Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Daniel M. Shanley, WSBA #41243 dshanley@deconsel.com DeCARLO, CONNOR & SHANLEY A Professional Corporation 533 South Fremont Avenue, Ninth Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1706 Telephone: (213)488-4100 Facsimile: (213) 488-4180

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF ) CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF ) AMERICA, SOUTHWEST REGIONAL ) ) COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, ) SOUTHWEST CARPENTERS JATC, ) ) PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGIONAL ) COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, ) ) WASHINGTON STATE UBC JATC, ) NORTHEAST CARPENTERS ) REGIONAL COUNCIL OF ) ) CARPENTERS, CARPENTERS AND ) CARPENTERS’ DISTRICT COUNCIL ) ) OF GREATER ST. LOUIS AND VICINITY, LARRY GOULD, WILLIAM ) ) CLAYTON, JORDAN TRUMAN, ) BUTCH PARKER, SCOTT FLANNERY, ) RICHARD BURWELL, EMANUEL LEE, ) ) PAUL LEDYARD, JOSEPH EDNEY, ) ) WILLIE MARSHALL, JOHN LAKE, ) ROGER JOHNSON, BRIAN ) ) THOMPSON, CHARLES ) MCWILLIAMS, BILLY COOLEY, ) SHERYL HOLLIS, BOOKER ) ) STANDERFER, BOB SCOTT, and ) )
1
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case No.

CV-12-109-EFS

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF Demand for Jury Trial

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

JOE BACA,

) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) -against) ) ) BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION ) ) TRADES DEPARTMENT, MARK AYERS, ED HILL, JAMES WILLIAMS, ) ) RON AULT and DAVID MOLNAA ) ) Defendants. )

2
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE…………………………………………………………………………8 NATURE OF THE CLAIMS FOR RELIEF……………………………………...8 JURISDICTION AND VENUE ………………..…………………………………31 PARTIES AND NON-PARTY PARTICIPANTS………………………………..32 The Plaintiffs…………..…………………………………………………...32 The Defendants…..………………………………………………………...42 Non-Party Participants……………….………….…………………………44 RELEVANT TIME PERIOD………..……………………………………………68 FACTS REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL EXTORTION SCHEMES……………………………...…………………………69 I. Background and Formation of the Unlawful Extortionate Conspiracy to Obtain the Business and Property of the Carpenters and Permit Them to Acquire and Maintain an Interest and Control over the Carpenters and Development of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign………......…69 A. Defendants’ Common Goals and Objectives………..…………...69 B. Defendants Devise Their Unlawful Scheme of Extortion Against the Carpenters to Obtain the Business and Property of the Carpenters and Permit Them to Acquire and Maintain an Interest and Control Over the Carpenters……….…………………..………...……….70 i. Formation of the Push-Back-Carpenters Conspiracy……………………………………………...……..70 1. Resolution 70………………….……...……………….…...79

3
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

2. Violence and Vandalism in St. Louis…………….………..….86 3. Threats, Violence and Vandalism Continue in St. Louis…………………………………………………….…87 4. Unity Rally………………………………………………..…..89 5. BCTD Committee…….……………………………………....97 a. Laborers’ Playbook, and the BCTD Defendants Implementation of Unlawful and Bad Faith Tactics to “Drive Up the Costs” of the Carpenters……………………………………………....103 b. PNRCC and its Sponsored Apprenticeship Program’s Attempt to Obtain State Approval to Train Drywall Taping Apprentices…………...…………103 6. SWRCC and its Sponsored Apprenticeship Program’s Attempt to Obtain State Approval to Train Drywall Taping Apprentices………………………....117 7. IBEW Media Campaign…………………………….……....120 8. Amending the Sound Transit PLA…………………...……..121 9. The BCTD Defendants and Co-Conspirators Are Joined by the Metal Trades Department’s President, Ron Ault, Kicking the Carpenters Out of the Metal Trades Department So the Carpenters’ Dues, Members, and Other Rights Could Be Given to the BCTD Defendants……….…………………..……………...123 10. BCTD Launches RespectOurCrafts……….……………....132 11. BCTD Defendants Invoke Resolution 70 to Charter Carpenter Dissident Locals and Steal the Carpenters’ Confidential Membership Information………………………………...…………….....138

4
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

C. Defendants Have Substantial Motive to Extort the Carpenters……………………………………………………...148 II. DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL ATTCKS AGAINST THE CARPENTERS...…………………………………………………...155 A. Nature of Defendants’ Actions………….…………………………….155 B. BCTD Defendants’ Unlawful Threats of Violence, Vandalism and Demonstrations Against the Carpenters Around the Country Constitute Acts of Extortion………….………..162 1. Seattle Threats of Violence, Violence and Vandalism……...…………………………………………...163 2. St. Louis Threats of Violence, Violence and Vandalism………….…………………………………….....166 C. BCTD Defendants’ Implementation of the Laborers’ Playbook of Bad Faith and Unlawful Tactics Through Pursuit of Frivolous Claims Against and Objections to the Carpenters’ Sponsored Apprenticeship Programs Constitute Acts of Extortion………..………………………………...167 D. BCTD Defendants’ Stealing the Carpenters’ Confidential Membership Information in Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1080, the Faithless Servant Doctrine, and Rights of Privacy Constitutes Acts of Extortion………………………………..………...167 E. BCTD Defendants’ Interference with Plaintiff’s Business Relations With Its Attorneys Constitutes Acts of Extortion………......168 F. BCTD Defendants’ Attempt to Control Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Rights Constitutes Acts of Extortion…………....……....171 G. BCTD Defendants’ Attempt to Control Plaintiffs’ Rights to Negotiate Contracts on Their Behalf Constitutes Acts of Extortion…………………………………………………………........181

5
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

H. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa’s Violations of Section 501(a) of the LMRDA and Common Law Fiduciary Duties Also Constitute Acts of Extortion…………..…………….…...185 I. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams’ Violations of Section 501(c) of the LMRDA Constitute Independent Predicate Acts and Also Acts of Extortion……………………..……………………..203 J. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams, and Molnaa’s Violations of Section 411 of the LMRDA and Similar State Common Law Rights in Which the Metal Trades Department and Councils Operate Constitute Acts of Extortion………………..…..…209 K. Boilermakers’ Violations of Section 302 of the LMRA Constitute Independent Predicate Acts And Also Acts of Extortion……………………..……………………………..…215 L. The BCTD Defendants Have Directly and Proximately Caused the Carpenters Significant Concrete Financial Losses and Injuries………………………..……………………….…..219 EFFECT OF DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT…………………..…………………220 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) by Conspiring to Violate § 1962(a)) by the Carpenters Against Each of the Defendants………………….222 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) by Conspiring to Violate § 1962(b)) by the Carpenters Against Each of the Defendants……………….…225 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)) by the Carpenters Against Defendants Ayers, Hill, Williams, Ault and Molnaa……………………………227 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (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……………………..…………………………...…..228

