defendants for violating 29 U.S.C. §411 and their common law fiduciary duties 13 because these labor officials abused their members and their positions of trust, as 14 15 part of their unlawful extortionate conspiracy. The Defendants need to be stopped.
16 17 NATURE OF THE CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 18 1. Plaintiff United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America 19 (“UBC”), on behalf of itself, and each of its hundreds of affiliated Councils and 20 21 local unions, and 500,000 members, and Plaintiffs Southwest Regional Council of
22 Carpenters(“SWRCC”), and its sponsored apprenticeship program, Plaintiff 23 Southwest Carpenters JATC, Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters 24 25 (“PNRCC”), and its sponsored apprenticeship program, Plaintiff Washington State 26 UBC JATC, Northeast Carpenters Regional Council of Carpenters and 27 28 Carpenters’ District Council of Greater St. Louis and Vicinity (“St. Louis
8 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Carpenters”) (collectively the “Carpenters”) bring this action to vindicate their
2 rights to control and operate their business and union affairs free from 3 Defendants’ campaign of intimidation, threats, violence and other unlawful 4 5 extortionate conduct. 6 2. The Carpenters are suing Defendants Mark Ayers (President, Building 7 8 and Construction Trades Department (“BCTD”)), Ed Hill (President, International 9 Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (“IBEW”)) and Jimmy Williams (President, 10 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (“Painters”)) (collectively, 11 12 “BCTD Defendants”), and Defendants Ron Ault (President, Metal Trades 13 Department) and David Molnaa (President, Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council 14 15 (“HAMTC”)) for conspiring and carrying out their unlawful extortionate 16 campaign seeking to force the Carpenters and each of their hundreds of separate 17 and independent affiliated Councils and local unions from around the country to 18 19 give over to the BCTD and each of its hundreds of state and local Councils from
20 around the country, including those in Washington State, 21 a. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 22 23 to make monthly payments to the BCTD and Councils, 24 numbering over 100, and to continue making such payments in 25 26 perpetuity; 27 28
9 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 b. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100)
2 not to compete, solicit business, recruit, accept and/or train 3 dues-paying members, or otherwise do union business 4 5 involving any craft work that Defendants and the other BCTD’s 6 Governing Board of Presidents determine do not belong to the 7 8 Carpenters; 9 c. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 10 to allow the BCTD to exercise for the Carpenters their rights to 11 12 recruit, accept and train dues-paying members; 13 d. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 14 15 to allow the BCTD to exercise for the Carpenters their rights to 16 refuse to making monthly payments to the BCTD and Councils; 17 e. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 18 19 to enter into project and other agreements negotiated by the
20 BCTD and Councils; 21 f. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 22 23 agreeing to be bound to the BCTD’s Plan for the Settlement of 24 Jurisdictional Disputes; 25 26 27 28
10 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 g. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100)
2 to allow the BCTD to exercise for the Carpenters their rights to 3 negotiate their own project agreements; 4 5 h. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100), 6 to allow the BCTD to exercise for the Carpenters their rights to 7 8 determine what jurisdictional dispute resolutions mechanism, if 9 any, to be bound to; 10 i. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 11 12 to give over to the BCTD and/or its designee any recruits and 13 dues-paying members whom the BCTD Defendants determine 14 15 belong to another union; 16 j. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 17 to allow the BCTD Defendants to determine which First 18 19 Amendment protected protest activities and causes that the
20 Carpenters can engage in; 21 k. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 22 23 to allow the BCTD Defendants to determine which political 24 candidates and causes the Carpenters can support or oppose, 25 26 financially and otherwise; 27 28
11 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 l. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100)
2 to relinquish substantial autonomy and control over its business 3 and union to Defendants; 4 5 m. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 6 to relinquish substantial monthly dues from the Carpenters 7 8 and/or its members; 9 n. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 10 to give the BCTD Defendants considerable strategic, political 11 12 and financial leverage when negotiating agreements because of 13 control over the Carpenters’ substantial resources; and 14 15 o. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 16 to give the BCTD Defendants considerable strategic, political 17 and financial leverage when supporting or opposing political 18 19 candidates or causes because of control over the Carpenters’
20 substantial resources. 21 3. The BCTD Defendants conduct violates Pub.L.No. 91-452, codified at 22 23 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq., and Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.080, et seq., and various 24 state laws as noted below. The Carpenters seek to recover treble and actual 25 26 damages and obtain injunctive relief, including disgorgement, divestiture,
27 reasonable restrictions, or dissolution or reorganization, against these Defendants 28
12 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 and their co-conspirators directly and proximately caused by their pattern of
2 unlawful conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, Section 186, of the Labor 3 Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 186, Section 501 of the Labor 4 5 Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C. § 501, Cal. 6 Pen. Code §§ 518, 519, 524; DC Code §§ 22-3251, 22-3252, 22-1803; Miss. 7 8 Code, § 97-3-82; La.R.S. §§ 14:27, 14:66; N.J Stat. Ann. §§ 2C:20-5, 2C:5-1; 9 N.M. § 30-16-9; Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-112; Texas Penal Code §§ 31.02, 10 31.03; ORS §§ 164.015, 164.075; Pa. Con. Stat. §§ 901, 3923; Va. Code Ann. §§ 11 12 18.2-59, 18.2-26(3); and Wash. RCW § 9A.56.110. Plaintiffs also bring claims 13 based on other laws, including LMRDA violations, common law fiduciary duty 14 15 violations, and interference with contract violations, as noted below. 16 4. Defendant Building and Construction Trades Department (“BCTD”) 17 is a labor organization and federation of labor organizations representing both 18 19 unions and individuals in the construction industry. It has hundreds of
20 subordinate Building and Construction Trades Councils throughout the United 21 States. Defendant BCTD is governed by a Governing Board of Presidents, which 22 23 includes the BCTD Defendants (Ayers, Hill, and Williams). 24 5. The Carpenters are not members of the BCTD. The Carpenters do not 25 26 pay the BCTD a monthly per capita fee. The Carpenters are of the view that the
27 services performed by the BCTD and Councils, and the stale, outdated and anti- 28
13 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 competitive rules that govern them, are unrequested, unwanted and unnecessary.
2 Involvement in the BCTD and its Councils, and the abiding by their rules, are in 3 big part the reason for the dramatic decline in union construction density in the 4 5 United States over the past half century. The Carpenters believe it best for their 6 members not to pay the BCTD the bloated tributes demanded, and not to be bound 7 8 by their debilitating rules. 9 6. For years, the BCTD Defendants have attempted to convince the 10 Carpenters to begin making – and continue making – monthly per capita payments 11 12 to the BCTD and Councils based on its hundreds of thousands of members. Such 13 payments would transfer millions of dollars from the Carpenters’ treasuries and 14 15 members based on monthly payments in perpetuity, and give these millions to the 16 BCTD and Councils to be controlled and used by the BCTD Defendants. 17 7. Frustrated by their lack of success using only legitimate and peaceful 18 19 means, the BCTD Defendants, after October, 2008, intensified their unlawful
20 extortionate conspiracy that secretly began the year before to force the Carpenters 21 to make the monthly payments demanded, and give over the other extortionate 22 23 business and property demanded, and an interest in and control of the Carpenters, 24 including the involuntary agreements, noted supra ¶2 (a)-(o). These unlawful 25 26 extortionate goals began to publically surface beginning in the summer of 2010.
27 In a July-September 2010, article, Defendant James Williams promoted some of 28
14 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 the actions that the BCTD Defendants were taking against the Carpenters, and, in
2 attempting to justify the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful 3 extortionate conspiracy, Defendant Williams stated that “For too long, the 4 5 Carpenters have had it both ways; national independence from following the rules 6 and jurisdiction (and from paying [monthly] dues) in a federation. (Exhibit “A” 7 8 hereto.) 9 8. Similarly, on or about March 19, 2011, co-conspirator Hite 10 (Plumbers), in an interview posted on the Respectourcrafts.com website, stated the 11 12 goal of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate 13 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the UBC and permit them to 14 15 acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters: Forcing the 16 Carpenters to pay their “fair share” tribute to the BCTD. Hite stated “by fair 17 share, I mean the local building trades, whatever their stipend is that they pay for 18 19 membership; and also, they got to be paying the national -- to the national
20 building trades of solidarity, get a solidarity membership and pay the full boat to 21 the national building trades. I mean, we pay – and every member that’s out there 22 23 working, both the national building trades and the local building trades; and they 24 don’t. That's not fair.” Again, at a meeting on September 7, 2011 that included 25 26 Defendant Ron Ault and co-conspirators, Patrick Finley and Mike Sullivan,
27 among others, Defendant Williams reiterated one of the unlawful extortionate 28
15 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 goals of their unlawful extortionate attacks against the Carpenters: a demand for
2 the Carpenters’ money to which they have no entitlement or right: “we all pay 3 dues, we are affiliated and pay the AFL and the [Building and Construction 4 5 Trades] Department, plain and simple – if the UBC wants to get back, let them 6 come back in and pay their fair share like the other affiliated organizations.” 7 8 (Exhibit “B” hereto.) 9 9. The BCTD Defendants conspired to accomplish this and other 10 unlawful extortionate objectives, and have since continued to attempt to do so, 11 12 through a campaign they have named the “Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign”. 13 Their campaign involves a series of constant unlawful extortionate attacks that 14 15 escalate over time against the Carpenters, its members, and their business, 16 property and financial interests. The Campaign is still actively being waged. 17 10. Unbeknownst to the Carpenters at the time, the BCTD Defendants’ 18 19 unlawful extortionate attacks became public on or about August 23, 2009. This is
20 when BCTD Defendants’ agents in St. Louis committed violence and vandalism. 21 They threw bricks through the windows, and sprayed painted their anti-Carpenters 22 23 calling-card logo, “No 57”, on the hood, driver and passenger doors of the truck 24 which was used by the Carpenters’ members. Carpenters Local 57 is the 25 26 Carpenters’ chartered local that recruits, accepts and trains dues-paying members
27 who perform electrical work--dues, members and jurisdiction which the BCTD 28
16 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Defendants claim belong only to the IBEW. However, the Push-Back-Carpenters
2 Campaign and unlawful extortionate conspiracy were not publically announced 3 until June 2010 at the Unity Rally. 4 5 11. Before October 2008, certain BCTD affiliates had warned the 6 Carpenters about how the BCTD intended to commit, and did commit, and 7 8 advocated for further, violence and vandalism against the Carpenters’ business, 9 property, and personnel. In an article posted on the website, 10 buildingtradesnews.com, and incorporated into the BCTD Defendants’ 11 12 local57facts.com website in 2010 as part of their Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign 13 and unlawful extortionate conspiracy, the BCTD Defendants lay out the stark 14 15 reality of what their Push-Back-Campaign and unlawful extortionate conspiracy 16 has in store for the Carpenters. This article, which has been shared amongst 17 numerous BCTD Defendant affiliates, was sent to Defendant Ayers in December 18 19 3, 2009, by co-conspirator, Jerry Feldhaus, of the St. Louis Building and
20 Construction Trades Council affiliate, as part of Feldhaus’ request for the BCTD 21 Defendants assistance in dealing with the Carpenters. The title of the article is 22 23 “Building Trades Unite in Fight Against Carpenters Union Raiding”. (Exhibit 24 “C” hereto.) In the article, the BCTD affiliate explains how they united years 25 26 before to collectively and violently fight back against the Carpenters. In
27 explaining their violence, the affiliate explains that their “craft unions are not 28
17 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 taking this struggle lying down” and then explains exactly what they mean.
2 Immediately after this statement, the BCTD affiliate refers the reader to a 3 YouTube video showing three dozen or more ironworkers senselessly beating and 4 5 kicking a couple of helpless Carpenters’ representatives. That violence took place 6 in Irvine, California, at a jobsite at the University of California. To reinforce their 7 8 meaning, the BCTD affiliate next references in the article another of their violent 9 southern California demonstrations where, according to the article, they “turned 10 out in force.” The second referenced demonstration was marred by threats of 11 12 violence, violence and vandalism. It occurred in Ontario, California. At that 13 demonstration, a hundred or so of the BCTD affiliate’s officers, agents, 14 15 representatives and members showed up “in force” and committed numerous 16 threats of violence, violence and vandalism. The BCTD affiliate’s agents 17 threatened to beat up Carpenters’ representatives like they had done against the 18 19 two helpless Carpenters’ representatives in Irvine. They also mobbed and keyed
20 cars as they tried to enter the Carpenters’ facility. After the BCTD Defendants’ 21 formed their nationwide Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and unlawful 22 23 extortionate conspiracy they linked this article to the local57facts.com website 24 around the time of the Unity Rally to communicate to the world, their officers, 25 26 agents, representatives, and members, and to the Carpenters exactly what they had
27 in store for the Carpenters. As of January 25, 2012, these articles are still located 28
18 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 on and linked through the buildingstradesnews.com and the local57facts.com
2 websites. In the context of the prior and repeated violence, “craft unions are not 3 taking this struggle lying down” and “showing up in force” means continued use 4 5 of violence and unlawful intimidation, as the readers of the article and viewers of 6 the violent YouTube riotous attack against the Carpenters would surely know. 7 8 12. Following on the heels of the BCTD Defendants’ agents’ extortionate 9 violence and vandalism, the BCTD Defendants orchestrated passage of Resolution 10 70 at the September 2009 AFl-CIO Convention. Resolution 70 authorized the 11 12 BCTD Defendants to charter Carpenters unions should their extortionate 13 conspiracy be unsuccessful. (Exhibit “D” hereto.) BCTD Defendants Williams 14 15 and others said Resolution 70 was necessary to stop the Carpenters from ignoring 16 the BCTD Defendants’ extortionate demands. Plaintiffs include this allegation 17 not to restrict Defendants’ free speech rights, but to show Defendants unlawful 18 19 and extortionate state of mind. However, even with the passage of Resolution 70,
20 the BCTD Defendants still did not declare open warfare against the Carpenters. 21 13. In quick succession, the BCTD Defendants next orchestrated 22 23 additional unlawful extortionate attacks inflicting financial injury. They forced 24 the PNRCC’s attorneys, the law firm now known as Robblee, Detwiler & Black, 25 26 which had represented the PNRCC for decades, to fire the Carpenters. The BCTD
27 Defendants and co-conspirators did this by having their unions threaten to fire the 28
19 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 law firm from all their affiliates, unless the Robblee firm immediately fired the
2 Carpenters. If the law firm did as instructed, in return the BCTD Defendants 3 promised the Robblee firm immediate and additional work as both a reward for 4 5 firing the Carpenters and as an offset to the loss of income that resulted from 6 firing their long-term client, the PNRCC. So, in October 2009, in the middle of an 7 8 active lawsuit, with a motion for reconsideration pending, the Robblee firm 9 ignored all their ethical obligations, fired the PNRCC and withdrew from the on- 10 going case. In fulfillment of their promises, the Robblee firm immediately 11 12 thereafter began representing the BCTD Defendants’ affiliates in matters against 13 the PNRCC and its interests, and continues to do so through today. Plaintiffs 14 15 include this allegation not to the restrict Defendants’ right to employ counsel of 16 their choice or the right of the law firm to work with whomever it pleases, but to 17 show Defendants’ unlawful and extortionate state of mind. 18 19 14. Thereafter, the BCTD Defendants escalated their unlawful
20 extortionate threats of violence, violence and vandalism. On or about April 7, 21 2010, the BCTD Defendants’ agents in St. Louis smashed a $20,000 sign, poured 22 23 sugar in the gas tank of a truck and spray painted their “No 57” calling card on 24 two trucks used by the Carpenters’ members and on two buildings where the 25 26 Carpenters’ members worked. After the BCTD Defendants’ agents, Stephen
27 Schoemehl and Tim Schoemehl admitted responsibility for this conduct, they each 28
20 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 made death threats to Terry Nelson, the St. Louis Carpenters’ highest ranking
2 officer, which put him in fear for his safety. The reason they threatened Nelson 3 with violence was because under Nelson’s leadership the Carpenters recruited, 4 5 accepted and trained dues-paying members, whom the BCTD Defendants’ claim 6 belong, like chattel, to the IBEW. Their threats were sent by emails in April 2010 7 8 and warned Nelson that “the walls are closing in on you terry!! Can you feel it 9 terry?” In the context of the prior and contemporaneous violence and vandalism 10 Nelson understood what the BCTD Defendants’ meant: He and the Carpenters had 11 12 better give in to their unlawful extortionate demands or else their violence would 13 escalate and he would be buried in a coffin with the walls having closed in around 14 15 his beaten and lifeless body. To this day, people still ask Nelson if he is afraid for 16 his life because of what he and the Carpenters have done with respect to the 17 IBEW’s self-proclaimed claimed chattel. 18 19 15. To show that their threats of violence, violence, and vandalism was
20 not a sporadic occurrence, but an intended and expected part of the Push-Back- 21 Carpenters Campaign, that had the full backing and support of the entire BCTD 22 23 community behind them, Defendant Hill (IBEW) published, “An Open Letter to 24 Building Trades Workers” in the St. Louis/Southern Illinois Labor Tribune, 25 26 shortly before the massive Unity Rally which he and the BCTD Defendants
27 organized. In the Open Letter, Defendant Hill repeated what he had told Nelson 28
21 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 and McCarron in person during their St. Louis meeting in or about the first week
2 in May, 2010: that the IBEW and the BCTD “are prepared to do whatever it takes 3 to protect our members and their jobs” in order to force the Carpenters to succumb 4 5 to the BCTD Defendants’ extortionate demands. Defendant Hill knew full well 6 about the threats of violence, violence and vandalism because they were 7 8 committed by and/or admitted to by one of his Executive Committee members and 9 McCarron and Nelson informed him of the threats prior to the meeting. Despite 10 this knowledge, Defendant Hill did nothing, which evidenced his prior knowledge 11 12 and approval, and just repeated “Whatever it takes” as a mantra for what was 13 going to be done to the Carpenters in follow through to the Push-Back-Carpenters 14 15 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 16 property of the UBC and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and 17 control over the Carpenters. In the context of the prior and repeated violence, 18 19 “whatever it takes” means continued use violence and unlawful intimidation, as
20 the readers of the letter would surely know. 21 16. On or about June 15, 2010, up to 7,000 of the BCTD Defendants’ 22 23 officers, representatives, agents and members attended a massive rally against the 24 Carpenters. The BCTD Defendants spoke, as well as other BCTD Presidents. 25 26 The purpose of the Rally was for the BCTD Defendants and their co-conspirators
27 to loudly announce to all their officers, agents, representatives and members, and 28
22 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 to the Carpenters, that they had made a formal declaration of war against the
2 Carpenters. The name the BCTD Defendants gave their war was “The Push- 3 Back-Carpenters Campaign.” Defendants and their co-conspirators promised and 4 5 committed to each other that they were going to attack the Carpenters across the 6 United States, and continue attacking, until the financial losses, and constant 7 8 escalating pressure, forced the Carpenters to succumb to their unlawful 9 extortionate demands, including, inter alia, making the demanded BCTD monthly 10 tributes. 11 12 17. In one of the speeches, co-conspirator Terrence O’Sullivan let it be 13 known what kind of violence he expected against the Carpenters and their 14 15 interests. O’Sullivan, who is widely known for his aggressive actions, put it 16 bluntly: In my neighborhood, we would hang people like Doug McCarron 17 (Carpenters’ President) and Terry Nelson (St. Louis Carpenters’ highest officer). 18 19 To communicate that this was meant as a true threat for others to act upon,
20 O’Sullivan loudly asked the riotous audience if anyone had any rope. In the 21 context of the prior and repeated violence, “does anyone have any rope to hang?” 22 23 means continued use of violence and unlawful intimidation, as the listeners would 24 surely know. 25 26 18. In conjunction with the Rally the BCTD Defendants set up a formal
27 Committee to formulate, coordinate and implement the ever-expanding and 28
23 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 escalating unlawful extortionate attacks. The purpose of the Committee was to do
2 “whatever it takes” to force the Carpenters to succumb to the BCTD Defendants’ 3 extortionate demands because, according to Defendant Ayers, “[n]o one can, and 4 5 no one will, tolerate what the Carpenters have done, and continue to do.” 6 Defendants Ayers repeatedly explained to the BCTD Defendants’ officers, agents, 7 8 representatives and members that “the Committee is exploring all options to 9 address this problem (i.e., the Carpenters). And you have my word that whatever 10 measures are adopted by the committee and the Board will be executed by this 11 12 Department and its affiliates to their fullest extent.” (E.g., Keynote Address, 13 Mark H. Ayers, President, Building and Construction Trades Department, 68th 14 15 Convention, August 18, 2010, Minneapolis, MN.) In the context of the unlawful 16 extortionate conspiracy, this language echoes back to the acts of threats of 17 violence, violence and vandalism, and anyone there would have heard them to 18 19 mean “more of the same.”
20 19. The BCTD Defendants’ Committee is headed by Sean McGarvey, the 21 BCTD’s second in command, who works under Defendant Ayers. The BCTD 22 23 Defendants and their co-conspirators all have officers, agents, representatives and 24 members on the Committee. 25 26 20. One of the first things the Committee did was establish the
27 Respectourcrafts.com website. This has been used to assist coordinating and 28
24 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 communicating its activities to the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators’
2 officers, agents, representatives and members. The website is sponsored, funded 3 and controlled by the BCTD. The BCTD Defendants also appointed Duane Moore 4 5 as the National Director of the Respectourcrafts website and to operate and 6 manage that part of the campaign. 7 8 21. On the Respectourcrafts website, the BCTD Defendants posted 9 videotaped interviews of the BCTD Defendants and a number of their co- 10 conspirators. The interviews were a follow-up to the speeches the BCTD 11 12 Defendants gave at the Unity Rally. In the context of the prior and repeated 13 threats, violence and vandalism, Defendant Ayers’ speech directed the BCTD 14 15 Defendants and their officers, representatives, agents and members to directly 16 commit violence. Defendant Ayers called the Carpenters “a cancer that is 17 spreading” that needed to be confronted by “the kind of powerful response you 18 19 would expect when a burglar is caught stealing something of value.”
20 22. Nevertheless, by November 2010, none of the BCTD Defendants’ 21 unlawful extortionate actions had been particularly effective at forcing the 22 23 Carpenters to give in to their unlawful extortionate demands. So the BCTD 24 Defendants and its Committee formulated, coordinated and implemented a direct 25 26 assault on the Carpenters’ financial resources and life-blood: its members, dues
27 and jurisdiction. 28
25 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 23. The BCTD Defendants figured out a way to begin stealing, inter alia,
2 the Carpenters’ dues, dues-paying members, jurisdiction and other property rights 3 and assets by forcing the Metal Trades Department to kick out the Carpenters and 4 5 giving the same to them. The BCTD Defendant did not have the right to do this, 6 as the BCTD and the Metal Trades Departments are separate entities with separate 7 8 governing structures, Constitutions and members. The Metal Trades Department 9 is a wholly separate entity from the BCTD, even though some, but not all, of their 10 leaders overlap. The Carpenters and their members are members of the Metal 11 12 Trades Department and Councils by virtue of their participation, positions in the 13 Councils’ governing bodies and/or payment of per capita fees to these Metal 14 15 Trades’ labor organizations. They are not members of the BCTD. Thus, the 16 Metal Trades Department is not supposed to be run or operated by the BCTD or 17 the BCTD Defendants on behalf of the BCTD. 18 19 24. Although Defendant Ron Ault, the Metal Trades Department
20 President, initially opposed such unlawful actions, he was soon bought, paid and 21 bribed, thus becoming a co-conspirator. 22 23 25. Defendant Ault’s initial opposition is spelled out in a Memo that lays 24 out the BCTD Defendants’ plans, and explains why such plans are not in the 25 26 interests of the Metal Trades Department or its members. (Exhibit “E” hereto,
27 referred to as “Admissions Memo.”) Defendant Ault explained that the BCTD 28
26 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Defendants, including those who were on the Metal Trades Department’s
2 Executive Council, wanted to use the Carpenters’ participation in the Metal 3 Trades Department as a weapon in their Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign to 4 5 obtain the business and property of the UBC and permit them to acquire and 6 maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. Their plans included 7 8 financially punishing the Carpenters and rewarding themselves with the spoils, by 9 kicking the Carpenters out of the Metal Trades Department and Councils in order 10 to steal the Carpenters’ dues, members, jurisdiction and other valuable property 11 12 rights and assets, including here in Washington state. 13 26. In the Admissions Memo, Ault questioned the wisdom and legality of 14 15 such actions in light of the limited amount of dues-paying members the Carpenters 16 had in the Metal Trade Department. Defendant Ault explained that stealing the 17 Carpenters 4,000 Metal Trades Department members was a small percentage of 18 19 the Carpenters 500,000 members. So “from a financial standpoint, then,
20 cancelling the Solidarity Agreement and revoking participation by the Carpenters 21 locals in Metal Trades Councils in not likely to harm the Carpenters in any 22 23 significant way on a national basis.” (Exh. “E”, pg. 1.) “Conversely, in the best of 24 circumstances, the number of new [dues-paying] members that most Building 25 26 Trades internationals could expect to pick up from the Carpenters should the
27 Solidarity Agreement program be canceled and the Carpenters’ trade jurisdiction 28
27 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 be redistributed to other affiliates is probably relatively low.” (Exh. “E”, pg. 1.)
2 Ault went on to explain why it was not in the Metal Trades Department and 3 Councils’ best interest to be used as a pawn in the BCTD Defendants’ disputes 4 5 with the Carpenters: “the loss of the Carpenters’ per capita would be much more 6 keenly felt by the Metal Trades Department.” (Exh. “E”, pg. 1.) 7 8 27. Defendant Ault’s initial opposition to the BCTD Defendants’ 9 unlawful extortionate plans soon gave way to simple self-preservation and greed. 10 The BCTD Defendants made Defendant Ault an offer he could not refuse, so he 11 12 quickly got in line, joined the conspiracy and has since implemented it with an 13 unmitigated vengeance. The offer: if Defendant Ault did not join the conspiracy 14 15 and implement the BCTD Defendants’ plan, Ault would not be re-elected at his 16 upcoming November 2011 re-election. Alternatively, if Defendant Ault agreed, 17 he and his staff would get raises in 2011, during the continued worst economic 18 19 recession since the Great Depression, and he would get the full support of the
20 BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators, which would guarantee his re-election. In 21 addition, the BCTD Defendants agreed to pay for the ensuing litigation that they 22 23 knew the Carpenters would file and to cover any lost income, if any should result 24 from their actions, which would protect Defendant Ault’s salary and benefits, and 25 26 that of his staff. Therefore, Defendant Ault began in earnest implementing and
27 coordinating the BCTD Defendants’ plan to kick the Carpenters out with full 28
28 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 knowledge of the unlawful extortionate character of their actions.
2 28. On June 1, 2011, Defendant Ault, on behalf of the BCTD Defendants, 3 sent the Carpenters notice that it was beginning the process of kicking out the 4 5 Carpenters beginning sometime on or after August 1, 2011, including out of the 6 Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council in Washington State. Thereafter, 7 8 beginning after September 1, 2011, Defendants Ault and David Molnaa gave the 9 Carpenters’ jurisdiction, members, dues, rights to refer dues-paying members, 10 jobs, property, assets, officer positions, and/or other rights to the BCTD 11 12 Defendants and co-conspirators’ affiliates even though the BCTD Defendants did 13 not have the right to such property and “chattels”. 14 15 29. The BCTD Defendants continue to escalate their unlawful 16 extortionate financial attacks. The BCTD Defendants are now implementing 17 Resolution 70 by chartering and financially supporting various carpenter dissident 18 19 groups, including one in Albany, New York, and attempting to get Carpenters’
20 members to stop paying dues to the Carpenters and start paying dues to the BCTD 21 Defendants’ unions, including the Painters. In the summer and fall of 2011, the 22 23 BCTD Defendants’ affiliate, the Painters, has taken the lead on behalf of the 24 BCTD Defendants by supplying its lawyers, staff and resources to these dissident 25 26 groups and their covert agents in an attempt to steal away dues-paying members
27 of the Carpenters. For instance, the Painters secretly recruited an employee of the 28
29 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters, Joanne Lein, to gain unauthorized
2 access into the UBC’s membership database. Lein stole the confidential 3 membership information and gave it to the Painters’ agents. When Lein was 4 5 caught and fired, she went to openly work for the BCTD Defendants’ sponsored 6 Carpenters’ dissident local and the Painters’ attorneys have represented her in her 7 8 complaints against the NRCC. On or about October 12, 2011, Defendant 9 Williams has given a videotaped interview in Albany, New York, stating that he 10 and the BCTD Defendants fully support this conduct “100%”. 11 12 30. At the BCTD’s meeting in Florida, the week of January 12, 2012, the 13 BCTD Defendants have also decided to conduct further unlawful extortionate 14 15 campaigns against the Carpenters in Seattle, Washington and Buffalo, New York. 16 Each of the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators has agreed to contribute, and 17 have contributed, $14,000 per month for the funding of these attacks. The full 18 19 scope of the unlawful extortionate attacks await discovery, but twice the BCTD
20 Defendants’ agents have committed violence and vandalism in Seattle, which is a 21 clear indication as to what is intended. For instance, in and between May 29, 22 23 2009 and June 3, 2009, the BCTD Defendants’ agents threatened Jimmy Matta 24 and other Carpenters representatives with violence by threatening to kick their 25 26 asses while they were peacefully gathered on Pier 66 in Seattle, Washington.
27 Similarly, in October 2011, the BCTD Defendants’ agents threatened and 28
30 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 intimidated Pedro Espinoza, a Carpenter representative, and John Van Vynck, a
2 Carpenter member. One of the BCTD Defendants’ agents named Smiley violently 3 lunged at Espinoza, and another agent threatened Van Vynck by cocking his arm 4 5 back ready to strike when Van Vynck asked him a question. In addition, the 6 BCTD Defendants’ agents vandalized the Carpenters work site by, inter alia, 7 8 pouring sugar into concrete forms to erode the concrete, destroying a fence, and 9 placing brand new screws pointing up under the wheels of a Carpenters’ 10 members’ vehicle in order to cause flat tires if the vehicle had moved. The only 11 12 other car in the parking lot was that of one of the BCTD Defendants’ agents, and 13 no screws were placed under his vehicle. 14 15 31. Despite the direct financial hit that the Carpenters took when the 16 Defendants kicked them out of the Metal Trades Department and Councils, the 17 Carpenters stood firm and refused to pay the Defendants’ extortionate demands. 18 19 32. As explained in depth herein, the BCTD Defendants have engaged in
20 numerous other instances of unlawful extortionate conduct with the object of 21 forcing the Carpenters to submit to their extortionate demands, the full scope of 22 23 which awaits discovery. 24 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 25 26 33. Plaintiffs’ claims for relief allege violations of Pub. L. No. 91-452,
27 codified at 18 U.S.C. §1961, et seq. (to wit: multiple, repeated, and continuous 28
31 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 acts and/or threats involving extortion, and attempted extortion, that are
2 chargeable under 18 U.S.C. §1951 and the laws of a variety of states, as alleged 3 below), union embezzlement chargeable under 29 U.S.C. § 501 (LMRDA 4 5 violations), and unlawful union payments chargeable under 29 U.S.C. § 186. This 6 Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 7 8 § 1961, et seq., 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), § 1337 (commerce 9 jurisdiction), and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental). 10 34. Personal jurisdiction and venue in this District are proper pursuant to 11 12 18 U.S.C. § 1965 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because: (i) certain of the Defendants 13 are found in, have agents in, and/or transact their business and affairs in this 14 15 district; (ii) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims 16 for relief occurred in this district; and (iii) the ends of justice require that those of 17 the Defendants residing outside this District be brought before the Court to answer 18 19 for their conduct, as alleged below.