6
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.080(3)(a) by Conspiring to Violate Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.080(1)(a) by the Carpenters Against Each of the Defendants)………………………………………………...230 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (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 Against Each of the Defendants)…………….…………………………………..233 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Tortious Interference with Contract by the PNRCC Against Defendant BCTD………..……………………………………………………….235 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation of LMRDA Section 411 by the Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs Against Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa………………………………………………………………………..….237 NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation of Common Law Fiduciary Duties by the Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs Against Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams, and Molnaa..……………………………………………………….…240

7
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

PREFACE The “Carpenters” (as specified below) are suing the Building and Construction Trades Department (“BCTD”) and individual Defendants for damages and equitable relief because their unlawful extortionate conspiracy and resulting violent threats and devastating unlawful attacks have directly and proximately caused concrete financial injuries in violation of Pub.L.No. 91-452, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq., and Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.080, et seq. The Carpenters and the individual Plaintiffs are also suing the individual Defendants for violating 29 U.S.C. §411 and their common law fiduciary duties because these labor officials abused their members and their positions of trust, as part of their unlawful extortionate conspiracy. The Defendants need to be stopped. NATURE OF THE CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 1. Plaintiff United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America

(“UBC”), on behalf of itself, and each of its hundreds of affiliated Councils and local unions, and 500,000 members, and Plaintiffs Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters(“SWRCC”), and its sponsored apprenticeship program, Plaintiff Southwest Carpenters JATC, Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“PNRCC”), and its sponsored apprenticeship program, Plaintiff Washington State UBC JATC, Northeast Carpenters Regional Council of Carpenters and 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 2 3 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

Carpenters”) (collectively the “Carpenters”) bring this action to vindicate their rights to control and operate their business and union affairs free from Defendants’ campaign of intimidation, threats, violence and other unlawful extortionate conduct. 2. The Carpenters are suing Defendants Mark Ayers (President, Building

and Construction Trades Department (“BCTD”)), Ed Hill (President, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (“IBEW”)) and Jimmy Williams (President, International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (“Painters”)) (collectively, “BCTD Defendants”), and Defendants Ron Ault (President, Metal Trades Department) and David Molnaa (President, Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council (“HAMTC”)) for conspiring and carrying out their unlawful extortionate campaign seeking to force the Carpenters and each of their hundreds of separate and independent affiliated Councils and local unions from around the country to give over to the BCTD and each of its hundreds of state and local Councils from around the country, including those in Washington State, a. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to make monthly payments to the BCTD and Councils, numbering over 100, and to continue making such payments in perpetuity;

9
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

b.

The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) not to compete, solicit business, recruit, accept and/or train dues-paying members, or otherwise do union business involving any craft work that Defendants and the other BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents determine do not belong to the Carpenters;

c.

The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to allow the BCTD to exercise for the Carpenters their rights to recruit, accept and train dues-paying members;

d.

The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to allow the BCTD to exercise for the Carpenters their rights to refuse to making monthly payments to the BCTD and Councils;

e.

The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to enter into project and other agreements negotiated by the BCTD and Councils;

f.

The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) agreeing to be bound to the BCTD’s Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes;

10
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

g.

The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to allow the BCTD to exercise for the Carpenters their rights to negotiate their own project agreements;

h.

The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100), to allow the BCTD to exercise for the Carpenters their rights to determine what jurisdictional dispute resolutions mechanism, if any, to be bound to;

i.

The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to give over to the BCTD and/or its designee any recruits and dues-paying members whom the BCTD Defendants determine belong to another union;

j.

The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to allow the BCTD Defendants to determine which First Amendment protected protest activities and causes that the Carpenters can engage in;

k.

The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to allow the BCTD Defendants to determine which political candidates and causes the Carpenters can support or oppose, financially and otherwise;

11
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

l.

The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to relinquish substantial autonomy and control over its business and union to Defendants;

m.

The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to relinquish substantial monthly dues from the Carpenters and/or its members;

n.

The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to give the BCTD Defendants considerable strategic, political and financial leverage when negotiating agreements because of control over the Carpenters’ substantial resources; and

o.

The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to give the BCTD Defendants considerable strategic, political and financial leverage when supporting or opposing political candidates or causes because of control over the Carpenters’ substantial resources.

3.

The BCTD Defendants conduct violates Pub.L.No. 91-452, codified at

18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq., and Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.080, et seq., and various state laws as noted below. The Carpenters seek to recover treble and actual damages and obtain injunctive relief, including disgorgement, divestiture, reasonable restrictions, or dissolution or reorganization, against these Defendants

12
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

and their co-conspirators directly and proximately caused by their pattern of unlawful conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, Section 186, of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 186, Section 501 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C. § 501, Cal. Pen. Code §§ 518, 519, 524; DC Code §§ 22-3251, 22-3252, 22-1803; Miss. Code, § 97-3-82; La.R.S. §§ 14:27, 14:66; N.J Stat. Ann. §§ 2C:20-5, 2C:5-1; N.M. § 30-16-9; Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-112; Texas Penal Code §§ 31.02, 31.03; ORS §§ 164.015, 164.075; Pa. Con. Stat. §§ 901, 3923; Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-59, 18.2-26(3); and Wash. RCW § 9A.56.110. Plaintiffs also bring claims based on other laws, including LMRDA violations, common law fiduciary duty violations, and interference with contract violations, as noted below. 4. Defendant Building and Construction Trades Department (“BCTD”)

is a labor organization and federation of labor organizations representing both unions and individuals in the construction industry. It has hundreds of subordinate Building and Construction Trades Councils throughout the United States. Defendant BCTD is governed by a Governing Board of Presidents, which includes the BCTD Defendants (Ayers, Hill, and Williams). 5. The Carpenters are not members of the BCTD. The Carpenters do not

pay the BCTD a monthly per capita fee. The Carpenters are of the view that the services performed by the BCTD and Councils, and the stale, outdated and anti-

13
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

competitive rules that govern them, are unrequested, unwanted and unnecessary. Involvement in the BCTD and its Councils, and the abiding by their rules, are in big part the reason for the dramatic decline in union construction density in the United States over the past half century. The Carpenters believe it best for their members not to pay the BCTD the bloated tributes demanded, and not to be bound by their debilitating rules. 6. For years, the BCTD Defendants have attempted to convince the

Carpenters to begin making – and continue making – monthly per capita payments to the BCTD and Councils based on its hundreds of thousands of members. Such payments would transfer millions of dollars from the Carpenters’ treasuries and members based on monthly payments in perpetuity, and give these millions to the BCTD and Councils to be controlled and used by the BCTD Defendants. 7. Frustrated by their lack of success using only legitimate and peaceful

means, the BCTD Defendants, after October, 2008, intensified their unlawful extortionate conspiracy that secretly began the year before to force the Carpenters to make the monthly payments demanded, and give over the other extortionate business and property demanded, and an interest in and control of the Carpenters, including the involuntary agreements, noted supra ¶2 (a)-(o). These unlawful extortionate goals began to publically surface beginning in the summer of 2010. In a July-September 2010, article, Defendant James Williams promoted some of

14
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

the actions that the BCTD Defendants were taking against the Carpenters, and, in attempting to justify the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy, Defendant Williams stated that “For too long, the Carpenters have had it both ways; national independence from following the rules and jurisdiction (and from paying [monthly] dues) in a federation. (Exhibit “A” hereto.) 8. Similarly, on or about March 19, 2011, co-conspirator Hite