20 PARTIES AND NON-PARTY PARTICIPANTS 21 The Plaintiffs 22 23 35. Plaintiff United Brotherhood of Carpenters (“UBC”) is an 24 unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is 25 26 defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). One of the UBC’s missions and purposes is to
27 recruit, accept, protect, train and represent workers throughout North America, 28
32 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 and is thus a citizen of each and every state in the United States in which members
2 reside, including within this Judicial District. The UBC has approximately 3 500,000 members, including the thousands that it, the Metal Trades Department 4 5 and Councils represent. The UBC is engaged “in an industry affecting 6 commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). The UBC, affiliated 7 8 bodies, and members are members of the Defendant Metal Trades Department and 9 Councils within the meaning of the Labor Management and Relations Disclosure 10 Act. 29 U.S.C. § 402(d) & (o). The UBC is not a member of the AFL-CIO or its 11 12 Building and Construction Trades Department, nor does it want to be a member of 13 these organizations, and does not pay, or want to pay, a monthly fee per capita to 14 15 these organizations. 16 36. The UBC is bringing this action on behalf of itself, its affiliated 17 subordinate bodies and sponsored training programs named below, and the 18 19 thousands of members and workers it represents. The UBC, its subordinate
20 bodies, and its individual members have been each the direct target of and directly 21 and proximately injured by the same conduct, as set forth below. The UBC 22 23 subordinate bodies and members have standing in their own right to bring this 24 action based on the unlawful extortionate conduct taken by the Defendants against 25 26 them that has resulted in particularized and concrete immediate or threatened
27 injury to their business and property. The interests the UBC seeks to protect on 28
33 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 behalf of its subordinate bodies and its individual members are germane to the
2 purpose of the UBC – that is to recruit, accept, train, protect and represent 3 workers. In representing its subordinate bodies and members, the UBC has the 4 5 authority to enter binding agreements on their behalf. Neither the claims asserted 6 nor the relief requested requires the participation of the subordinate bodies, whose 7 8 number runs in the hundreds, and individual members, whose collective numbers 9 run into the hundreds of thousands (including the thousands from the Metal 10 Trades Department and Councils, as admitted by the Metal Trades Department’s 11 12 President Ault’s “Admissions Memo”). The UBC has also suffered particularized 13 and concrete immediate or threatened injury directly and proximately to its own 14 15 business and property. The Defendants’ extortionate conduct has caused both a 16 diversion of the Carpenters’ resources and a frustration of its mission and purpose 17 because of the Defendants’ extortionate conduct described in more detail below. 18 19 37. Mid-South Carpenters Regional Council, Texas Carpenters &
20 Millwrights Regional Council, Carpenters Industrial Council, Northern California 21 Carpenters Regional Council, South Central Carpenters Regional Council, New 22 23 England Regional Council of Carpenters, Metropolitan Regional Council of , Mid- 24 Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, Carpenters Local Union #74, Carpenters 25 26 Local Union #2236, Carpenters Local Union #2317, Carpenters Local Union
27 #808, Carpenters Local Union #1302, Carpenters Local Union #234, Carpenters 28
34 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Local Union #50, Carpenters Local Union #3073, and Carpenters Local Union #
2 2137 are each an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” 3 as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) affiliated with the UBC. They 4 5 represent thousands of members, including thousands of members that they and 6 the Defendant Metal Trades Department and Councils represent. They are 7 8 engaged “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 9 402(i) & (j). These organizations and their members are members of the 10 Defendant Metal Trades within the meaning of the Labor Management and 11 12 Relations Disclosure Act. 29 U.S.C. § 402(d) & (o). They and their interests and 13 property are being represented by the UBC. 14 15 38. Plaintiffs Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, Carpenters 16 Local Union #743 and Carpenters Local Union #407 (collectively “SWRCC”) are 17 each an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that 18 19 term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) and are affiliated with the UBC. They
20 represent thousands of members, including hundreds of members that they and the 21 Defendant Metal Trades Department and Councils represent. They are engaged 22 23 “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & 24 (j). These organizations and their members are members of the Defendant Metal 25 26 Trades within the meaning of the Labor Management and Relations Disclosure
27 Act. 29 U.S.C. § 402(d) & (o). 28
35 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 39. Plaintiffs Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters,
2 Carpenters Local Union #2403, Carpenters Local Union #30, Carpenters Local 3 Union #129 and Carpenters Local Union #156 (collectively “PNRCC”) are each 4 5 an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is 6 defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) and are affiliated with the UBC. They represent 7 8 hundreds of thousands of members, including thousands of members that they and 9 the Defendant Metal Trades Department and Councils represent. They are 10 engaged “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 11 12 402(i) & (j). These organizations and their members are members of the 13 Defendant Metal Trades within the meaning of the Labor Management and 14 15 Relations Disclosure Act. 29 U.S.C. § 402(d) & (o). 16 40. Plaintiffs Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters and Carpenters 17 Local Union #291 (collectively “NRCC”) are each an unincorporated voluntary 18 19 association and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i)
20 and are affiliated with the UBC. They recruit, accept, train, protect and represent 21 thousands of members. They are engaged “in an industry affecting commerce”, 22 23 within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 142(3). 24 41. Plaintiffs Carpenters’ District Council of Greater St. Louis and 25 26 Vicinity and Carpenters District Council Local Union #57 (collectively “St. Louis
27 Carpenters”) are each an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor 28
36 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) and are affiliated with
2 the UBC. They recruit, accept, train, protect and represent thousands of members, 3 including members performing electrical work. They are engaged “in an industry 4 5 affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 142(3). 6 42. Plaintiff Washington State UBC JATC is a Pacific Northwest 7 8 Regional Council of Carpenters’ sponsored apprentice training program that trains 9 apprentices. 10 43. Plaintiff Southwest Carpenters JATC is a Southwest Regional Council 11 12 of Carpenters’ sponsored apprentice training program that trains apprentices. 13 44. Collectively, the UBC, subordinate labor organizations, members, and 14 15 sponsored training programs, including those named above, are referred to as the 16 “Carpenters” unless otherwise specifically indicated. 17 45. Plaintiff Larry Gould is a member in good standing and job steward of 18 19 the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the
20 Metal Trades Department and Portsmouth New Hampshire Federal Employee 21 Metal Trades Council until he was summarily and improperly removed, 22 23 suspended and/or expelled by the Defendants. 24 46. Plaintiff William Clayton Crawford is a member in good standing and 25 26 job steward of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job
27 steward of the Metal Trades Department and Air Engineering Metal Trades 28
37 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Council until he was summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or
2 expelled by the Defendants. 3 47. Plaintiff Jordan Truman is a member in good standing and job steward 4 5 of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the 6 Metal Trades Department and Metal Trades Council of Amarillo until he was 7 8 summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the 9 Defendants. 10 48. Plaintiff Butch Parker is a member in good standing and job steward 11 12 of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the 13 Metal Trades Department and Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council until he was 14 15 summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the 16 Defendants. 17 49. Plaintiff Scott Flannery is a member in good standing and job steward 18 19 of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the
20 Metal Trades Department and Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council until he was 21 summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the 22 23 Defendants. 24 50. Plaintiff Richard Burwell is a member in good standing and job 25 26 steward of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward
27 of the Metal Trades Department and Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal 28
38 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Trades Council until he was summarily and improperly removed, suspended
2 and/or expelled by the Defendants. 3 51. Plaintiff Emanuel Lee is a member in good standing and job steward 4 5 of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the 6 Metal Trades Department and Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal 7 8 Trades Council until he was summarily and improperly removed, suspended 9 and/or expelled by the Defendants. 10 52. Plaintiff Paul Ledyard is a member in good standing and job steward 11 12 of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the 13 Metal Trades Department and Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal 14 15 Trades Council until he was summarily and improperly removed, suspended 16 and/or expelled by the Defendants. 17 53. Plaintiff Joseph Edney is a member in good standing and job steward 18 19 of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the
20 Metal Trades Department and Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal 21 Trades Council until he was summarily and improperly removed, suspended 22 23 and/or expelled by the Defendants. 24 54. Plaintiff Willie Marshall is a member in good standing and job 25 26 steward of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward
27 of the Metal Trades Department and Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal 28
39 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Trades Council until he was summarily and improperly removed, suspended
2 and/or expelled by the Defendants. 3 55. Plaintiff John Lake is a member in good standing and job steward of 4 5 the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the 6 Metal Trades Department and Pascagoula Metal Trades Council until he was 7 8 summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the 9 Defendants. 10 56. Plaintiff Roger Johnson is a member in good standing and job steward 11 12 of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the 13 Metal Trades Department and Pascagoula Metal Trades Council until he was 14 15 summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the 16 Defendants. 17 57. Plaintiff Brian Thompson is a member in good standing and job 18 19 steward of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward
20 of the Metal Trades Department and Pascagoula Metal Trades Council until he 21 was summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the 22 23 Defendants. 24 58. Plaintiff Charles McWilliams is a member in good standing and job 25 26 steward of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward
27 of the Metal Trades Department and Pascagoula Metal Trades Council until he 28
40 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 was summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the
2 Defendants. 3 59. Plaintiff Billy Cooley is a member in good standing and job steward 4 5 of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the 6 Metal Trades Department and Pascagoula Metal Trades Council until he was 7 8 summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the 9 Defendants. 10 60. Plaintiff Sheryl Hollis is a member in good standing and job steward 11 12 of the Carpenters. She is also a member in good standing and job steward of the 13 Metal Trades Department and Pascagoula Metal Trades Council until she was 14 15 summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the 16 Defendants. 17 61. Plaintiff Booker Sanderfer is a member in good standing and job 18 19 steward of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward
20 of the Metal Trades Department and Pascagoula Metal Trades Council until he 21 was summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the 22 23 Defendants. 24 62. Plaintiff Bob Scott is a member in good standing of the Carpenters. 25 26 He is also an elected officer and member in good standing of the Metal Trades
27 Department, Puget Sound Metal Trades Council and the Metal Trades Council of 28
41 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Portland and Vicinity, until he was summarily and improperly removed,
2 suspended and/or expelled by Defendants and/or refused the opportunity or ability 3 to speak, vote and participate in Council matters or attend the Metal Trades 4 5 Department Convention. 6 63. Plaintiff Joe Baca is a member in good standing of the Carpenters. He 7 8 is also an elected officer and member in good standing of the Metal Trades 9 Department and Pacific Coast Metal trades Council until he was summarily and 10 improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by Defendants and/or refused the 11 12 opportunity or ability to speak, vote and participate in Council matters. 13 64. Collectively, the named Plaintiffs are referred to as the “Individual 14 15 Plaintiffs” unless otherwise specifically indicated. 16 The Defendants 17 65. Defendant Building and Construction Trades Department (“BCTD”) 18 19 is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term
20 is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). Through representing individuals in the 21 construction industry, negotiating project labor agreements and/or operating the 22 23 Plan for the Settlement for Jurisdictional Disputes in the Construction Industry 24 (“the Plan”), Defendant BCTD and its hundreds of Councils represent workers “in 25 26 an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j).
27 Defendant BCTD is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and engages in conduct in 28
42 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Washington State and in this Judicial District. In engaging in the conduct herein
2 alleged, the Defendant was directing and acting on behalf of all of its affiliated 3 Councils. 4 5 66. Defendant Mark Ayers is an individual capable of holding a beneficial 6 interest in property. He is President of BCTD, an affiliated Department of the 7 8 AFL-CIO, maintains an office in Washington D.C. and transacts business on 9 behalf of the BCTD on an international basis, including in Washington State and 10 this Judicial District. Before becoming the BCTD President, Ayers had come up 11 12 from the ranks of the IBEW in central Illinois, eventually becoming the IBEW 13 Director of Construction and Maintenance Division. 14 15 67. Defendant James Williams is an individual capable of holding a 16 beneficial interest in property. He is the President of the International Union of 17 Painters and Allied Trades (“Painters”), an affiliated union with the AFL-CIO and 18 19 BCTD. He is also on the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents and on the
20 Metal Trades Department’s Executive Council. He maintains an office in 21 Maryland and transacts business on behalf of the Painters on an international 22 23 basis, including in Washington State and this Judicial District. 24 68. Defendant Ed Hill is an individual capable of holding a beneficial 25 26 interest in property. He is the International President of the International
27 Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (“IBEW”), an affiliated union with the AFL- 28
43 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 CIO and BCTD. He is also on the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents and on
2 the Metal Trades Department’s Executive Council. He maintains an office in 3 Washington D.C. and transacts business on behalf of the IBEW on an 4 5 international basis, including in this Judicial District. 6 69. Defendant Ron Ault is an individual capable of holding a beneficial 7 8 interest in property. He is President of the Metal Trades Department, an affiliated 9 Department of the AFL-CIO, maintains an office in Washington D.C. and 10 transacts business on behalf of the Metal Trades Department throughout the 11 12 United States, including in Washington State and this Judicial District. 13 70. Defendant David Molnaa is an individual capable of holding a 14 15 beneficial interest in property. He is President of the Hanford Atomic Metal 16 Trades Council (“HAMTC”), maintains an office in Richland, Washington, and 17 transacts business on behalf of the Metal Trades Department and the HAMTC in 18 19 the Washington State and this Judicial District.
20 Non-Party Participants 21 71. Metal Trades Department is an unincorporated voluntary association 22 23 and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). 24 Defendant Metal Trades Department and Councils represent the Plaintiffs “in an 25 26 industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 142(3), 402(i)
27 & (j). The LMRDA applies to the Metal Trades Department and Councils 28
44 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 because they, and the national and international unions that comprise the Metal
2 Trade Department and Councils, do not exclusively represent public sector 3 employees. Rather, the Metal Trades Department and Councils seek to improve 4 5 the conditions of employment for all employees in “metal and related industries”; 6 that broad category of industry is not limited, implicitly or explicitly, to 7 8 government work. Defendant Metal Trades Department is headquartered in 9 Washington, D.C., and has Councils located throughout the United States, 10 including in Washington State and this Judicial District. In engaging in the 11 12 conduct described below, the Defendant Metal Trades Department instigated, 13 supported, ratified, encouraged, mandated, and/or directed, its subordinate bodies 14 15 to do the things alleged, and/or the things done by its agents were in accordance 16 with their fundamental agreement of association. 17 72. Patrick Finley is General President of the Operative Plasterers’ & 18 19 Cement Masons’ International Association of the United States and Canada
20 (“Plasterers”), an affiliated union with the AFL-CIO and BCTD, and is a member 21 of the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents, and is a participant in the Push- 22 23 Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the 24 business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain 25 26 an interest and control over the Carpenters. 27 28
45 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 73. Terrance O’Sullivan is General President of the Laborers International
2 Union of North America (“Laborers”), affiliated union with the AFL-CIO and 3 BCTD, and is a member of the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents, and is a 4 5 participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate 6 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them 7 8 to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 9 74. Walter Wise is the General President of the International Association 10 of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Ironworkers (“Ironworkers”), an 11 12 affiliated union with the AFL-CIO and BCTD, and is a member of the BCTD’s 13 Governing Board of Presidents, and is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters 14 15 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 16 property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and 17 control over the Carpenters. 18 19 75. Michael Sullivan was at all times relevant the General President of the
20 Sheet Metal Workers International Association (“SMW”), an affiliated union with 21 the AFL-CIO and BCTD, and is a member of the BCTD’s Governing Board of 22 23 Presidents, and is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its 24 unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 25 26 Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over
27 the Carpenters. 28
46 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 76. Kinsey Robinson is the International President of the United Union of
2 Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers (“Roofers”), an affiliated union with 3 the AFL-CIO and BCTD, and is a member of the BCTD’s Governing Board of 4 5 Presidents, and is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its 6 unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 7 8 Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over 9 the Carpenters. 10 77. Newton Jones is the President of the International President of the 11 12 International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, 13 Forgers & Helpers (“Ironworkers”), an affiliated union with the AFL-CIO and 14 15 BCTD, and is a member of the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents, and is a 16 participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate 17 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them 18 19 to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters.
20 78. William Hite is the President of the Association of Journeyman and 21 Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and 22 23 Canada (“Plumbers’), an affiliated union with the AFL-CIO and BCTD, and is a 24 member of the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents, and is a participant in the 25 26 Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to 27 28
47 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and
2 maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 3 79. James Boland is the President of the International Union of 4 5 Bricklayers and Allied Craftsworkers (“Bricklayers”), an affiliated union with the 6 AFL-CIO and BCTD, and is a member of the BCTD’s Governing Board of 7 8 Presidents, and is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its 9 unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 10 Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over 11 12 the Carpenters. 13 80. Painters is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor 14 15 organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers 16 “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & 17 (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on 18 19 behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters
20 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 21 property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and 22 23 control over the Carpenters. 24 81. IBEW is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor 25 26 organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers
27 “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & 28
48 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on
2 behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters 3 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 4 5 property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and 6 control over the Carpenters. 7 8 82. Plasterers is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor 9 organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers 10 “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §402(i) & 11 12 (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on 13 behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters 14 15 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 16 property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and 17 control over the Carpenters. 18 19 83. Laborers is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor
20 organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers 21 “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & 22 23 (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on 24 behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters 25 26 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 27 28
49 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and
2 control over the Carpenters. 3 84. SMW is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor 4 5 organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers 6 “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & 7 8 (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on 9 behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters 10 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 11 12 property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and 13 control over the Carpenters. 14 15 85. Ironworkers is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor 16 organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers 17 “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & 18 19 (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on
20 behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters 21 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 22 23 property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and 24 control over the Carpenters. 25 26 86. United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters (“Plumbers”) is an
27 unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is 28
50 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting
2 commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the 3 conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the 4 5 Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and 6 its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 7 8 Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over 9 the Carpenters. 10 87. International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied 11 12 Workers (“Heat and Frost”) is an unincorporated voluntary association and a 13 “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents 14 15 workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 16 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was 17 acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back- 18 19 Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the
20 business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain 21 an interest and control over the Carpenters. 22 23 88. Washington State Building and Construction Trades Council 24 (“WSBCTC”) is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor 25 26 organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers
27 “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & 28
51 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on
2 behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters 3 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 4 5 property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and 6 control over the Carpenters. 7 8 89. Seattle/King County Building and Construction Trades Council 9 (“S/KCBCTC”) is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor 10 organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers 11 12 “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & 13 (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on 14 15 behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters 16 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 17 property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and 18 19 control over the Carpenters.
20 90. State Building and Construction Trades Council of California 21 (“SBCTCC”) is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor 22 23 organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers 24 “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & 25 26 (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on
27 behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters 28
52 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and
2 property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and 3 control over the Carpenters. 4 5 91. California Unions for Reliable Energy (“CURE”) is an unincorporated 6 voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 7 8 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, 9 within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct 10 alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and 11 12 thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful 13 extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and 14 15 permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 16 92. Los Angeles/Orange County Building and Construction Trades 17 Council (“LA/OCBCTC”) is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor 18 19 organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers
20 “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & 21 (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on 22 23 behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters 24 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 25 26 property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and
27 control over the Carpenters. 28
53 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 93. St. Louis Building and Construction Trades Council (“SLBCTC”) is an
2 unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is 3 defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting 4 5 commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the 6 conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the 7 8 Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and 9 its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 10 Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest in and control of 11 12 the Carpenters. 13 94. IBEW 1 is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor 14 15 organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers 16 “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & 17 (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on 18 19 behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters
20 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 21 property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and 22 23 control over the Carpenters. 24 95. Plasterers Local 528 is an unincorporated voluntary association and a 25 26 “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents
27 workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 28
54 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was
2 acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back- 3 Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the 4 5 business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain 6 an interest and control over the Carpenters. 7 8 96. Laborers District Council of Washington and Northern Idaho is an 9 unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is 10 defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) located in Washington State. It represents workers 11 12 “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & 13 (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on 14 15 behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters 16 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 17 property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and 18 19 control over the Carpenters.
20 97. Laborers Local 242 is an unincorporated voluntary association and a 21 “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents 22 23 workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 24 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was 25 26 acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-
27 Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the 28
55 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain
2 an interest and control over the Carpenters located in Washington State. 3 98. Ironworkers Local 86 is an unincorporated voluntary association and a 4 5 “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents 6 workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 7 8 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was 9 acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back- 10 Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the 11 12 business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain 13 an interest and control over the Carpenters. 14 15 99. Plasterers Local 200 is an unincorporated voluntary association and a 16 “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents 17 workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 18 19 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was
20 acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back- 21 Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the 22 23 business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain 24 an interest and control over the Carpenters. 25 26 100. Painters District Council 36 is an unincorporated voluntary
27 association and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 28
56 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the
2 meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it 3 agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a 4 5 participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate 6 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them 7 8 to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 9 101. Painters District Council 5 is an unincorporated voluntary association 10 and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i), located in 11 12 Washington State. It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce’, 13 within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct 14 15 alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and 16 thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful 17 extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and 18 19 permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters.
20 102. Robert Abbott is at all relevant times an officer of the Laborers 21 District Council of Washington and Northern Idaho and a resident in Washington 22 23 State. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, he agreed to act, and was acting, 24 on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters 25 26 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 27 28
57 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and
2 control over the Carpenters. 3 103. Doug Strand is at all relevant times an officer of Laborers Local 242. 4 5 In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, he agreed to act, and was acting, on 6 behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters 7 8 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 9 property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and 10 control over the Carpenters. 11 12 104. Stephen Cuddy is associate General Counsel to the Laborers, with an 13 office in Washington State, and a resident in Washington State. In engaging in the 14 15 conduct alleged herein, he agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the 16 Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and 17 its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 18 19 Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over
20 the Carpenters. 21 105. Duane Moore is at all relevant times an officer of the IBEW, and the 22 23 National Director of the Push Back Carpenters Campaign and conspiracy, and the 24 Respect Our Crafts website, and is being paid by the IBEW for his work. In 25 26 engaging in the conduct alleged herein, he agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf
27 of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters 28
58 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and
2 property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and 3 control over the Carpenters. 4 5 106. Jerry Feldhaus was at all relevant times an officer of the St. Louis 6 Building and Construction Trades Council, affiliated with the BCTD. In engaging 7 8 in the conduct alleged herein, he agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the 9 Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and 10 its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 11 12 Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over 13 the Carpenters. 14 15 107. Lee Newgent is the Chairman of the Washington State Apprenticeship 16 Training Council and a resident in Washington State. He is also an officer of the 17 Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO, an Executive Board member of the 18 19 Washington State Building and Construction Trades Council, affiliated with the
20 BCTD, and an officer of the Seattle/King County Building and Construction 21 Trades Council, affiliated with the BCTD. In engaging in the conduct alleged 22 23 herein, he agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a 24 participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate 25 26 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them
27 to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. As a 28
59 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate
2 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them 3 to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, Newgent has 4 5 used his positions to financially harm the Union Plaintiffs, including the 6 Northwest Carpenters. 7 8 108. Bob Balgenorth is President of the California State Building and 9 Construction Trades Council, affiliated with the BCTD. In engaging in the 10 conduct alleged herein, he agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the 11 12 Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and 13 its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 14 15 Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over 16 the Carpenters. 17 109. Oswego Creative is a full-service advertising and marketing agency 18 19 that was involved in creating and publishing to the internet at least the
20 respectourcrafts.com website, including filming and editing the films, and thus is a 21 participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate 22 23 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them 24 to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. Oswego 25 26 Creative’s services were on behalf of the Defendants and paid for by the BCTD.
27 It also does work for other BCTD unions, including the IBEW and Ironworkers. 28
60 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 110. Erik Gustafson is at all relevant times an officer or representative of
2 Ironworkers Local 86. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, he agreed to act, 3 and was acting, on behalf of the BCTD Defendants, and thus is a participant in the 4 5 Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to 6 obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and 7 8 maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 9 111. Richard Resnik and his law firm Sherman, Dunn, Cohen, Leifer & 10 Yellig are the Administrator and General Counsel to the BCTD’s Plan for the 11 12 Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes, General Counsel to the BCTD, and General 13 Counsel to the IBEW and other Building Trades’ unions. They have participated 14 15 in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy 16 to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire 17 and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters by assisting in 18 19 formulating, implementing, managing and/or operating the Push-Back-Carpenters
20 Campaign and it unlawful conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 21 Carpenters and acquire and maintain an interest and control of the Carpenters, 22 23 including Resolution 70 and the Committee. As described below, Resnik’s 24 conduct exceeded the normal role of attorneys in merely advising a client. 25 26 112. Robblee, Detwiler & Black (“Robblee firm”) is a law firm located in
27 Seattle that previously represented the PNRCC. As part of the Push-Back- 28
61 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Carpenters Campaign and conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the
2 Carpenters and acquire and maintain an interest in and control of the Carpenters, 3 the Robblee firm terminated its long-standing relationship to the PNRCC, 4 5 including quitting in the middle of a motion they had filed but not yet replied, and 6 thereafter began representing various BCTD’s Councils and unions, including the 7 8 Painters, Plasterers and Ironworkers, against the PNRCC’s interests. The Robblee 9 firm has thus joined or participated in Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its 10 unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 11 12 Carpenters and acquire and maintain an interest in and control of the Carpenters 13 due to the money in fees promised by Defendants. 14 15 113. Carpenters Independent #1 is an unincorporated voluntary association. 16 In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on 17 behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters 18 19 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and
20 property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and 21 control over the Carpenters. 22 23 114. Joanne Lein was at all relevant times employed by the Northeast 24 Regional Council of Carpenters. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, she 25 26 agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a
27 participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate 28
62 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them
2 to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 3 115. Joseph Kolick and his law firm, Dickstein Shapiro, are General 4 5 Counsel to the Painters and in engaging in the conduct herein alleged, was acting 6 for and on behalf of the BCTD Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push- 7 8 Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the 9 business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain 10 an interest and control over the Carpenters. 11 12 116. Jimmy Williams Jr. is the son of Defendant Williams and the Director 13 of Organizing for the Painters. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, he 14 15 agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the BCTD Defendants, and thus is a 16 participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate 17 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them 18 19 to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters.
20 117. Amalgamated Carpenters and Joiners Union (“ACJU”) is an 21 unincorporated voluntary association. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, 22 23 it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the BCTD Defendants, and thus is a 24 participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate 25 26 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them
27 to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 28
63 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 118. Angelo Bisclegli is the representative and agent for ACJU, and in
2 engaging in the conduct herein alleged, was acting for and on behalf of the BCTD 3 Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and 4 5 its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 6 Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over 7 8 the Carpenters. 9 119. James Avellino is an officer or agent of Carpenters Independent #1. 10 In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, he agreed to act, and was acting, on 11 12 behalf of the BCTD Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back- 13 Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the 14 15 business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain 16 an interest and control over the Carpenters. 17 120. The following Metal Trades Councils, which are subordinate bodies 18 19 of the Metal Trades Department, from across the country are non-party
20 participants and have been controlled and directed by the BCTD Defendants and 21 have taken action against the Plaintiffs: Air Engineering Metal Trades Council 22 23 (Tennessee); Albuquerque Metal Trades Council (New Mexico); Amarillo Metal 24 Trades Council (Texas); Bay Ship Building Co. of Sturgeon Bay (Wisconsin); 25 26 Bay Cities Metal Trades Council (California); Bremerton Metal Trades Council
27 (Washington); Eastern Idaho Metal Trades Council (Idaho); Hanford Atomic 28
64 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Metal Trades Council (Washington); Houston Metal Trades Council (Texas);
2 Indian Wells Valley Metal Trades Council (California); Lake Charles Metal 3 Trades Council (Louisiana); New London Metal Trades Council (Connecticut); 4 5 New Orleans Metal Trades Council (Louisiana); Oak Ridge Atomic Trades and 6 Labor Council (Tennessee); Pacific Coast Metal Trades Council (California, 7 8 Oregon & Washington); Pascagula Metal Trades Council (Mississippi); 9 Philadelphia Metal Trades Council (Pennsylvania); Portland Metal Trades Council 10 (Virginia); Portsmouth Metal Trades Council (New Hampshire); Puget Sound 11 12 Metal Trades Council (Washington); Texas City Metal Trades Council (Texas); 13 and Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal Trades Council (Virginia). 14 15 Each of these Metal Trades Council affiliates is an unincorporated voluntary 16 association and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 17 402(i). Each also represents the Plaintiffs “in an industry affecting commerce”, 18 19 within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct
20 alleged herein, each agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, 21 and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and unlawful 22 23 extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and 24 permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 25 26 121. Robert Matisoff and his law firm, O’Donoghue & O’Donoghue
27 (“O’Donoghue firm”), are General Counsel to the Metal Trades Department. 28
65 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 They are located in Washington D.C. Through their representation of the Metal
2 Trades Department they owe duties to its members, which include the Plaintiffs. 3 The O’Donoghue firm is also being paid in part by the BCTD affiliate unions, i.e., 4 5 non-clients, to formulate, implement, manage and operate the Push-Back- 6 Carpenters Campaign and unlawful extortionate conspiracy, as it relates to the 7 8 Metal Trades Department and Councils to obtain the business and property of the 9 Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over 10 the Carpenters. As described below, Matisoff’s conduct exceeded the normal role 11 12 of attorneys in merely advising a client. For instance, Matisoff attended Metal 13 Trades Department meetings that were controlled by BCTD Defendants, including 14 15 the one in which Defendants Williams made his extortion admission that one of 16 the purposes of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate 17 conspiracy included to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and 18 19 permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters,
20 including to make monthly BCTD/Council payments, and continuing such 21 monthly payments in perpetuity. 22 23 122. Boilermakers Local 104 is an unincorporated voluntary association 24 and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) located in 25 26 Washington State. It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”,
27 within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct 28
66 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and
2 thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful 3 extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and 4 5 permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 6 123. Dan Calhoun was at all relevant times an officer of Boilermakers 7 8 Local 104 and a resident in Washington State. In engaging in the conduct alleged 9 herein, he agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a 10 participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate 11 12 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them 13 to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 14 15 124. Gary Powers was at all relevant times an officer of the Boilermakers, 16 and is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful 17 extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and 18 19 permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters.
20 125. Frank Foti owns and/or controls Cascade General, Vigor Marine and 21 other shipyards in the Pacific Northwest, including in the State of Washington. 22 23 Cascade General, Vigor Marine and other Foti-owned or controlled shipyards 24 have paid or agreed to pay the Boilermakers money and things of value, which 25 26 have become part of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful 27 28
67 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and
2 permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 3 126. The conduct that forms the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims for damages 4 5 occurred within the applicable statute of limitations and it is continuing to occur to 6 date. 7 8 127. There currently exists no internal union remedies to exhaust before 9 filing these actions. To the extent that there exists any obligation by the Plaintiffs 10 to exhaust any internal union remedies with respect to the Metal Trades 11 12 Department and Councils for any of the conduct such avenues have been 13 exhausted or excused because (1) none have been identified by the Defendants 14 15 despite a request asking them to identify any and/or (2) such actions would be 16 futile because the BCTD Defendants have taken control over the Metal Trades 17 Department and Councils, and have been directing and conducting their unlawful 18 19 extortionate actions through the Metal Trades Department and Councils, including
20 under threat of supervision, trusteeship and/or removal from office if such 21 organizations and its officers did not comply with the BCTD Defendants’ orders 22 23 directed against the Plaintiffs. 24 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD 25 26 128. The BCTD Defendants’ unlawful extortionate conspiracy against the
27 Carpenters secretly began around October, 2008, but was not publically 28
68 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 announced by the BCTD Defendants until the June 2010 Unity Rally, and
2 continues to date. The BCTD Defendants have given no indication of ceasing. In 3 fact, new unlawful extortionate attacks are being planned daily and have been 4 5 ordered by the BCTD Defendants. (See Paragraph 30, infra.) October 1, 2008 is 6 when the Carpenters began recruiting, accepting, and training dues-paying 7 8 members who perform electrical work in the southern Illinois and St. Louis, 9 Missouri areas, and Defendants Ayers, Hill and Williams, and the other BCTD co- 10 conspirators agreed to begin, and began, formulating, preparing and coordinating 11 12 their unlawful extortionate conspiracy through the operation and management of 13 the BCTD enterprise to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and 14 15 permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 16 In addition, as described in Paragraphs 11 and 163 above and 286-411 below, the 17 BCTD Defendants have engaged in extortion schemes as a regular way of doing 18 19 business for at least the same period of time.
20 FACTS REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL 21 EXTORTION SCHEMES
22 I. Background and Formation of the Unlawful Extortionate Conspiracy to 23 Obtain the Business and Property of the Carpenters and Permit Them 24 to Acquire and Maintain an Interest and Control over the Carpenters and Development of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign 25 26 A. Defendants’ Common Goals and Objectives 27 28
69 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 129. A common associational, firm, corporate and individual goal of all of
2 the Defendants is unlawfully and through extortion to force the Carpenters to 3 make monthly payments – and continue paying monthly payments in perpetuity – 4 5 to the BCTD and Councils. Defendants’ statements, conduct, and shared 6 personnel at high levels, establish: (1) Defendant BCTD, its Councils, member 7 8 unions and affiliates worked in concert and knowingly and intentionally, to 9 achieve their unlawful extortionate objective through a sophisticated, coordinated 10 and far reaching campaign called the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign; (2) 11 12 Defendant BCTD, its Councils, member unions, and affiliates committed 13 substantial financial resources and personnel to the Push-Back-Carpenters 14 15 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 16 property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and 17 control over the Carpenters; and (3) all the Defendants have obligated themselves 18 19 and agreed to work together on the Campaign in a coordinated, consolidated and
20 unified way to achieve its unlawful extortionate conspiracy, and each has engaged 21 in substantial conduct in furtherance of their unlawful objectives. 22 23 B. Defendants Devise Their Unlawful Scheme of Extortion Against 24 the Carpenters to Obtain the Business and Property of the Carpenters and Permit Them to Acquire and Maintain an 25 Interest and Control Over the Carpenters. 26 i. Formation of the Push-Back-Carpenters Conspiracy 27 28
70 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 130. Defendants’ conspiracy to extort the Plaintiffs represents, in large
2 part, their personal and institutional power play to maintain their lucrative and 3 prestigious positions in the union movement and to control, manage, and maintain 4 5 a monopoly over construction unions where they dictate which dues-paying 6 members a union can, and cannot, recruit, accept and train; dictate which craft 7 8 jurisdiction it will allow a construction union to have, and not have, based on 9 outmoded craft jurisdictional lines drawn up 100 years ago; dictate which national 10 and local political candidates and causes construction unions must, and must not, 11 12 support, financially and otherwise; dictate which collective bargaining agreements 13 construction unions can, and cannot, sign; and, most importantly, dictate that 14 15 every construction union pay – and keep paying in perpetuity – the BCTD and its 16 hundreds of Councils a monthly fee to maintain this superannuated superstructure 17 solely for services neither requested, wanted, nor necessary. 18 19 131. For years, the Carpenters have refused to be a member of the BCTD
20 and numerous of its Councils. It has rejected the BCTD Defendants’ offer to join 21 via a Solidarity Program. The money saved from not having to make monthly 22 23 payments had been put to much better use, including for its members’ training. 24 The Carpenters refused to pay the BCTD and its hundreds of Councils to maintain 25 26 and expand their bloated bureaucratic salaries and benefits, and pay for services
27 that the Carpenters did not request, and were unwanted and unnecessary. 28
71 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 132. This did not sit well with the BCTD Defendants because the
2 Carpenters represented an enormous pool of money and other resources that they 3 wanted to have and control. Indeed, for years, Defendant Williams (Painters) 4 5 alone complained that the Carpenters “were not paying the Carpenters’ fair share 6 in membership dues to the [Building and Construction Trades] Department.” (911 7 8 Flier posted on IUPAT’s Website, posted sometime in or about 2005 to the 9 present, last checked on January 25, 2012.) Defendant Williams reiterated his 10 objections claiming that the Carpenters’ President, Douglas McCarron, “wants to 11 12 be a player without paying dues.” (Personal Agenda Flier posted on IUPAT’s 13 Website, posted sometime in or about 2005 to the present, last checked on January 14 15 25, 2012.) However, after the BCTD Defendants formed the Push-Back- 16 Carpenters Conspiracy and unlawful extortionate conspiracy, all the BCTD 17 Defendants began pursuing Defendant Williams long-standing goal of forcing the 18 19 Carpenters to pay monthly tributes – and continue paying such tributes in
20 perpetuity. 21 133. Without the Carpenters’ monthly payments, the BCTD and Councils 22 23 were financially weaker with less financial resources, and were correspondingly 24 more costly for the BCTD Defendants’ unions to finance and operate. For 25 26 instance, in 2005, the BCTD’s monthly payments were $0.53 per union member,
27 but by 2007 the payments had to be increased to $0.60 per member, due to the fact 28
72 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 that the Carpenters were not paying “their fair share” even though they were not a
2 part of the BCTD, and did not desire to be a part of the BCTD. Similarly, 3 Carpenters Regional and District Councils, including but not limited to Plaintiffs 4 5 Carpenters District Council of Greater St. Louis and Vicinity, Pacific Northwest 6 Regional Council of Carpenters, and Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, 7 8 also refused to make or agree to make the monthly payments demanded by the 9 various state and local BCTD’s Councils, which faced similar adverse financial 10 conditions as a consequence. 11 12 134. Based in part on this financial desperation, on or after October 1, 13 2008, the BCTD Defendants and their co-conspirators, acting like organized crime 14 15 bosses collecting their swag from involuntary members, made the decision to act 16 in a planned, agreed upon, coordinated and unified manner to force the unwilling 17 Carpenters and every one of its unwilling affiliates “by any means necessary”, 18 19 including threats of violence, violence and vandalism to begin paying – and
20 continuing paying in perpetuity – their monthly bloated tribute (“fair share in 21 membership dues”) to the BCTD and its hundreds of Councils, including, but not 22 23 limited to, the Washington State Building and Construction Trades Council, 24 Seattle/King County Building and Construction Trades Council, Oregon State 25 26 Building and Construction Trades Council, Columbia-Pacific Building and
27 Construction Trades Council, State Building and Construction Trades Council of 28
73 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 California, Los Angeles/Orange County Building and Construction Trades
2 Council, and St. Louis Building and Construction Trades Council. 3 135. As part of, and in furtherance of, the Push-Back-Carpenters 4 5 Campaign of unlawful extortionate conduct to obtain the business and property of 6 the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the 7 8 Carpenters, the BCTD Defendants chose St. Louis publicly to announce the Push- 9 Back-Carpenters Campaign, which had previously been unannounced but was 10 quite active and violent, as described below. The announcement came by way of 11 12 a massive rally on or about June 15, 2010. Publically announcing their campaign 13 in the manner in which it was done was to show the Carpenters that the entire 14 15 BCTD organization, including its hundreds of Councils, and members’ unions, 16 including the Painters, Plasterers, IBEW, SMW, Boilermakers, Iron Workers, and 17 their millions of officers, agents, representatives and members, from all over the 18 19 country were on-board and willing to attack when ordered to do so. Not only
20 were the BCTD Defendants’ California organizations and individuals ready, 21 willing and able, but so were those in New York. Not only were the BCTD 22 23 Defendants’ Washington state organizations and individuals ready, willing and 24 able, but so were those in Missouri and southern Illinois. The BCTD Defendants 25 26 wanted to show the Carpenters that they were organized, committed and united in
27 a nationwide campaign of coordinated and escalating attacks against the 28
74 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Carpenters all over the country, and would act using any means necessary, even
2 outside the law, to accomplish the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign’s unlawful 3 extortionate goals to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit 4 5 them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 6 136. St. Louis is where the attacks began. It was the first location the 7 8 BCTD Defendants selected to make their show of force. St. Louis was selected 9 because, beginning in and around October 1, 2008, and continuing to the present, 10 the Carpenters began recruiting, accepting and training dues-paying members who 11 12 perform electrical work in the St. Louis, Missouri, and southern Illinois areas. 13 This was something that outraged Defendants Ayers, an IBEW official by 14 15 background from the southern Illinois area, and Hill, IBEW President. These 16 Defendants and the BCTD believed that such dues-paying members “belonged” to 17 the IBEW, like chattel and indentured servants, and only the IBEW could recruit, 18 19 accept or train future dues-paying members. While other unions over the years,
20 like the Painters, Plasterers and SMW, had complained about the Carpenters’ 21 recruiting, accepting and training dues-paying members who they claimed 22 23 “belonged” to their unions, it was not until the IBEW’s purported property 24 became an issue did the entire BCTD decide to take action against the Carpenters. 25 26 The BCTD Defendants have stated their belief that if this could happen to the
27 IBEW, none of the BCTD unions were safe. Accordingly, the BCTD Defendants 28
75 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 got all the BCTD Governing Board of Presidents together to agree and conspire to
2 force the Carpenters to give over to them the Carpenters’ dues-paying members 3 whom the BCTD Defendants claimed “belonged” to them and their unions by 4 5 their misguided light, force the Carpenters to abide by whatever rules the BCTD 6 Defendants imposed, force the Carpenters to give over to them their First 7 8 Amendment rights and financial resources, and force the Carpenters to pay, and 9 continue paying, the BCTD and all Councils the monthly fee demanded despite 10 that it was unrequested, unwanted and unnecessary. 11 12 137. Nevertheless, the Carpenters did not begin recruiting, accepting, or 13 training dues-paying members who performed electrical work in order to pick a 14 15 fight with the IBEW, the BCTD Defendants or their unions. Rather, the 16 Carpenters were forced to do it because the IBEW had begun stealing work that 17 members of the Carpenters had been performing for years. The IBEW had begun 18 19 doing this because it had been losing work in the St. Louis area to non-union
20 contractors, and was unable to organize these non-union workers. The IBEW 21 began to “legislate jurisdiction” at the expense of the Carpenters by using its 22 23 IBEW members who were government inspectors to red-tag and shut down jobs 24 where the Carpenters had performed work, claiming that only certain workers, 25 26 who happened to be IBEW members, could perform the work.
27 138. In 2007 and early 2008, the Carpenters repeatedly objected to the 28
76 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 IBEW’s improper tactics but to no avail. In fact, the highest officials in the IBEW
2 repeatedly defended such tactics, even if it meant that the Carpenters would lose 3 work as a result. For instance, when the IBEW’s President, Defendant Hill and 4 5 Executive Council member, Stephen P. Schoemehl, met with the Carpenters’ 6 General President, Douglas McCarron and the St. Louis Carpenters highest 7 8 ranking officer, Terry Nelson, in or around May 3, 2010 at the St. Louis Airport 9 Hilton Hotel, they defended such tactics as a legitimate method of “stealing” work 10 from the Carpenters. Hill tried to deflect the Carpenters’ criticism by asking a 11 12 rhetorical question: “If you could shut down jobs to get work for your members, 13 you would do it too.” The meeting thereafter abruptly ended. As a result of the 14 15 IBEW’s refusal to stop “legislating jurisdiction” at the expense of the Carpenters, 16 the Carpenters had no choice but to begin recruiting, accepting, and training dues- 17 paying members who perform electrical work and could not be “legislated” away 18 19 from the work.
20 139. Upon learning of this, the BCTD Defendants and their co- 21 conspirators began organizing their Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and devising 22 23 their unlawful extortionate schemes, seeking what they could not obtain 24 voluntarily by unlawful extortion to obtain the business and property of the 25 26 Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over
27 the Carpenters. It was easy for Ayers (former IBEW official) and Hill (IBEW 28
77 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 President) to get the other BCTD Presidents on board because their BCTD co-
2 Defendants and co-conspirators had been complaining for years that the 3 Carpenters had been recruiting, accepting, and training dues-paying members that 4 5 they claimed belong to them. For instance, Defendant Williams and Sullivan 6 (former President of SMW), passed a “Unity Resolution” via satellite at their 7 8 respective General Conventions in Washington D.C., and Chicago, in or around 9 August 2004. On stage with them in solidarity and support were Hunt 10 (Ironworkers) and John Dougherty (Plasterers President before Finley). The 11 12 Unity Resolution was a coordinated protest against the Carpenters because they 13 had been recruiting, accepting, and training dues-paying members that these union 14 15 officials claimed belong to them, including members doing drywall taping, 16 various metal construction, plastering, roofing, etc. 17 140. By 2008, the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators in the unlawful 18 19 extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and
20 to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters had had 21 enough of what they perceived to be a pattern of misbehavior by the Carpenters, 22 23 and agreed that the full force and resources, lawful and unlawful, of the BCTD, its 24 Councils, its member unions and their affiliates, including their agents, officers, 25 26 representatives and members, were going to, inter alia, make the Carpenters give
27 over to them the Carpenters’ dues-paying members the BCTD Defendants claimed 28
78 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 belonged to them, make the Carpenters give over to them their First Amendment
2 rights and resources, and make the Carpenters pay – and continue paying in 3 perpetuity – the BCTD and Councils monthly payments. The BCTD Defendants 4 5 and co-conspirators agreed that they were going to attack the Carpenters all across 6 the United States, including in Washington state, and in every conceivable 7 8 manner, lawful and unlawful, in order to pressure the Carpenters, financially and 9 otherwise, until they lacked the resources and wherewithal to fight back and 10 eventually succumb to their unlawful extortionate demands. 11 12 141. The following are among the actions taken pursuant to Defendants 13 Ayers, Hill and Williams’ unlawful conspiracy to extort the Carpenters into 14 15 paying, and continue paying, the BCTD and Councils monthly bloated per capita 16 payments in perpetuity: 17 142. Resolution 70: Shortly after the Carpenters began recruiting, 18 19 accepting and training dues-paying members who perform electrical work in
20 October 2008, the BCTD Defendants and their co-conspirators began conspiring 21 to devise ways to push-back, scare, and, if necessary, force the Carpenters into 22 23 agreeing to their extortionate demands. The BCTD Defendants believed that in 24 order to succeed, they needed the full backing of the entire AFl-CIO, and all their 25 26 affiliated unions. So the BCTD Defendants drafted Resolution 70 to be
27 introduced and passed at the AFL-CIO September 2009 Convention held in 28
79 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. In itself the Resolution is not unlawful, but it gives
2 essential background to understanding the unlawful motive and conduct of the 3 conspirators. 4 5 143. Resolution 70 urges the Carpenters to re-affiliate with the AFL-CIO 6 and the Building and Construction Trades Department, so the BCTD Defendants 7 8 can force the Carpenters to begin making their bloated monthly payments, and 9 continue making such tributes. Should the Carpenters refuse, the “Building and 10 Construction Trades Department, if and when it deems it appropriate, is 11 12 authorized to establish a Carpenters’ Organizing Committee for the purpose of 13 providing opportunities to workers in the carpentry trades to work in solidarity 14 15 with the affiliates of the Building and Construction Trades Department.” 16 144. The Resolution further gives the Defendants the power to 17 implement, structure and enforce the Carpenters Organizing Committee to 18 19 accomplish the goal of getting the Carpenters back to the “family table” in order
20 to accomplish their lawful and unlawful objectives goals. The Resolution 21 provides: “The structure of the Carpenters’ Organizing Committee shall be 22 23 determined by the Building and Construction Trades Department.” The Resolution 24 further provides: “Upon the recommendation of the Building and Construction 25 26 Trades Department, the president of the AFL-CIO is authorized to issue a charter
27 or certificate of affiliation to the Carpenters’ Organizing Committee.” (Resolution 28
80 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 70.)
2 145. Prior to the convention, the BCTD Defendants and their co- 3 conspirators laid all proper groundwork to get the Resolution to the convention 4 5 floor. Defendant Williams drafted the Resolution and introduced it at the 6 convention. He railed at the Carpenters for recruiting, accepting, and training 7 8 dues-paying members who belong to other unions, including the Painters, IBEW, 9 Plasterers and other unions. Defendant Williams complained that the Carpenters’ 10 conduct had cost his union and other unions millions of dollars, while being free 11 12 from making the BCTD and Councils monthly payments. Resolution 70 passed 13 by voice vote. 14 15 146. Through the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign to obtain the business 16 and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control 17 over the Carpenters, Defendant Williams, and the other BCTD Defendants, are 18 19 determined to recoup the millions of dollars from the Carpenters that they blame
20 the Carpenters for having cost them. 21 147. Nevertheless, not all construction unions agreed with Resolution 70, 22 23 or the unlawful extortionate attacks against the Carpenters. The Operating 24 Engineers objected to Resolution 70 and called the BCTD Defendants and their 25 26 co-conspirators’ conduct and focus on the Carpenters misleading, misguided and
27 hypocritical because they were unlawful. 28
81 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 148. Vince Giblin, President of the Operating Engineers, wrote letters in
2 protest. The Operating Engineers are members of the AFL-CIO, but not the 3 BCTD. Giblin knew that if the BCTD Defendants were successful against the 4 5 Carpenters and forced them into making – and continuing to make – monthly 6 payments to the BCTD and Councils, there was nothing to stop them from doing 7 8 the same to his union. 9 149. In a letter sent to the President of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumpka, 10 President Giblin called the BCTD Defendants’ conduct, and the AFL-CIO’s 11 12 support, “hypocritical, counterproductive, and dangerous” because of the unlawful 13 extortionate conduct. President Gilbin warned against the establishment of a 14 15 BCTD Carpenters Organizing Committee because this would have a greater 16 chance of starting a destructive union war than resolving the BCTD Defendants’ 17 problems. Giblin also pointed out that Resolution 70 was “a case of selective 18 19 punitive action.” Giblin explained that the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators
20 were hypocritical because they had done nothing about the Laborers that had 21 begun recruiting, accepting and training dues-paying members in that “openly 22 23 claim not only Laborers work but that of other crafts as well.” Giblin pointed out 24 the hypocrisy in taking Carpenters to task “while silence prevailed over the 25 26 actions of the Laborers.”
27 150. Also telling of the BCTD Defendants’ hypocrisy related to the 28
82 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Laborers is their acceptance of the Laborers’ documented unlawful plan to take
2 over the Plasterers’ cement mason jurisdiction. (Exhibit “F” hereto, pg. 8, referred 3 to as “Playbook.”) One of the reasons the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators 4 5 treat the Laborers’ attacks on the Operating Engineers’ work and Plasterers’ 6 cement mason work is because the Laborers make monthly payments to the 7 8 BCTD. The Operating Engineers do not. And one of the reasons the BCTD 9 Defendants’ ignore the Laborers’ attack on the Plasterers is because their 10 Playbook also documents how they are “driving up the costs” to the Carpenters by 11 12 a litany of unlawful and bad faith tactics, which the BCTD Defendants and co- 13 conspirators, including O’Sullivan of the Laborers, have incorporated into the 14 15 Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to 16 obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an 17 interest and control over the Carpenters. 18 19 151. The Laborers’ Playbook is a documented strategy of regulatory
20 harassment, and other bad faith tactics solely, and admittedly, intended to “drive 21 up the costs” to the Carpenters and their employers through the filing of frivolous 22 23 grievances, complaints, and other forms of regulatory harassment. (Exh. “F”, pp. 24 4-7, 10; see also Paragraphs 189-207, infra.) Such unlawful conduct is an 25 26 essential part of the unlawful campaign to put unlawful pressure on the Plaintiffs
27 to agree to Defendants’ extortionate demands to obtain the business and property 28
83 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control
2 over the Carpenters. The Playbook was written by the Laborers’ Associate 3 General Counsel, Steve Cuddy, who lives, works and has an office in Washington 4 5 State. 6 152. President Giblin, in his letter, also responded to complaints from the 7 8 BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators that the Carpenters’ actions were forcing 9 them to spend millions of dollars to fight off the Carpenters’ attempts to recruit, 10 accept, and train dues-paying members that they claimed belonged to them. 11 12 Gilbin pointed out that the Service Employees International Union’s President 13 Andy Stern’s actions against UNITE-HERE, an AFL-CIO affiliate, “make 14 15 [Carpenter's President] Doug McCarron look like Gandhi.” Giblin said the SEIU 16 has plundered the assets of UNITE-HERE in order to limit that union’s ability 17 progressively to act on behalf of, and to protect, their members “while at the same 18 19 time using its deep pockets to finance raid after raid.”
20 153. UNITE-HERE had left the AFL-CIO in 2005 to form the Change to 21 Win federation but rejoined the AFL-CIO in 2009. UNITE HERE President John 22 23 Wilhelm, who has similarly accused Stern of conducting membership raids 24 against UNITE HERE, announced during the convention that UNITE-HERE is 25 26 rejoining the AFL-CIO. Giblin pointed out in the letter that an AFL-CIO
27 resolution condemning SEIU's alleged raiding was shelved for no apparent reason. 28
84 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 154. In response to Resolution 70, the Carpenters’ General President
2 issued a statement, dated September 16, 2009. The Carpenters again explained 3 why it has continued to refuse to make bloated monthly payments to the BCTD in 4 5 perpetuity. The Carpenters explained that it has been able to put the monthly 6 payments it had not had to make the BCTD and Councils to good use that 7 8 benefitted the Carpenters’ members, as opposed to a bloated bureaucracy in 9 Washington D.C. and elsewhere: “It can be seen in our annual expenditure of 10 more than $175 million for the most up-to-date craft training in the industry 11 12 delivered at more than 225 training centers in the United States and Canada. We 13 took difficult steps to focus on the interests of the members by reorganizing our 14 15 union to reflect the industry our members work in, instead of the industry our 16 founders knew. Instead of staffing a Washington bureaucracy, we put hundreds of 17 organizers in the field. We merged local health and welfare funds into regional 18 19 funds to reduce benefit costs, increase bargaining power, and save tens of millions
20 of the members’ hard-earned dollars. The AFL-CIO resolution is a solution in 21 search of a problem.” (Carpenters’ Response to Resolution 70.) 22 23 155. To this day, Resolution 70 continues to be proudly posted on one of 24 the Painters’ websites. (www.dc36.org, last visited on January 25, 2012.) On the 25 26 website, the Painters’ reiterate that the battle-cry that the fight against the
27 Carpenters is “everyone’s fight.” Nevertheless, because Resolution 70 was a 28
85 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 solution in search of a problem, it lay dormant for the next couple of years while
2 other plans for the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign were formulated, 3 implemented and managed. 4 5 156. Violence and Vandalism in St. Louis: After Resolution 70 had been 6 drafted but before it was even passed and before their Push-Back-Carpenters 7 8 Campaign was even announced, the BCTD Defendants showed their true colors 9 and began their campaign of violent attacks against the Carpenters. On or about 10 August 23, 2009, the BCTD Defendants’ agents violently vandalized a Carpenters 11 12 Local 57 members’ work truck. The truck was parked at 4407-D Meramek Road, 13 St. Louis, Missouri. Bricks were thrown through the trucks’ windows. To make 14 15 sure the Carpenters knew why this was done and who did it, Defendants’ calling 16 card – a “No-57” logo – was spray painted all over the truck. The “No-57” calling 17 card was painted on the truck’s hood, driver’s door, passenger’s door, and on the 18 19 front fender, causing thousands of dollars in damages.
20 157. As described above, Local 57 is the Carpenters local that recruits, 21 accepts, and trains dues-paying members who perform electrical work, that the 22 23 BCTD Defendants’ claim “belong” like chattel and involuntary servitudes to, and 24 are to be turned over to, the IBEW, as part of a deal to secure bloated payments 25 26 for unrequested, unwanted and unnecessary services by the BCTD Defendants.
27 158. The “No-57” spray painted logo is the same logo that has been 28
86 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 posted on the BCTD Defendants’ internet sites (e.g., local57facts.com;
2 respectourcrafts.com, last visited on January 25, 2012), and put on their flyers, 3 stickers and t-shirts, including those proudly worn by the BCTD Defendants 4 5 during the Unity Rally, which is described below. 6 159. Defendants committed these acts of violence to send a strong 7 8 message and warning to the Carpenters that they had better give in to the BCTD 9 Defendants’ unlawful extortionate demands for monthly financial tributes, or else 10 face a war of attrition and no quarter. 11 12 160. Threats, Violence and Vandalism Continue in St. Louis: In work- 13 up to the next phase of the unlawful dimensions of the Push-Back-Carpenters 14 15 Campaign, the June 2010 massive BCTD Unity Rally, the Defendants’ agents 16 continued their extortionate threats, violence, and vandalism. On or about April 7, 17 2010, the BCTD Defendants’ agents smashed a $20,000 work sign, poured sugar 18 19 in the gas tank of a truck used by a Carpenters’ Local 57 member and spray
20 painted their “No 57” calling card all over two other trucks and two work 21 buildings where the trucks were parked. The trucks and buildings were located at 22 23 3630 South Broadway St., St. Louis, Missouri. 24 161. Shortly thereafter, the BCTD Defendants’ agents, Stephen and Tim 25 26 Schoemehl made veiled death threats and threats of violence and intimidation
27 against Terry Nelson, the St. Louis Carpenters’ highest ranking officer, his family 28
87 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 staff and union members because under Nelson’s leadership the Carpenters
2 recruited, accepted, and trained dues-paying members whom the BCTD 3 Defendants claim “belong”, like chattel and involuntary servitudes, to the IBEW 4 5 and their affiliates. 6 162. On or about, April 16, 2010, the BCTD Defendants’ agents Stephen 7 8 P. Schoemehl and his brother Tim, tag-teamed Nelson, with email threats. Stephen 9 Schoemehl is an IBEW International Executive council member, like Defendant 10 Hill. Tim Schoemehl, Stephen’s brother, is or was a Business Agent for IBEW 11 12 Local #1 in St. Louis. At 7:25 p.m., Tim Schoemehl emailed Nelson admitting, 13 ratifying, condoning and/or supporting the violent vandalism that had just 14 15 occurred by threatening violence against Nelson, his family, staff and union 16 members that “The walls are closing in on you terry!! Can you feel it terry? Can 17 you fucking feel it? A few minutes later, at 7:29 p.m., in a coordinated attack, 18 19 Stephen Schoemehl followed up with an email calling Nelson “a twisted, anti-
20 labor, egotistical little prick.” Stephen Schoemehl then, like his brother, 21 threatened Nelson that “The walls are closing in little man – good stuff coming 22 23 your way.” Tim Schoemehl again followed up by email on April 20, 2010, 24 reiterating to Nelson that “The Walls are getting closer!” 25 26 163. In the context of the prior and contemporaneous violent vandalism
27 Nelson understood what the BCTD Defendants’ meant: He and the Carpenters had 28
88 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 better give in to their unlawful extortionate demands or else their violence would
2 escalate and he would be buried in a coffin with the walls having closed in around 3 his beaten and lifeless body. To this day, people still ask Nelson if he is afraid for 4 5 his life because of what he and the Carpenters have done with respect to the 6 IBEW’s chattel. In addition, based on the timing, substance, content and context 7 8 of these threats, Nelson reasonably took the Schoemehl’s threats as admissions, 9 ratification, condonation and/or support for the anti-Carpenters 57 violent 10 vandalism that had recently occurred, as well as threats of more violence and 11 12 vandalism. 13 164. On the heels of the Schoemehls’ admissions and continued violent 14 15 threats, the BCTD Defendants held the Unity Rally. 16 165. Unity Rally: Because neither passage of Resolution 70, nor the 17 threats of violence, violence, and vandalism succeeded in forcing the Carpenters 18 19 into making the BCTD’s bloated monthly payments for unrequested, unwanted,
20 and unnecessary services and giving over to the BCTD Defendants its dues- 21 paying members, the BCTD Defendants increased the unlawful pressure against 22 23 the Carpenters by organizing and holding a massive rally in St. Louis where 24 thousands of their agents from around the country could attend, as the speakers’ 25 26 call to action in the context of the past violence could only mean that more of the
27 same would occur. 28
89 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 166. The BCTD Defendants selected St. Louis because this was where
2 the Carpenters had begun recently recruiting, accepting and training dues-paying 3 members who performed electrical work, members whom the BCTD Defendants 4 5 claimed “belonged” to the IBEW. Defendant Ayers was an IBEW member and 6 former official, and St. Louis was thought by Defendants to be an area where the 7 8 BCTD Defendants believed they had a strong presence. Co-conspirator Gerald 9 Feldhaus, Executive Secretary Treasurer the St. Louis Building and Construction 10 Trades Council, had also written a letter to Defendant Ayers on or about 11 12 December 3, 2009, calling on the BCTD Defendants and their unions from around 13 the country “to take a united, decisive and immediate stand against the 14 15 Carpenters.” In the context of the past violence, and the posting of Exhibit “C” on 16 the local57facts.com website, this was a call for more than lawful conduct. It was 17 a call for a new “united” national campaign of violence against the Carpenters 18 19 because peaceful means had failed.
20 167. So on the heels of passage of Resolution 70, the BCTD Defendants 21 and their co-conspirators organized a massive rally in St. Louis in the spring of 22 23 2010 called the “Unity Rally.” The purpose of the rally was to show the 24 Carpenters that the BCTD Defendants were capable of doing more than just 25 26 passage of a Resolution; to show the Carpenters that they were able to organize
27 massive numbers of BCTD union members, agents and representatives in a united, 28
90 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 decisive and immediate stand against the Carpenters to pressure, lawfully and
2 unlawfully, the Carpenters into agreeing to their unlawful extortionate demands to 3 obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and 4 5 maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 6 168. Shortly before the Unity Rally, Defendant Hill (IBEW) published 7 8 “An Open Letter to Building Trades Workers” in the St. Louis/Southern Illinois 9 Labor Tribune. Defendant Hill wanted to make sure that all BCTD union 10 members, agents and representatives understood what the BCTD Defendants were 11 12 expecting from them. The Labor Tribune has over 62,000 paid subscribers, 13 including 55 unions, and is the country’s top weekly labor newspaper. The Open 14 15 Letter was published in the June 17-23, 2010 edition. The front page headline 16 read “Building trades push back on Nelson [St. Louis Carpenters]” and gave the 17 Campaign its name: The “Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign.” 18 19 169. In the Open Letter, Hill confirmed what he had previously told
20 McCarron in person during their St. Louis meeting in or about the first week in 21 May, 2010: that the IBEW and the BCTD “are prepared to do whatever it takes to 22 23 protect our members and their jobs”, and get the Carpenters to succumb to the 24 BCTD Defendants’ extortionate demands. In the context of the prior violence, 25 26 “whatever it takes” means use violence, as the readers of the letter would surely
27 know. 28
91 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 170. The “Unity Rally” was held on or about June 15, 2010, at the
2 World’s Fair Pavilion at Forest Park in St. Louis. Various reports claim it was 3 attended by up to 7,000 BCTD union members, agents and representatives. 4 5 Defendant Ayers led a delegation that included approximately eight BCTD 6 General Presidents, including but not limited to Defendant Ayers (BCTD), 7 8 Defendant Williams (Painters), Defendant Hill (IBEW) and co-conspirators 9 Sullivan (SMW), Finley (Plasterers), and O’Sullivan (Laborers). Each President 10 spoke at the Unity Rally against the Carpenters. Also, at the rally were regional 11 12 vice presidents and other officers representing Teamsters, Plumbers and 13 Pipefitters, Insulators, Asbestos Workers, Ironworkers, and Sprinkler Fitters. 14 15 171. Defendant Hill spoke. He said that “one of the main goals of the 16 rally was to show a sense of unity among all the other trades” to address the 17 problems with the Carpenters. As explained, this included (1) recruiting, 18 19 accepting, and training dues-paying members that belonged to their unions, and
20 (2) for not making BCTD and Councils’ bloated monthly payments, which they 21 needed to operate and expand, and allow the BCTD Defendants’ unions to offset 22 23 their expenses and reduce their BCTD payments. Defendant Hill explained: 24 “What the carpenter leadership is doing in St. Louis is a betrayal of every 25 26 principle of unity and solidarity that impacts each and everyone one of us.”
27 172. Defendant Ayers also spoke. He stressed that the problems with the 28
92 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Carpenters were national in scope and needed a national united response; that is
2 why he, the BCTD, and the BCTD Defendants and other BCTD Governing Board 3 of Presidents had begun the Push-Back- Carpenters Campaign, and they were 4 5 there to explain what they and their union members, agents and representatives 6 were going to do against the Carpenters to force the Carpenters’ compliance with 7 8 their extortionate demands. To incite and scare people into action, Defendant 9 Ayers warned the union members, agents and representatives that they “are being 10 threatened all around the nation” by the Carpenters. To gleeful shouts of support, 11 12 Ayers concluded by declaring that, “This problem didn’t start in St. Louis, but 13 by God it needs to end in St. Louis!” Everyone in attendance and those who 14 15 heard about the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign understood the call that, in turn, 16 they were “to threaten” the Carpenters. In the context of the past violence, 17 “threaten” means to threaten and use physical violence and force, not merely to 18 19 carry a picket or peacefully and lawfully protest.
20 173. Defendant Williams (Painters) also spoke. He told the crowd that 21 the rally marked a “line in the sand” for the BCTD Defendants, their union 22 23 members, agents and representatives. He explained that, “After today, there’s no 24 going back.” This is because Defendant Williams knew that once they openly 25 26 attacked the Carpenters, as planned, the Carpenters would fight back.
27 Nevertheless, Defendant Williams made clear that as long as the BCTD 28
93 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Defendants stayed united and coordinated their unlawful extortionate attacks, they
2 could defeat the Carpenters and force the Carpenters into agreeing to their 3 unlawful extortionate demands. In the context of the past violence, “line in the 4 5 sand” and “no going back” means to threaten and use physical violence and force, 6 not merely to carry a picket or peacefully and lawfully protest. 7 8 174. Co-conspirator James Boland (Bricklayers’ President) also spoke. 9 To inspire the BCTD Defendants’ union members, agents and representatives, 10 Boland told a story about John Flynn, who retired recently as Bricklayers’ General 11 12 President, and Don Brown, business manager of IBEW Local 1, located in St. 13 Louis. Boland explained that both men were from St. Louis and were former 14 15 champion boxers. Boland said that, like these champion boxers who never backed 16 down from anyone, the BCTD Defendants’ union members, agents and 17 representatives were not going to let the Carpenters push them around: “Our 1.5 18 19 million members are not going to let anyone push us around.” Boland made clear
20 that Bricklayers and IBEW’s 1.5 million members were going to participate in, 21 support, and carry out the BCTD Defendants’ Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign. 22 23 In the context of the past violence, “not going to let anyone push us around” 24 because their champion boxers “never back down from anyone” means to threaten 25 26 and use physical violence and force, not merely to carry a picket or peacefully and
27 lawfully protest. 28
94 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 175. Co-conspirator Mike Sullivan (Sheet Metal Workers’ President,
2 ret.) also spoke. He reiterated that the BCTD Defendants’ Push-Back-Carpenters 3 Campaign was a united and coordinated campaign by all the BCTD’s affiliates 4 5 against the Carpenters. He let everyone there know, like Boland and the others, 6 that he was guaranteeing the full support and backing of his union and all of its 7 8 affiliates from around the country. He was emphatic: “We’ll support this effort 9 because it’s the right thing to do for everyone. When you take on one, you take 10 on all.” In the context of the past violence, “when you take on one you take on 11 12 all” means to threaten and use physical violence and force, not merely to carry a 13 picket or peacefully and lawfully protest. 14 15 176. Co-conspirator Pat Finley (Plasterers’ President) also spoke. Like 16 Sullivan, Finley promised the full support of his union and all of its affiliates 17 around the country. In the context of the past violence, promising full support 18 19 means to threaten and use physical violence and force, not merely to carry a picket
20 or peacefully and lawfully protest. 21 177. Co-conspirator, Terrence O’Sullivan (Laborers’ President) gave a 22 23 particularly violent speech, and got repeated cheers of support from the union 24 officials, representatives, agents and members in attendance. In his speech 25 26 O’Sullivan did not mince words and let it be known what kind of violence he
27 expected against the Carpenters and their interests. He explained that in his 28
95 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 neighborhood growing up, we would hang people like Doug McCarron
2 (Carpenters’ President) and Terry Nelson (St. Louis Carpenters’ highest officer). 3 To communicate that this was meant as a true threat for others to act upon, 4 5 O’Sullivan loudly asked the riotous audience if anyone had any rope? In the 6 context of the prior and repeated violence, “does anyone have any rope to hang” 7 8 means continued use violence and unlawful intimidation, as the listeners would 9 surely know. Such threats of violence are consistent with O’Sullivan’s biography, 10 which is located on the BCTD website. There, O’Sullivan describes himself and 11 12 his union as one of the most “aggressive” in the country. The Playbook that the 13 Laborers has previously developed and implemented now as part of the Push- 14 15 Back- Carpenters Campaign, confirms his aggressive approach to dealing with 16 those he views as enemies. In the context of the past violence, “aggressive” 17 means to threaten and use physical violence and force, not merely to carry a picket 18 19 or peacefully and lawfully protest.
20 178. During O’Sullivan’s speech he railed against the Carpenters, 21 declaring that “We will not tolerate the B.S. the Carpenters are pulling off.” 22 23 O’Sullivan went on stating: “At a time when we have tens of thousands out of 24 work trying to hold onto their homes, keep their healthcare and keep their families 25 26 together, the Carpenters decide that stealing work of fellow building trades
27 workers (is easier than) going out to organized the unorganized.” Nevertheless, 28
96 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 O’Sullivan knew that this claim was completely false because the workers that the
2 Carpenters had recruited and accepted were previously non-union workers. In 3 making these false charges, O’Sullivan also ignored that his union was doing the 4 5 same to the Operating Engineers, Plasterers and other around the country. In the 6 context of the past violence, “not tolerate” means to threaten and use physical 7 8 violence and force, not merely to carry a picket or peacefully and lawfully protest. 9 179. O’Sullivan continued his fiery speech by warning the Carpenters 10 and inciting the BCTD’s and affiliates’ union members, agents and representatives 11 12 that, “The spark we light here today will spread a fire across the country” in a 13 united opposition against the Carpenters. He promised that his union, members, 14 15 agents and representatives from around the country would give their “unqualified” 16 support and assistance in furtherance of the Campaign. In the context of the past 17 violence, “spark” and “fire” means to threaten and use physical violence and 18 19 force, not merely to carry a picket or peacefully and lawfully protest.
20 180. So together, the BCTD Defendants (Ayers, Hill, and Williams) and 21 their Co-conspirators on the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents publically 22 23 united in a coordinated, nationwide, violent extortionate conspiracy and unlawful 24 campaign against the Carpenters called the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign to 25 26 force the Carpenters to give in to their extortionate demands.
27 181. BCTD Committee: Before the Unity Rally, as contemplated by 28
97 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Resolution 70, the BCTD Defendants had established the “Committee” whose
2 purpose was to formulate, coordinate and implement the BCTD Defendants’ plans 3 of escalating attacks against the Carpenters as part of their unlawful extortionate 4 5 conspiracy. To date, the Committee has developed, coordinated and implemented 6 a series of escalating attacks intended to financially injure and cripple the 7 8 Carpenters until they are forced to give in to their unlawful extortionate demands, 9 including turning over to the BCTD Defendants their dues-paying members that 10 they claim belong to their unions, and begin making – and continue making – 11 12 monthly payments to the BCTD and Councils. The Committee is still in existence 13 and continues to actively work formulating, coordinating, and implementing 14 15 further unlawful extortionate attacks to inflict maximum financial injury on the 16 Plaintiffs. 17 182. Shortly after the Unity Rally, Defendant Ayers started travelling 18 19 back and forth across the country giving speeches to update the BCTD
20 Defendants’ officials, agents, representatives and members about the progress of 21 the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to 22 23 obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an 24 interest and control over the Carpenters. Defendant Ayers travelled from 25 26 Washington D.C. to Virginia, Minnesota, and Nevada to speak at various
27 conventions and meetings. 28
98 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
th 1 183. For instance, on or about August 18, 2010, at the BCTD’s 68
2 Convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Defendant Ayers gleefully told the 3 delegates “the Committee is exploring all options to address this problem (i.e., the 4 5 Carpenters). And you have my word that whatever measures are adopted by the 6 committee and the Board will be executed by this Department and its affiliates to 7 8 their fullest extent.” (Keynote Address, Mark H. Ayers, President, Building and 9 Construction Trades Department, 68th Convention, August 18, 2010, Minneapolis, 10 MN.) Ayers also let the delegates know that they were going to force, by 11 12 whatever means necessary, the Carpenters to succumb to their demands: “let me 13 be as clear as I can. No one can, and no one will, tolerate what the Carpenters 14 15 have done, and continue to do.” Defendant Ayers thus promised that all BCTD 16 Defendants and co-conspirators’ unions, officers, agents, representatives and 17 members were at the disposal of the Committee and were prepared to 18 19 comprehensively and violently attack the Carpenters when called upon. In the
20 context of the unlawful extortionate conspiracy, this language echoes back to the 21 acts of violence and vandalism, and anyone there would have heard them to mean 22 23 “more of the same.” 24 184. In later speeches Defendant Ayers gave more particulars of the 25 26 Committee’s makeup. He stated that the Committee included representatives
27 from all of the BCTD’s General Presidents’ unions. He stated that the Committee 28
99 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 had already drafted a plan of attack and marveled at how quickly the Committee
2 had done so. Defendant Ault also repeatedly reiterated his promise that whatever 3 measures are adopted by the Committee will be implemented to the fullest extent 4 5 by all of the BCTD, its Councils, its affiliated unions, and their officers, agents, 6 representatives and members. 7 8 185. For instance, in speaking on or about August 25, 2010, to the Sheet 9 Metal Workers Business Managers Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, Defendant 10 Ayers stated that the Committee is being “headed by my partner Sean McGarvey” 11 12 and “includes representatives of all our affiliated unions, including the SMWIA.” 13 Defendant Ayers again confirmed that the Committee was “exploring all options” 14 15 and that “whatever measures are adopted” will be executed by “the entire 16 Department and our affiliates to their fullest extent.” He went on to talk about 17 the plan that the Committee had written: “Their draft plan that was submitted to 18 19 me is nothing less than heroic, considering the short time they had to put
20 something together.” Ayers went on to “personally thank your Committee 21 Representative Jim White” for the work he had done and contributed to the effort. 22 23 (Remarks, Mark H. Ayers, President, Building and Construction Trades 24 Department, Sheet Metal Workers Business Managers Conference, August 25, 25 26 2010, Las Vegas, NV.) In the context of the unlawful extortionate conspiracy,
27 this language echoes back to the acts of violence and vandalism, and anyone there 28
100 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 would have heard them to mean “more of the same.”