(Plumbers), in an interview posted on the Respectourcrafts.com website, stated the goal of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the UBC and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters: Forcing the Carpenters to pay their “fair share” tribute to the BCTD. Hite stated “by fair share, I mean the local building trades, whatever their stipend is that they pay for membership; and also, they got to be paying the national -- to the national building trades of solidarity, get a solidarity membership and pay the full boat to the national building trades. I mean, we pay – and every member that’s out there working, both the national building trades and the local building trades; and they don’t. That's not fair.” Again, at a meeting on September 7, 2011 that included Defendant Ron Ault and co-conspirators, Patrick Finley and Mike Sullivan, among others, Defendant Williams reiterated one of the unlawful extortionate

15
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

goals of their unlawful extortionate attacks against the Carpenters: a demand for the Carpenters’ money to which they have no entitlement or right: “we all pay dues, we are affiliated and pay the AFL and the [Building and Construction Trades] Department, plain and simple – if the UBC wants to get back, let them come back in and pay their fair share like the other affiliated organizations.” (Exhibit “B” hereto.) 9. The BCTD Defendants conspired to accomplish this and other

unlawful extortionate objectives, and have since continued to attempt to do so, through a campaign they have named the “Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign”. Their campaign involves a series of constant unlawful extortionate attacks that escalate over time against the Carpenters, its members, and their business, property and financial interests. The Campaign is still actively being waged. 10. Unbeknownst to the Carpenters at the time, the BCTD Defendants’ unlawful extortionate attacks became public on or about August 23, 2009. This is when BCTD Defendants’ agents in St. Louis committed violence and vandalism. They threw bricks through the windows, and sprayed painted their anti-Carpenters calling-card logo, “No 57”, on the hood, driver and passenger doors of the truck which was used by the Carpenters’ members. Carpenters Local 57 is the Carpenters’ chartered local that recruits, accepts and trains dues-paying members who perform electrical work--dues, members and jurisdiction which the BCTD

16
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Defendants claim belong only to the IBEW. However, the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and unlawful extortionate conspiracy were not publically announced until June 2010 at the Unity Rally. 11. Before October 2008, certain BCTD affiliates had warned the Carpenters about how the BCTD intended to commit, and did commit, and advocated for further, violence and vandalism against the Carpenters’ business, property, and personnel. In an article posted on the website, buildingtradesnews.com, and incorporated into the BCTD Defendants’ local57facts.com website in 2010 as part of their Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and unlawful extortionate conspiracy, the BCTD Defendants lay out the stark reality of what their Push-Back-Campaign and unlawful extortionate conspiracy has in store for the Carpenters. This article, which has been shared amongst numerous BCTD Defendant affiliates, was sent to Defendant Ayers in December 3, 2009, by co-conspirator, Jerry Feldhaus, of the St. Louis Building and Construction Trades Council affiliate, as part of Feldhaus’ request for the BCTD Defendants assistance in dealing with the Carpenters. The title of the article is “Building Trades Unite in Fight Against Carpenters Union Raiding”. (Exhibit “C” hereto.) In the article, the BCTD affiliate explains how they united years before to collectively and violently fight back against the Carpenters. In explaining their violence, the affiliate explains that their “craft unions are not

17
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

taking this struggle lying down” and then explains exactly what they mean. Immediately after this statement, the BCTD affiliate refers the reader to a YouTube video showing three dozen or more ironworkers senselessly beating and kicking a couple of helpless Carpenters’ representatives. That violence took place in Irvine, California, at a jobsite at the University of California. To reinforce their meaning, the BCTD affiliate next references in the article another of their violent southern California demonstrations where, according to the article, they “turned out in force.” The second referenced demonstration was marred by threats of violence, violence and vandalism. It occurred in Ontario, California. At that demonstration, a hundred or so of the BCTD affiliate’s officers, agents, representatives and members showed up “in force” and committed numerous threats of violence, violence and vandalism. The BCTD affiliate’s agents threatened to beat up Carpenters’ representatives like they had done against the two helpless Carpenters’ representatives in Irvine. They also mobbed and keyed cars as they tried to enter the Carpenters’ facility. After the BCTD Defendants’ formed their nationwide Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and unlawful extortionate conspiracy they linked this article to the local57facts.com website around the time of the Unity Rally to communicate to the world, their officers, agents, representatives, and members, and to the Carpenters exactly what they had in store for the Carpenters. As of January 25, 2012, these articles are still located

18
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

on and linked through the buildingstradesnews.com and the local57facts.com websites. In the context of the prior and repeated violence, “craft unions are not taking this struggle lying down” and “showing up in force” means continued use of violence and unlawful intimidation, as the readers of the article and viewers of the violent YouTube riotous attack against the Carpenters would surely know. 12. Following on the heels of the BCTD Defendants’ agents’ extortionate violence and vandalism, the BCTD Defendants orchestrated passage of Resolution 70 at the September 2009 AFl-CIO Convention. Resolution 70 authorized the BCTD Defendants to charter Carpenters unions should their extortionate conspiracy be unsuccessful. (Exhibit “D” hereto.) BCTD Defendants Williams and others said Resolution 70 was necessary to stop the Carpenters from ignoring the BCTD Defendants’ extortionate demands. Plaintiffs include this allegation not to restrict Defendants’ free speech rights, but to show Defendants unlawful and extortionate state of mind. However, even with the passage of Resolution 70, the BCTD Defendants still did not declare open warfare against the Carpenters. 13. In quick succession, the BCTD Defendants next orchestrated

additional unlawful extortionate attacks inflicting financial injury. They forced the PNRCC’s attorneys, the law firm now known as Robblee, Detwiler & Black, which had represented the PNRCC for decades, to fire the Carpenters. The BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators did this by having their unions threaten to fire the

19
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

law firm from all their affiliates, unless the Robblee firm immediately fired the Carpenters. If the law firm did as instructed, in return the BCTD Defendants promised the Robblee firm immediate and additional work as both a reward for firing the Carpenters and as an offset to the loss of income that resulted from firing their long-term client, the PNRCC. So, in October 2009, in the middle of an active lawsuit, with a motion for reconsideration pending, the Robblee firm ignored all their ethical obligations, fired the PNRCC and withdrew from the ongoing case. In fulfillment of their promises, the Robblee firm immediately thereafter began representing the BCTD Defendants’ affiliates in matters against the PNRCC and its interests, and continues to do so through today. Plaintiffs include this allegation not to the restrict Defendants’ right to employ counsel of their choice or the right of the law firm to work with whomever it pleases, but to show Defendants’ unlawful and extortionate state of mind. 14. Thereafter, the BCTD Defendants escalated their unlawful

extortionate threats of violence, violence and vandalism. On or about April 7, 2010, the BCTD Defendants’ agents in St. Louis smashed a $20,000 sign, poured sugar in the gas tank of a truck and spray painted their “No 57” calling card on two trucks used by the Carpenters’ members and on two buildings where the Carpenters’ members worked. After the BCTD Defendants’ agents, Stephen Schoemehl and Tim Schoemehl admitted responsibility for this conduct, they each