2 186. Similarly, in speaking to the Virginia BCTD’s Building & 3 Construction Trades Council’s Convention, on August 30, 2010, at Virginia 4 5 Beach, Virginia, Defendant Ayers also stated that the Committee is being “headed 6 by our very capable Secretary Treasurer, Sean McGarvey” who is “charged with 7 8 developing a plan of actions and recommendations to address” the Carpenters “in 9 a straightforward and effective manner.” He continued to re-affirm that the 10 Committee was “exploring all options” and that “whatever measures are 11 12 adopted” will be executed by “the entire Department and our affiliates” to their 13 fullest extent. (Remarks, Mark H. Ayers, President, Building and Construction 14 15 Trades Department, Virginia Building & Construction Trades Council 16 Convention, August 30, 2010, Virginia Beach, VA.) In the context of the 17 unlawful extortionate conspiracy, this language echoes back to the acts of violence 18 19 and vandalism, and anyone there would have heard them to mean “more of the
20 same.” 21 187. Also, on or about September 14, 2010, Defendant Ayers spoke at 22 23 the Bricklayers 2010 National Convention in Las Vegas, Nevada, to give the 24 BCTD Defendants’ officers, agents, representatives and members a status update 25 26 on the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy
27 to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain 28
101 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 an interest and control over the Carpenters. Defendant Ayers began by stating, “I
2 have to talk to you about a problem we have . . . a fox in the henhouse type of 3 problem . . . that is in our midst. The Department has been forced to devote 4 5 increasing time and resources to counter increasing efforts by the United 6 Brotherhood of Carpenters to raid the work of other craft unions.” Defendant 7 8 Ayers continued, “It’s gone on in New York . . . in the Pacific Northwest . . . in 9 California and in mid-America. It’s a cancer that is spreading.” Defendant Ayers 10 also talked about the Committee that the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators 11 12 had established. He said that the Defendants “established a formal committee that 13 includes representatives of all of our affiliated unions – including the 14 15 [Bricklayers].” Defendant Ayers continued, “the committee is exploring all 16 options to address” the Carpenters “And you have my word, that whatever 17 measures are adopted by the committee and the Building Trades’ Governing 18 19 Board will be executed to their fullest extent. And I would hope and expect to
20 have the full backing of this great institution when that time arrives.” In the 21 context of the unlawful extortionate conspiracy, this language echoes back to the 22 23 acts of violence and vandalism, and anyone there would have heard them to mean 24 “more of the same.” 25 26 188. Defendant Ayers finished his speech with the following: “To
27 summarize, let me simply state that the Republicans are out to get us once again . . 28
102 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 . and so is the Carpenters’ International. But I am here to tell you, neither will
2 succeed . . . because we don’t run from a fight . . . Ever! Ever! Ever!” (Remarks, 3 Mark H. Ayers, President, Building and Construction Trades Department, 4 5 Bricklayers Convention, September 14, 2010, Las Vegas, NV.) In the context of 6 the unlawful extortionate conspiracy, this language echoes back to the acts of 7 8 violence and vandalism, and anyone there would have heard them to mean “more 9 of the same.” 10 189. Laborers’ Playbook, and the BCTD Defendants’ Implementation 11 12 of Unlawful and Bad Faith Tactics to “Drive Up the Costs” of the Carpenters: 13 As mentioned above, the Laborers had developed and implemented a Playbook of 14 15 unlawful and bad faith tactics solely to “drive up the costs” to the Carpenters. 16 This Playbook has been incorporated into the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign. 17 190. PNRCC and its Sponsored Apprenticeship Program’s Attempt to 18 19 Obtain State Approval to Train Drywall Taping Apprentices: The BCTD
20 Defendants’ agents and co-conspirators have been attempting intentionally to 21 block, hinder, delay, interfere with and/or obstruct the Carpenters’ sponsored 22 23 apprenticeship training programs from gaining state and/or federal agency 24 approval to train apprentice members in various work processes, including 25 26 drywall taping. Defendants have done so by pursuing sham claims that are
27 objectively baseless and brought for an unlawful motive and/or pursuant to a 28
103 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 policy of pursuing a series of unlawful and frivolous and bad faith protests,
2 objections and/or charges against the Carpenters and their sponsored programs 3 without regards to the merits and for an unlawful purpose, and continue to do so 4 5 through the present. 6 191. The BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators have also used their 7 8 members, agents and/or representatives who are state government agency 9 committees overseeing such protests, objections and/or charges to unlawfully use 10 their official positions to do Defendants’ bidding and delay, block, interfere with 11 12 and/or obstruct the Carpenters and their sponsored programs. 13 192. The BCTD Defendants’ officer, agents, representatives and 14 15 members have engaged in these tactics solely in an attempt to extort the 16 Carpenters and secure the Carpenters’ money and property by getting them to 17 comply with their unlawful extortionate demands to obtain the business and 18 19 property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over
20 the Carpenters. The BCTD Defendants have instigated, supported, condoned, 21 authorized and/or ratified numerous objections, charges, and grievances 22 23 purportedly filed and pursued by the Painters, Plasterers and Laborers and/or their 24 agents or representatives in follow-through and implementation of the Laborers’ 25 26 Playbook unlawful and bad faith tactics that in this context constitutes extortion.
27 193. Shortly before the Unity Rally, the Laborers held a training session 28
104 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 for its officers, agents, and representatives from around the Northwestern parts of
2 the United States and Canada on using and implementing their Playbook of 3 unlawful and bad faith tactics against the Carpenters. As mentioned, the Playbook 4 5 details how the Laborers will engage in unlawful conduct to solely “drive up the 6 costs” to the Carpenters and have admitted to conspiring with the Painters to do so 7 8 as part of a “joint effort” in the drywall industry where the Carpenters have sought 9 government approval in Washington State and California to train drywall taping 10 apprentices. (Exh. “F”, pg. 7.). The Playbook stresses that “This fight is not a 11 12 legal fight, it is an economic fight.” (Exh. “F”, pg. 10, emphasis in original). 13 The Playbook concludes by re-iterating the unlawful means of their conduct: “If 14 15 we keep the fight more costly for the Carpenters and their vertical 16 contractors than for [the Laborers] and our contractors, we will win over 17 time.” (Exh. “F”, pg. 10, emphasis in original). 18 19 194. The training session took place between June 7-9, 2010, at the
20 Laborers’ NW Regional Conference in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. At 21 the conference, the Laborers’ Associate General Counsel, Steve Cuddy, gave a 22 23 training session on the detailed Playbook he had put together. Cuddy explained 24 (1) how the Laborers were going to take over the Plasterers’ cement masons’ 25 26 jurisdiction, and, most importantly, (2) how to “drive up the costs” for the
27 Carpenters as a way to extort the Carpenters into coming back to the “family”, not 28
105 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 recruit, accept, and train dues-paying members that the Laborers claimed
2 “belonged,” like chattel and involuntary servitudes, to them and the BCTD 3 Defendants, and to begin paying the bloated monthly “tributes” for the 4 5 unrequested, unwanted and unnecessary services. (Exh. “F”.) In brief, it was 6 about people and money. 7 8 195. In the Playbook and his presentations, Cuddy put forth a policy and 9 “A Step-by-Step Process to Drive up the Costs.” (Underline in the original.) 10 Cuddy advised the Laborers’ officers, agents, and representatives to “File costly 11 12 grievances” because the Carpenters “simply cannot afford to finance too many of 13 these cases.” Cuddy explained that the legal costs can easily total $10,000- 14 15 $20,000. Cuddy also advised that the Laborers should engage in a continuous 16 pattern of regulatory harassment such as by filing prevailing wage, equal 17 employment opportunity, and apprenticeship enforcement complaints. Cuddy also 18 19 advised how the Laborers could utilize these procedures without an attorney,
20 explaining “this will keep our costs down, and raise the costs for the Carpenters 21 and their vertical employers.” In brief, the unlawful and bad faith tactics would 22 23 raise the costs to the Carpenters and force the Carpenters to give into its unlawful 24 extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and 25 26 to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters.
27 196. Cuddy further advised that the Laborers should send in covert 28
106 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 agents who would be loyal to the Laborers but disloyal to the Carpenters to work
2 for the Carpenters who would spy on the Carpenters, steal information from the 3 Carpenters, and disrupt and sabotage the Carpenters’ activities from the inside and 4 5 force the Carpenters to give in to its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the 6 business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest 7 8 and control over the Carpenters. Nevertheless, the Playbook was merely an 9 updated and specific application of an earlier generic program of regulatory 10 harassment that Cuddy had put together years before and which the Laborers had 11 12 been implementing against the Carpenters beginning in 2008, shortly before the 13 BCTD Defendants began their Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful 14 15 extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and 16 permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 17 197. In the spring of 2008, in the Northwest Laborers magazine, Cuddy 18 19 published an article advising the Laborers’ officials, agents, representatives, and
20 members how to use Regulatory Laws for “strategic use” against their enemies. 21 The Northwest Laborers magazine is an official publication of the Laborers and is 22 23 reviewed, approved, and/or ratified by O’Sullivan himself. The tactics are an 24 unlawful and bad faith means to force others to give up their people and money 25 26 for the Laborers’ financial benefit.
27 198. In the article, Cuddy explained that the Laborers should combine 28
107 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 “economic pressure strategies” and “selective use of these various legal tactics can
2 help unions” to “defeat other unions that challenge [the Laborers] mission.” The 3 Laborers quickly began using the Washington state apprenticeship laws and 4 5 complaint procedures against the Carpenters and their sponsored programs in 6 order to block, delay, and hopefully, get the Carpenters and their training 7 8 programs barred from training apprentices in Washington state, so the Laborers 9 could take over such training, and the members (and dues) that such training 10 generates. The tactics are an unlawful and bad faith means to force the Carpenters 11 12 to give into its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 13 property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over 14 15 the Carpenters. 16 199. Apprenticeship training approval is important because, on both state 17 and federal prevailing wage jobs in Washington, employers have economic 18 19 incentives to use apprentices, and when projects are covered by project labor
20 agreements, these apprentices are required to be members of unions who must pay 21 dues in order to remain working. If a union can control the training of 22 23 apprentices, that union can control a steady supply of dues-paying members. 24 Accordingly, the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators’ unions routinely attempt 25 26 to block approval of new training programs. They fear competition and prefer the
27 training monopolies they possess. 28
108 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 200. Beginning in 2008, and continuing through the present, the Laborers
2 have been joined by other BCTD Defendants’ agents to put the unlawful Playbook 3 into action. Examples include the Laborers, through their agent, Abbott, filing 4 5 numerous complaints which make frivolous and specious allegations without 6 regards to their merits against the PNRCC’s sponsored training program, Plaintiff 7 8 Washington State Carpenters JATC, with the Washington State Apprenticeship 9 Training Council (“WSATC”) beginning in 2008. Before implementing their 10 unlawful Playbook, the Laborers, through one of its related and/or sponsored 11 12 entities, hired a full time staff to do the research in a vain attempt to justify their 13 regulatory harassment bad faith tactics. Among the individuals the Laborers hired 14 15 was Jim Christiansen. Christenson’s job is to review all the Carpenters’ 16 employers’ apprenticeship program related public filings to find specious and 17 otherwise problems related to apprenticeship issues and then have Robert Abbott 18 19 file specious and otherwise complaints, whether frivolous or not, on behalf of the
20 Laborers against the Carpenters and their business interests. Christiansen was a 21 former prevailing wage officer for Washington State Labor & Industries (“L&I”) 22 23 out of their Tumwiler office. 24 201. So when the PNRCC and its training program in Washington State 25 26 attempted to obtain approval to train drywall taping dues-paying members, whom
27 the Painters claim “belong” to them, like chattel and involuntary servitudes, the 28
109 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 BCTD Defendants’ and their agents sprang into action by implementing the
2 Laborers’ unlawful and bad faith tactics Playbook, as part of the Push-Back- 3 Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the 4 5 business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain 6 an interest and control over the Carpenters. 7 8 202. The Painters’ and Plasterers’ agents filed, and to this day continue 9 to pursue, frivolous objections trying to block, hinder, delay, and interfere with the 10 PNRCC’s program’s attempt to obtain approval to train drywall taping 11 12 apprentices. They have engaged in, and continue to engage in, various frivolous 13 tactics solely to delay the process and to drive up the costs to the PNRCC and its 14 15 training program. To date, the BCTD Defendants have been wildly successful, 16 because they have been able to delay approval of the needed approval to put 17 trained workers to work on public works jobs for five years and counting, and 18 19 have caused an enormous increase in costs along the way and contributed to the
20 unemployment rate. 21 203. The Painters District Council 5 is paying for the lawyers for both 22 23 the Painters’ and Plasterers’ agents to prosecute the objections, which are 24 purportedly brought by their respective training programs. The BCTD 25 26 Defendants’ agents who filed the objections were William Regan, Painters’
27 member, and Mark Markham, Plasterers’ member. 28
110 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 204. Examples of their bad faith, frivolous, and objectively baseless
2 objections include claiming that the PNRCC’s proposed program’s standards were 3 not reasonably consistent with the existing standards even though the proposed 4 5 standards were identical to those of one of the Painters’ programs, the Oregon- 6 Southwest Washington Drywall Finishers program. 7 8 205. In addition, beginning on or about June 26, 2008, and continuing to 9 the present, the Laborers filed numerous frivolous complaints against the 10 Carpenters’ training program containing numerous objectively baseless, totally 11 12 fabricated and false allegations without regards to their merits. The BCTD 13 Defendants’ agent is Robert Abbott. Abbott lists himself as the Assistant 14 15 Business Manager of the Laborers District Council of Washington and Northern 16 Idaho. He has filed the numerous and repeated charges with the WASTC against 17 the Carpenters’ apprenticeship program about issues unrelated to the proposed 18 19 drywall taping program. One of the charges alleged by the Laborers claimed that
20 the Carpenters were allowing a signatory contractor, Ebenal General, Inc., to the 21 work carpenter apprentices out of the known work processes by performing the 22 23 work of another craft. (See, e.g., Case Nos. 08-11, 08-12, 08-13, 08-14, 08-15, 24 09-01, 09-02, 09-03, 09-04, & 09-05). In essence, the Abbott alleged Carpenters 25 26 apprentices working for Ebenal General were doing the work of laborer
27 apprentices. 28
111 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 206. Similarly, on or about June 24, 2011, the BCTD Defendants’ agent,
2 Russ Robinson, filed a claim against Pacific Construction Systems (“PCS”) 3 claiming that by using the Carpenters’ members to perform work PCS was 4 5 violating the Washington State Public Works Law, WAC 296-127-01344. 6 Nevertheless, this claim was objectively baseless and frivolous as state law did not 7 8 provide that the Laborers would get the work, and PCS had been using the 9 Carpenters to do such work for decades. When their frivolous claim failed, the 10 BCTD Defendants retaliated. On or about October 18, 2011, their agent, Abbott, 11 12 next filed an apprenticeship complaint with the WSATC against the Carpenters’ 13 program claiming that during the past year PCS worked apprentice Carpenters 14 15 outside their known work processes by stocking and scrapping of materials. 16 These violations, like the false and frivolous Public Works violation claim, 17 concerned a job at the University of Washington, Medical Center Expansion 18 19 project.
20 207. As the Laborers’ Playbook admits, the purpose of these charges was 21 not to remedy actual violations, but were brought pursuant to a policy to solely 22 23 increase the costs to the Carpenters and their employers, in order to injure them in 24 their business and property, without regard to whether these charges had merit. 25 26 Not surprisingly, L&I found no basis for any of the above allegations – no
27 evidence, no witnesses, and no documentation to support any of these alleged 28
112 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 violations. The simple reason is that these allegations were totally fabricated,
2 objectively baseless and intentionally false because the Laborers had absolutely no 3 evidence or witnesses or documents to support the charges, and they knew it. 4 5 These false, baseless and frivolous charges were filed in furtherance of the 6 Laborers’ Playbook of bad faith and unlawful tactics as part of the Push-Back- 7 8 Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the 9 business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain 10 an interest and control over the Carpenters. 11 12 208. After the Unity Rally, O’Sullivan’s speech and on the heels of 13 Cuddy’s seminars and Playbook, Abbott filed more charges against the 14 15 Carpenters’ program with the WASTC. On or about August 4, 2010, Abbott filed 16 charges again containing the same frivolous and totally unsupported allegations 17 that they had filed before, but this time involving a different employer, Brand. 18 19 Abbott claimed that the Carpenters were allowing a signatory contractor to the
20 work carpenter apprentices out of the known work processes by performing the 21 work of another craft. (See e.g., Case Nos.10-13, 10-14, 10-15, 10-16, & 10-17). 22 23 In essence, the Abbott said the Carpenters apprentices working for Brand were 24 doing the work of laborer apprentices. Again, L&I, on or about November 18, 25 26 2010, found no basis for any of these allegations – no evidence, no witnesses, and
27 no documentation to support any of these alleged violations. The simple reason is 28
113 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 that these charges were totally fabricated, objectively baseless and intentionally
2 false because the Laborers had absolutely no evidence or witnesses or documents 3 to support the charges, and they knew it. 4 5 209. Also, involved in implementing the Push-Back-Carpenters 6 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 7 8 property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and 9 control over the Carpenters as it pertains to misusing the administrative process is 10 co-conspirator, Lee Newgent. Newgent is an official with various Washington 11 12 Building and Construction Trades Councils. Newgent is also Chairman of the 13 WSATC. On the BCTD’s Respectourcrafts.com website (see Paragraphs 246- 14 15 254 below, last visited on January 25, 2012), Newgent gives a videotaped 16 interview saying that he opposes the PNRCC because they are recruiting, 17 accepting, and training dues-paying union members, which “belong” to the 18 19 Painters, like chattel and involuntary servitudes. Despite Newgent’s adverse
20 public comments, he has refused to step aside from deciding whether the 21 PNRCC’s training program should be approved. Instead, he has actively opposed 22 23 his removal, and he has actively participated in delaying, obstructing, blocking 24 and interfering with the approval of program on behalf of the BCTD Defendants, 25 26 including refusing to process the program’s application because some other
27 agency was considering some other complaints against the Carpenters, but not the 28
114 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 program, and repeatedly referring the program’s standards to an Administrative
2 Law Judge to decide even though the standards were identical to the Painters’ 3 program. In addition, after the first ALJ rejected all of the Painters’ and Plasterers’ 4 5 frivolous objections on or about February 17, 2011, Newgent orchestrated a 6 review of some of the original ALJ’s decision after the Painters’ and Plasterers’ 7 8 lawyers failed to timely file objections and signed an order prohibiting the second 9 ALJ to decide the matter At the WSATCH hearing that was held on about April 10 2011, Newgent remanded the matter to another ALJ. This has caused further 11 12 delay and needlessly increased the PNRCC’s and its program’s costs. 13 210. In addition, as mentioned above, the Painters are paying for the 14 15 lawyers of the nominal objecting parties, which are the Painters’ competing 16 programs and the Plasterers’ program which is not. When the PNRCC and its 17 program filed for approval of its drywall taping training program, its long-time 18 19 attorneys, the Robblee firm, abstained from representing either the Carpenters or
20 the Painters because each was its clients and the conflict was unwaivable. 21 Nevertheless, as discussed below (see Paragraphs 308-317 below), after the 22 23 BCTD Defendants’ threatened to terminate the Robblee firm if it continued to 24 represent the Carpenters, the Robblee firm fired the Carpenters with a promise of 25 26 additional work from the BCTD Defendants and began representing the BCTD
27 Defendants, including the Painters, directly against its former clients, without ever 28
115 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 seeking any conflict waiver. Now the Robblee firm has joined together with
2 Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP, which is also the Laborers’ 3 long-time law firm to prosecute the Painters’ and Plasters’ objections to the 4 5 PNRCC’s proposed program. 6 211. After the ALJ decision, the Robblee firm came in and filed 7 8 untimely objections. One of their arguments was that the ALJ should have 9 allowed into evidence the Laborers’ numerous and growing list of complaints, 10 even though the first ALJ ruled such objections are irrelevant. As indicated 11 12 above, Newgent thereafter orchestrated remand of this evidentiary ruling to 13 another ALJ. 14 15 212. On remand, the Painters and Plasterers conducted wide-ranging 16 discovery, including over issues that were not relevant to any of the issues on the 17 limited remand. For instance, they sought the identities of the apprentices who 18 19 sought drywall taping training, the contractors who have agreements with the
20 PNRCC to perform drywall taping, and the instructors who will teach the 21 apprentices. In addition, they served discovery after the court-ordered discovery 22 23 cut-off. Such discovery had no relevance to the narrow issues to be decided, but 24 would have assisted the Laborers, Painters and Plasterers in their admitted 25 26 conspiracy to pursue additional objectively baseless and frivolous complaints
27 solely to “drive up the costs” to the Carpenters and their contractors. After valid 28
116 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 objections were filed to such invalid discovery, the Painters and Plasterers filed
2 serial motions to compel. In response, the ALJ had to step in to shut them down 3 and stop the harassing, irrelevant and bad faith discovery. This has caused further 4 5 delay and increased costs, something intended. 6 213. SWRCC and its Sponsored Apprenticeship Program’s Attempt to 7 8 Obtain State Approval to Train Drywall Taping Apprentices: Similar to the 9 Laborers, the Painters, through its District Council 36, have filed a pattern of 10 frivolous and objectively baseless complaints with the California Department of 11 12 Industrial Relations (“DIR”) about the SWRCC’s apprenticeship program, 13 Plaintiff Southwest Carpenters JATC. The Painters’ complaints were filed against 14 15 the Program itself, as well as SWRCC signatory employers who were supplied 16 with apprentices from the Carpenters’ program. These complaints attempt to 17 punish the SWRCC’s program for training drywall taping apprentices through 18 19 their Drywall/Lathing program, which specifically allows such training, and then
20 to whipsaw the SWRCC, objecting to the SWRCC and training program’s attempt 21 to get approval to train drywall taping apprentices in a stand-alone program. 22 23 214. The DIR oversees California state’s apprenticeship programs 24 through its Department of Apprenticeship Standards (“DAS”). 25 26 215. The Painters’ complaints were objectively baseless because the
27 Carpenters’ standards provided them with the right to train apprentices in drywall 28
117 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 taping work. For instance, the Painters filed a charge with the DAS alleging that
2 the Carpenters’ program was violating state apprenticeship law because it has 3 been supplying indentured apprentices to perform work in the occupation of 4 5 Drywall Finishing, something the Painters claimed only its program could do. In 6 response, the DAS promptly started a case, Painters and Allied Trades District 7 8 Council 36 v. Southern California Drywall/Lather JATC, DAS Complaint No. 9 2008-05. On or about February 21, 2008, the DAS also referred the matter to 10 hearing. Eventually, after much time and expenses, the Painters’ complaint was 11 12 rejected by the DAS. 13 216. After posting Resolution 70 on its dc36.org website (last visited on 14 15 January 25, 2012), and in furtherance of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and 16 its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 17 Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the 18 19 Carpenters, the Painters continued to file frivolous charges against the SWRCC’s
20 program. On or about March 25, 2009, the Painters filed charges with the 21 California Apprenticeship Council (“CAC”) complaining that the SWRCC’s 22 23 drywall/lathing apprenticeship training program was not in compliance with its 24 drywall/lathing apprenticeship standards because it was training workers in 25 26 drywall taping, something its approved program specifically allows. Prior to
27 filing these charges, the Painters had unsuccessfully attempted to have a municipal 28
118 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 school district prohibit the SWRCC’s drywall/lathing apprentices from performing
2 drywall taping on its projects. Because drywall taping was part of the Carpenters’ 3 drywall/lathing program, the school district responded that there was no violation 4 5 using drywall/lathing apprentices to perform drywall taping. The Painters then 6 pleaded with the CAC to find a violation, falsely claiming that only its program 7 8 could lawfully train apprentices in drywall taping work processes. 9 217. The Painters’ false and objectively baseless charges were 10 summarily rejected by the Acting Chief of the DAS, Glen Foreman. Mr. Foreman 11 12 sent a letter, on or about May 29, 2009, to Hugh Lee regarding the Fullerton 13 (California) Joint Unified School District, La Vista/La Sierra High School Project 14 15 clarifying that the Carpenters’ program’s drywall/ lathing apprentices could be 16 used for drywall taping on the schools’ project. The DAS pointed out that the 17 Carpenters’ program includes “1,600 hours of Allies Ancillary Work Process in its 18 19 on-the-job training requirements which include elements of the drywall finishing
20 work.” 21 218. Because the Painters have continued to harass the SWRCC’s 22 23 program and apprentices, the SWRCC’s program filed for a stand-alone drywall 24 taping program. On or about April 23, 2010, the DAS ruled that the proposed 25 26 Carpenters drywall taping apprenticeship training standards were complete and
27 should be approved. However, the Painters immediately filed objections. A 28
119 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 hearing was held before the Acting Chief, DAS, on July 18, 2011. On November
2 8, 2011, after much wasted time and expense, the Painters’ objections were 3 rejected by the DAS and the Acting Chief approved the program. 4 5 219. The Painters, however, have not given up on their unlawful and 6 extortionate campaign and are currently appealing the matter to the CAC. 7 8 220. IBEW Media Campaign: Immediately after the Unity Rally, and in 9 furtherance of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate 10 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire 11 12 and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenter, Defendant Hill announced 13 on the IBEW website that the IBEW was also “launching a sweeping campaign”. 14 15 Defendant Hill stated that they would use mounted billboards, print and radio ads 16 in the St. Louis area against the Carpenters. Defendant Hill also said the IBEW 17 would use rolling billboards in Las Vegas, Nevada, Cleveland, Ohio, Minneapolis, 18 19 Minnesota and Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. In addition to the IBEW website,
20 International Executive Council member, Stephen P. Schoemehl, also created 21 www.local57facts.com as part of, and in furtherance of, the Push-Back-Carpenters 22 23 Campaign and unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 24 property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over 25 26 the Carpenters. On this website, the BCTD Defendants also cite to the earlier
27 article by one of the BCTD affiliates on the buildingtrades.com website that 28
120 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 admits to and advocates further “united” violence against the Carpenters as a
2 means to accomplish their unlawful ends, and warns of further violence against 3 the Carpenters. This article has now become intentionally and expressly part of 4 5 the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and unlawful extortionate conspiracy. (See 6 Paragraphs 11 and 163 above.) In the context of the past violence, the implied 7 8 meaning of these calls to arms was more of the same violence expanded in the 9 nationwide campaign against the Carpenters. 10 221. Amending the Sound Transit PLA: In another follow-through with 11 12 the Laborers’ Playbook and in furtherance of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign 13 and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 14 15 Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the 16 Carpenters, Abbott and Newgent have also misused project labor agreements with 17 public agencies. The Carpenters have long opposed using the BCTD’s Plan for 18 19 the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Construction Industry because,
20 inter alia, it is biased and has been used as a tool in the BCTD Defendants’ 21 unlawful extortionate campaign. 22 23 222. Because of this opposition, Abbot and Newgent, on behalf of the 24 BCTD Defendants, specifically obtained an amendment in 2011 to the Sound 25 26 Transit Project Labor Agreement which had previously excluded non-traditional
27 jurisdictional disputes from being heard by the Plan’s arbitrators. Sound Transit is 28
121 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 a state agency and thus exempt from coverage by the National Labor Relations
2 Act, as amended. 3 223. Some of the ways that the Plan has become an unlawful and 4 5 extortionate weapon against the Carpenters is through actions taken by the Plan 6 and the Plan’s Administrator. The Plan is Administered by the BCTD’s General 7 8 Counsel, Richard Resnik and his law firm Sherman, Dunn, Cohen, Leifer & 9 Yellig. Resnik and his firm is also the IBEW’s General Counsel, as well as 10 numerous other BCTD affiliates. 11 12 224. Resnik and his law firm are financially controlled by the BCTD 13 Defendants. His firm makes millions of dollars in fees from both the IBEW and 14 15 the Defendant BCTD. For instance, for the years 2007-2010, Resnik’s firm made 16 $8.8 million from the IBEW and $3 million from the BCTD. (See LM-2s.) In 17 comparison, Resnik and his firm make virtually no money being the Plan’s 18 19 Administrator and its attorneys.
20 225. Because of this control, Resnik has actively participated in actions 21 seeking to enforce unlawful Plan arbitration awards against the Carpenters, rather 22 23 than staying neutral in such disputes. See, e.g., Standard Drywall Inc. v. 24 Operative Plasterers’ and Cement Masons’ International Ass’n, U.S. District 25 26 Court, Central District of California, EDCV 09-115-SGL (rejecting attempt to
27 enforce unlawful Plan arbitration awards). 28
122 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 226. The BCTD Defendants and Co-Conspirators Are Joined by the
2 Metal Trades Department’s President, Ron Ault, in Kicking the Carpenters Out 3 of the Metal Trades Department so that the Carpenters’ Dues, Members, and 4 5 Other Rights Could Be Given to the BCTD Defendants: The biggest financial hit 6 to date that the BCTD Defendants have inflicted on the Carpenters was when they 7 8 got Metal Trades Department, Ron Ault, to join the conspiracy and together kick 9 the Carpenters out of the Metal Trades Department. 10 227. As described above in Paragraphs 23, 65, and 71, the Metal Trades 11 12 Department and the BCTD are each a separate labor organization, each an 13 independent legal entity, with different legal rights, duties, obligations, and 14 15 members. Each has a separate governing Constitution, executive board, President, 16 officers, affiliated unions, and each represents different groups of workers. The 17 Metal Trades Department represents members in the metal trades industries, 18 19 including shipyards, whereas the BCTD represents members in the building and
20 construction industries. The Metal Trades Department is much smaller and 21 financially weaker than the Building Trades Department. Whereas the BCTD has 22 23 millions of members and takes in millions of dollars in payments per year, the 24 Metal Trades Department has only tens of thousands and, correspondingly, takes 25 26 in much less. This is reflected in the outsized and unwarranted salary of President
27 Ault, who makes $400,000 per year. In contrast, the Metal Trades Department’s 28
123 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 President Ault makes less than $180,000 per year. Accordingly, while the
2 Carpenters were affiliated with the Metal Trades Department, it has no relation, 3 and does not want to have any relation – contractual or otherwise – to the BCTD, 4 5 and makes no monthly payments to the BCTD, and does not want to make any 6 such tribute payments. 7 8 228. Looking for a way to financially injure the Carpenters in their 9 business and property, and quickly to obtain the Carpenters’ dues money because 10 the Carpenters had not yet to succumb to making the BCTD’s bloated and 11 12 extortionate monthly tribute payments, the BCTD Defendants figured out a direct 13 way to steal the Carpenters’ dues, members, jurisdiction and other valuable 14 15 economic rights. The Plan was simple: take control of the Metal Trades 16 Department and force it to revoke the Carpenters’ Charters and simply take for 17 themselves the Carpenters’ property. 18 19 229. Nevertheless, the BCTD Defendants plan ran into a “little problem.”
20 The Metal Trades Department’s President initially opposed to such actions, 21 because such actions were for unlawful extortionate reasons. Defendant Ault did 22 23 not want to join, and he did not want the Metal Trade Department to be used as 24 part of an illegal conspiracy, which casts considerable light on the conduct of the 25 26 others who readily joined the illegal and extortionate conspiracy. Defendant Ault
27 even wrote a detailed Memo explaining this to the BCTD Defendants and co- 28
124 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 conspirators. (“Admissions Memo,” Exh. “E” hereto.) In addition, President
2 Giblin, who had earlier protested the BCTD’s conduct to the AFL-CIO with 3 respect to Resolution 70 (see Paragraphs 142-155), also refused to join the 4 5 unlawful extortionate conspiracy. 6 230. Undeterred, the BCTD Defendants wasted little time quickly 7 8 convincing Defendant Ault to change his position and join their conspiracy and 9 attempted to keep Giblin out of the loop, taking actions without his knowledge or 10 approval. With respect to Defendant Ault, the BCTD Defendants gave him an 11 12 offer he could not refuse which was taken right out of The Godfather – either join 13 the conspiracy and implement the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign to obtain the 14 15 business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest 16 and control over the Carpenters or you will not be re-elected at the November 17 2011 Convention, when he was up for re-election. Without the full support of the 18 19 BCTD Defendants, whose officers, delegates and members made up the
20 electorate, Defendant Ault stood no chance of re-election. Faced with the stark 21 reality of forced early retirement, Defendant Ault reluctantly joined the 22 23 conspiracy, but once in it, he has worked tirelessly helping formulate further 24 unlawful attacks and implementing the BCTD Defendants’ directions in their 25 26 unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the
27 Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the 28
125 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Carpenters.
2 231. So instead of protecting his Metal Trades Department’s members 3 and their LMRDA and common law preserved rights, including those of the 4 5 Carpenters and its members, Defendant Ault allowed them to be used as pawns by 6 the BCTD Defendants in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful 7 8 extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and 9 to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. And, in 10 November, 2011, in fulfillment of the quid pro quo, Defendant Ault was easily re- 11 12 elected at the convention held in Las Vegas with the full support of his BCTD co- 13 conspirator-Defendants. This violated NRS 207.295 (commercial bribery) and 14 15 NRS 614.140 (bribery of labor representative). 16 232. The BCTD Defendants’ Metal Trades Department plan of attack 17 began in 2010 with a strategy developed by Defendants’ BCTD Committee and 18 19 approved by the BCTD co-conspirator-Defendants. It was kicked off by a letter to
20 Defendant Ault written by co-conspirator Finley (Plasterers) on or about 21 November 22, 2010. In the letter, the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators 22 23 demanded that the Carpenters be kicked out of the Metal Trades Department so 24 the BCTD’s General Presidents could appropriate, as if they were slaves and 25 26 fungible property, the Carpenters’ members, dues, jobs, property, assets, officer
27 positions, and other rights of property and business. 28
126 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 233. At the next Metal Trades Department meeting, on or about, March
2 17, 2011, Finley’s letter was discussed and acted upon by the Metal Trades 3 Departments’ Executive Council, which was made up of the BCTD Defendants 4 5 and co-conspirators. The meeting was held at the Murray Green Conference 6 Room at 815 16th Street, NW, Washington D.C. 7 8 234. At the meeting, Defendant Williams made the motion to revoke the 9 Carpenters’ Charters with the Metal Trades Department and Councils, kick the 10 Carpenters out and give their members, dues, jobs, stewards and officers’ 11 12 positions and other property and business rights to BCTD affiliates. The motion 13 was seconded by co-conspirator Sullivan. Through Defendant Williams, the 14 15 BCTD Defendants, then “directed” Defendant Ault “to brief BCTD President 16 Ayers and to consult with Department legal counsel and report back.” 17 235. Defendant Ault was also directed to make recommendations about 18 19 which BCTD union would be assigned the Carpenters’ members, dues, jobs,
20 officer positions, and other property and business rights. In addition, Defendant 21 Williams, and the other BCTD General Presidents, agreed to indemnify the Metal 22 23 Trades Department for all losses of income, including from the Operating 24 Engineers that had threatened to withdraw if the unlawful and extortionate actions 25 26 being discussed by the Defendants were implemented, and to pay for the costs of
27 defending the legal actions that would inevitably ensue. 28
127 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 236. Defendant Ault thereafter briefed Defendant Ayers and the Metal
2 Trades Department’s legal counsel about what the BCTD Defendants had ordered 3 on March 17, 2011. The Metal Trades Departments’ attorneys then got to work 4 5 researching ways to attempt legally to justify the legally unjustifiable extortionate 6 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them 7 8 to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters now 9 wrongfully claimed and obtained by the BCTD Defendants. 10 237. On May 19, 2011, another Metal Trades Department meeting was 11 12 held. At this meeting the Metal Trades Departments’ attorneys, Matisoff and his 13 partner Keith Bolek, attended. These lawyers explained how they would attempt 14 15 to justify the BCTD Defendants’ extortionate demands. 16 238. After obtaining final approval by the BCTD Defendants, Defendant 17 Ault, on or about June 1, 2011, sent the Carpenters’ General President a letter 18 19 giving notice that the Metal Trades Department was terminating the Carpenters’
20 Solidarity Charters effective on or after August 1, 2011. However, Defendant 21 Ault naturally failed to be candid about his actions, the involvement of the BCTD 22 23 Defendants, or the reasons for taking such unexplained and serious actions, 24 because that would have involved telling the truth that he had joined an unlawful 25 26 and extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters
27 and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 28
128 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 239. Defendant Ault thereafter sent messages to all of the Metal Trades’
2 affiliates to take action against the Carpenters, according to his directions. 3 Defendant Ault explained that he was personally coordinating all the Metal 4 5 Trades’ related actions against the Carpenters Again, Defendant Ault omitted 6 from his communications the illegal, extortionate, and conspiratorial reasons for 7 8 revoking the Carpenters’ Charters, because that would have involved telling the 9 truth that he had joined an unlawful and extortionate conspiracy against the 10 Carpenters to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire 11 12 and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 13 240. On or around July 2011, Defendant Ault dispatched his assistants, 14 15 Lisa Johnson and James Seidl, to contact each Metal Trades Department Council 16 to have them work on compiling recommendations as to which BCTD unions 17 would be given the Plaintiffs’ rights to business and property. On or before 18 19 September 7, 2011, Ault’s assistants came back with the recommendations, which
20 were presented and approved by the BCTD’s Defendants and other BCTD’s 21 Presidents at a Metal Trades Department meeting with full knowledge of the 22 23 illegal, extortionate, and conspiratorial reasons behind their actions. 24 241. On or about September 7, 2011, the Metal Trades Department held 25 26 another meeting related to implementing the BCTD Defendants Push-Back-
27 Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the 28
129 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest
2 and control over the Carpenters. Defendant Ault attended, as did numerous 3 BCTD Defendants, including Defendant Williams (Painters) and co-conspirator 4 5 Finley (Plasterers). During this meeting, Defendant Williams made a number of 6 motions to further implement the Push-Back- Carpenters Campaign and its 7 8 unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 9 Carpenters and to maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, which all 10 passed. First, it was decided and agreed that the BCTD Defendants would pay for 11 12 the Metal Trades Departments’ current legal bills related to unfair labor practice 13 charges that had been filed with the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Second, it 14 15 was decided and agreed that the BCTD Defendants would accept Defendant 16 Ault’s recommendations as to which BCTD Defendants would be given the 17 Carpenters’ dues, members, jobs, officer positions, assets, property, business and 18 19 other valuable property. Third, Defendant Williams also directed the Metal
20 Trades Department to conduct an “affirmative campaign to explain the actions of 21 the Metal Trades Department in the matter of the Carpenters in terms members 22 23 would understand.” The reason the Metal Trades Department needed a publicity 24 campaign was because the Carpenters still enjoyed a lot of support from the 25 26 various Metal Trades Councils who did not understand why the Metal Trades
27 Department was intentionally starting a fight with the Carpenters, particularly 28
130 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 since the Carpenters enjoyed good relations with all the Metal Trades Councils, as
2 Defendant Ault admitted in his Admissions Memo. (Exh. “E.”) 3 242. In an amazing moment of candor, Defendant Williams admitted and 4 5 explained the most important reason the BCTD Defendants began and were 6 conducting the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate 7 8 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire 9 and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters – the Carpenters were 10 not making monthly payments to the BCTD and Councils. Williams stated that 11 12 “we all pay dues, we are affiliated and pay dues to the AFL-CIO and the [Building 13 and Construction Trades] Department, plain and simple – if the Carpenters wants 14 15 to get back, let them come back in and pay their fair share like the other affiliated 16 organizations,” that is, given in to the and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy’s 17 demands to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and 18 19 maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters.
20 243. Thereafter, as instructed by the BCTD Defendants, Defendant Ault 21 wrote a letter, dated September 26, 2011, to all the Metal Trades Councils in a 22 23 futile attempt to explain the Metal Trades Department’s inexplicable conduct and 24 its involvement in its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 25 26 property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over
27 the Carpenters. Nevertheless, Defendant Ault intentionally omitted from his letter 28
131 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 the reasons why the Metal Trades Department kicked the Carpenters out, because
2 Defendant Ault fully knew it was unlawful, extortionate, and conspiratorial, and 3 there was no lawful reason for doing it. Nevertheless, with his re-election 4 5 controlled by the BCTD Defendants he did as he was told to avoid unmasking the 6 unlawful extortionate conspiracy. 7 8 244. Nevertheless, by the time of his re-election, and having learned that 9 the Carpenters were in possession of his Admissions Memo, Defendant Ault 10 finally came clean during the Metal Trades Department November 2-3, 2011, 11 12 Convention in Las Vegas, Nevada. There during their presentations, Defendant 13 Ault and the Metal Trades Department’s General Counsel, co-conspirator 14 15 Matisoff, both admitted that the Metal Trades kicked the Carpenters out because 16 the BCTD Defendants had ordered it to injure the Carpenters in their business and 17 property as part of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful 18 19 extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and
20 to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 21 245. In fulfillment of their promise to Defendant Ault, the BCTD 22 23 Defendants and BCTD’s Presidents fully backed and delivered Ault’s re-election. 24 246. BCTD Launches RespectOurCrafts: On or about March 19, 2011, 25 26 the BCTD Defendants launched a BCTD website solely devoted to attacking the
27 Carpenters and its leaders and acting as the bulletin board for public updates for 28
132 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 the BCTD Defendants’ officers, agents, representatives and members on the
2 progress of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate 3 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire 4 5 and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. (See 6 www.respectourcrafts.com.) The BCTD Defendants appointed co-conspirator 7 8 Duane Moore as the National Director of the Respect Our Crafts part of the 9 Campaign. Moore is an IBEW union official, and has been since 2005. The 10 IBEW continues to pay his salary. Moore agreed to participate in and further the 11 12 BCTD Defendants’ unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 13 property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over 14 15 the Carpenters. 16 247. According to Moore, “Respect Our Crafts is a cooperative effort by 17 all the Building Trades member unions to . . . and bring [the Carpenters back, 18 19 ‘into the fold [in order to make them pay and continue paying the BCTD and
20 Council monthly payments]!’ Without them we are weaker [including 21 financially].” (See www.local57facts.com/.) 22 23 248. Moore describes his National Director role in the following 24 manner: “it is my responsibility to coordinate, assist and advise those Building 25 26 and Construction Trades Department Affiliates who are under attack by the
27 leadership of the Carpenters. Like Defendant Ayers, Moore has travelled to 28
133 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 various parts of the country speaking to dissident Carpenters and other trades to
2 assist them in the BCTD Defendants’ unlawful extortionate efforts. For instance, 3 Moore travelled to New Jersey to speak to a group of carpenter dissidents. The 4 5 dissidents reported the meeting on their website explaining the support that the 6 Defendants would give them in exchange for their support of the Push-Back- 7 8 Carpenters Campaign. (See local370voice.com.) 9 249. As part of the Respectourcrafts website, numerous BCTD 10 Defendants and co-conspirators have given videotaped interviews attacking the 11 12 Carpenters to advance their unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the 13 business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest 14 15 and control over the Carpenters. 16 250. The following BCTD Governing Board of Presidents and other 17 senior Building Trades officials from around the country gave video interviews 18 19 for the website as proof that they had all agreed to the unlawful extortionate
20 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire 21 and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters and to advance it: 22 23 a. Defendant Ayers, President of Building and Construction 24 Trades Department; 25 26 b. Defendant Hill, International President of the International
27 Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; 28
134 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 c. Defendant Williams, General President of the International
2 Union of Painters & Allied Trades; 3 d. President of the United Association of Journeyman and 4 5 Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the 6 United States and Canada, William Hite; 7 8 e. President of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied 9 Craftsworkers, James Boland; 10 f. International President of the International Brotherhood of 11 12 Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & 13 Helpers, Newton Jones; 14 15 g. General President of the Sheet Metal Workers International 16 Association, Michael Sullivan; 17 h. International President of the United Union of Roofers, 18 19 Waterproofers & Allied Workers, Kinsey Robinson;
20 i. General President of the Operative Plasterers’ & Cement 21 Masons’ International Association of the United States and 22 23 Canada, Patrick Finley; 24 j. General President Emeritus of the International Association of 25 26 Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Ironworkers,
27 Joseph Hunt; and 28
135 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 k. Various BCTD Council leaders, such as from Jerry Feldhaus
2 (St. Louis,, Missouri), Lee Newgent (Seattle, Washington), 3 John Mohlis (Portland, Oregon), and Bob Bagelnorth 4 5 (California). 6 251. In his interview, co-conspirator Hite, like Defendant Williams on 7 8 many occasions, expressed the goal of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and 9 its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 10 Carpenters and to obtain an interest in or control over the Carpenters. Co- 11 12 conspirator Hite explains: “Hey, you know, if the Carpenters aren’t paying their 13 fair share in the local building trades, they should be out of there. And by fair 14 15 share, I mean the local building trades, whatever their stipend is that they pay for 16 membership; and also, they got to be paying the national -- to the national 17 building trades of solidarity, get a solidarity membership and pay the full boat to 18 19 the national building trades. I mean, we pay – and every member that’s out there
20 working, both the national building trades and the local building trades; and they 21 don’t. That’s not fair.” 22 23 252. The BCTD Defendants have also used their unions from coast to 24 coast to advertise links to the BCTD’s Respect Our Crafts website as part of their 25 26 unlawful extortionate conspiracy. See e.g., Operative Plasterers and Cement
27 Masons, Local 478 – Kennewick, Washington (facebook.com/pages/OPCMIA- 28
136 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Local-478); IBEW (IBEW.org/newsroom (5/25/11)); IBEW (twitter.com
2 @IBEW (5/26/11)); IBEW Local 1 – St. Louis (local57facts.com; local 57 3 blogspot.com (3/19/11)); IBEW Local 6 – San Francisco, California 4 5 (facebook.com/pages/IBEW-Local-6); IBEW Local 42 – Manchester, 6 Connecticut (ibew42.com/labornews); IBEW Local 86 – Rochester, N.Y. 7 8 (ibewlu86.org); IBEW Local 100 – Fresno, California (ibew100.org); IBEW 9 Local 110 – St. Paul, Minnesota (facebook.com/pages/IBEW-Local-110); and 10 Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons, Local 797 – Las Vegas, Nevada 11 12 (opcmianevada.org/top news (4/18/11)). The BCTD Defendants’ unions have 13 also been used to advertise their various unlawful extortionate rallies, including 14 15 the 600 person mass demonstration that shut down, impeded the normal work 16 and/or prevented a planned event from taking place at the St. Louis Carpenters’ 17 offices and the Unity Rally, and IBEW’s Local57facts website. See, e.g. IBEW 18 19 Local 332 (Silicon Valley, California)
20 (ibew332.org/index.cfm?zone=/unionactive/ 21 view_article.cfm&homeID=184010). 22 23 253. The BCTD Defendants have also used their unions to post print and 24 videos attacking the Carpenters as part of their unlawful extortionate conspiracy 25 26 to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain
27 an interest and control over the Carpenters. See, e.g., Painters 28
137 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 (iupat.org/pages/about/channel1); IBEW (ibew.org . . . Carpenters Campaign).
2 254. These websites are designed and intended falsely to disparage the 3 Carpenters’ reputation as part of the BCTD Defendants’ unlawful extortionate 4 5 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them 6 to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. They give 7 8 further evidence the wide-ranging unlawful extortionate conspiracy that the 9 BCTD Defendants have put together against the Carpenters. 10 255. BCTD Defendants Invoke Resolution 70 to Charter Carpenter 11 12 Dissident Locals and Steal the Carpenters’ Confidential Membership 13 Information: The BCTD Defendants’ most recent escalation of its Push-Back- 14 15 Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy is their 16 implementation of Resolution 70. Because the BCTD Defendants, as a practical 17 matter, are incapable of starting their own Carpenters union, they have resorted to 18 19 chartering dissident Carpenters groups instead, as part of their unlawful
20 extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and 21 to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 22 23 256. The BCTD Defendants have little or no ability to gain support or 24 organize non-union workers like the Carpenters did in St. Louis with respect to 25 26 the non-union electrical workers it recruited, accepted, and trained. In fact, the
27 BCTD Defendants preferred a predator method of organizing to force public 28
138 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 entities and others to enter Project Labor Agreements in order to force non-union
2 companies to be union for one project, force non-union workers to join and pay 3 dues for that project, force contractors to pay into their underfunded pension 4 5 plans and health plan with little or no chance for these workers to ever actually 6 collect any benefits, and to use the BCTD’s Plan for the Settlement of 7 8 Jurisdictional Disputes to “steal” workers from the Carpenters when, in fact, the 9 Carpenters, like a traditional union, have gone out to jobsites to organize these 10 non-union workers like it did in St. Louis and elsewhere. For instance, the BCTD 11 12 Defendants, through their CURE (California Unions for Reliable Energy) 13 coalition routinely and repeatedly engage in a practice known as “Greenmail”, a 14 15 spin-off of the traditional Blackmail. “Greenmail” is the abusive and extortionate 16 tactic of filing environmental challenges as a way to (1) force financial 17 settlements to fund further “environmental challenges” and (2) force end-users 18 19 and/or construction owners to sign Project Labor Agreements that mainly benefit
20 the BCTD’s unions. Once the extortion is complete, the BCTD Defendants’ 21 environmental challenges are dropped. Thus, the BCTD Defendants falsely fly 22 23 the green flag of the environmental movement to extort money, dues, and 24 agreements. The Carpenters have criticized these methods of not going about the 25 26 hard work of traditional unions, and they are viciously attacked by the BCTD
27 Defendants for telling the truth: unlawful extortionate tactics are wrong – no 28
139 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 matter who or what uses them: the mob, a business, or a union. The law seeks, or
2 ought to seek, one level playing field on which to compete. 3 257. In or about October 2011, the BCTD Defendants chartered a group 4 5 of dissident Carpenters who had started Carpenters Independent Local #1 6 (“Dissident Local #1”), located in Albany, New York. 7 8 (www.carpentersindependent.com.) Dissident Local #1 has no contracts with any 9 employers. 10 258. As part of the BCTD Defendants’ unlawful extortionate conspiracy 11 12 to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain 13 an interest and control over the Carpenters, the BCTD Defendants chartered 14 15 Dissident Local #1 on behalf of the Painters. Even though Dissident Local #1 16 deceptively uses the Carpenters’ name, it is not a Carpenters’ local, but rather a 17 local union now affiliated with the Painters union in Washington D.C. and the 18 19 BCTD.
20 259. On October 12, 2011, Dissident Local #1 held its first meeting as a 21 chartered Painters’ local. President Williams and his son, Jim Williams, Jr., who 22 23 is an assistant to his father and also serves as the Painters’ Director of 24 Organizing, travelled all the way from Washington D.C. to Albany, New York, to 25 26 attend the meeting. Defendant Williams spoke at the meeting. After the meeting,
27 Defendant Williams gave a videotaped interview. 28
140 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 260. During the interview, Defendant Williams stated he was there to
2 personally deliver a message from the BCTD Defendants and Respect Our Crafts. 3 He stated that earlier in the day, the BCTD Defendants had met and “100%” 4 5 supported, condoned, and ratified the actions taken by Dissident Local #1. In a 6 letter from Defendant Williams to Defendant Ayers, dated December 15, 2011, 7 8 Defendant Williams reiterated that, as part of the Push-Back-Carpenters 9 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 10 property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control 11 12 over the Carpenters, including implementation of Resolution 70, the Painters 13 have been “assisting groups of rank and file Carpenters in the formation of new 14 15 local unions in the state of New York.” He also admitted that “these efforts have 16 the support of the Carpenters Organizing Committee of the [BCTD’s] General 17 Board of Presidents” That is, these groups have become a working tool of the 18 19 unlawful extortionate conspiracy.
20 261. Not only did Defendants Williams and the BCTD Defendants 21 support what Dissident Local #1 was doing, their agents had been instigating, 22 23 advising, condoning and/or ratifying Dissident Local #1’s unlawfully obtaining, 24 accessing and/or theft of confidential documents and information, including 25 26 membership lists, from the Carpenters and the Northeast Regional Council of
27 Carpenters, to use in the unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business 28
141 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control
2 over the Carpenters. 3 262. In the summer of 2011, Defendant Williams and his agents recruited 4 5 Joanne Lein to join the unlawful extortionate conspiracy. Joanne Lein had been 6 an office worker for the NRCC in Albany, New York. In exchange for a job with 7 8 the Painters that had been promised to her by Williams and his son, Lein began to 9 work for the Painters, the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful 10 extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and 11 12 to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 13 263. After explaining what was expected of her – steal the Carpenters’ 14 15 confidential membership and proprietary information, so the BCTD Defendants, 16 including the Painters, could use this information to attempt to steal dues-paying 17 members away from the Carpenters, Lien agreed to join the unlawful extortionate 18 19 conspiracy. Like the dissident Carpenters who protested some of the Carpenters’
20 internal restructurings, she did not like the Carpenters’ restructuring of its local 21 unions in Albany and the greater New York area. 22 23 264. Co-conspirator Joanne Lein had been an office worker for the 24 NRCC in Albany, New York. Lein began working as an undercover spy for the 25 26 Painters and Dissident Local #1, just like the Laborers’ Playbook of bad faith and
27 unlawful tactics had suggested as a weapon against the Carpenters. The Painters 28
142 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 and Dissident Local #1 are competitors and enemies of the Carpenters and NRCC
2 and seek to financially harm them and their interests, including gaining dues- 3 paying members at the Carpenters’ expense. 4 5 265. Through her position, co-conspirator Lein gained unauthorized and 6 unlawful access to the Carpenters’ membership database, which is not housed in 7 8 New York, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030. On numerous days from June 1, 9 2011 to October 24, 2011, co-conspirator Lein improperly and without 10 authorization, accessed databases containing confidential and proprietary 11 12 membership information to which she had no business accessing, and 13 downloaded this information for the BCTD Defendants. Lein ran Member ID 14 15 Rosters and custom member exports that were downloaded from the Carpenters 16 on-line access portal. Lein knew what she was doing was illegal because in order 17 to access the information she had to make specific requests for information that 18 19 was unnecessary for her job and information which she never would have any
20 need to download on her computer. Lein did not have authority to access the 21 computer information, use the information in any fashion or give it to competitors 22 23 of the Carpenters. 24 266. Co-conspirator Lein’s access and disloyal conduct for the BCTD 25 26 Defendants violated both the NRCC’s Personnel Policies Manual and the New
27 York faithless servant doctrine. The NRCC’s Personnel Policies Manual 28
143 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 provides, inter alia:
2 5(e). Computers and Internet 3 NRCC’s computers, computer software, printers and 4 5 Internet access system should be used only for business- 6 related purposes and communications. NRCC has the 7 8 right to monitor all computer usage. Therefore, you 9 should refrain from storing any data or transmitting any 10 messages which contain any personal, private or 11 12 confidential information. 13 6. Confidential Information 14 15 As an employee of NRCC, you will have access to highly 16 confidential information such as union organizing 17 strategies and tactics, potential organizing targets, and 18 19 confidential union and contract information. No
20 employee, either during or after his or her employment 21 with NRCC shall disclose, use, sell or distribute any 22 23 confidential information except as necessary to the 24 performance of his or her duties with NRCC or except as 25 26 expressly authorized in writing by the EST of NRCC.
27 267. Without authorization, Lein downloaded confidential documents 28
144 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 and, on or about September 9, 2011, gave access to such information to the
2 Painters and Dissident Local #1’s representative, co-conspirator Jimmy Avellino. 3 Avellino was one of the dissident Carpenters who started Dissident Local #1. He 4 5 and other Dissident Local #1 representatives has posted numerous YouTube 6 videos explaining their hostility towards the Carpenters and motive for joining the 7 8 unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 9 Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the 10 Carpenters. 11 12 268. On or after October 18, 2011, the BCTD Defendants’ agents used 13 the unlawfully obtained confidential membership information to visit the homes of 14 15 the Carpenters’ members in an effort to inveigle them away from the Carpenters. 16 269. After co-conspirator Lein was caught by the NRCC, she was fired 17 for what she had done. Immediately thereafter, Lien openly began working for 18 19 Local #1. Because Lein violated the faithless servant doctrine, she was not
20 entitled to her compensation, which was paid. This has caused the NRCC direct 21 and proximate financial harm for having paid her during her subversive and 22 23 disloyal activities on behalf of the Painters and Dissident Local #1. 24 270. Co-conspirator Lein’s actions were taken on behalf of the Painters 25 26 and Dissident Local #1, and the Painters and Dissident Local #1 instigated,
27 supported, ratified, encouraged, and/or directed Lein’s actions. In fact, Defendant 28
145 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Williams provided Lein with access to and representation by the Painters’ paid
2 attorneys, including the following: Richard Furlong, of the law firm, Lipsitz Green 3 Scime Cambia, LLP, Buffalo, New York and Joseph Kolick, Jr., of the firm 4 5 Dickstein Shapiro, to assist her and advise her unlawful conspiratorial actions. 6 Kolick had also spoke at Local #1 meetings, including at the October 12, 2011, 7 8 meeting at which Defendant Williams attended. Kolick’s office is in Washington 9 D.C. They also tried to assist co-conspirator Lein in obtaining her job back. Their 10 efforts were unsuccessful. 11 12 271. During the videotaped interview, after Defendant Williams 13 acknowledged that the BCTD Defendants were 100% in support of all the actions 14 15 Dissident Local #1 had taken, including co-conspirators Lein’s actions, he went 16 on to give an update on the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful 17 extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and 18 19 to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. Defendant
20 Williams explained that he personally was very happy with the overall progress of 21 the Campaign since Resolution 70 was passed. Defendant Williams said he has 22 23 been fighting the Carpenters for the past 9 years trying to get them to “pay their 24 fair share” to the BCTD and Councils. Defendant Williams stated that during 25 26 those fights, he knew he could always get one of the BCTD Defendants to hold his
27 coat. But now that Defendant Ayers, the BCTD and all their affiliates were part 28
146 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 of the conspiracy, he was particularly overjoyed because now he had a whole
2 bunch of people who not only are willing to hold his coat while he fights, but now 3 want to get in the fight with the Carpenters as well. In context of the violent 4 5 conduct, vandalism, and breaches of privacy in the Push-Back-Carpenters 6 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 7 8 property of the Carpenters and an interest in a control over the Carpenters, these 9 remarks could only be understood that the fight would include unlawful conduct, 10 as it did. 11 12 272. In addition, within the past few months, National Director Moore 13 has travelled from Washington D.C. to New Jersey to speak at New Jersey 14 15 Carpenters’ dissident group meetings. At these meetings Moore has promised and 16 provided full BCTD Defendant support in exchange for their support of and active 17 participation in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate 18 19 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire
20 and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. (See 21 local370voice.com.) 22 23 273. Defendant Williams and the Painters’ attorney, Kolick, have also 24 travelled to New Jersey to assist and Charter another Carpenters’ dissident group 25 26 calling themselves the Amalgamated Carpenters and Joiners Union, IUPAT.
27 Angelo R. Bisceglie, Jr., a New Jersey attorney, who is being paid by the Painters, 28
147 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 lists himself on ACJU’s website as its representative,
2 (http://www.amalgamatedCarpenters.com/, last visited on January 25, 2012). In 3 addition, to providing and paying for his services, the Painters have also given the 4 5 Dissident ACJU support through its own staff and its other paid attorneys. For 6 instance, on or about December 16, 2011, Bisceglie has admitted that numerous 7 8 other Painters’ paid attorneys have helped the Dissident ACJU: Daniel Clifton, of 9 the firm Lewis, Clifton & Nikolaids, New York City; Warren Borish, of the firm 10 Spear, Wilderman, P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Also assisting Dissident 11 12 ACJU has been Jim Williams, Jr., and other staff and officials with the Painters. 13 274. The above statements and actions are not protected by the First 14 15 Amendment, but manifestly disclose the wide scope of the BCTD Defendants’ 16 unlawful extortionate conspiracy to implement the Push-Back- Carpenters 17 Campaign and evinces its unlawful character that is as a regular way of doing 18 19 business, the conduct and operation of which has directly and proximately caused
20 the Carpenters concrete financial damages to its business and property, as 21 discussed below. 22 23 C. Defendants Have Substantial Motive to Extort the Carpenters. 24 275. All Defendants have substantial, personal financial motives to extort 25 26 the Carpenters. The motives of the BCTD Defendants (Ayers, Hill and Williams)
27 have been amply stated by Defendant Williams – to extort the Carpenters by 28
148 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 making them pay – and continue paying – the BCTD and Councils monthly
2 tribute payments in money, that is, property, in perpetuity, and unlawfully to take 3 the Carpenters’ dues and membership. The sought after payments in money and 4 5 property to be made by the Carpenters on the hundreds of thousands of their 6 members would dramatically increase the BCTD’s and Council’s revenues. 7 8 Increased revenues to the BCTD and Councils will enable these organizations to 9 lavishly fund salary increases and pension and welfare benefits contributions to its 10 officials, including Ayers and McGreavey, and to resume their lavish lifestyles, 11 12 including their BCTD-paid use of private corporate jets, that had been a staple of 13 the BCTD leadership over the years going back to Robert Georgine, a prior BCTD 14 15 President, but stopped in 2009 because of the economic downturn. Increased 16 revenues will also result in savings to the BCTD affiliate unions, including the 17 IBEW and Painters, because their BCTD dues will be lowered and they will no 18 19 longer have to spend the millions of dollars they claimed to have spent fighting
20 the Carpenters allowing them to lavishly fund salary increases and pension 21 welfare contributions to their officials, including Defendants Hill and Williams 22 23 and co-conspirators Duane Moore and Stephen Schoemehl. 24 276. Compounding the high unemployment rate and accompanying loss of 25 26 dues, the BCTD Defendants were also angry about having to spend millions of
27 dollars fighting against the Carpenters, because the Carpenters began accepting 28
149 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 and training dues-paying members that the Defendants’ claimed, despite their
2 pitifully inadequate organizing efforts, were their chattel and involuntary 3 servitudes. For instance, co-conspirator Mike Sullivan (SMW General President, 4 5 Ret.) has repeatedly bemoaned the “millions of dollars” spent “defending the 6 rights of members who don’t want to be in the [Carpenters] union.” Similarly, 7 8 Defendant Williams has bemoaned the millions the Painters have spent fighting 9 the Carpenters, which a Painters’ official from Philadelphia said totaled over $9 10 million. Defendant Hill made similar statements about the costs incurred by the 11 12 IBEW in resisting the Carpenters, and has worried that it could cost him millions 13 as well. Defendant Ayers has said that the Carpenters have cost the BCTD and 14 15 Councils substantial sums, as well. Little of this money would have been spent 16 had they initially organized in their traditional areas more aggressively and 17 successfully, provided better training to their signatory employers’ workforces, 18 19 and better serviced the existing members. In addition, nowhere is it written that
20 they have to lament that the Carpenters have more aggressively organized the 21 unorganized in its cognate areas. If they do not change their organizing practices 22 23 and become more successful with the unorganized, they will continue to watch 24 over the downward demise of construction-union market-share in the United 25 26 States that has been evident for decades. Nowhere is it mandated that they have
27 the legal right or duty to conduct an unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the 28
150 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest
2 and control over the Carpenters to make up for their failures in the organizing 3 area. 4 5 277. Over the Great Recession/Depression, through to the current weak 6 recovery, construction employment has been, and continues to be, hit particularly 7 8 hard, harder than virtually all other industries. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 9 show that the construction unemployment rate went from 11% in 2008, to 18.2% 10 in 2009, to 24% in 2010, and 2011 has not seen much, if any, improvement. Its 11 12 unemployment rates are at depression levels. As recently acknowledged by the 13 BCTD, “the U.S. construction industry continues to suffer unemployment rates 14 15 approaching twice the national average.” (November 15, 2011, BCTD Press 16 Release, Statement of Mark Ayers.) In certain areas of the country and in certain 17 trades, the unemployment has been much more severe. For instance, during the 18 19 Unity Rally Defendant Hill admitted that the unemployment for IBEW members
20 in the St. Louis area was 35%. Such high unemployment has caused the BCTD 21 Defendants to have a warranted fear that their unions’ funding will continue to be 22 23 substantially and negatively impacted by the loss of dues caused by 24 unemployment and lack of new organizing. 25 26 278. Coupled with their own loss of membership and dues, the BCTD
27 Defendants’ unions must still pay the bloated BCTD and Councils per capita fees. 28
151 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 They must fund the BCTD’s astronomical salaries and excessive expenses. For
2 instance, Defendant Ayer’s salary is over $400,000 and his partner, Secretary- 3 Treasurer McGarvey’s, salary is over $337,000 (which is far above even the salary 4 5 of the AFL-CIO President). (2010 and 2011 LM-2’s). In addition, as in the more 6 prosperous past, they have continued to use private jets like the corporate elites 7 8 they bash daily. Whether recession or not, the BCTD’s officials and employees 9 need to paid, like the BCTD Defendants’ unions’ officials and employees, though 10 not necessarily at the same rates. 11 12 279. In light of these economic realities, in brief, the Carpenters represent 13 an enormous pool of money that the BCTD Defendants seek to obtain by their 14 15 unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 16 Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the 17 Carpenters. To illustrate the amount of income the Defendants seek to obtain 18 19 from the Carpenters alone, 12-monthly payments to the BCTD will exceed
20 $3,000,000 per year based upon the $0.60 per member fee set out in its 21 Constitution. Multiply these payments for even ten years and the amounts quickly 22 23 skyrocket into tens of millions of dollars in monthly payments. The sudden influx 24 of new payments would allow the BCTD Defendants to offset and reduce the 25 26 costs of their unions. Thus, requiring, even by extortion, the Carpenters to make 27 28
152 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 monthly payments to them would result in substantial financial gains to the BCTD
2 Defendants, their unions and the individuals themselves. 3 280. Similar financial circumstances confront the BCTD Councils. For 4 5 instance, the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California 6 receives payments of $0.025 per each hour worked for each union member 7 8 working. The SWRCC, which would be forced to affiliate with the SBCTCC, has 9 over 30,000 members in Southern California. Over the span of ten years, the 10 SWRCC would have to pay in excess of $10,000,000. 11 12 281. Similarly, the Washington State Building and Construction Trades 13 Council receives payments from its affiliate members of $0.04 per each hour 14 15 worked for each member working. The PNRCC has over 12,000 members in 16 Washington. 17 282. Simply multiplying these figures shows that perpetual payments by 18 19 the SWRCC and the PNRCC quickly grow astronomical even by institutional
20 standards to say nothing to comparing the figures to the wealth of under-employed 21 Carpenters. The sudden influx of new payments will allow the BCTD Councils to 22 23 increase salaries and pension and welfare benefits contributions, and their current 24 contributing Building Trades unions to offset their current payments. 25 26 283. Accordingly, extorting these sums from the Carpenters that is, to pony
27 up to the BCTD and Councils bloated monthly payments in perpetuity, would 28
153 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 offset the BCTD Defendants’ current BCTD and Councils’ financial obligations,
2 cease requiring them to pay and continue paying millions of dollars to fight the 3 Carpenters, and having the Carpenters turn over to them the dues-paying members 4 5 the BCTD Defendants claimed belong to them would be a financial bonanza and 6 is a goal of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign. 7 8 284. Defendant Ault also has a substantial financial motive to join and 9 implement the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate 10 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire 11 12 and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. Most fundamentally, 13 Defendant Ault’s job, salary, and lifestyle was on the line if he did not go along, 14 15 join and actively participate and implement the conspiracy. If Defendant Ault did 16 not go along, he would not have been re-elected in November 2011 because the 17 BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators would not have supported him. Union 18 19 Politics, for sure, but at bottom it was extortion of him as it presaged more
20 extortion of the Carpenters. 21 285. Defendant Ault’s illicit reward for joining the unlawful extortionate 22 23 conspiracy was that he received the full support of the BCTD Defendants and co- 24 conspirators, and was re-elected in November 2011 for another four years. In 25 26 addition, Ault and his staff received a 2011 raise during the worst recession since
27 the Great Depression. 28
154 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 II. DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL ATTACKS AGAINST THE CARPENTERS. 2 3 A. Nature of Defendants’ Actions
4 286. The actions and events described below constitute acts and threats, 5 express and implied, overt acts, and predicate acts engaged in by the BCTD 6 7 Defendants with the specific intent to extort money, property, and business from 8 the Carpenters to obtain it for themselves or to direct it towards others as well as 9 10 to obtain an interest in and control over the Carpenters. Each such act or threat is
11 separately chargeable as attempted extortion and/or extortion under the Hobbs 12 Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, Sections 186, 501 of the LMRA and the laws of a variety 13 14 of States in which they occurred; they are punishable by imprisonment by more 15 than a year under such laws. 16 17 287. The BCTD Defendants obtained and attempted to obtain the following
18 specific property from the Plaintiffs for themselves and their affiliated unions, 19 including those competing against Plaintiffs: 20 21 a. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 22 to make monthly payments to the BCTD and Councils, 23 24 numbering over 100, and to continue making such payments in 25 perpetuity; 26 b. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 27 28 not to compete, solicit business, recruit, accept and/or train
155 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 dues-paying members, or otherwise do union business
2 involving any craft work that Defendants and the other BCTD’s 3 Governing Board of Presidents determine do not belong to the 4 5 Carpenters; 6 c. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 7 8 to allow the BCTD to exercise for the Carpenters their rights to 9 recruit, accept and train dues-paying members; 10 d. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 11 12 to allow the BCTD to exercise for the Carpenters their rights to 13 refuse to making monthly payments to the BCTD and Councils; 14 15 e. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 16 to enter into project and other agreements negotiated by the 17 BCTD and Councils; 18 19 f. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100)
20 agreeing to be bound to the BCTD’s Plan for the Settlement of 21 Jurisdictional Disputes; 22 23 g. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 24 to allow the BCTD to exercise for the Carpenters their rights to 25 26 negotiate their own project agreements; 27 28
156 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 h. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100),
2 to allow the BCTD to exercise for the Carpenters their rights to 3 determine what jurisdictional dispute resolutions mechanism, if 4 5 any, to be bound to; 6 i. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 7 8 to give over to the BCTD and/or its designee any recruits and 9 dues-paying members whom the BCTD Defendants determine 10 belong to another union; 11 12 j. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 13 to allow the BCTD Defendants determine which First 14 15 Amendment protected protest activities and causes that the 16 Carpenters can engage in; 17 k. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 18 19 to allow the BCTD Defendants determine which political
20 candidates and causes the Carpenters can support or oppose, 21 financially and otherwise; 22 23 l. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 24 to relinquish substantial autonomy and control over its business 25 26 and union to Defendants; 27 28
157 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 m. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100)
2 to relinquish substantial monthly dues from the Carpenters 3 and/or its members; 4 5 n. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 6 to give the BCTD Defendants considerable strategic, political 7 8 and financial leverage when negotiating agreements because of 9 control over the Carpenters’ substantial resources; and 10 o. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 11 12 to give the BCTD Defendants considerable strategic, political 13 and financial leverage when supporting or opposing political 14 15 candidates or causes because of control over the Carpenters’ 16 substantial resources; and 17 p. Resulting increased budgets for the BCTD and Councils, 18 19 numbering over 100, and salaries and other benefits of
20 Defendants Ayers, Ault and other union officials. 21 288. The BCTD Defendants have no lawful claim or any other claim of 22 23 right to any of the money and other property extortionately demanded from the 24 Carpenters. 25 26 289. The BCTD Defendants have obtained and seek to obtain more of the
27 Carpenters’ money, other property, and business for themselves, the BCTD and 28
158 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Councils, and/or their designees, including Carpenters’ dues, members, jobs,
2 officer positions, confidential information and other property and business rights 3 obtained through operating and managing the BCTD and its Push-Back- 4 5 Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the 6 business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest 7 8 and control over the Carpenters. 9 290. Each of the actions and events described below was undertaken either 10 by the BCTD Defendants themselves, or by and through their agents and with 11 12 their actual knowledge, approval and/or ratification, as part of, and in furtherance 13 of, the unlawful conspiracy alleged herein unlawfully to obtain money, property, 14 15 and business from the Carpenters for themselves and others and, in fact, to acquire 16 and maintain unlawfully an interest in or control of the Carpenters Enterprise, as 17 described below, by interfering unlawfully and extortionately with Carpenters’ 18 19 LMRDA and other independent rights, including its relations with the Metal
20 Trades Department and Councils, relations with its business and union partners 21 and attorneys, and in reference to the general public, by inflicting repeated, 22 23 escalating and devastating financial injury upon the Carpenters to secure and 24 maintain their unlawful objectives. The actions and events taken against the 25 26 Carpenters were not isolated, but were related in that each has the same or similar
27 purpose, participants, victim, and methods of commission and are designed to 28
159 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 obtain the same results by a regular way of doing business as manifested by the
2 BCTD Defendants’ practices and outlined in the Playbook. 3 291. Accordingly, such actions and events constitute a pattern of repeated 4 5 actions and events directed by the BCTD Defendants and their co-conspirators, 6 against the Carpenters, in a closed, but substantial, period of time, commencing in 7 8 or around October, 2008, after the Carpenters began recruiting, accepting, and 9 training dues-paying members who performed electrical work, and continuing 10 through and including to the present and threatening to continue indefinitely 11 12 unless stopped by the actions of the Court. 13 292. The BCTD Defendants’ unlawful activity described herein 14 15 independently poses a distinct threat of long-term continued criminal activity 16 because Defendants’ current extortionate conduct constitutes its regular way of 17 doing business as unions or union related entities and projects into the future with 18 19 a clear threat of repetition, not only against the Carpenters, but any other union
20 that defies their self-conceived jurisdictions and refuses to pay the BCTD and 21 Councils’ bloated monthly tributes. Defendants have repeatedly admitted, as 22 23 described herein, that they will continue to attempt to extort and extort the 24 Carpenters until the Carpenters and their affiliates make their “contributions” to 25 26 the BCTD and Councils, like an organized crime boss, by making bloated monthly
27 tribute payments, and other “contributions” and continue in perpetuity, otherwise 28
160 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 the unlawful extortionate campaign will begin again and continue in perpetuity.