20
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

made death threats to Terry Nelson, the St. Louis Carpenters’ highest ranking officer, which put him in fear for his safety. The reason they threatened Nelson with violence was because under Nelson’s leadership the Carpenters recruited, accepted and trained dues-paying members, whom the BCTD Defendants’ claim belong, like chattel, to the IBEW. Their threats were sent by emails in April 2010 and warned Nelson that “the walls are closing in on you terry!! Can you feel it terry?” In the context of the prior and contemporaneous violence and vandalism Nelson understood what the BCTD Defendants’ meant: He and the Carpenters had better give in to their unlawful extortionate demands or else their violence would escalate and he would be buried in a coffin with the walls having closed in around his beaten and lifeless body. To this day, people still ask Nelson if he is afraid for his life because of what he and the Carpenters have done with respect to the IBEW’s self-proclaimed claimed chattel. 15. To show that their threats of violence, violence, and vandalism was

not a sporadic occurrence, but an intended and expected part of the Push-BackCarpenters Campaign, that had the full backing and support of the entire BCTD community behind them, Defendant Hill (IBEW) published, “An Open Letter to Building Trades Workers” in the St. Louis/Southern Illinois Labor Tribune, shortly before the massive Unity Rally which he and the BCTD Defendants organized. In the Open Letter, Defendant Hill repeated what he had told Nelson

21
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

and McCarron in person during their St. Louis meeting in or about the first week in May, 2010: that the IBEW and the BCTD “are prepared to do whatever it takes to protect our members and their jobs” in order to force the Carpenters to succumb to the BCTD Defendants’ extortionate demands. Defendant Hill knew full well about the threats of violence, violence and vandalism because they were committed by and/or admitted to by one of his Executive Committee members and McCarron and Nelson informed him of the threats prior to the meeting. Despite this knowledge, Defendant Hill did nothing, which evidenced his prior knowledge and approval, and just repeated “Whatever it takes” as a mantra for what was going to be done to the Carpenters in follow through to the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the UBC and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. In the context of the prior and repeated violence, “whatever it takes” means continued use violence and unlawful intimidation, as the readers of the letter would surely know. 16. On or about June 15, 2010, up to 7,000 of the BCTD Defendants’

officers, representatives, agents and members attended a massive rally against the Carpenters. The BCTD Defendants spoke, as well as other BCTD Presidents. The purpose of the Rally was for the BCTD Defendants and their co-conspirators to loudly announce to all their officers, agents, representatives and members, and

22
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

to the Carpenters, that they had made a formal declaration of war against the Carpenters. The name the BCTD Defendants gave their war was “The PushBack-Carpenters Campaign.” Defendants and their co-conspirators promised and committed to each other that they were going to attack the Carpenters across the United States, and continue attacking, until the financial losses, and constant escalating pressure, forced the Carpenters to succumb to their unlawful extortionate demands, including, inter alia, making the demanded BCTD monthly tributes. 17. In one of the speeches, co-conspirator Terrence O’Sullivan let it be

known what kind of violence he expected against the Carpenters and their interests. O’Sullivan, who is widely known for his aggressive actions, put it bluntly: In my neighborhood, we would hang people like Doug McCarron (Carpenters’ President) and Terry Nelson (St. Louis Carpenters’ highest officer). To communicate that this was meant as a true threat for others to act upon, O’Sullivan loudly asked the riotous audience if anyone had any rope. In the context of the prior and repeated violence, “does anyone have any rope to hang?” means continued use of violence and unlawful intimidation, as the listeners would surely know. 18. In conjunction with the Rally the BCTD Defendants set up a formal Committee to formulate, coordinate and implement the ever-expanding and

23
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

escalating unlawful extortionate attacks. The purpose of the Committee was to do “whatever it takes” to force the Carpenters to succumb to the BCTD Defendants’ extortionate demands because, according to Defendant Ayers, “[n]o one can, and no one will, tolerate what the Carpenters have done, and continue to do.” Defendants Ayers repeatedly explained to the BCTD Defendants’ officers, agents, representatives and members that “the Committee is exploring all options to address this problem (i.e., the Carpenters). And you have my word that whatever measures are adopted by the committee and the Board will be executed by this Department and its affiliates to their fullest extent.” (E.g., Keynote Address, Mark H. Ayers, President, Building and Construction Trades Department, 68th Convention, August 18, 2010, Minneapolis, MN.) In the context of the unlawful extortionate conspiracy, this language echoes back to the acts of threats of violence, violence and vandalism, and anyone there would have heard them to mean “more of the same.” 19. The BCTD Defendants’ Committee is headed by Sean McGarvey, the BCTD’s second in command, who works under Defendant Ayers. The BCTD Defendants and their co-conspirators all have officers, agents, representatives and members on the Committee. 20. One of the first things the Committee did was establish the Respectourcrafts.com website. This has been used to assist coordinating and

24
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

communicating its activities to the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators’ officers, agents, representatives and members. The website is sponsored, funded and controlled by the BCTD. The BCTD Defendants also appointed Duane Moore as the National Director of the Respectourcrafts website and to operate and manage that part of the campaign. 21. On the Respectourcrafts website, the BCTD Defendants posted videotaped interviews of the BCTD Defendants and a number of their coconspirators. The interviews were a follow-up to the speeches the BCTD Defendants gave at the Unity Rally. In the context of the prior and repeated threats, violence and vandalism, Defendant Ayers’ speech directed the BCTD Defendants and their officers, representatives, agents and members to directly commit violence. Defendant Ayers called the Carpenters “a cancer that is spreading” that needed to be confronted by “the kind of powerful response you would expect when a burglar is caught stealing something of value.” 22. Nevertheless, by November 2010, none of the BCTD Defendants’

unlawful extortionate actions had been particularly effective at forcing the Carpenters to give in to their unlawful extortionate demands. So the BCTD Defendants and its Committee formulated, coordinated and implemented a direct assault on the Carpenters’ financial resources and life-blood: its members, dues and jurisdiction.

25
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

23.

The BCTD Defendants figured out a way to begin stealing, inter alia,

the Carpenters’ dues, dues-paying members, jurisdiction and other property rights and assets by forcing the Metal Trades Department to kick out the Carpenters and giving the same to them. The BCTD Defendant did not have the right to do this, as the BCTD and the Metal Trades Departments are separate entities with separate governing structures, Constitutions and members. The Metal Trades Department is a wholly separate entity from the BCTD, even though some, but not all, of their leaders overlap. The Carpenters and their members are members of the Metal Trades Department and Councils by virtue of their participation, positions in the Councils’ governing bodies and/or payment of per capita fees to these Metal Trades’ labor organizations. They are not members of the BCTD. Thus, the Metal Trades Department is not supposed to be run or operated by the BCTD or the BCTD Defendants on behalf of the BCTD. 24. Although Defendant Ron Ault, the Metal Trades Department

President, initially opposed such unlawful actions, he was soon bought, paid and bribed, thus becoming a co-conspirator. 25. Defendant Ault’s initial opposition is spelled out in a Memo that lays

out the BCTD Defendants’ plans, and explains why such plans are not in the interests of the Metal Trades Department or its members. (Exhibit “E” hereto, referred to as “Admissions Memo.”) Defendant Ault explained that the BCTD