2 In this regard, Defendants intend, and apparently intend in perpetuity, to attempt 3 to extort and extort the Carpenters, and any other union or organization that defies 4 5 them. Such conduct constitutes conspiracy to, attempt to, and extortion under the 6 Hobbs Act, the LMRDA and applicable state law in which such conduct occurred. 7 8 The number of locations where the Carpenters will have to pay involves over 100 9 locations throughout the United States, including within Washington State, for the 10 BCTD has numerous Councils throughout the United States. Moreover, 11 12 Defendants’ extortionate activities will not cease, even if they succeeded in 13 obtaining initial agreements sought from each of the Carpenters. The initial 14 15 agreement from the Carpenters that it and its affiliates make monthly payments to 16 the BCTD and Councils must be renewed every month and never ceases. The 17 same is true with respect to the other agreements as well. And, if such agreements 18 19 are not renewed monthly, Defendants will resume using their extortionate pressure
20 techniques to achieve such agreements from each of the Carpenters and its 21 affiliates and any other union and union connected organization. Extortion is now 22 23 part of their “playbook.” If it succeeds here, no one should think that it would not 24 be done again. Why take a winning play out of your newly found playbook? It is 25 26 painting extortion by the numbers. 27 28
161 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 293. The BCTD Defendants have no legal right or legal claim to the
2 money, property, business, interest, and control of the Carpenters they seek to 3 obtain by extortion. The Carpenters are not part of the BCTD, they do not want to 4 5 pay and continue paying the BCTD and Councils their bloated monthly payments 6 in perpetuity for anti-competitive services, rules, regulations and membership 7 8 restrictions unrequested, unwanted and unnecessary, and they do not want to give 9 over to the BCTD Defendants their dues-paying members as chattels or to 10 surrender an interest in or control over the Carpenters. 11 12 294. Following Defendants’ initial “Unity Protest”, Defendants’ unleashed 13 their multi-faceted extortionate attack on the Carpenters’ union and business 14 15 interests, as described below and above. In planning, developing and executing 16 the “Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign” and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to 17 obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an 18 19 interest and control over the Carpenters, Defendants engaged in the following
20 attempts to extort and extortion of the Carpenters 21 B. BCTD Defendants’ Unlawful Threats of Violence, Vandalism and 22 Demonstrations Against the Carpenters Around the Country 23 Constitute Acts of Extortion. 24 295. As part of, and in furtherance of, the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign 25 26 and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the
27 Carpenters and to acquire or maintain an interest in of control over the Carpenters, 28
162 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Defendants and/or agents instigated, supported, condoned, authorized and/or
2 ratified threats of violence, violence and vandalism against the Carpenters 3 including its representatives in Seattle, Washington, St. Louis Missouri, and 4 5 southern California. 6 296. Seattle Threats of Violence, Violence and Vandalism: On or about 7 8 October 17, 2011, the Carpenters were performing work at a job in Seattle, 9 Washington, in front of the Plasterers’ training facility at the South Seattle 10 College. On the job that day sugar was noticed in the bottom of the foundation 11 12 footings on the west side of the project. Sugar is corrosive to the cement that 13 would be poured if not discovered. In addition, wooden lath markers that had 14 15 been placed in the ground were taken down and thrown around on the ground and 16 the fence line, which surrounds the whole job site, had been torn open at the lock. 17 Defendants’ agents had also surrounded the jobsite beginning at around 6:00 a.m., 18 19 carrying signs saying they were from the Cement Masons, Laborers Union and
20 Ironworkers. 21 297. On or about October 18, 2011, John Van Vynck, a member of the 22 23 Carpenters and job superintendent, also went to speak to someone in charge about 24 what was going on. After being directed to the person in charge, he asked what 25 26 the sign stated. In response, Defendants’ agent put the sign in Van Vynck’s face,
27 threw the sign down, and cocked his fist as if he were ready to strike Van Vynck. 28
163 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 298. Later that day, when Van Vynck was cleaning the parking lot, he
2 observed that Defendants had placed brand new spike screws behind the front 3 wheels of a vehicle driven by a member of the Carpenters, named Kenneth (last 4 5 name withheld by Carpenters for safety reasons). There was only one other car in 6 the entire parking lot, which contained dozens and dozens of parking spots. That 7 8 vehicle was driven by an IBEW member and no spiked screws were placed under 9 his vehicles’ tires. 10 299. Around the same time Defendants’ agents, as admitted to on the 11 12 respectourcrafts website, had been in Seattle (and New York) distributing anti- 13 Carpenters’ stickers on various jobsites. 14 15 300. In response to complaints about vandalism and threats of violence on 16 the job and towards its members, the Carpenters sent a number of representatives 17 on or about October 19, 2011, to investigate. Jimmy Matta, Assistant to the 18 19 Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters’ Executive-Secretary
20 Treasurer, Pedro Espinoza, representative for the Carpenters, and a few other 21 representatives, went to the job to investigate the threats of violence and 22 23 vandalism. 24 301. Upon arriving at the job, Defendants’ agents, including Royal 25 26 Robinson, Trustee of Plasterers Local Union #528 in Seattle, met the Carpenters’
27 representatives saying that “we really want you back in the building trades”, 28
164 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 which would require, inter alia, the Carpenters to pay – and continue paying – the
2 BCTD and Councils monthly payments. 3 302. As the Carpenters’ representatives continued to check the jobsite for 4 5 vandalism, a Laborers’ representative, believed to be Doug Strand, got in Pedro 6 Espinoza’s face and said “Why don’t you go organize some Mexicans at 7 8 restaurants?” Strand is a Vice President and Executive Board member of Laborers 9 Local Union #242, Seattle, and attended the Playbook seminar put on by the 10 Laborers’ associate General Counsel, Cuddy. Another Laborers’ representative, 11 12 believed to be named Daryl, threatened violence against the Carpenters’ General 13 President by threatening that “his skin need to be on this rat,” which was a giant 14 15 rat balloon the Laborers routinely use. Later that morning, another Laborer 16 representative nicknamed “Smiley” lunged at Espinoza in a violent and 17 threatening manner, and Strand got in Espinoza’s face in a threatening manner in 18 19 an attempt to intimidate and force the Carpenters to cease investigating the
20 vandalism that Defendants had engaged in. 21 303. In 2009, in Seattle, Washington, the Carpenters were protesting a 22 23 contractor, Ed Diamond, that had forced Hispanic workers to use false names and 24 training badges of others that falsely indicated that the workers had been properly 25 26 training in hazardous materials. Such training was essential because the work was 27 28
165 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 being performed on an active EPA Superfund site containing arsenic, lead and
2 other poisons. L&I eventually cited the company, Rain City, for its violations. 3 304. In and between May 29, 2009 and June 3, 2009, the Carpenters’ 4 5 representatives were handing out fliers on Pier 66 in Seattle protesting the 6 contractors’ actions. The Carpenters’ representatives included Jimmy Matta, 7 8 Pedro Espinoza, Jimmy Haun and a few others. While the Carpenters were 9 handing out their literature the BCTD Defendants’ agents rushed in numbers at the 10 Carpenters’ representatives in an attempt to threaten and intimidate the 11 12 Carpenters. The BCTD Defendants’ agents included Eric Gustafson of the 13 Ironworkers Local Union #86 out of Tukwila. Gustafson and the others, including 14 15 a Painters’ representative, said “They wanted the Carpenters back in the BCTD 16 and Councils,” which would require the Carpenters to pay – and continue paying – 17 the BCTD and Councils bloated monthly tribute payments. 18 19 305. St. Louis Threats of Violence, Violence and Vandalism: As
20 described above in Paragraphs 156-164, in or around August 2009, April 2010, 21 and December 2010 the BCTD Defendants and their agents made death threats 22 23 and other threats of violence, committed violence and vandalism towards the 24 Carpenters’ Local 57 members’ work vehicle, buildings and signs, and shut down 25 26 the Carpenters’ offices as part of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its
27 unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 28
166 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the
2 Carpenters. 3 C. BCTD Defendants’ Implementation of the Laborers’ Playbook of 4 Bad Faith and Unlawful Tactics Through Pursuit of Frivolous 5 Claims Against and Objections to the Carpenters’ Sponsored Apprenticeship Programs Constitute Acts of Extortion. 6
7 306. As set forth above in detail in Paragraphs 189-207, the BCTD 8 Defendants, through their agents, have been implementing the Laborers’ Playbook 9 10 of bad faith and unlawful tactics against the Carpenters and their sponsored
11 apprenticeship training programs by filing false, baseless and frivolous charges 12 and objections as part of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and unlawful 13 14 extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and 15 to acquire and maintain an interest in and control over the Carpenters. 16 17 D. BCTD Defendants’ Stealing the Carpenters’ Confidential Membership Information in Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1080, the 18 Faithless Servant Doctrine, and Rights of Privacy Constitutes 19 Acts of Extortion.
20 307. As set forth above in detail in Paragraphs 261-271, the BCTD 21 Defendants, through Defendant and co-conspirator Williams, and their agents, 22 23 including Jimmy Avellino and co-conspirator Joanne Lein, gained unauthorized 24 and illegal access to, and use of, the Carpenters’ membership database, giving 25 26 such confidential and proprietary information in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1080, the
27 faithless servant doctrine, and rights of privacy the Carpenters. 28
167 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 E. BCTD Defendants’ Interference with Plaintiff’s Business Relations With Its Attorneys Constitutes Acts of Extortion. 2 3 308. Robblee, Detwiler & Black (“Robblee firm”) is a law firm located in
4 Seattle that previously represented the Northwest Carpenters. As part of, and in 5 furtherance of, the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate 6 7 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire 8 and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, the Robblee firm 9 10 terminated its long-standing relationship to the PNRCC, and has begun
11 representing various BCTD affiliates unions, including the Painters, Plasterers and 12 Ironworkers, against the Northwest Carpenters and its interests. The Robblee firm 13 14 thereafter joined and participated in the extortionate conspiracy against Plaintiffs. 15 309. For decades, the Robblee firm represented the PNRCC. It acted as the 16 17 Northwest Carpenters’ outside General Counsel, providing comprehensive legal
18 advice and representation during litigation on virtually all matters including, but 19 not limited to, personnel matters, contract negotiations, grievances, strike-related 20 21 matters, and organizing matters. 22 310. Nevertheless, in or around October 2009, Robblee terminated its long- 23 24 standing relationship with the Northwest Carpenters, effective immediately from 25 all matters, including quitting representing the Northwest Carpenters in the middle 26 of on-going, active cases. 27 28
168 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 311. For instance, the Robblee firm was representing the PNRCC in a
2 personnel matter. The Northwest Carpenters were being sued in King County 3 Superior Court by a former employee, Roger Daignault. Daignault v. Pacific 4 5 Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters, King County Superior Court, Case 6 No. 09-2-15934-3-KNT. Daignault claimed that he was wrongfully terminated 7 8 from employment. In the middle of the lawsuit, the Robblee firm terminated its 9 relationship with the PNRCC and filed a Notice of Withdrawal on October 19, 10 2009. At the time the Robblee firm filed its Notice of Withdrawal, a Motion for 11 12 Reconsideration of an Order Granting the PNRCC’s Summary Judgment was 13 pending. The Court granted the Motion for Reconsideration resulting in further 14 15 motion work, and an appeal. 16 312. The reason given by Dick Robblee was that the Robblee firm’s 17 Building Trades’ clients had economically threatened his firm. Robblee informed 18 19 Doug Tweedy, the PNRCC’s Executive-Secretary Treasurer, and Cass Prindle,
20 Assistant to the EST, during a meeting that was held in Robblee’s office that his 21 other clients, at the behest of the BCTD Defendants and part of the Push-Back- 22 23 Carpenters Campaign and unlawful extortionate conspiracy, had given him an 24 ultimatum: either terminate his firm’s business relationship with the Northwest 25 26 Carpenters immediately, agree to cease ever representing them again and the
27 Building Trades’ clients would immediately give his firm more work or all of his 28
169 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Building Trades’ clients would fire his firm. Robblee accepted the Building
2 Trades’ promise of more work and fired the Carpenters immediately, even though 3 it was in the middle of active matters. 4 5 313. Robblee represents virtually all of the Washington State Building 6 Trades Unions, including the Washington State Building and Construction Trades 7 8 Council, Seattle/King County Building and Construction Trades Council, Painters 9 District Council 5 and its affiliates, IBEW Locals 46, 77 & 483, Plasterers Local 10 528, Ironworkers Local 86, Machinists Lodge 86, Plumbers Locals 26, 32 & 598, 11 12 Roofers Local 54 and Sheet Metal Workers Locals 55 & 66. Robblee also 13 represents the HAMTC and the Bremerton Metal Trades Council. Without these 14 15 clients, the Robblee firm would have virtually no business. 16 314. The PNRCC incurred substantial increased costs due to the immediate 17 withdrawal of the Robblee firm from its matters. 18 19 315. The Robblee firm has since begun representing its Building Trades’
20 clients against the Northwest Carpenters, including matters that they had 21 previously not represented either the PNRCC or its Building Trades’ clients 22 23 because of obvious conflict of interest disqualifications. For instance, the 24 Painters, Plasterers and Laborers have been seeking to prevent the PNRCC from 25 26 training drywall taping apprentices. (See Regulatory Harassment Section,
27 Paragraphs 189-219.) 28
170 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 316. The Robblee firm at the time represented the Carpenters, Painters and
2 Plasterers, so it abstained from representing any of these parties in the state 3 regulatory proceedings. Nevertheless, once the Robblee firm fired the PNRCC, 4 5 the Painters, Plasterers and Laborers brought the Robblee firm to represent these 6 clients against its former client. 7 8 317. The Robblee firm’s conduct was ethically improper. They not only 9 put their own financial interests ahead of their clients, they then represented 10 adverse interests against their former client in matters that they previously did not 11 12 do because of the obvious conflicts of interest. The Robblee firm’s conduct was 13 part of, and in furtherance of, the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its 14 15 unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 16 Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the 17 Carpenters. 18 19 F. BCTD Defendants’ Attempt to Control Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Rights Constitutes Acts of Extortion. 20 21 318. Over the years, unlike the BCTD Defendants, the Carpenters have not 22 followed in lock-step support of the political candidates that the Democratic Party 23 24 and the political causes that they have supported. Instead, the Carpenters have 25 made an independent decision to support who, at the time, they believe is the best 26 candidate for its members, whether that candidate be from the Democratic Party 27 28 or the Republican Party, and to support the causes that they believe are in their
171 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 members’ best interests, not just because they are in the interests of another union.
2 In contrast, the BCTD Defendants and the BCTD’s Governing Board of 3 Presidents support virtually all Democratic candidates and causes that benefit 4 5 some of their more powerful members, even if those same causes hurt other 6 members. 7 8 319. For instance, after the 2000 Presidential election, when Democratic 9 candidate Al Gore lost and George W. Bush had been elected, the Carpenters 10 began supporting his Presidency. In a public show of that support, the Carpenters’ 11 12 President, McCarron, flew on Air Force One with the President and the President 13 visited the Carpenters’ training centers and attended Carpenters’ functions, 14 15 including a Labor Day picnic in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania in 2002. 16 320. The Carpenters also endorsed various Republican candidates for 17 governor around the country, including Jeb Bush in Florida and Dick Posthumus 18 19 in Michigan. Similarly, beginning in 2005, and continuing until his term ended in
20 2010, the Carpenters also supported Republican Governor of California, Arnold 21 Schwarzenegger, including for his re-election in 2006. In late 2006, the 22 23 Carpenters’ President, McCarron, attended a health care conference in Los 24 Angeles hosted by Governor Schwarzenegger, which was followed up by an 25 26 endorsement of Schwarzenegger for re-election in 2006 by the Carpenters’
27 Southwest Council’s 60,000 members. 28
172 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 321. In 2005, the Carpenters opposed, along with Governor
2 Schwarzenegger, a power grab by the IBEW that tried to make only their craft 3 eligible to work on prevailing wage solar panel projects. 4 5 322. In or around October 16, 2006, the Carpenters hosted an event at its 6 Ontario, California training facility at which Governor Schwarzenegger was 7 8 scheduled to attend. The event was part of the Grand Opening to the training 9 facility. It is a state of the art training facility intended to show the construction 10 industry that the Carpenters are serious and committed to spend its resources to 11 12 provide its members the best training available. Training workers is something 13 that Governor Schwarzenegger supported. 14 15 323. The BCTD Defendants and/or agents, including from the Painters and 16 IBEW, used this event to stage a massive, violent protest against the Carpenters 17 for their support of Governor Schwarzenegger and the President. There were over 18 19 100 protestors. They physically blocked the entrances to the training center to
20 prevent attendees from entering. The ones that were able to enter were keyed by 21 the BCTD Defendants’ agents causing property damages to their vehicles. 22 23 Carpenters’ representatives’ cars and the cars of their trust fund trustees, including 24 Curtis Conyers, were keyed, vandalized and damaged. Defendants’ agents 25 26 threatened Carpenters’ agents, including but not limited to Dan MacDonald, with 27 28
173 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 threats of violence by saying such things as “I will kick your ass. You’re a
2 pussy.” They bunched together in a show of force and intimidation while making 3 such threats of violence. The police had to be called to quell the threats, violence 4 5 and vandalism, and to force Defendants to open up ingress and egress. 6 324. The BCTD Defendant and/or agents made clear that they were 7 8 protesting against the Carpenters’ support of Governor Schwarzenegger and 9 President Bush, as well as against the Carpenters for not paying monthly tributes 10 to the BCTD and Councils. There were signs that criticized the Carpenters’ 11 12 support for Republicans, including President Bush and Governor Schwarzenegger. 13 There were also signs criticizing the Carpenters for not being monthly dues- 14 15 paying members of the BCTD and Councils, including the Los Angeles/Orange 16 County Building and Construction Trades Council and the State Building and 17 Trades Council of California. As such, these actions not only interfered with the 18 19 Carpenters’ First Amendment rights, but also were a prelude to the Push-Back-
20 Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the 21 business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest 22 23 and control over the Carpenters and evince the BCTD Defendants’ regular way of 24 doing business. Because they were violent, the First Amendment affords them no 25 26 shield of protection of civil liability for their conduct. 27 28
174 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 325. The Carpenters have also participated in petitioning government
2 agencies over matters Defendants oppose. For instance, in California Defendants 3 and/or agents have put together a group called CURE. CURE stands for 4 5 “California Unions for Reliable Energy.” CURE is run under the auspices of the 6 State Building and Construction Trades Council of California by Bob Balgenorth. 7 8 Balgenorth is an IBEW member, former IBEW local union official, and now is the 9 President of SBCTCC. CURE unions only comprise three: the IBEW, 10 Boilermakers and Plumbers. 11 12 326. CURE’s “mission is to provide” its three unions’ members jobs. The 13 way it goes about doing so has been described as shameful and extortionate. 14 15 CURE pretends to be an environmentally friendly group that seeks to protect the 16 public from the ill-effects of energy construction projects. CURE files 17 environmental challenges to delay and block such projects unless and until CURE 18 19 obtains a Project Labor Agreement with the SBCTCC giving its unions the work.
20 CURE’s lack of environmental concern has been blatantly exposed because, after 21 being paid off in cash and a Project Labor Agreement, it drops all environmental 22 23 challenges. Reports in the Los Angeles Times state that some of the pay-offs to 24 CURE are as high as $400,000. CURE then uses this money for further 25 26 extortionate environmental challenges. (Los Angeles Times, Labor coalition’s
27 tactics on renewable energy projects are criticized., Marc Lifsher, February 5, 28
175 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 2011.) As of September 2010, Balgenorth claimed to have obtained 40 Project
2 Labor Agreements as a result of CURE’s hostage-taking tactics. (SBCTCC 3 Monthly Publication, Carpenters, Led by “Chainsaw” McCarron, Out to Destroy 4 5 PLAs, Massacre Wages and Benefits, Bob Balgenorth, September 8, 2010. Even 6 State Energy Commissioner Jeffrey Byron questioned CURE’s environmental 7 8 bona fides: “It does strain credibility when you have an organization called 9 CURE that is concerned with the desert tortoise and wildlife habitat and turns 10 around and disappears when a project labor agreement is signed.” (Los Angeles 11 12 Times, Labor coalition’s tactics on renewable energy projects are criticized., 13 Marc Lifsher, February 5, 2011.) 14 15 327. Because of CURE’s extortionate tactics, which also violate Section 16 302 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 186 because employers give money or anything of 17 value to labor organizations, the Carpenters (and other construction unions) have 18 19 spoken against CURE’s tactics at agency meetings and to the media. For instance,
20 on or about July 7, 2010, the Carpenters’ President sent a letter to Commissioner 21 Robert B. Weisenmiller, California Energy Commission. The Commission was 22 23 overseeing approval of construction of the Genesis Solar energy project. CURE 24 was blocking approval through various environmental challenges while 25 26 demanding a Project Labor Agreement before the project was even approved. In
27 his letter, the Carpenters’ President “urged” the Commission to be “cautious of 28
176 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 any labor organizations that express opposition to these urgently needed
2 renewable energy projects on environmental grounds.” The Carpenters’ President 3 challenged CURE’s motives in seeking “to pressure developers and their chosen 4 5 Contractors to sign outdated labor agreements that do not fit the needs of this 6 newly emerging and evolving industry.” 7 8 328. On July 12, 2010, the Commission held a hearing at which numerous 9 Carpenters’ officials and representatives spoke in support of the project and 10 against CURE’s environmental extortion. Mike Draper, Vice President of the 11 12 Carpenters, Western District, called CURE’s environmental challenges a “sham” 13 to try to “beat up one of these utility companies or other contractors into signing 14 15 Project Labor Agreements.” Dan Langford and Pat McGinn, representatives of 16 the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, also spoke. Langford said “Please 17 don’t let a group that claims to represent labor, that really has questionable 18 19 motives, delay this project any longer.” McGinn stated: “I’m asking you to not be
20 fooled by thinly-veiled short term agendas that some people have.” Dan Curtin, 21 representative of the California Conference of Carpenters, stated: “Any group that 22 23 comes up here as a union group and talk to you about those kinds of issues (i.e., 24 environmental), please take everything they have to say with a . . . grain of salt. . . 25 26 . You do not need a CURE agreement to get renewable power plant sited in
27 California. . . . Move off all of the things you’ve heard from the CURE group 28
177 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 about this environmental issue or that environmental issue. The motivation
2 behind that is really inappropriate.” 3 329. The BCTD Defendants do not like the Carpenters’ opposition to the 4 5 Democratic candidates they support with endorsements, financial contributions 6 and/or resources, such as President Bush and Governor Schwarzenegger, and 7 8 because the BCTD Defendants, particularly Hill with the IBEW, do not like the 9 public exposure of CURE’s environmental extortionate tactics, particularly from 10 the Carpenters, and criticisms over outdated project labor agreements. Because of 11 12 this, Defendants have incorporated into their Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign 13 and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy a demand, along with their other 14 15 demands, that the Carpenters give over to them the Carpenters’ decisions to 16 support, financially and otherwise, and the actual financial and other support the 17 Carpenters give candidates, and decisions to participate in public hearings 18 19 surrounding CURE. As such, these actions not only interfered with the
20 Carpenters' First Amendment rights, but also formed part of the Push-Back- 21 Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the 22 23 business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest 24 and control over the Carpenters. As such, the First Amendment affords them no 25 26 shield of protection against civil liability for their conduct.
27 330. To accomplish their unlawful extortionate demands, the BCTD 28
178 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Defendants and/or their agents have written and posted numerous articles
2 criticizing the Carpenters’ support of Republican candidates and opposition to the 3 extortionate tactics of CURE. Such articles have been posted and/or incorporated 4 5 by hyperlink on respectourcrafts.com, local57facts.com and 6 candaele.com/actogether. For instance, respectourcrats.com refers viewers to the 7 8 Actogether website, under the title: ACTogether: Against Carpenters 9 TOGETHER, which is a Painters’ website. There the BCTD Defendants post 10 articles critical of the Carpenters’ support of “Republicans”, including President 11 12 Bush, Governor Bush and Governor Schwarzenegger. Respectourcrafts also has 13 articles criticizing the Carpenters’ opposition to CURE, including “Carpenters 14 15 Union President Attacks CURE.”, “Carpenters Testimony Attacking CURE,” and 16 “Carpenters Escalates Attack on CURE.” Respectourcrafts and Local57facts 17 posts an article by Balgenorth critical of the Carpenters’ opposition to CURE, 18 19 entitled “Carpenters, Led by ‘Chainsaw’ McCarron, Out to Destroy PLAs.”
20 These articles were last reviewed on January 25, 2012. 21 331. The Carpenters spend and commit millions of dollars in money, time, 22 23 personnel and resources across the country in support of and/or in opposition to 24 political candidates, causes and government action. The BCTD Defendants see 25 26 that as an enormous source of money and resources that they should be able to
27 control and use for their own political purposes. 28
179 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 332. The BCTD Defendants have made clear that part of, and in
2 furtherance of, the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate 3 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire 4 5 and maintain an interest in and control over the Carpenters, they intend to take 6 over and control Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, as expressed in financial, 7 8 personnel and resource commitments, to select, support, and oppose particular 9 political candidates, causes, and government actions. Once the BCTD Defendants 10 have forced Plaintiffs “back in the fold” sitting at the “family table” through 11 12 bloated monthly payments and continuing payments to the BCTD and Councils, 13 the Defendants intend to acquire an interest in and control over Plaintiffs’ unions 14 15 and exercise Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, themselves. 16 333. By forcing the Carpenters to give over to the BCTD Defendants its 17 valuable First Amendment rights, Defendants would receive considerable 18 19 strategic, political and financial leverage and substantially increased power and
20 prestige, particularly dealing with politicians and others. This is because 21 Defendants would have, for their own political agendas and purposes, control over 22 23 the millions of dollars in assets, personnel and resources that the Carpenters 24 expend every year. As such, these actions not only interfered with the Carpenters’ 25 26 First Amendment rights, but also formed part of the Push-Back-Carpenters
27 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 28
180 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over
2 the Carpenters, so that they could control for themselves the Carpenters’ own First 3 Amendment rights to support whomever they want, whenever they, and however 4 5 they decide for themselves. 6 G. Defendants’ Attempt to Control Plaintiffs’ Rights to Negotiate 7 Contracts on Their Behalf Constitutes Acts of Extortion. 8 334. As indicated above, the BCTD Defendants do not like the Carpenters 9 10 not being under their control. They do not like the Carpenters’ public opposition
11 to Project Labor Agreements with government agencies and contractors, and 12 refusals to sign such agreements, including but not limited to in Washington state 13 14 and California. 15 335. The Carpenters object to the BCTD’s negotiating agreements on their 16 17 behalf and without their input, including their mandatory inclusion in all their
18 negotiated Project Labor Agreements the BCTD’s Plan for the Settlement of 19 Jurisdictional Disputes in the Construction Industry. The Carpenters know that 20 21 the Plan is biased and outdated. It is biased because it is administered by the 22 IBEW and BCTD’s attorney, Resnik. It is also biased because it uses criteria that 23 24 give unions work when such unions do not represent the majority of workers. For 25 instance, even though in Southern California the Carpenters have been 26 representing plasterers for over a decade, represent the majority of contractors 27 28 performing work in the Southern California area, pay above scale over what the
181 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Plasterers pay, and have a certified training program, the Plan is nonetheless used
2 to obtain work for the Plasterers. 3 336. In addition, the Plan has been repeatedly amended by the BCTD 4 5 Defendants, including recently as part of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and 6 its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 7 8 Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the 9 Carpenters, specifically to target the Carpenters including financial disincentives 10 and burdens to challenge awards even when they are unlawful. For instance, the 11 12 BCTD Defendants amended the Plan to permit damages against a union should an 13 award not be complied with in 7 days. These amendments were implemented in 14 15 May 2011. The BCTD Defendants had earlier made other amendments targeting 16 the Carpenters, including in December 2008 to provide for an award of attorneys’ 17 fees for a party who successfully enforces a Plan award but not for a party who 18 19 successfully sets an award aside.
20 337. In or around September 2011, the Carpenters refused to sign a Project 21 Labor Agreement negotiated by the Los Angeles/Orange County Building and 22 23 Construction Trades Council and the City of Long Beach. In or around May 24 2011, the Carpenters refused to sign a Project Labor Agreement put together by 25 26 the Seattle/King County Building and Construction Trades Council for a project
27 being performed by General Contractor, Lease Crutcher Lewis, WA LLC. These 28
182 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 proposed Project Labor Agreements contained the Plan, which the Carpenters find
2 objectionable. In or around January 25, 2012, the Carpenters sent a Notice to all 3 local Government Officials in and around St. Louis, Missouri, informing them of 4 5 the Carpenters’ opposition to Project Labor Agreements. 6 338. Because of the Carpenters’ opposition to the PLAs, the BCTD 7 8 Defendants incorporated into the Push-back-Carpenters Campaign and its 9 unlawful extortionate conspiracy another demand, in addition to others alleged 10 herein, that the Carpenters agree to, without input or alteration, any and all PLAs 11 12 BCTD Defendants and/or agents can negotiate; so stated, the demand is an effort 13 to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain 14 15 an interest and control over the Carpenters, the exercise of which goes to the heart 16 of any union organization seeking to represent its membership for the benefit of 17 its membership and not the interest of others. 18 19 339. To accomplish their goals, the BCTD Defendants have posted stories
20 critical of the Carpenters’ opposition to their PLAs, including articles on 21 respectourcrats.com. For instance, the BCTD Defendants have posted articles, 22 23 “Carpenters Attempt to Disrupt PLA At Long Beach Airport,” “Carpenters Union 24 Continues to Picket Over Airport Expansion”, and “Carpenters Led by 25 26 ‘Chainsaw’ McCarron, Out to Destroy PLAs.” These articles are critical of the
27 Carpenters’ refusal to sign PLAs and are being used by BCTD Defendants to keep 28
183 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 their agents motivated to continue attacking the Carpenters as part of the Push-
2 Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the 3 business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest 4 5 and control over the Carpenters. 6 340. By forcing the Carpenters to give over to BCTD Defendants authority 7 8 to negotiate PLAs on behalf of the Carpenters, the BCTD Defendants would 9 receive considerable strategic, political and financial leverage and substantially 10 increased power and prestige, particularly dealing with public agencies and others 11 12 considering entering into PLAs (along with the increased monthly BCTD and 13 Council bloated payments and contributions to their benefits plans). This is 14 15 because the BCTD Defendants can once again claim they represent the 16 Carpenters, they can prohibit the Carpenters’ First Amendment protected 17 activities, and can provide the best trained workers for the entire job because the 18 19 Carpenters are included.
20 341. Of equal or greater importance to the BCTD Defendants though is that 21 by taking over the Carpenters’ authority to negotiate Project Labor Agreements, 22 23 the BCTD Defendants obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and 24 acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters’ jurisdiction, 25 26 members, dues, trust fund contributions for pensions, health and training, and can
27 give these to their affiliates, including but not limited to the Plasterers and the 28
184 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Painters, through the Plan.
2 H. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa’s Violations of 3 Section 501(a) of the LMRDA and Common Law Fiduciary Duties Also Constitute Acts of Extortion. 4 5 342. Section 501(a) provides that “officers, agents, shop stewards, and 6 other representatives of a labor organization occupy positions of trust in relation to 7 8 such organization and its members as a group.” 29 U.S.C. § 501(a). Accordingly, 9 individuals holding such positions in a labor organization owe fiduciary duties to 10 its members, including the right to the honest and faithful services of covered 11 12 persons. 13 343. Common law fiduciary breach claims are expressly saved from 14 15 preemption. 29 U.S.C. § 523(a). 16 344. The fiduciary duties imposed by Section 501 and the common law are 17 very broad. These duties include the duty of loyalty to the organization and its 18 19 members and apply to any and all covered persons’ actions and activities. Section
20 501 also specifically includes the following: (1) holding, managing and expending 21 the union’s money and property solely for the benefit of the organization and its 22 23 members; (2) managing and expending the same in accordance with the union 24 constitution, bylaws and any resolutions there under; and (3) refraining from 25 26 dealing with the union as an adverse party or on behalf of an adverse party in any
27 matter connected with the covered persons’ duties. 28
185 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 345. A “labor organization” includes any organization of any kind, any
2 group or any association in which employees participate and which exists for the 3 purpose, in whole or part, of dealing with employers concerning representation, 4 5 grievances, wages, pay, hours or other terms and conditions of employment, or 6 joint council which is subordinate to a national labor organization. 29 U.S.C. 7 8 §402(i). 9 346. An “officer” includes any constitutional officer, any person authorized 10 to perform the functions of various positions of a union, and any member of a 11 12 union’s executive board. 29 U.S.C. §402(n). 13 347. The LMRDA defines person to include individuals and labor 14 15 organizations, 29 U.S.C. § 402(d); members of labor organizations are defined to 16 include persons, thus including both individuals and subordinate labor 17 organization members, 29 U.S.C. §402(o). 18 19 348. At all relevant times, the Carpenters and their members, including the
20 individual Plaintiffs, are members of the Metal Trades Department and Councils, 21 including but not limited to HAMTC, by virtue of their participation and/or 22 23 positions in the Councils’ governing bodies and/or payment of per capita fees to 24 these Metal Trades’ labor organizations. 25 26 27 28
186 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 349. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa are covered persons
2 under the statute and owe fiduciary duties by virtue of their positions and 3 authority under the common law. Defendant Molnaa is an officer of the HAMTC. 4 5 350. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams are officers of the Metal Trades 6 Department. 7 8 351. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams are agents and/or other 9 representatives of the Metal Trades Department’s Councils, including HAMTC, by 10 virtue of their having instigated, directed and controlled their actions in relation to 11 12 the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to 13 obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an 14 15 interest and in control over the Carpenters. 16 352. Defendant Ault, by virtue of his position as President of the Metal 17 Trades Department, and Defendants Hill and Williams, by virtue of their positions 18 19 on the Metal Trades Department’s Executive Committee, are also “officers” to the
20 various Metal Trades Department’s Councils within the meaning of the statute 21 because these Defendants were authorized to perform, and performed, the various 22 23 functions, of the subordinate organizations’ officer positions through their 24 directions and control over the subordinate organizations. Defendants Ault, Hill 25 26 and Williams, through Ault, gave directions to the Metal Trades Department’s
27 Councils’ Presidents that had to be followed because Defendant Ault threatened to 28
187 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 appoint a trustee over any subordinate Metal Trades Council, and remove any
2 officer, who did not follow his direction and orders, per his authority under 3 Section 13 of the Metal Trades Constitution. For instance, Defendant Ault 4 5 threatened Quinton Jones, President of the Tidewaters Metal Trades Council, in 6 Virginia, on or about August 30, 2011, and Molnaa, President of HAMTC, on or 7 8 about September 15, 2011, that they had better follow Ault’s directives and orders 9 or they would be removed and their Councils placed under Ault’s control. One of 10 the duties of the Councils’ Presidents is to act as Chairman and Spokesperson of 11 12 the collective bargaining agreement Negotiating Committee. (See, e.g., HAMTC 13 By-Laws, Article IV, Section 1.) Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams also 14 15 instructed and directed each Council to forward and/or direct all Plaintiffs’ 16 communications, correspondence or questions related to them and/or the Push- 17 Back-Carpenters Campaign to Ault at the Metal Trades Department headquarters 18 19 in Washington D.C. for Defendants to coordinate and respond for the Metal
20 Trades Department and Councils. In addition, Defendants dictated and imposed 21 terms of the various collective bargaining agreements, including but not limited to 22 23 who could be job stewards, which members would be entitled to perform job 24 assignment, which local unions could receive dues, union security rights and 25 26 jurisdiction over the work assignments. In addition, Defendants dictated
27 enforcement of the rights and responsibilities of the Council’s elected and 28
188 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 appointed officers, including the right to speak at meetings, vote on matters, rights
2 held by the Councils’ President. (See, e.g., HAMTC By-Laws, Article V, Section 3 6.) Consequently, Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams became authorized to 4 5 perform and did the functions of the various officers of the Metal Trades 6 Departments’ Councils. 7 8 353. Defendant Ault, by virtue of his position as President of the Metal 9 Trades Department, and Defendants Hill and Williams, by virtue of their positions 10 on the Metal Trades Department’s Executive Committee, were also “officers” to 11 12 the Carpenters that are affiliated with and represented by the Metal Trades 13 Department and Councils within the meaning of the statute because these 14 15 Defendants were authorized to perform, and did perform, the various functions of 16 the Carpenters’ officer positions. One of the duties of the Carpenters’ officers 17 (e.g., President) is to appoint representatives to participate in negotiating collective 18 19 bargaining agreements with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and
20 conditions of employment, to police agreements, investigate complaints and pursue 21 grievances, and all other aspects of collective bargaining. Defendants Ault, Hill, 22 23 Williams and Molnaa are also agents and/or other representatives of Plaintiffs’ 24 affiliated and represented labor organizations and their members. 25 26 354. Based on these responsibilities, the BCTD Defendants, through
27 Defendant Ault, have instructed all Councils that during collective bargaining 28
189 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 agreement implementation and/or negotiations with employers on behalf of the
2 Metal Trades Department, Councils, the Carpenters, and their members, they are 3 to remove any and all rights that the Carpenters and members have, including but 4 5 not limited to the rights to dues, to refer dues-paying members, to enforce unity 6 security clauses, to be represented by the Carpenters, to train members, to be 7 8 trained by the Carpenters, to maintain the Carpenters’ jurisdiction over work 9 assignments, to work in the Carpenters’ jurisdiction, to appoint job stewards, to be 10 represented by Carpenters’ stewards, to jobs and particular work assignments, 11 12 and/or to the opportunity to recruit dues-paying members or be dues-paying 13 members of the Carpenters. 14 15 355. As part of, and in furtherance of, the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign 16 and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 17 Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest in and control over the 18 19 Carpenters, Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams (and the other Metal Trades
20 Executive Council Members) violated their Section 501 fiduciary duties owed to 21 the Metal Trades Department, Councils, and their members, including Plaintiffs, 22 23 and Defendant Molnaa (and the other HAMTC Executive Council Members) 24 violated his Section 501 fiduciary duties owed to the HAMTC and its members, 25 26 including Plaintiffs.
27 356. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams operated and managed the Metal 28
190 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Trades Department, Councils and the Carpenters in violation of their Section 501
2 fiduciary duties, and Defendant Molnaa operated and managed the HAMTC in 3 violation of his Section 501 fiduciary duties. 4 5 357. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa breached their fiduciary 6 duties to Plaintiffs by taking the actions listed below. Such actions were not taken 7 8 because they solely in the interests of the Metal Trades Department’s, Councils’ 9 and the Carpenters’ members’ interests, but because the BCTD Defendants and 10 co-conspirators directed and ordered it as part of their Push-Back-Carpenters 11 12 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 13 property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest in and control 14 15 over the Carpenters. Therefore, the actions taken, and the reasons for taking such 16 actions were in bad faith and in total abdication of their duties as labor 17 organization officials, agents and/or representatives to the Metal Trades 18 19 Department, Councils and the Carpenters.
20 358. Prior to Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa taking the 21 actions set forth herein, Plaintiffs and its members had the rights to participate in 22 23 the affairs of the Metal Trades Department and Councils, including the HAMTC, 24 including but not limited to attending meetings, having a say at meetings, 25 26 obtaining information, etc. Plaintiffs’ members had the right to maintain
27 membership with the Carpenters. The Carpenters had rights to represent its 28
191 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 members, to obtain and refer dues-paying members to work, and to its traditional
2 jurisdiction. Plaintiffs had the right to nominate, vote and/or be appointed or 3 elected to positions of stewards, delegates, agents and other representatives to the 4 5 Metal Trades Department’s Councils, including the HAMTC. Plaintiffs had the 6 right to participate in the collective bargaining process, including negotiations, 7 8 with employers. 9 359. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa breached their fiduciary 10 duties to the Metal Trades Department, Councils, the Carpenters and their 11 12 members, including Plaintiffs, by taking the following actions at the direction, or 13 under the control of, and for the benefit of the BCTD and its Governing Board of 14 15 Presidents: 16 a. managing the Metal Trades Department’s and Councils’ assets 17 or property, including negotiating agreements with respect to 18 19 wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment,
20 policing agreements, pursuing grievances, and all other aspects 21 of collective bargaining; 22 23 b. revoking Plaintiffs’ Solidarity Charters with the Metal Trades 24 Department and Councils; 25 26 c. managing the Carpenters’ assets or property, including
27 negotiating agreements with respect to wages, hours, and other 28
192 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 terms and conditions of employment, policing agreements,
2 pursuing grievances, and all other aspects of collective 3 bargaining; 4 5 d. taking away the Carpenters’ opportunity or right to recruit, 6 obtain, retain, refer and/or train dues-paying members to work, 7 8 and giving the same to other unions; 9 e. taking away the Plaintiffs’ rights to nominate, select, vote on 10 and/or hold officer positions in the Metal Trades Department’s 11 12 Councils; 13 f. refusing to process Plaintiffs’ members’ applications in order to 14 15 prevent the deduction of dues from the members’ check; 16 g. removing, suspending or expelling Plaintiffs and their 17 members, including their stewards, delegates, agents, officers 18 19 and other Metal Trades’ representatives, of the Metal Trades
20 Department and/or Councils, and giving the same to other 21 unions; 22 23 h. prohibiting the Plaintiffs from appointing or being job stewards, 24 delegates, agents, officers, and other Metal Trades’ 25 26 representatives, of the Metal Trades Department and/or
27 Councils, and giving the same to other unions; 28
193 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 i. informing new recruits that they cannot be members of the
2 Carpenters in order to be represented on the job; 3 j. directing and/or requiring Plaintiffs’ members – some under 4 5 compulsion of forced termination and/or removal from their 6 jobs – to join and pay dues to other unions in order to retain 7 8 their jobs, positions and/or obtain representation; 9 k. carving up Plaintiffs’ historical representation, work 10 jurisdiction and job-related and Metal Trades-related positions 11 12 and giving the same to other unions; 13 l. refusing to respond to Plaintiffs and its members’ requests for, 14 15 or access to, information related to their membership status; 16 m. depriving Plaintiffs and its members information related to the 17 revocations and the right to participate or have a voice in the 18 19 decision on whether to revoke the Solidarity Charters,
20 n. misleading Plaintiffs and its members about the real reasons for 21 the Metal Trades’ conduct towards the Plaintiffs; 22 23 o. taking away from Plaintiffs and their members the opportunity 24 and/or right to participate in representation of their members, 25 26 including but not limited to with respect to policing their
27 agreements, job sites and/or participating in their members’ 28
194 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 grievances, including preparing their members’ grievances,
2 having a seat when meeting with the employers over their 3 members’ grievances, attending grievance meetings or hearings, 4 5 participating in prescribing rules of procedure with respect to 6 handling of grievances, giving reports to the Executive 7 8 Committee on their members’ grievances; 9 p. taking away from Plaintiffs and their members the opportunity 10 and/or right to participate in preparing for and participating in 11 12 collective bargaining agreement negotiations, to have a seat 13 when meeting with the employers, to have advisors from their 14 15 International be able to attend in an advisory capacity, to 16 participate in prescribing rules of procedure with respect to 17 collective bargaining agreement negotiations, to vote on 18 19 collective bargaining agreement ratifications, and/or to
20 participate in the authorization of separate Council discussions 21 related to collective bargaining; 22 23 q. taking away Plaintiffs and their members the opportunity and/or 24 right to attend the Metal Trades Department’s November 2011 25 26 convention, and to attend, participate in, have a say at Metal
27 Trades Councils’ meetings; 28
195 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 r. threatening any Metal Trades Council official that he or she
2 would be removed from office and that their Council would be 3 placed under trusteeship if they did not comply with the 4 5 directives and orders of the BCTD’s Governing Board of 6 Presidents as implemented by Defendants Ault, Hill and 7 8 Williams; and/or 9 s. expending the Metal Trades Department’s and Councils’ 10 money, personnel and assets in formulating, implementing, 11 12 managing and operating the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign 13 and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business 14 15 and property of the Carpenters and acquire and maintain an 16 interest in or control over the Carpenters. 17 360. In taking the above actions, Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and 18 19 Molnaa dealt with the Metal Trades Department, Councils, the Carpenters and
20 their members as an adverse party or in behalf of the BCTD, its Governing Board 21 of Presidents and their affiliated unions, whose interests were and continue to be 22 23 adverse to the interests of the Metal Trades Department, its Councils and its 24 members, including Plaintiffs, something Defendant Ault admitted to in his 25 26 Admissions Memo.
27 361. In taking the above actions, Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and 28
196 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Molnaa dealt with the Plaintiffs’ affiliated and represented labor organizations and
2 members as an adverse party or in behalf of the BCTD, its Governing Board of 3 Presidents and their affiliated unions, whose interests were and continue to be 4 5 adverse to the interests of the Metal Trades Department, its affiliated Councils and 6 its members, including Plaintiffs, something Defendant Ault admitted to in his 7 8 Admissions Memo. 9 362. In taking the above actions, Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and 10 Molnaa have expended and used the Metal Trades’ money, property and assets, 11 12 not to benefit the MTD, its affiliated Councils or its members, but rather to solely 13 benefit the BCTD, its Governing Board of Presidents and their affiliated Building 14 15 Trades Unions. 16 363. The Metal Trades Department’s, Councils’, the Carpenters’ members’ 17 interests lay in keeping the Plaintiffs a part of the Metal Trades, as explained in 18 19 Defendant Ault himself in this Admissions Memo. Their interests did not lay in
20 being used as a weapon, devise or tool for the BCTD and its Governing Board of 21 Presidents in non-Metal Trades disputes. Their interests did not lay in taking the 22 23 above-actions, including but not limited to kicking out or punishing the Plaintiffs, 24 because the BCTD and its Governing Board of Presidents want to extort the 25 26 Carpenters into making and continue making monthly payments to the BCTD and
27 its Building Trades-affiliated Councils. 28
197 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 364. In formulating, implementing, managing and operating the Metal
2 Trades-related scheme part of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its 3 unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 4 5 Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest in and control over the 6 Carpenters, Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams have used, managed and 7 8 expended Metal Trades’ resources, including but not limited to computers, 9 correspondence, phones, faxes, Ault and his staff’s time, which are paid for by the 10 Metal Trades Department. 11 12 365. At the direction of Defendants Hill, Williams and himself, Defendant 13 Ault has made phone calls, sent letters, has had his staff make phone calls, draft 14 15 letters for his signature, send letters, faxes and/or emails themselves using Metal 16 Trades Department’s phones, computers, and office staff, and enlisting the 17 assistance of the Metal Trades Department legal counsel, Bob Matisoff, 18 19 O’Donoghue & O’Donoghue. For instance, on Metal Trades Department
20 letterhead, Ault sent to the Carpenters a Notice of Revocation, that was typed by 21 his assistant, Lisa Johnson, and copied to Matisoff, who is paid for his time by the 22 23 Metal Trades Department for his time. Defendant Ault’s assistant Johnson, at his 24 direction, also had a phone call on or about July 18, 2011, with a Carpenter 25 26 representative named Walter Murcia, about the consequences of the actions taken
27 or to be taken by the Defendants. 28
198 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 366. Similarly, Defendant Ault sent another letter on Metal Trades
2 Department letterhead, related to its actions against the Plaintiffs dated September 3 26, 2011, that was drafted by his assistant Lisa Johnson. This letter was in 4 5 response to the directive to Defendant Ault by the BCTD’s Governing Board of 6 Presidents at Metal Trade Department meeting that took place on or about 7 8 September 7, 2011, to begin a publicity campaign attempting to explain the Metal 9 Trades’ conduct towards Plaintiffs. Nevertheless, nowhere in the letter did 10 Defendant Ault ever actually explain the reasons, like he had in his Admissions 11 12 Memo. This was because he was afraid to admit the truth or contradict the truth 13 since he had already admitted in writing the reasons. So Defendant Ault merely 14 15 attempted to omit the truth by omitting the reasons. 16 367. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams have also used Metal Trades 17 Department resources, including use of its attorneys, on numerous other 18 19 occasions. For instance, during a March 17, 2011, Metal Trades Department
20 meeting that was held at the Murray Green Conference Room at 815 16th Street, 21 NW, Washington D.C., in which Defendant Williams participated by phone 22 23 through a number set up and paid for the Metal Trades Department, the decision 24 was made by the BCTD General Presidents to revoke the Plaintiffs’ Charters with 25 26 the Metal Trades Department and Councils.
27 368. Defendant Ault was also directed at this meeting by Defendants Hill 28
199 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 and Williams (and the other BCTD General Presidents) to brief the BCTD
2 President, Defendant Ayers, about their decisions, and to consult with the Metal 3 Trades Department’s legal counsel regarding implementation of their unlawful 4 5 decisions and report back those consultations. Defendant Ault was also directed 6 to make recommendations about which BCTD union would be assigned the 7 8 Plaintiffs’ members, dues, jobs, and other rights. 9 369. In follow through, on or around July 2011, Defendant Ault dispatched 10 his assistants, Johnson and Seidl, to contact each Council affiliate to have them 11 12 work on compiling recommendations as to which unions would be given the 13 Plaintiffs’ rights. Johnson and Seidl used Metal Trades Department and Councils’ 14 15 resources, including computers, phones, paid staff time, and money making 16 contact with the Councils and compiling the recommendations. These 17 recommendations were typed on Metal Trades Department computers using Metal 18 19 Trades Department staff time and sent by email on or about July 31, 2011, to
20 various BCTD General Presidents. 21 370. On or about September 7, 2011, at another Metal Trade Department 22 23 meeting, Defendant Ault’s recommendations as to the recipients of the Plaintiffs’ 24 rights were approved by the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents. 25 26 371. Defendant Ault also spent his Metal Trades Department-paid time to
27 brief Defendant Ayers and the Metal Trades Department’s legal counsel about 28
200 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 what the BCTD General Presidents had instigated, ordered and directed on May
2 19, 2011. The Metal Trades Departments’ attorneys then spent their time, which 3 is paid for the Metal Trades Department, to research the implantation of the 4 5 unlawful actions directed by the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents. On 6 May 19, 2011, at another Metal Trades Department meeting, the Metal Trades 7 8 Departments’ attorneys, Matisoff and his partner Keith Bolek, explained their 9 purported strategies on how Defendants should formulate, implement, manage and 10 operate the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate 11 12 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire 13 and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, as it related to the pre- 14 15 determined decisions and directions. 16 372. Similarly, Defendant Molnaa has used his time, his staff’s time, and 17 the HAMTC’s resources to implement, manage, and operate the Push-Back- 18 19 Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the
20 business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest 21 and control over the Carpenters, as ordered by Ault. Defendant Molnaa and his 22 23 staff are paid by the HAMTC. For instance, by September 7, 2011, Molnaa had 24 expended HAMTC staff and resources to recommend how the Plaintiffs’ rights 25 26 would be given over to other unions. In addition, on October 25, 2011, Molnaa
27 wrote a letter on HAMTC letterhead to H.A. Parker Jr., business manager of 28
201 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Carpenters Local 2403, located in Kennewick, Washington, purporting to further
2 explain the consequences of HAMTC’s decision to revoke the Charter of the 3 Carpenters local. Defendant Molnaa has also used his time consulting with 4 5 Defendant Ault and responding to questions from various Carpenters’ members 6 about the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate 7 8 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire 9 and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 10 373. Defendant Ault and Matisoff also spent Metal Trades Department 11 12 time and resources briefing the delegates at the November 2011 Convention that 13 was held in Las Vegas, Nevada. During Matisoff’s legal report, he admitted that 14 15 the Plaintiffs were retaliated against because of issues related to the BCTD and its 16 affiliate building trades’ unions. Defendant Ault also stated that such issues 17 included the fact that the Carpenters have recruited, accepted and trained dues- 18 19 paying electrical workers in St. Louis, Missouri and Southern Illinois, locations
20 where the Metal Trades Department has no presence, Council or representation 21 responsibilities. 22 23 374. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa took these actions 24 because the BCTD and its Governing Board of Presidents instigated, directed and 25 26 ordered it be done as part of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful
27 extortionate conspiracy in an effort to extort Plaintiffs into turning over their 28
202 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 business and property and to acquire and maintain an interest in and control over
2 the Plaintiffs. Defendants’ conduct was thus the direct means that they used 3 against the Plaintiffs in order to force the Carpenters to give in to the Defendants’ 4 5 extortionate demands. Such actions were not taken for any legitimate Metal 6 Trades-related reasons. 7 8 375. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa took the above actions in 9 connection with their official duties as officers, agents or representatives of the 10 Metal Trades Department, Councils, including the HAMTC, and the Carpenters 11 12 for reasons that violated their fiduciary duties under Section 501 and the common 13 law. 14 15 I. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams’ Violations of Section 501(c) of the LMRDA Constitute Independent Predicate Acts and Also 16 Acts of Extortion. 17 376. Section 501(c) prohibits “any person” from unlawfully and willfully 18 19 abstracting or converting to his own use, of the use of another, any moneys, funds,
20 property, or other assets of a labor organization of which he is an officer, or by 21 which he is directly or indirectly employed. 22 23 377. Conversion includes the wrongful misuse and abuse of money, funds, 24 property or other assets held or controlled by a covered person. 25 26 378. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams are directly employed by the
27 Metal Trades Department. Defendant Ault is employed as the President of the 28
203 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Metal Trades Department and Defendants Hill and Williams are employed as
2 members of the Metal Trades Department’s Executive Council. 3 379. Defendant Ault is also indirectly employed by the Carpenters that paid 4 5 the Metal Trades Department per capita payments for representation by the Metal 6 Trades Department and Councils, including for purposes of collective bargaining, 7 8 negotiating agreements with employers with respect to wages, hours, and other 9 terms and conditions of employment, policing agreements, pursuing grievances, 10 and all other aspects of collective bargaining. From these payments, Defendant 11 12 Ault is paid. Consequently, Ault is indirectly employed by the Carpenters. 13 380. As set forth above in Paragraphs 351-355, Defendants Ault, Hill and 14 15 Williams held or controlled moneys, funds, property, or other assets of the Metal 16 Trades Department and Councils, and unlawfully and willfully abstracted or 17 converted the same to their own use and/or for the use of another. They 18 19 wrongfully misused and abused the money, funds, property or other assets
20 entrusted them for their own personal use and/or for the use of another. 21 381. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams wrongfully misused the Metal 22 23 Trades Department’s and Councils’ money, funds, property, or other assets by 24 expending and using their money, resources, equipment, staff time, and attorney 25 26 time formulating, implementing, managing and operating the Push-Back-
27 Carpenters Campaign extortionate schemes and conspiracy, including revoking the 28
204 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Carpenters’ Charters and giving their labor organization rights to other unions,
2 including but not limited to the Painters. 3 382. Defendant Ault also wrongfully misused the property or other assets 4 5 of the Carpenters, as set forth in Paragraph 354 by mismanaging and seizing their 6 property rights, including but not limited to their rights to dues, members, 7 8 jurisdiction, representation, and other collective bargaining rights, and giving their 9 property and other rights to other unions, including the Painters. 10 383. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams took these actions because the 11 12 BCTD and its Governing Board of Presidents instigated, directed and ordered it be 13 done as part of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate 14 15 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire 16 and maintain an interest in and control over the Carpenters in an effort to extort 17 Plaintiffs. Defendants’ conduct was thus the direct means that they used against 18 19 the Plaintiffs in order to force the Carpenters to give in to the Defendants’
20 extortionate demands. Such actions were not taken for any legitimate Metal 21 Trades-related reasons. 22 23 384. Defendant Williams also took the actions because it benefited him and 24 his union, the Painters, financially and personally. By taking Plaintiffs’ property 25 26 and other labor organization rights, including, but not limited to, its dues,
27 members and jurisdiction, Defendant Williams obtained more members and dues 28
205 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 money for his union. For instance, Defendant Williams gave himself and his
2 union affiliates the Carpenters’ dues, members, jurisdiction, property and other 3 labor organization rights at various Metal Trades Councils, including the 4 5 Portsmouth Metal Trades Council. This gave Defendant Williams more power 6 and prestige, and money, including future dues that he can use to offset the 7 8 millions he claimed to have spent fighting the Carpenters over the last decade. 9 The more members a union has the more power and prestige that union’s 10 President has. Indeed, this is exactly what the Defendants have been accusing the 11 12 Plaintiffs’ President of for years, showing that this is something valuable and 13 important – that is, seeking to have more members who can pay more dues that 14 15 increases a union’s President’s own personal power, prestige, and financial reward 16 in salaries and other benefits. Moreover, by financially sanctioning the Plaintiffs 17 through the loss of Metal Trades’ members, dues, jurisdiction, property and other 18 19 labor organization rights, Defendant Williams hoped to increase the extortion and
20 financial pressure on the Carpenters to force them to agree to begin making and 21 continue making the demanded extortionate payments to the BCTD and Councils. 22 23 This is turn would result in substantial savings for his union’s own payments to 24 the BCTD and Councils. 25 26 385. Defendant Hill also took the actions because it benefited him and his
27 union, the IBEW, financially and personally. For instance, by financially 28
206 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 sanctioning the Carpenters through the loss of Metal Trades’ members, dues,
2 property and other labor organization rights, Defendant Hill hoped to increase the 3 extortion and financial pressure on the Carpenters to force them to agree to begin 4 5 making and continue making the demanded extortionate payments to the BCTD 6 and Councils. This is turn would result in substantial savings for his union’s own 7 8 payments to the BCTD and Councils. 9 386. Defendant Ault took also these actions because it benefited him and 10 his staff personally and directly. Because Defendant Ault did and continues to do 11 12 as ordered by BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents, he and his staff also 13 received at least a 3% salary increase effective August 1, 2011, even though 14 15 taking the actions against the Plaintiffs would exact a negative financial 16 consequence on the Metal Trades Department and the country was still suffering 17 severely from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. 18 19 387. In addition, because Defendant Ault did and continues to do as
20 ordered by BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents, in November, 2011, he was 21 re-elected with the full support of the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents. He 22 23 received such support because of his agreement to join the conspiracy and his 24 subsequent actions implementing, managing, and operating the Metal Trades’ 25 26 component of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate
27 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire 28
207 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 and maintain an interest in and control over the Carpenters. Had Defendant Ault
2 not agreed to join the conspiracy, he would not have received the support of the 3 BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents and would not have been re-elected. 4 5 388. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams knew their actions were unlawful 6 and had a bad and evil purpose for taking the actions based on many reasons. 7 8 First, Defendant Ault wrote a Memo detailing why such actions were wrongful, 9 not in the best interests of the Metal Trades Department, and were at the direction 10 of another union’s Governing Board of Presidents for reasons unrelated to the 11 12 Metal Trades, yet Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams took the actions anyway. 13 (Exh. “E.”) Defendants Hill and Williams were sent this Memo but chose to 14 15 ignore its warnings because they interfered with the Push-Back-Carpenters 16 Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and 17 property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest in and control 18 19 over the Carpenters. Second, Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams attempted to
20 conceal the true reasons for taking the actions against the Plaintiffs. In no 21 correspondence to either the Carpenters or the Metal Trades Councils did these 22 23 Defendants ever disclose the true reasons for taking their unlawful extortionate 24 actions. It was not until November 2011, at the Metal Trades Convention, after 25 26 Defendants discovered that the Plaintiffs possessed Ault’s Admissions Memo, did
27 these Defendants finally disclose to the delegates the involvement and direction of 28
208 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents. Third, during on March 17, 2011,
2 Metal Trades Department meeting, Defendants Hill and Williams, and the other 3 BCTD General Presidents, agreed to indemnify the Metal Trades Department for 4 5 all losses of income resulting from their actions. This concern was raised because 6 the Operating Engineers had threatened to withdraw from the Metal Trades 7 8 Department if Defendants’ unlawful Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its 9 unlawful extortionate conspiracy was acted on and implemented. Finally, on 10 March 17, 2011, during a Metal Trades Department meeting, Defendants Hill and 11 12 Williams, and the other BCTD General Presidents, agreed to indemnify the Metal 13 Trades Department for legal costs incurred defending the legal actions these 14 15 Defendants knew would be filed by the Carpenters. 16 J. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams, and Molnaa’s Violations of 17 Section 411 of the LMRDA and Similar State Common Law Rights in Which the Metal Trades Department and Councils 18 Operate Constitute Acts of Extortion. 19 389. Among the rights afforded by the LMRDA to members of labor 20 21 organizations are “Equal Rights”: Each member (i.e., individuals and subordinate 22 labor organizations) of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges 23 24 to nominate candidates, to vote in elections, to attend membership meetings, and 25 to participate in deliberations and voting upon business of such meetings. 29 26 U.S.C. §411(a)(1). 27 28
209 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 390. The LMRDA further provides members of labor organizations with
2 “Due Process Rights”: No member (i.e., individuals and subordinate labor 3 organizations) of a labor organization may be suspended or expelled, except for 4 5 non-payment of dues unless each member has been (A) served with written 6 specific charges; (B) given a reasonable time to prepare its defense; and (C) 7 8 afforded a full and fair hearing. 29 U.S.C. §411(a)(5). 9 391. The LMRDA defines person to include individuals and labor 10 organizations, 29 U.S.C. § 402(d); members of labor organizations are defined to 11 12 include persons, thus including both individuals and subordinate labor 13 organization members, 29 U.S.C. §402(o). 14 15 392. States’ common law rights and remedies that protect similar interests 16 are expressly saved from preemption. 29 U.S.C. §§ 413, 523(a). 17 393. At all material times herein, and in relation to the Metal Trades 18 19 Department and Councils, the Plaintiffs were members and/or members in good
20 standing of the Metal Trades Department and Councils within the meaning of the 21 statute and common law. 22 23 394. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa violated the Plaintiffs’ 24 Title I LMRDA rights as set forth in Section 411(a)(1) & (5) and the common law. 25 26 395. As part of, and in furtherance of, the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign
27 and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 28
210 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest in and control over the
2 Carpenters, Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa unlawfully revoked 3 Plaintiffs’ Metal Trades Department and Metal Trades Councils’ charters, 4 5 including but not limited to the HAMTC charter, and suspended and/or expelled 6 Plaintiffs and individual members, stewards and/or officers, including Truman 7 8 Jordan, Butch Parker, Scott Flannery, Joe Baca, Bob Scott, Larry Gould, William 9 Clayton Crawford, Rick Burwell, John Lake, Roger Johnson, Brian Thompson, 10 Charles McWilliams, Billy Cooley, Sheryl Hollis, and Booker Sanderfer. These 11 12 actions took place after September 1, 2011 and continue through the present. 13 396. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa suspended and/or 14 15 expelled Plaintiffs by simple fiat – they said it was so. No charges were filed. No 16 hearing was held. No opportunity was given Plaintiffs to have their opposition 17 heard before Defendants took such actions. 18 19 397. Revoking the charters, suspending and/or expelling Plaintiffs,
20 including those named individually, were the direct means and targets of 21 Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa’s conduct in order to force the 22 23 Carpenters to give in to the Defendants’ extortionate demands. The actions taken 24 by Defendants directly resulted in loss of substantial rights protected by Section 25 26 411. For instance, among the items of property that the Plaintiffs’ members lost
27 included, but are not limited to, the following: 28
211 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 a. the right to vote in Metal Trades Council matters, including
2 ratification of collective bargaining agreements, 3 b. the right to hold office, 4 5 c. the right to represent its members, 6 d. the right to acquire job opportunities, 7 8 e. the right to nominate candidates to the Metal Trades Councils, 9 f. the right to attend Metal Trade Councils’ meetings and the 10 Metal Trades Department Convention, 11 12 g. the right to participate in the deliberations over Metal Trades 13 Councils’ business affairs, 14 15 h. the right to protect their jurisdiction, 16 i. the right to recruit new employees to join, and 17 j. the right to vote in Metal Trades Councils’ business affairs. 18 19 398. In addition, Plaintiffs’ members’ rights under their collective
20 bargaining agreements were no longer the same after the revocations, suspensions 21 or expulsions. For instance, prior to the revocations, suspensions or expulsions 22 23 Plaintiffs’ members could be job stewards, could select their own members as 24 stewards, could represent their members, could protect their jurisdiction and jobs 25 26 from other Metal Trades’ unions, could solicit employees to join the Carpenters
27 free from attempts by other Metal Trades’ unions attempts to raid their members 28
212 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 and jurisdiction, and could participate in the formulation of collective bargaining
2 agreement proposals, and could vote for ratification of their collective bargaining 3 agreements. After September 1, 2011, Plaintiffs could not. 4 5 399. Other classes of Metal Trades’ members were not treated the same as 6 Plaintiffs. For instance, the Operating Engineers are not part of the BCTD. 7 8 Nevertheless, the Defendants did not kick them and their members out of the 9 Metal Trades. Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”), United Food and 10 Commercial Workers (“UFCW”) and Teamsters are not part of the AFL-CIO. 11 12 Yet their charters were not revoked, nor were their members suspended or 13 expelled. The members of Operating Engineers, SEIU, UFCW and Teamsters did 14 15 not lose and of the rights listed above that the Plaintiffs lost. 16 400. At no time prior to the September 1, 2011, revocations, suspensions 17 and/or expulsions were any written specific charges served on any of the 18 19 Plaintiffs. At no time prior to the September 1, 2011, revocations, suspensions
20 and/or expulsions were any hearings held. At no time prior to September 1, 2011, 21 were Plaintiffs given an opportunity to contest in any proceedings the actions 22 23 taken Defendants. Defendants revoked the Charters, suspended and/or expelled 24 Plaintiffs without any written charges or hearings being held. 25 26 401. In addition, Defendants, as part of and in furtherance of their Push-
27 Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the 28
213 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest in
2 and control over the Carpenters, have caused the removal and destruction of 3 Carpenters literature, and/or retaliated against the Plaintiffs for exercising their 4 5 free speech rights. 6 402. These actions taken by the Defendants in violation of Title I of the 7 8 LMRDA were taken in bad faith. Defendants took these actions in order to extort 9 money, property, business and other valuable property from the Carpenters and to 10 acquire and maintain an interest in and control over the Carpenters. Defendants 11 12 took these actions to extort the Carpenters into submitting to their demands, 13 including making monthly payments for peace in perpetuity. The Defendants did 14 15 not take these actions for any valid Metal Trades-related reasons, as admitted by 16 Defendant Ault in his Admissions Memo and at the November 2011 Convention. 17 This is because there is no valid Metal Trades-related reason which would warrant 18 19 extorting the Carpenters’ money, property, business or other valuable property and
20 to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 21 403. The Defendant Metal Trades’ conduct violated the LMRDA 22 23 provisions and common law protecting Plaintiffs’ Equal Rights and Due Process 24 Rights and constituted unlawful extortion as part of, and in furtherance of their 25 26 Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to 27 28
214 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 obtain the business and property of the carpenters and to acquire and maintain an
2 interest and control over the Carpenters. 3 K. Boilermakers’ Violations of Section 302 of the LMRA Constitute 4 Independent Predicate Acts And Also Acts of Extortion. 5 404. Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act prohibits 6 7 employers from giving money or anything of value to labor organizations, subject 8 to certain exceptions, none of which are applicable. 29 U.S.C. § 186. 9 10 405. Before and after the Push-Back- Carpenters Campaign and its
11 unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the 12 Carpenters and to acquire and maintain in interest in and control over the 13 14 Carpenters began, the Boilermakers have been attempting to replace the Metal 15 Trades Councils in the Pacific Northwest Region, and take over all collective 16 17 bargaining agreements responsibilities in relation to the Carpenters, and other
18 crafts. For instance, in Seattle, Tacoma and Portland, the Boilermakers have 19 signed and/or attempted to sign agreements with employers, such as Cascade 20 21 General, Vigor Marine and others. Cascade General, Vigor Marine and the other 22 companies are owned and/or controlled by Frank Foti. These employers are 23 24 covered by the LMRA and perform work in an industry covered by the LMRA. 25 406. After the Defendants revoked the Carpenters’ Charters, they gave the 26 Boilermakers the Carpenters’ rights, including dues, members, jurisdiction, jobs 27 28 and other rights, arising out of the employment of members at Cascade General,
215 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Vigor Marine, and other companies. As a result of this, and in order to perfect
2 such actions from Carpenters’ challenge, the Boilermakers have been trying to get 3 the Carpenters to sign off on successor agreements expressly giving the 4 5 Boilermakers the rights the Defendants and they have stolen and already given 6 them. The Defendants have been willing to give up the Metal Trades Council’s 7 8 rights by allowing the Boilermakers to do this because it furthers their Push-Back- 9 Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the 10 Carpenters’ business and property and to acquire and maintain an interest and 11 12 control over the Carpenters. 13 407. Initially, Defendant Ault opposed the Boilermakers’ advances. 14 15 Nevertheless, since the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful 16 extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and 17 to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters began 18 19 involving the Metal Trades Department, the Defendants have given up on
20 opposing the Boilermakers, and in fact have now supported what the Boilermakers 21 are attempting to do. 22 23 408. As part of the Boilermakers’ attempt to perfect its takeover of the 24 Carpenters’ Metal Trades rights with respect to Foti’s companies, Foti and his 25 26 companies, including but not limited to Cascade General and Vigor Marine, have 27 continued to pay, lend, deliver, or agree to pay, lend or deliver, monies or other 28
216 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 2 things of value to the Boilermakers, who thereby controlled by the employers.