26
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Defendants, including those who were on the Metal Trades Department’s Executive Council, wanted to use the Carpenters’ participation in the Metal Trades Department as a weapon in their Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign to obtain the business and property of the UBC and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. Their plans included financially punishing the Carpenters and rewarding themselves with the spoils, by kicking the Carpenters out of the Metal Trades Department and Councils in order to steal the Carpenters’ dues, members, jurisdiction and other valuable property rights and assets, including here in Washington state. 26. In the Admissions Memo, Ault questioned the wisdom and legality of

such actions in light of the limited amount of dues-paying members the Carpenters had in the Metal Trade Department. Defendant Ault explained that stealing the Carpenters 4,000 Metal Trades Department members was a small percentage of the Carpenters 500,000 members. So “from a financial standpoint, then, cancelling the Solidarity Agreement and revoking participation by the Carpenters locals in Metal Trades Councils in not likely to harm the Carpenters in any significant way on a national basis.” (Exh. “E”, pg. 1.) “Conversely, in the best of circumstances, the number of new [dues-paying] members that most Building Trades internationals could expect to pick up from the Carpenters should the Solidarity Agreement program be canceled and the Carpenters’ trade jurisdiction

27
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

be redistributed to other affiliates is probably relatively low.” (Exh. “E”, pg. 1.) Ault went on to explain why it was not in the Metal Trades Department and Councils’ best interest to be used as a pawn in the BCTD Defendants’ disputes with the Carpenters: “the loss of the Carpenters’ per capita would be much more keenly felt by the Metal Trades Department.” (Exh. “E”, pg. 1.) 27. Defendant Ault’s initial opposition to the BCTD Defendants’

unlawful extortionate plans soon gave way to simple self-preservation and greed. The BCTD Defendants made Defendant Ault an offer he could not refuse, so he quickly got in line, joined the conspiracy and has since implemented it with an unmitigated vengeance. The offer: if Defendant Ault did not join the conspiracy and implement the BCTD Defendants’ plan, Ault would not be re-elected at his upcoming November 2011 re-election. Alternatively, if Defendant Ault agreed, he and his staff would get raises in 2011, during the continued worst economic recession since the Great Depression, and he would get the full support of the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators, which would guarantee his re-election. In addition, the BCTD Defendants agreed to pay for the ensuing litigation that they knew the Carpenters would file and to cover any lost income, if any should result from their actions, which would protect Defendant Ault’s salary and benefits, and that of his staff. Therefore, Defendant Ault began in earnest implementing and coordinating the BCTD Defendants’ plan to kick the Carpenters out with full

28
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

knowledge of the unlawful extortionate character of their actions. 28. On June 1, 2011, Defendant Ault, on behalf of the BCTD Defendants,

sent the Carpenters notice that it was beginning the process of kicking out the Carpenters beginning sometime on or after August 1, 2011, including out of the Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council in Washington State. Thereafter, beginning after September 1, 2011, Defendants Ault and David Molnaa gave the Carpenters’ jurisdiction, members, dues, rights to refer dues-paying members, jobs, property, assets, officer positions, and/or other rights to the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators’ affiliates even though the BCTD Defendants did not have the right to such property and “chattels”. 29. The BCTD Defendants continue to escalate their unlawful extortionate financial attacks. The BCTD Defendants are now implementing Resolution 70 by chartering and financially supporting various carpenter dissident groups, including one in Albany, New York, and attempting to get Carpenters’ members to stop paying dues to the Carpenters and start paying dues to the BCTD Defendants’ unions, including the Painters. In the summer and fall of 2011, the BCTD Defendants’ affiliate, the Painters, has taken the lead on behalf of the BCTD Defendants by supplying its lawyers, staff and resources to these dissident groups and their covert agents in an attempt to steal away dues-paying members of the Carpenters. For instance, the Painters secretly recruited an employee of the

29
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters, Joanne Lein, to gain unauthorized access into the UBC’s membership database. Lein stole the confidential membership information and gave it to the Painters’ agents. When Lein was caught and fired, she went to openly work for the BCTD Defendants’ sponsored Carpenters’ dissident local and the Painters’ attorneys have represented her in her complaints against the NRCC. On or about October 12, 2011, Defendant Williams has given a videotaped interview in Albany, New York, stating that he and the BCTD Defendants fully support this conduct “100%”. 30. At the BCTD’s meeting in Florida, the week of January 12, 2012, the BCTD Defendants have also decided to conduct further unlawful extortionate campaigns against the Carpenters in Seattle, Washington and Buffalo, New York. Each of the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators has agreed to contribute, and have contributed, $14,000 per month for the funding of these attacks. The full scope of the unlawful extortionate attacks await discovery, but twice the BCTD Defendants’ agents have committed violence and vandalism in Seattle, which is a clear indication as to what is intended. For instance, in and between May 29, 2009 and June 3, 2009, the BCTD Defendants’ agents threatened Jimmy Matta and other Carpenters representatives with violence by threatening to kick their asses while they were peacefully gathered on Pier 66 in Seattle, Washington. Similarly, in October 2011, the BCTD Defendants’ agents threatened and

30
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

intimidated Pedro Espinoza, a Carpenter representative, and John Van Vynck, a Carpenter member. One of the BCTD Defendants’ agents named Smiley violently lunged at Espinoza, and another agent threatened Van Vynck by cocking his arm back ready to strike when Van Vynck asked him a question. In addition, the BCTD Defendants’ agents vandalized the Carpenters work site by, inter alia, pouring sugar into concrete forms to erode the concrete, destroying a fence, and placing brand new screws pointing up under the wheels of a Carpenters’ members’ vehicle in order to cause flat tires if the vehicle had moved. The only other car in the parking lot was that of one of the BCTD Defendants’ agents, and no screws were placed under his vehicle. 31. Despite the direct financial hit that the Carpenters took when the Defendants kicked them out of the Metal Trades Department and Councils, the Carpenters stood firm and refused to pay the Defendants’ extortionate demands. 32. As explained in depth herein, the BCTD Defendants have engaged in numerous other instances of unlawful extortionate conduct with the object of forcing the Carpenters to submit to their extortionate demands, the full scope of which awaits discovery. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 33. Plaintiffs’ claims for relief allege violations of Pub. L. No. 91-452,

codified at 18 U.S.C. §1961, et seq. (to wit: multiple, repeated, and continuous

31
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

acts and/or threats involving extortion, and attempted extortion, that are chargeable under 18 U.S.C. §1951 and the laws of a variety of states, as alleged below), union embezzlement chargeable under 29 U.S.C. § 501 (LMRDA violations), and unlawful union payments chargeable under 29 U.S.C. § 186. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq., 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), § 1337 (commerce jurisdiction), and 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental). 34. Personal jurisdiction and venue in this District are proper pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 1965 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because: (i) certain of the Defendants are found in, have agents in, and/or transact their business and affairs in this district; (ii) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims for relief occurred in this district; and (iii) the ends of justice require that those of the Defendants residing outside this District be brought before the Court to answer for their conduct, as alleged below. PARTIES AND NON-PARTY PARTICIPANTS The Plaintiffs 35. Plaintiff United Brotherhood of Carpenters (“UBC”) is an

unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). One of the UBC’s missions and purposes is to recruit, accept, protect, train and represent workers throughout North America,