3 409. For instance, the Boilermakers Local Union #104 has an agreement 4 with Cascade General that was supposed to expire on or about June 30, 2011, but 5 6 continues through the present. In that agreement, Cascade General has paid 7 and/or agreed to pay the Boilermakers approximately $2,500 per month for not 8 9 engaging in or supporting any labor disputes by the members or unions, including 10 the Carpenters, since the contract expired over 6 months ago. Cascade General’s 11 agreement to pay the Boilermakers continues through the present. Boilermakers’ 12 13 agent, Dean Calhoun, admitted this to Plaintiff Bob Scott around the beginning of 14 2011 when Scott confronted Calhoun about the agreement. The Boilermakers and 15 16 its Local 104, willfully and with knowledge of the transaction continued to engage 17 in the transaction to benefit their union and in order to steal away the Carpenters’ 18 rights as part of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and unlawful extortionate 19 20 conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire
21 and maintain an interest in or control over the Carpenters. This agreement has 22 been reviewed, approved, and promoted by Gary Powers who is a representative 23 24 from the Boilermakers International. Powers is an international representative 25 with authority to negotiate, review and approve agreements entered by its affiliate 26 27 locals, including Local 104. 28
217 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 410. Similarly, Boilermakers Local 104 has signed a contract with Vigor
2 Marine. As part of that agreement, Vigor Marine has paid and/or agreed to pay 3 the Boilermakers $5,000 per month for recruitment efforts, including stripping 4 5 non-union workers from non-union companies to go work for Vigor Marine. 6 (Exhibit “G” hereto.) This agreement has been extended and continues through 7 8 today. This agreement has also been reviewed, approved and promoted by Gary 9 Powers from the Boilermakers International. Powers is an international 10 representative with authority to negotiate, review and approve agreements entered 11 12 by its affiliate locals, including Local 104. In fact, on or about October 1, 2010, 13 Powers sent an email to Harry Thompson, Executive Secretary of the Puget Sound 14 15 Metal Trades Council, discussing the agreement with Vigor Marine that the 16 Boilermakers had negotiated. The Boilermakers and its Local 104, willfully and 17 with knowledge of the transaction continued to engage in the transaction to benefit 18 19 their union and in order to acquire unlawfully the Carpenters’ rights as part of the
20 Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to 21 obtain the Carpenters’ business and property and to acquire and maintain an 22 23 interest and control over the Carpenters. 24 411. As part of, and in furtherance of, the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign 25 26 and conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to
27 acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, the BCTD 28
218 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Defendants have instructed their local affiliates to cease opposing the
2 Boilermakers’ attempts to take over the function of the Metal Trades Department 3 Councils with respect to the companies owned and/or controlled by Foti because it 4 5 furthers their campaign against the Carpenters. Accordingly, unions affiliated 6 with the Metal Trades Department Councils have started signing on to the 7 8 Boilermakers’ proposals on behalf of the Foti companies, including the Pipefitters 9 and the IBEW. Defendants have also been trying to get the Carpenters to sign the 10 agreements giving up their rights. 11 12 L. The BCTD Defendants Have Directly and Proximately Caused the Carpenters Significant Concrete Financial Losses and Injuries. 13
14 412. The BCTD Defendants’ unlawful and extortionate tactics have 15 directly and proximately caused the Carpenters significant and concrete financial 16 17 harm. The Carpenters’ financial injuries flow directly from the commission of the
18 above unlawful acts. The Carpenters and its Metal Trades’ related affiliated 19 organizations, including Plaintiffs SWRCC and PNRCC, have lost dues and dues- 20 21 paying members directly by the Defendants’ unlawful attacks, including but not 22 limited taking away their dues-paying members and rights to refer dues-paying 23 24 members and giving them to other unions. The PNRCC incurred additional 25 expenses and costs when it had to replace its attorney who quit because of the 26 Defendants’ unlawful extortionate attacks. The PNRCC and its sponsored JATC 27 28 program, the Washington State Carpenters JATC, have incurred additional
219 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 expenses and costs in defending against and opposing Defendants’ frivolous
2 complaints and objections, including those filed by the Laborers and Painters. 3 The SWRCC and its sponsored JATC program, the Southwest Carpenters JATC, 4 5 have incurred additional expenses and costs in defending against and opposing 6 Defendants’ frivolous complaints and objections, including those filed by the 7 8 Painters. The Carpenters and the NRCC have lost its confidential and proprietary 9 information to the BCTD Defendants because of Lein’s unlawful conduct. The 10 NRCC has also lost the salary paid to Lein because of the BCTD Defendants’ 11 12 unlawful extortionate attacks. The St. Louis Carpenters has lost business 13 opportunities, employee time and productivity because of the Defendants’ 14 15 unlawful attacks, including the December 6, 2010 mass picket. 16 413. The Carpenters SWRCC, PNRCC, Washington State Carpenters 17 JATC, Southwest Carpenters JATC, NRCC and the St. Louis Carpenters have 18 19 each also incurred financial losses in terms of time, person-hours, costs and
20 administrative expenses in responding to Defendants’ unlawful attacks. 21 EFFECT OF DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT 22 23 414. The BCTD Defendants’ actions as described throughout this 24 Complaint have had a lasting and irreparable effect on the Carpenters. In addition 25 26 to the tens of thousands of dollars in lost dues, lost members, lost opportunities to
27 obtain dues and members, loss of confidential and proprietary information, and 28
220 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 the hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to the Carpenters responding to the
2 BCTD Defendants’ Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful 3 extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and 4 5 to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, the Carpenters 6 brand name has been significantly tarnished. The BCTD Defendants have caused 7 8 many of the Carpenters’ recruits, members and business partners to believe that 9 they are a disreputable and undemocratic organization that deprives its members 10 the rights guaranteed by the LMRDA, and raids other unions by recruiting, 11 12 accepting and training dues-paying previously non-union members who perform 13 work that the BCTD Defendants claim belong to a BCTD union. Many of the 14 15 BCTD Defendants’ extortionate acts have painted a revolting and visceral picture 16 of the Carpenters’ practices. Predictably, this has led to a devastating loss of 17 goodwill in the marketplace. As described throughout, this has been the precise 18 19 result intended and desired by the BCTD Defendants as part of the Push-Back-
20 Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the 21 business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest 22 23 and control over the Carpenters. And worse, it is clear from the BCTD 24 Defendants’ acts and threats that they have no intention of stopping until the 25 26 Carpenters surrender to their extortionate demands, including paying, and
27 continuing paying in perpetuity, the BCTD and Councils bloated monthly 28
221 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 payments and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the
2 Carpenters. Without the Court’s intervention, the Carpenters will continue to 3 suffer direct and significant injuries to its business and property at the hands of the 4 5 BCTD Defendants and their unlawful and extortionate schemes. 6 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 7 8 (Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) by Conspiring to Violate § 1962(a)) by the Carpenters Against Each of the Defendants 9 10 415. The Carpenters re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations
11 contained in the proceeding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 12 416. Each of the Carpenters is a “labor organization” and a “person” under 13 14 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1964(c). 15 417. Each of the Defendants is a “person” under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3), 16 17 1962(b), and 1962(d).
18 418. The BCTD is an “enterprise[s]” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 19 1961(4) and 1962(b), which enterprise[s] was, and is, engaged in activities 20 21 affecting interstate commerce at all times relevant to this Complaint. The 22 enterprise has a common or shared purpose among individuals operating, 23 24 managing and associated with them. It has an on-going organization whose 25 members function as a continuing unit, and some continuity of structure or 26 purpose. It has an ascertainable structure distinct from that inherent in the conduct 27 28
222 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 of the pattern of racketeering activity, as the BCTD is a “labor organization” that
2 engage in both lawful and unlawful activities. 3 419. Defendants conspired among themselves within the meaning of 18 4 5 U.S.C. § 1962(d) to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a). Specifically, Defendants 6 conspired among themselves that income, in the form of monthly payments paid 7 8 by the Carpenters, union member dues, resulting increased salaries and benefits, 9 would be received by Defendant BCTD; such income would be derived, directly 10 or indirectly, from a pattern of activity unlawful under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(A), in 11 12 which Defendant participated as a principal within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 13 1961(1), 1961(5), and 1962(a) – to wit: multiple, repeated and continuous acts or 14 15 threats involving extortion and/or attempted extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 1951, 16 embezzlement under 29 U.S.C. § 501(c), violations Section 186 of the LMRDA, 17 29 U.S. § 302, and/or chargeable under the laws of each State in which 18 19 Defendant’s conspiracy, if successful, would result in the obtaining by Defendant
20 BCTD of the Carpenters’ business and property rights described above, at least 21 including, but not limited to, the following States: Cal. Pen. Code §§ 518, 519, 22 23 524; DC Code §§ 22-3251, 22-3252, 22-1803; Miss. Code, § 97-3-82; La.R.S. §§ 24 14:27, 14:66; N.J Stat. Ann. §§ 2C:20-5, 2C:5-1; N.M. § 30-16-9; Tenn. Code 25 26 Ann. § 39-14-112; Texas Penal Code §§ 31.02, 31.03; ORS 164.015, 164.075; 27 28
223 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Pa. Con. Stat. §§ 901, 3923; Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-59, 18.2-26(3); and Wash.
2 RCW 9A.56.110. 3 420. An object of Defendants’ conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) 4 5 was and is that the income described in Paragraph 279 above, or the proceeds of 6 such income, would thereafter be used and invested in the operation of the 7 8 forenamed enterprise[s] for numerous legitimate and illegitimate purposes 9 including, inter alia, the conduct of additional extortionate campaigns against the 10 Carpenters, the payment of salaries and fees to the other Defendants for the 11 12 purpose of engaging in future extortionate campaigns and otherwise, and the 13 ongoing operation of the BCTD Enterprise. 14 15 421. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful activity 16 in furtherance of the Defendants’ unlawful conspiracy described herein, the 17 Carpenters have suffered substantial concrete financial injury from overt and 18 19 predicate acts of the conspiracy to their business or property within the meaning
20 of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), including but not limited lost members and dues, lost or 21 reduced promotional, contractual and/or membership recruitment opportunities, 22 23 lost job opportunities, positions and work assignments, loss of confidential 24 information increased costs due to the termination of contractual relations with its 25 26 attorneys, and substantial and irreparable loss of goodwill and membership
27 recruitment opportunities in an amount to be determined at trial. 28
224 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) by Conspiring to Violate § 1962(b)) by the 2 Carpenters Against Each of the Defendants 3 422. The Carpenters re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations 4 5 contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 6 423. The Carpenters each are a “person” under 18 U.S.C. § § 1961(3) and 7 8 1964(c). 9 424. Each of the Defendants is a “person” under 18 U.S.C. § § 1961(3), 10 1962(b), and 1962(d). 11 12 425. Each of the Carpenters is a “labor organization” and an “enterprise” 13 within the meaning of is 18 U.S.C. § § 1961(4) and 1962(b), which enterprises 14 15 were, and are, engaged in activities affecting interstate commerce at all times 16 relevant to this Complaint. 17 426. Defendants conspired among themselves within the meaning of 18 18 19 U.S.C. § 1962(d) to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b). Specifically, Defendants
20 conspired among themselves to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, an 21 interest in or control of the Carpenters through a pattern of activity unlawful under 22 23 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(A), to wit: multiple, repeated, and continuous acts of 24 embezzlement under 501 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 501(c), violations of 25 26 Section 186 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S. § 302, or threats involving extortion and/or
27 attempted extortion chargeable under the laws of each State in which Defendants’ 28
225 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 conspiracy, if successful, would result in the obtaining by Defendants of an
2 interest in or control of the Carpenters and its property rights described above, at 3 least including, but not limited to, the following States: Cal. Pen. Code §§ 518, 4 5 519, 524; DC Code §§ 22-3251, 22-3252, 22-1803; Miss. Code, § 97-3-82; 6 La.R.S. §§ 14:27, 14:66; N.J Stat. Ann. §§ 2C:20-5, 2C:5-1; N.M. § 30-16-9; 7 8 Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-112; Texas Penal Code §§ 31.02, 31.03; ORS 164.015, 9 164.075; Pa. Con. Stat. §§ 901, 3923; Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-59, 18.2-26(3); and 10 Wash. RCW 9A.56.110. 11 12 427. Defendants’ activities described herein have obstructed, delayed or 13 otherwise affected commerce. 14 15 428. As a direct and proximate result of the BCTD Defendants’ unlawful 16 activity in furtherance of Defendants’ unlawful conspiracy described herein, the 17 Carpenters have suffered substantial concrete financial injury from overt and 18 19 predicate acts of the conspiracy to their business or property within the meaning
20 of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), including but not limited lost members and dues, lost or 21 reduced promotional, contractual and/or membership recruitment opportunities, 22 23 loss of confidential information, increased costs due to the termination of 24 contractual relations with its attorneys, and substantial and irreparable loss of 25 26 goodwill and membership recruitment opportunities in an amount to be
27 determined at trial. 28
226 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)) by the Carpenters Against Defendants 2 Ayers, Hill, Williams, Ault and Molnaa 3 4 429. The Carpenters re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations
5 contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 6 430. Each of the Carpenters is a “person” under 18 U.S.C. §§1961(3) and 7 8 1964(c). 9 431. Each of the Defendants listed above is a “person” under 18 U.S.C. 10 11 § § 1961(3) and 1962(c).
12 432. The BCTD is an “enterprise” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 13 § § 1961(4) and 1962(c), which enterprise was engaged in activities affecting 14 15 interstate commerce at all times relevant to this Complaint. 16 433. Each of the Defendants listed above were and are employed by or 17 18 associated with the BCTD Enterprise and has conducted or participated, directly
19 or indirectly, in the management and operation of the affairs of the BCTD 20 Enterprise in relationship to the Carpenters through a pattern of activity unlawful 21 22 under 18 U.S.C. § § 1961, to wit: multiple, repeated and continuous acts of 23 embezzlement under Section 501 LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 501(c), violations of 24 25 Section 186 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S. § 302, threats involving extortion and/or 26 attempted extortion under 18 U.S.C. §1951, and extortion or attempted extortion, 27 chargeable under the laws of the following States: Cal. Pen. Code §§ 518, 519, 28
227 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 524; DC Code §§ 22-3251, 22-3252, 22-1803; Miss. Code, § 97-3-82; La.R.S. §§
2 14:27, 14:66; N.J Stat. Ann. §§ 2C:20-5, 2C:5-1; N.M. § 30-16-9; Tenn. Code 3 Ann. § 39-14-112; Texas Penal Code §§ 31.02, 31.03; ORS 164.015, 164.075; 4 5 Pa. Con. Stat. §§ 901, 3923; Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-59, 18.2-26(3); and Wash. 6 RCW 9A.56.110. 7 8 434. As a direct and proximate result of the BCTD Defendants’ violation 9 of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), the Carpenters have suffered substantial concrete financial 10 injury to its business or property within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) 11 12 including, but not limited lost members and dues, lost or reduced promotional, 13 contractual and/or membership recruitment opportunities, lost job opportunities, 14 15 positions and work assignments, loss of confidential information, increased costs 16 due to the termination of contractual relations with its attorneys, and substantial 17 and irreparable loss of goodwill and membership recruitment opportunities in an 18 19 amount to be determined at trial.
20 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 21 (Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) by Conspiring to Violate § 1962(c)) by the Carpenters Against Defendants Ayers, Hill, Williams, Ault and Molnaa 22
23 435. The Carpenters re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations 24 25 contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 26 436. Each of the Carpenters is a “person” under 18 U.S.C. § § 1961(3) and 27 1964(c). 28
228 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 437. Each of the Defendants listed above is a “person” under 18 U.S.C.
2 § § 1961(3), 1962(c), and 1962(d). 3 438. The BCTD is an “enterprise” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 4 5 § § 1961(4) and 1962(c), which enterprise was engaged in activities affecting 6 interstate commerce at all times relevant to this Complaint. 7 8 439. Each of the Defendants listed above were employed by or are 9 associated with the BCTD Enterprise, and has conspired within the meaning of 18 10 U.S.C. § 1962(d) to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). Specifically, the Defendants 11 12 conspired to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the management and 13 operation of the affairs of the BCTD Enterprise in relationship to the Carpenters 14 15 through a pattern of activity unlawful under 18 U.S.C. § § 1961(1)( to wit: 16 multiple, repeated, and continuous acts of embezzlement under Section 501 of the 17 LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 501(c), violations of Section 186 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S. § 18 19 302, threats involving extortion and/or attempted extortion under 18 U.S.C.
20 §1951, and extortion or attempted extortion or threats involving extortion and/or 21 attempted extortion, chargeable under the laws of each State in which Defendants’ 22 23 conspiracy, if successful, would result in the obtaining by Defendants of the 24 Carpenters’ property rights described above, at least including, but not limited to, 25 26 the following States: Cal. Pen. Code §§ 518, 519, 524; DC Code §§ 22-3251, 22-
27 3252, 22-1803; Miss. Code, § 97-3-82; La.R.S. §§ 14:27, 14:66; N.J Stat. Ann. §§ 28
229 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 2C:20-5, 2C:5-1; N.M. § 30-16-9; Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-112; Texas Penal
2 Code §§ 31.02, 31.03; ORS 164.015, 164.075; Pa. Con. Stat. §§ 901, 3923; Va. 3 Code Ann. §§ 18.2-59, 18.2-26(3); and Wash. RCW 9A.56.110. As a direct and 4 5 proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful activity in furtherance of BCTD 6 Defendants’ unlawful extortionate conspiracy described herein, the Carpenters 7 8 have suffered substantial concrete financial injury from overt and predicate acts of 9 the conspiracy to their business or property within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 10 § 1964(c), including but not limited lost members and dues, lost or reduced 11 12 promotional, contractual and/or membership recruitment opportunities, lost job 13 opportunities, positions and work assignments, loss of confidential information, 14 15 increased costs due to the termination of contractual relations with its attorneys, 16 and substantial and irreparable loss of goodwill and membership recruitment 17 opportunities in an amount to be determined at trial. 18 19 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.080(3)(a) by Conspiring to Violate Rev. 20 Code Wash. § 9A.82.080(1)(a) by the Carpenters Against Each of the 21 Defendants)
22 440. The Carpenters re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations 23 24 contained in the proceeding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 25 441. The BCTD is an “enterprise” within the meaning of Rev. Code Wash. 26 § 9A.82.010(8). 27 28
230 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 442. Defendants conspired among themselves within the meaning of Rev.
2 Code Wash. § 9A.82.080(3)(a) to violate Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.080(1)(a) . 3 Specifically, Defendants conspired among themselves that income, in the form of 4 5 monthly payments paid by the Carpenters, union member dues, resulting increased 6 salaries and benefits, would be received by Defendant BCTD; such income would 7 8 be derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of activity unlawful under Rev. 9 Code Wash. § 9A.82.010(4), in which Defendant participated as a principal within 10 the meaning of Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.010(4), 9A.82.010(12), and 11 12 9A.82.080(1)(a) – to wit: multiple, repeated and continuous acts or threats 13 involving extortion and/or attempted extortion under and/or chargeable under Rev. 14 15 Code Wash. § 9A.56.110 in which Defendant’s conspiracy, if successful, would 16 result in the obtaining by Defendant BCTD of the Carpenters’ business and 17 property rights described above. 18 19 443. An object of Defendants’ conspiracy to violate Rev. Code Wash. §
20 9A.82.080(1)(a) was and is that the income described in Paragraph 279 above, or 21 the proceeds of such income, would thereafter be used and invested in the 22 23 operation of the forenamed enterprise for numerous legitimate and illegitimate 24 purposes including, inter alia, the conduct of additional extortionate campaigns 25 26 against the Carpenters, the payment of salaries and fees to the other Defendants 27 28
231 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 for the purpose of engaging in future extortionate campaigns and otherwise, and
2 the ongoing operation of the BCTD Enterprise. 3 444. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful activity 4 5 in furtherance of Defendants’ unlawful conspiracy described herein, the 6 Carpenters have suffered substantial injury to their business or property within 7 8 the meaning of Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.100(1)(a), including but not limited to 9 the removal, suspension, or expulsion of the Carpenters and its members, 10 including stewards, delegates, agents, officers and other Metal Trades’ 11 12 representatives, of the Metal Trades Department and/or Councils, lost members 13 and dues, lost or reduced promotional, contractual and/or membership 14 15 recruitment opportunities, lost job opportunities, positions and work assignments, 16 increased costs due to the termination of contractual relations with its attorneys, 17 and substantial and irreparable loss of goodwill and membership recruitment 18 19 opportunity.
20 445. Pursuant to Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.100(1)(c), the Carpenters 21 request an award of reasonable investigative and attorney’s fees. 22 23 446. Pursuant to Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.100(4)(b), the Carpenters 24 request injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants from using Carpenters’ business 25 26 and property rights, including its members’ union dues, to engage in illegitimate
27 purposes, including conducting extortionate campaigns against the Carpenters. 28
232 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 447. Pursuant to Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.100(4)(c), the Carpenters
2 request injunctive relief ordering the dissolution of the BCTD enterprise and/or a 3 reorganization of the BCTD prohibiting the BCTD Defendants and their BCTD 4 5 co-conspirators from sitting on its Governing Board of Presidents, or having any 6 authority or control, direct or indirect, over the BCTD. 7 8 448. Pursuant to Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.100(4)(d), the Carpenters 9 request that Defendants be ordered to pay three times the actual damages 10 sustained by the Carpenters. 11 12 449. Pursuant to Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.100(4)(f), the Carpenters 13 request Defendants be ordered to forfeit as restitution damages that the 14 15 Carpenters incurred as a result of Defendants’ unlawful activities that are part of 16 a pattern of unlawful conduct. 17 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 18 (Violation of Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.080(3)(a) by Conspiring to Violate 19 Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.080(2)(a) by the Carpenters Against Each of the Defendants) 20 21 450. The Carpenters re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations 22 contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 23 24 451. Each of the Carpenters is a labor organization and an “enterprise” 25 within the meaning of Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.010(8) and § 9A.82.080(2)(a), 26 which enterprises were, and are, engaged in activities affecting interstate 27 28 commerce at all times relevant to this Complaint.
233 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 452. Defendants conspired among themselves within the meaning of Rev.
2 Code Wash. § 9A.82.080(3)(a) to violate Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.080(2)(a). 3 Specifically, Defendants conspired among themselves to acquire or maintain, 4 5 directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Carpenters through a pattern 6 of activity unlawful under Rev. Code Wash. 9A.82.010(4), to wit: multiple, 7 8 repeated, and continuous acts or threats involving extortion and/or attempted 9 extortion, chargeable under Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.56.110 in which Defendants’ 10 conspiracy, if successful, would result in the obtaining by Defendants of the 11 12 Carpenters’ business and property rights described above. 13 453. Defendants’ activities described herein have obstructed, delayed or 14 15 otherwise affected commerce. 16 454. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ racketeering activity 17 in furtherance of Defendants’ unlawful conspiracy described herein, the 18 19 Carpenters have suffered substantial injury to their business or property within the
20 meaning of Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.100(1)(a), including but not limited to the 21 removal, suspension, or expulsion of the Carpenters and its members, including 22 23 stewards, delegates, agents, officers and other Metal Trades’ representatives, of 24 the Metal Trades Department and/or Councils, lost members and dues, lost or 25 26 reduced promotional, contractual and/or membership recruitment opportunities,
27 increased costs due to the termination of contractual relations with its attorneys, 28
234 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 and substantial and irreparable loss of goodwill and membership recruitment
2 opportunity. 3 455. Pursuant to Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.100(1)(c), the Carpenters 4 5 request an award of reasonable investigative and attorney’s fees. 6 456. Pursuant to Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.100(4)(b), the Carpenters 7 8 request injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants from using Carpenters’ members’ 9 union dues to engage in illegitimate purposes, including conducting extortionate 10 campaigns against the Carpenters. 11 12 457. Pursuant to Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.100(4)(d), the Carpenters 13 request injunctive relief ordering Defendants to pay three times the actual 14 15 damages sustained by Plaintiffs. 16 458. Pursuant to Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.100(4)(f), the Carpenters 17 request injunctive relief ordering Defendants to forfeit as restitution damages that 18 19 the Carpenters incurred as a result of Defendants’ unlawful activities that are part
20 of a pattern of unlawful conduct. 21 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 22 Tortious Interference with Contract by the PNRCC Against Defendant 23 BCTD 24 459. The PNRCC re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations 25 26 contained in the proceeding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 27 28
235 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 460. There was a valid contractual relationship between PNRCC and the
2 Robblee law firm that had existed for decades. However, in October 2009, the 3 Robblee firm abruptly ended its contract with the PNRCC and withdrew from an 4 5 active case for which it was acting as counsel for the PNRCC. 6 461. Defendant BCTD, through their officers, representatives, and 7 8 members, including the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators, had knowledge of 9 the contractual relationship between PNRCC and the Robblee law firm. 10 462. Defendant BCTD, through their officers, representatives, and 11 12 members, including the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators, intentionally 13 interfered with the contractual relationship between PNRCC and the Robblee firm 14 15 by causing the Robblee firm to terminate the contractual relationship it had with 16 PNRCC through improper means. Defendant BCTD, through their officers, 17 representatives, and members, including the BCTD Defendants and co- 18 19 conspirators, threatened to fire the law firm, unless the Robblee firm immediately
20 fired the PNRCC, including all active cases, and promised in return that the 21 Robblee firm would receive immediate additional work as a reward. Immediately 22 23 after firing the PNRCC, the Robblee firm began representing the BCTD 24 Defendants’ affiliates against the Carpenters, and continues to do so through 25 26 today. 27 28
236 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 463. Defendant BCTD intentionally interfered with the contractual
2 relationship between PNRCC and the Robblee law firm for an improper purpose: 3 to further the Push Back Carpenters Campaign and unlawful extortionate 4 5 conspiracy. 6 464. As a result of Defendant BCTD’s intentional interference with the 7 8 contractual relationship between PNRCC and the Robblee law firm, PNRCC has 9 suffered damages. The PNRCC has incurred substantial increased costs due to 10 the immediate withdrawal of the Robblee firm from its matters. PNRCC is 11 12 entitled to damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 13 465. The actions taken by Defendant BCTD were malicious, oppressive or 14 15 in reckless disregard of the rights of the PNRCC. The conduct was malicious 16 because it was accompanied by ill will, spite, and for the purpose of injuring the 17 PNRCC and in reckless disregard of the PNRCC’s rights because under the 18 19 circumstances reflects a complete indifference to their rights, and in the face of a
20 perceived risk that its actions would violate the law. The PNRCC is therefore 21 entitled to an award of punitive damages. 22 23 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 24 Violation of LMRDA Section 411 by the Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs Against Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa 25 26 466. The Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate
27 by this reference each of the allegations set forth in all prior paragraphs. 28
237 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 467. The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosures Act (“LMRDA”)
2 provides members of labor organizations with “Equal Rights”: Each member of a 3 labor organization (i.e., individuals and subordinate labor organizations) shall 4 5 have equal rights and privileges to nominate candidates, to vote in elections, to 6 attend membership meetings, and to participate in deliberations and voting upon 7 8 business of such meetings. 29 U.S.C. §411(a)(1). 9 468. The LMRDA provides members of labor organization with “Due 10 Process Rights”: No member of a labor organization (i.e., individuals and 11 12 subordinate labor organizations) may be suspended or expelled, except for non- 13 payment of dues unless each member has been (A) served with written specific 14 15 charges; (B) given a reasonable time to prepare its defense; and (C) afforded a full 16 and fair hearing. 29 U.S.C. §411(a)(5). 17 469. The LMRDA defines person to include individuals and labor 18 19 organizations. 29 U.S.C. § 402(d). Members of labor organizations include both
20 individuals and subordinate labor organization members. 29 U.S.C. §402(o). 21 470. At all material times herein the Carpenters and the Individual 22 23 Plaintiffs were members in good standing of the Metal Trades Department and its 24 Councils, including the HAMTC. 25 26 471. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa are officers and agents
27 of the Metal Trades Department and violated the Carpenters and the Individual 28
238 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Plaintiffs LMRDA rights, by directing the unlawful suspension or expulsion of the
2 Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs through the revocation of the Solidarity 3 Agreements without having provided any of the Due Process Rights required in 4 5 violation of 29 U.S.C. §411(a)(5), by taking adverse actions against the 6 Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs that were not taken against any other 7 8 similarly situated members, including removing them from jobs and positions, by 9 preventing and prohibiting the Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs from 10 attending Metal Trades meetings, including the Convention 11 12 472. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct of 13 Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa, the Carpenters and the Individual 14 15 Plaintiffs have suffered compensable damages. 16 473. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount proven at trial and to 17 injunctive relief fully restoring their rights and prohibiting these Defendants from 18 19 interfering with such rights in any way in the future.
20 474. The actions taken by Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa 21 were malicious, oppressive or in reckless disregard of the Carpenters and the 22 23 Individual Plaintiffs’ rights. Their conduct was malicious because it was 24 accompanied by ill will, spite, and for the purpose of injuring the Carpenters and 25 26 the Individual Plaintiffs. Their conduct was in reckless disregard of the
27 Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs’ rights and under the circumstances 28
239 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 reflects a complete indifference to their rights or safety. In addition, Defendants
2 Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa acted in the face of a perceived risk that their 3 actions violated federal law. Their conduct was oppressive because they injured 4 5 or damaged or otherwise violated the Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs’ 6 rights through the misuse or abuse of authority or power. The Carpenters and the 7 8 Individual Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages. 9 NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 10 Violation of Common Law Fiduciary Duties by the Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs Against Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams, and Molnaa 11 12 475. The Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate 13 by reference the allegations contained in the proceeding paragraphs as if fully set 14 15 forth herein. 16 476. Common law breach of fiduciary duty claims are expressly saved 17 from preemption. 29 U.S.C. § 523(a). See also, 29 U.S.C. § 413. 18 19 477. Officers, agents and representatives of labor organizations occupy
20 positions of trust in relation to such organization and their members. As officers, 21 agents, and/or representatives of the Metal Trades Department and its Councils, 22 23 including the HAMTC, and the Carpenters’ Metal Trades’ affiliates, Defendants 24 Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa owe fiduciary duties to their members, including 25 26 the right to the honest and faithful services of covered persons.
27 478. The fiduciary duties imposed include the duty of loyalty to the 28
240 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 organization and its members, including, but not limited to (1) holding, managing
2 and expending the union’s money and property solely for the benefit of the 3 organization and its members; (2) managing and expending the same in accordance 4 5 with the union constitution, bylaws and any resolutions there under; and (3) 6 refraining from dealing with the union as an adverse party or on behalf of an 7 8 adverse party in any matter connected with the covered persons’ duties. 9 479. The Carpenters and Individual Plaintiffs are members of the Metal 10 Trades Department and Councils, including the HAMTC; and the Individual 11 12 Plaintiffs are members of the Carpenters. 13 480. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams are agents and/or other 14 15 representatives of the Metal Trades Department’s Councils, including HAMTC, 16 by virtue of their having instigated, directed and controlled the actions of these 17 Councils, including HAMTC, in relation to the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign 18 19 and unlawful extortionate conspiracy.
20 481. Defendant Molnaa is an officer of the HAMTC. 21 482. Defendant Ault, by virtue of his position as President of the Metal 22 23 Trades Department, and Defendants Hill and Williams, by virtue of their positions 24 on the Metal Trades Department’s Executive Committee, were also agents and 25 26 representatives of the Carpenters and its members, which are affiliated with and
27 represented by the Metal Trades Department and Councils. 28
241 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 483. As part of, and in furtherance of, the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign
2 and unlawful extortionate conspiracy, Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams (and the 3 other Metal Trades Executive Council Members) violated their fiduciary duties 4 5 owed to the Metal Trades Department, Councils, and their members, including 6 Plaintiffs, and Defendant Molnaa (and the other HAMTC Executive Council 7 8 Members) violated his fiduciary duties owed to the HAMTC and its members, 9 including Plaintiffs. 10 484. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams operated and managed the Metal 11 12 Trades Department, Councils and the Carpenters in violation of their fiduciary 13 duties, and Defendant Molnaa operated and managed the HAMTC in violation of 14 15 his fiduciary duties. 16 485. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa breached their fiduciary 17 duties to Plaintiffs by taking the actions listed below. Such actions were not taken 18 19 because they were solely in the interests of the Metal Trades Department’s,
20 Councils’ and the Carpenters’ members’ interests, but because the BCTD 21 Defendants and co-conspirators directed and ordered such actions as part of their 22 23 Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and unlawful extortionate conspiracy. 24 Therefore, the actions taken, and the reasons for taking such actions were in bad 25 26 faith and in total abdication of their fiduciary duties as labor organization officials, 27 28
242 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 agents and/or representatives to the Metal Trades Department, Councils and the
2 Carpenters. 3 486. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa breached their fiduciary 4 5 duties to the Metal Trades Department, Councils, the Carpenters and their 6 members, including Individual Plaintiffs, as set forth above in Paragraphs 342- 7 8 375. 9 487. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa’s breaches of fiduciary 10 duties have directly targeted the Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs and 11 12 proximately caused the Carpenters and Individual Plaintiffs damages, including, 13 but not limited to, loss of dues, jobs, work assignments, negotiated rights and 14 15 privileges and dues, administrative time, resources, fees and expenses, and loss of 16 other rights. 17 488. Individual Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount to be proven 18 19 at trial and to injunctive relief fully restoring Individual Plaintiffs’ rights and
20 prohibiting Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams, and Molnaa from interfering with 21 such rights in any way in the future. 22 23 489. The actions taken Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa were 24 malicious, oppressive or in reckless disregard of the rights of the Carpenters and 25 26 the Individual Plaintiffs. The conduct was malicious because it was accompanied
27 by ill will, spite, and for the purpose of injuring the Carpenters and the Individual 28
243 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Plaintiffs and in reckless disregard of their rights because under the circumstances
2 reflects a complete indifference to their rights, and in the face of a perceived risk 3 that its actions would violate the law. The Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs 4 5 are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages. 6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: 7 8 1. Grant the Plaintiffs judgment for damages and pre-judgment interest 9 according to proof at trial; 10 2. Grant the Plaintiffs punitive damages according to proof at trial; 11 12 3. Grant the Plaintiffs their costs, disbursements, reasonable 13 investigative and attorneys’ fees; 14 15 4. Grant the Plaintiffs a declaratory order and judgment that the 16 Defendants’ conduct complained of herein has violated the law; 17 5. Grant the Plaintiffs injunctive relief (a) enjoining the Defendants, and 18 19 their officers, agents, successors, employees, and all others acting in concert with
20 any of them, from engaging in any further extortionate conduct, interference with 21 contractual relations, campaigns or conspiracies against the Plaintiffs or from 22 23 engaging in any other conduct that violates any of the Defendants’ duties toward 24 the Plaintiffs; (b) ordering the dissolution of the BCTD enterprise and/or a 25 26 reorganization of the BCTD prohibiting the BCTD Defendants and co-
27 conspirators from sitting on its Governing Board of Presidents, or having any 28
244 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 authority or control, direct or indirect, over the BCTD or the Metal Trades
2 Department, or any of their Councils; (c) ordering the Defendants restore all of 3 Plaintiffs’ rights and privileges as members of the Metal Trades Department and 4 5 Councils; (d) ordering the Defendants and their co-conspirators, and their unions, 6 to disgorge all ill-gotten income and gains received from their unlawful 7 8 extortionate campaign and conspiracy; and 9 6. Grant Plaintiffs such other relief as the Court may deem just and 10 equitable. 11 12 DATED: February 21, 2012 DECARLO, CONNOR & SHANLEY, APC 13
14 15 By: /s/ Daniel M. Shanley Daniel M. Shanley, WSBA #41243 16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 17 Daniel M. Shanley, WSBA #41243 18 E-Mail: [email protected] 19 DeCARLO, CONNOR &SHANLEY A Professional Corporation 20 533 South Fremont Avenue 21 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213)488-4100 22 Fax: (213)488-4180 23 24 [Of Counsel:]
25 G. Robert Blakey 26 E-Mail: [email protected] William J. and K. O’Neill Professor 27 Room 3102 Eck Hall of Law 28 *Notre Dame Law School
245 COMPLAINT CASE NO.
Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS Document 1 Filed 02/21/12
1 Notre Dame, IN 46556-4639 Phone: (574) 631-5717 2 Fax: (574) 641-4197 3 *for identification only
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
246 COMPLAINT CASE NO.