32
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

and is thus a citizen of each and every state in the United States in which members reside, including within this Judicial District. The UBC has approximately 500,000 members, including the thousands that it, the Metal Trades Department and Councils represent. The UBC is engaged “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). The UBC, affiliated bodies, and members are members of the Defendant Metal Trades Department and Councils within the meaning of the Labor Management and Relations Disclosure Act. 29 U.S.C. § 402(d) & (o). The UBC is not a member of the AFL-CIO or its Building and Construction Trades Department, nor does it want to be a member of these organizations, and does not pay, or want to pay, a monthly fee per capita to these organizations. 36. The UBC is bringing this action on behalf of itself, its affiliated

subordinate bodies and sponsored training programs named below, and the thousands of members and workers it represents. The UBC, its subordinate bodies, and its individual members have been each the direct target of and directly and proximately injured by the same conduct, as set forth below. The UBC subordinate bodies and members have standing in their own right to bring this action based on the unlawful extortionate conduct taken by the Defendants against them that has resulted in particularized and concrete immediate or threatened injury to their business and property. The interests the UBC seeks to protect on

33
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

behalf of its subordinate bodies and its individual members are germane to the purpose of the UBC – that is to recruit, accept, train, protect and represent workers. In representing its subordinate bodies and members, the UBC has the authority to enter binding agreements on their behalf. Neither the claims asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of the subordinate bodies, whose number runs in the hundreds, and individual members, whose collective numbers run into the hundreds of thousands (including the thousands from the Metal Trades Department and Councils, as admitted by the Metal Trades Department’s President Ault’s “Admissions Memo”). The UBC has also suffered particularized and concrete immediate or threatened injury directly and proximately to its own business and property. The Defendants’ extortionate conduct has caused both a diversion of the Carpenters’ resources and a frustration of its mission and purpose because of the Defendants’ extortionate conduct described in more detail below. 37. Mid-South Carpenters Regional Council, Texas Carpenters &

Millwrights Regional Council, Carpenters Industrial Council, Northern California Carpenters Regional Council, South Central Carpenters Regional Council, New England Regional Council of Carpenters, Metropolitan Regional Council of , MidAtlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, Carpenters Local Union #74, Carpenters Local Union #2236, Carpenters Local Union #2317, Carpenters Local Union #808, Carpenters Local Union #1302, Carpenters Local Union #234, Carpenters

34
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Local Union #50, Carpenters Local Union #3073, and Carpenters Local Union # 2137 are each an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) affiliated with the UBC. They represent thousands of members, including thousands of members that they and the Defendant Metal Trades Department and Councils represent. They are engaged “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). These organizations and their members are members of the Defendant Metal Trades within the meaning of the Labor Management and Relations Disclosure Act. 29 U.S.C. § 402(d) & (o). They and their interests and property are being represented by the UBC. 38. Plaintiffs Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, Carpenters

Local Union #743 and Carpenters Local Union #407 (collectively “SWRCC”) are each an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) and are affiliated with the UBC. They represent thousands of members, including hundreds of members that they and the Defendant Metal Trades Department and Councils represent. They are engaged “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). These organizations and their members are members of the Defendant Metal Trades within the meaning of the Labor Management and Relations Disclosure Act. 29 U.S.C. § 402(d) & (o).

35
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

39.

Plaintiffs Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters,

Carpenters Local Union #2403, Carpenters Local Union #30, Carpenters Local Union #129 and Carpenters Local Union #156 (collectively “PNRCC”) are each an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) and are affiliated with the UBC. They represent hundreds of thousands of members, including thousands of members that they and the Defendant Metal Trades Department and Councils represent. They are engaged “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). These organizations and their members are members of the Defendant Metal Trades within the meaning of the Labor Management and Relations Disclosure Act. 29 U.S.C. § 402(d) & (o). 40. Plaintiffs Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters and Carpenters

Local Union #291 (collectively “NRCC”) are each an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) and are affiliated with the UBC. They recruit, accept, train, protect and represent thousands of members. They are engaged “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 142(3). 41. Plaintiffs Carpenters’ District Council of Greater St. Louis and

Vicinity and Carpenters District Council Local Union #57 (collectively “St. Louis Carpenters”) are each an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor

36
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) and are affiliated with the UBC. They recruit, accept, train, protect and represent thousands of members, including members performing electrical work. They are engaged “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 142(3). 42. Plaintiff Washington State UBC JATC is a Pacific Northwest

Regional Council of Carpenters’ sponsored apprentice training program that trains apprentices. 43. Plaintiff Southwest Carpenters JATC is a Southwest Regional Council

of Carpenters’ sponsored apprentice training program that trains apprentices. 44. Collectively, the UBC, subordinate labor organizations, members, and

sponsored training programs, including those named above, are referred to as the “Carpenters” unless otherwise specifically indicated. 45. Plaintiff Larry Gould is a member in good standing and job steward of

the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the Metal Trades Department and Portsmouth New Hampshire Federal Employee Metal Trades Council until he was summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the Defendants. 46. Plaintiff William Clayton Crawford is a member in good standing and

job steward of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the Metal Trades Department and Air Engineering Metal Trades

37
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Council until he was summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the Defendants. 47. Plaintiff Jordan Truman is a member in good standing and job steward

of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the Metal Trades Department and Metal Trades Council of Amarillo until he was summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the Defendants. 48. Plaintiff Butch Parker is a member in good standing and job steward

of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the Metal Trades Department and Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council until he was summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the Defendants. 49. Plaintiff Scott Flannery is a member in good standing and job steward

of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the Metal Trades Department and Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council until he was summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the Defendants. 50. Plaintiff Richard Burwell is a member in good standing and job

steward of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the Metal Trades Department and Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal

38
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Trades Council until he was summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the Defendants. 51. Plaintiff Emanuel Lee is a member in good standing and job steward

of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the Metal Trades Department and Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal Trades Council until he was summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the Defendants. 52. Plaintiff Paul Ledyard is a member in good standing and job steward

of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the Metal Trades Department and Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal Trades Council until he was summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the Defendants. 53. Plaintiff Joseph Edney is a member in good standing and job steward

of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the Metal Trades Department and Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal Trades Council until he was summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the Defendants. 54. Plaintiff Willie Marshall is a member in good standing and job

steward of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the Metal Trades Department and Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal

39
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Trades Council until he was summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the Defendants. 55. Plaintiff John Lake is a member in good standing and job steward of

the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the Metal Trades Department and Pascagoula Metal Trades Council until he was summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the Defendants. 56. Plaintiff Roger Johnson is a member in good standing and job steward

of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the Metal Trades Department and Pascagoula Metal Trades Council until he was summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the Defendants. 57. Plaintiff Brian Thompson is a member in good standing and job

steward of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the Metal Trades Department and Pascagoula Metal Trades Council until he was summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the Defendants. 58. Plaintiff Charles McWilliams is a member in good standing and job

steward of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the Metal Trades Department and Pascagoula Metal Trades Council until he

40
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

was summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the Defendants. 59. Plaintiff Billy Cooley is a member in good standing and job steward

of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the Metal Trades Department and Pascagoula Metal Trades Council until he was summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the Defendants. 60. Plaintiff Sheryl Hollis is a member in good standing and job steward

of the Carpenters. She is also a member in good standing and job steward of the Metal Trades Department and Pascagoula Metal Trades Council until she was summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the Defendants. 61. Plaintiff Booker Sanderfer is a member in good standing and job

steward of the Carpenters. He is also a member in good standing and job steward of the Metal Trades Department and Pascagoula Metal Trades Council until he was summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by the Defendants. 62. Plaintiff Bob Scott is a member in good standing of the Carpenters.

He is also an elected officer and member in good standing of the Metal Trades Department, Puget Sound Metal Trades Council and the Metal Trades Council of

41
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Portland and Vicinity, until he was summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by Defendants and/or refused the opportunity or ability to speak, vote and participate in Council matters or attend the Metal Trades Department Convention. 63. Plaintiff Joe Baca is a member in good standing of the Carpenters. He

is also an elected officer and member in good standing of the Metal Trades Department and Pacific Coast Metal trades Council until he was summarily and improperly removed, suspended and/or expelled by Defendants and/or refused the opportunity or ability to speak, vote and participate in Council matters. 64. Collectively, the named Plaintiffs are referred to as the “Individual

Plaintiffs” unless otherwise specifically indicated. The Defendants 65. Defendant Building and Construction Trades Department (“BCTD”)

is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). Through representing individuals in the construction industry, negotiating project labor agreements and/or operating the Plan for the Settlement for Jurisdictional Disputes in the Construction Industry (“the Plan”), Defendant BCTD and its hundreds of Councils represent workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). Defendant BCTD is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and engages in conduct in

42
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Washington State and in this Judicial District. In engaging in the conduct herein alleged, the Defendant was directing and acting on behalf of all of its affiliated Councils. 66. Defendant Mark Ayers is an individual capable of holding a beneficial

interest in property. He is President of BCTD, an affiliated Department of the AFL-CIO, maintains an office in Washington D.C. and transacts business on behalf of the BCTD on an international basis, including in Washington State and this Judicial District. Before becoming the BCTD President, Ayers had come up from the ranks of the IBEW in central Illinois, eventually becoming the IBEW Director of Construction and Maintenance Division. 67. Defendant James Williams is an individual capable of holding a

beneficial interest in property. He is the President of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (“Painters”), an affiliated union with the AFL-CIO and BCTD. He is also on the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents and on the Metal Trades Department’s Executive Council. He maintains an office in Maryland and transacts business on behalf of the Painters on an international basis, including in Washington State and this Judicial District. 68. Defendant Ed Hill is an individual capable of holding a beneficial

interest in property. He is the International President of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (“IBEW”), an affiliated union with the AFL-

43
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

CIO and BCTD. He is also on the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents and on the Metal Trades Department’s Executive Council. He maintains an office in Washington D.C. and transacts business on behalf of the IBEW on an international basis, including in this Judicial District. 69. Defendant Ron Ault is an individual capable of holding a beneficial

interest in property. He is President of the Metal Trades Department, an affiliated Department of the AFL-CIO, maintains an office in Washington D.C. and transacts business on behalf of the Metal Trades Department throughout the United States, including in Washington State and this Judicial District. 70. Defendant David Molnaa is an individual capable of holding a

beneficial interest in property. He is President of the Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council (“HAMTC”), maintains an office in Richland, Washington, and transacts business on behalf of the Metal Trades Department and the HAMTC in the Washington State and this Judicial District. Non-Party Participants 71. Metal Trades Department is an unincorporated voluntary association

and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). Defendant Metal Trades Department and Councils represent the Plaintiffs “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §§ 142(3), 402(i) & (j). The LMRDA applies to the Metal Trades Department and Councils

44
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

because they, and the national and international unions that comprise the Metal Trade Department and Councils, do not exclusively represent public sector employees. Rather, the Metal Trades Department and Councils seek to improve the conditions of employment for all employees in “metal and related industries”; that broad category of industry is not limited, implicitly or explicitly, to government work. Defendant Metal Trades Department is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and has Councils located throughout the United States, including in Washington State and this Judicial District. In engaging in the conduct described below, the Defendant Metal Trades Department instigated, supported, ratified, encouraged, mandated, and/or directed, its subordinate bodies to do the things alleged, and/or the things done by its agents were in accordance with their fundamental agreement of association. 72. Patrick Finley is General President of the Operative Plasterers’ &

Cement Masons’ International Association of the United States and Canada (“Plasterers”), an affiliated union with the AFL-CIO and BCTD, and is a member of the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents, and is a participant in the PushBack-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters.

45
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

73.

Terrance O’Sullivan is General President of the Laborers International

Union of North America (“Laborers”), affiliated union with the AFL-CIO and BCTD, and is a member of the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents, and is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 74. Walter Wise is the General President of the International Association

of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Ironworkers (“Ironworkers”), an affiliated union with the AFL-CIO and BCTD, and is a member of the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents, and is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 75. Michael Sullivan was at all times relevant the General President of the

Sheet Metal Workers International Association (“SMW”), an affiliated union with the AFL-CIO and BCTD, and is a member of the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents, and is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters.

46
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

76.

Kinsey Robinson is the International President of the United Union of

Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers (“Roofers”), an affiliated union with the AFL-CIO and BCTD, and is a member of the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents, and is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 77. Newton Jones is the President of the International President of the

International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers (“Ironworkers”), an affiliated union with the AFL-CIO and BCTD, and is a member of the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents, and is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 78. William Hite is the President of the Association of Journeyman and

Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada (“Plumbers’), an affiliated union with the AFL-CIO and BCTD, and is a member of the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents, and is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to

47
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 79. James Boland is the President of the International Union of

Bricklayers and Allied Craftsworkers (“Bricklayers”), an affiliated union with the AFL-CIO and BCTD, and is a member of the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents, and is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 80. Painters is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor

organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 81. IBEW is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor

organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) &

48
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

(j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 82. Plasterers is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor

organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 83. Laborers is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor

organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and

49
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 84. SMW is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor

organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 85. Ironworkers is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor

organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 86. United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters (“Plumbers”) is an

unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is

50
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 87. International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied

Workers (“Heat and Frost”) is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-BackCarpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 88. Washington State Building and Construction Trades Council

(“WSBCTC”) is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) &

51
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

(j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 89. Seattle/King County Building and Construction Trades Council

(“S/KCBCTC”) is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 90. State Building and Construction Trades Council of California

(“SBCTCC”) is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters

52
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 91. California Unions for Reliable Energy (“CURE”) is an unincorporated

voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 92. Los Angeles/Orange County Building and Construction Trades

Council (“LA/OCBCTC”) is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters.

53
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

93.

St. Louis Building and Construction Trades Council (“SLBCTC”) is an

unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest in and control of the Carpenters. 94. IBEW 1 is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor

organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 95. Plasterers Local 528 is an unincorporated voluntary association and a

“labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §

54
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-BackCarpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 96. Laborers District Council of Washington and Northern Idaho is an

unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) located in Washington State. It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 97. Laborers Local 242 is an unincorporated voluntary association and a

“labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-BackCarpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the

55
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters located in Washington State. 98. Ironworkers Local 86 is an unincorporated voluntary association and a

“labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-BackCarpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 99. Plasterers Local 200 is an unincorporated voluntary association and a

“labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-BackCarpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 100. Painters District Council 36 is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. §

56
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

402(i). It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 101. Painters District Council 5 is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i), located in Washington State. It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce’, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 102. Robert Abbott is at all relevant times an officer of the Laborers District Council of Washington and Northern Idaho and a resident in Washington State. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, he agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and

57
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 103. Doug Strand is at all relevant times an officer of Laborers Local 242. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, he agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 104. Stephen Cuddy is associate General Counsel to the Laborers, with an office in Washington State, and a resident in Washington State. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, he agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 105. Duane Moore is at all relevant times an officer of the IBEW, and the National Director of the Push Back Carpenters Campaign and conspiracy, and the Respect Our Crafts website, and is being paid by the IBEW for his work. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, he agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters

58
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 106. Jerry Feldhaus was at all relevant times an officer of the St. Louis Building and Construction Trades Council, affiliated with the BCTD. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, he agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 107. Lee Newgent is the Chairman of the Washington State Apprenticeship Training Council and a resident in Washington State. He is also an officer of the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO, an Executive Board member of the Washington State Building and Construction Trades Council, affiliated with the BCTD, and an officer of the Seattle/King County Building and Construction Trades Council, affiliated with the BCTD. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, he agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. As a

59
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, Newgent has used his positions to financially harm the Union Plaintiffs, including the Northwest Carpenters. 108. Bob Balgenorth is President of the California State Building and Construction Trades Council, affiliated with the BCTD. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, he agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 109. Oswego Creative is a full-service advertising and marketing agency that was involved in creating and publishing to the internet at least the respectourcrafts.com website, including filming and editing the films, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. Oswego Creative’s services were on behalf of the Defendants and paid for by the BCTD. It also does work for other BCTD unions, including the IBEW and Ironworkers.

60
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

110. Erik Gustafson is at all relevant times an officer or representative of Ironworkers Local 86. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, he agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the BCTD Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 111. Richard Resnik and his law firm Sherman, Dunn, Cohen, Leifer & Yellig are the Administrator and General Counsel to the BCTD’s Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes, General Counsel to the BCTD, and General Counsel to the IBEW and other Building Trades’ unions. They have participated in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters by assisting in formulating, implementing, managing and/or operating the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and it unlawful conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and acquire and maintain an interest and control of the Carpenters, including Resolution 70 and the Committee. As described below, Resnik’s conduct exceeded the normal role of attorneys in merely advising a client. 112. Robblee, Detwiler & Black (“Robblee firm”) is a law firm located in Seattle that previously represented the PNRCC. As part of the Push-Back-

61
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Carpenters Campaign and conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and acquire and maintain an interest in and control of the Carpenters, the Robblee firm terminated its long-standing relationship to the PNRCC, including quitting in the middle of a motion they had filed but not yet replied, and thereafter began representing various BCTD’s Councils and unions, including the Painters, Plasterers and Ironworkers, against the PNRCC’s interests. The Robblee firm has thus joined or participated in Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and acquire and maintain an interest in and control of the Carpenters due to the money in fees promised by Defendants. 113. Carpenters Independent #1 is an unincorporated voluntary association. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 114. Joanne Lein was at all relevant times employed by the Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, she agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate

62
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 115. Joseph Kolick and his law firm, Dickstein Shapiro, are General Counsel to the Painters and in engaging in the conduct herein alleged, was acting for and on behalf of the BCTD Defendants, and thus is a participant in the PushBack-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 116. Jimmy Williams Jr. is the son of Defendant Williams and the Director of Organizing for the Painters. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, he agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the BCTD Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 117. Amalgamated Carpenters and Joiners Union (“ACJU”) is an unincorporated voluntary association. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the BCTD Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters.

63
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

118. Angelo Bisclegli is the representative and agent for ACJU, and in engaging in the conduct herein alleged, was acting for and on behalf of the BCTD Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 119. James Avellino is an officer or agent of Carpenters Independent #1. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, he agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the BCTD Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-BackCarpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 120. The following Metal Trades Councils, which are subordinate bodies of the Metal Trades Department, from across the country are non-party participants and have been controlled and directed by the BCTD Defendants and have taken action against the Plaintiffs: Air Engineering Metal Trades Council (Tennessee); Albuquerque Metal Trades Council (New Mexico); Amarillo Metal Trades Council (Texas); Bay Ship Building Co. of Sturgeon Bay (Wisconsin); Bay Cities Metal Trades Council (California); Bremerton Metal Trades Council (Washington); Eastern Idaho Metal Trades Council (Idaho); Hanford Atomic

64
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Metal Trades Council (Washington); Houston Metal Trades Council (Texas); Indian Wells Valley Metal Trades Council (California); Lake Charles Metal Trades Council (Louisiana); New London Metal Trades Council (Connecticut); New Orleans Metal Trades Council (Louisiana); Oak Ridge Atomic Trades and Labor Council (Tennessee); Pacific Coast Metal Trades Council (California, Oregon & Washington); Pascagula Metal Trades Council (Mississippi); Philadelphia Metal Trades Council (Pennsylvania); Portland Metal Trades Council (Virginia); Portsmouth Metal Trades Council (New Hampshire); Puget Sound Metal Trades Council (Washington); Texas City Metal Trades Council (Texas); and Tidewater Virginia Federal Employees Metal Trades Council (Virginia). Each of these Metal Trades Council affiliates is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i). Each also represents the Plaintiffs “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, each agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 121. Robert Matisoff and his law firm, O’Donoghue & O’Donoghue (“O’Donoghue firm”), are General Counsel to the Metal Trades Department.

65
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

They are located in Washington D.C. Through their representation of the Metal Trades Department they owe duties to its members, which include the Plaintiffs. The O’Donoghue firm is also being paid in part by the BCTD affiliate unions, i.e., non-clients, to formulate, implement, manage and operate the Push-BackCarpenters Campaign and unlawful extortionate conspiracy, as it relates to the Metal Trades Department and Councils to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. As described below, Matisoff’s conduct exceeded the normal role of attorneys in merely advising a client. For instance, Matisoff attended Metal Trades Department meetings that were controlled by BCTD Defendants, including the one in which Defendants Williams made his extortion admission that one of the purposes of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy included to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, including to make monthly BCTD/Council payments, and continuing such monthly payments in perpetuity. 122. Boilermakers Local 104 is an unincorporated voluntary association and a “labor organization” as that term is defined in 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) located in Washington State. It represents workers “in an industry affecting commerce”, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 402(i) & (j). In engaging in the conduct

66
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

alleged herein, it agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 123. Dan Calhoun was at all relevant times an officer of Boilermakers Local 104 and a resident in Washington State. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, he agreed to act, and was acting, on behalf of the Defendants, and thus is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 124. Gary Powers was at all relevant times an officer of the Boilermakers, and is a participant in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 125. Frank Foti owns and/or controls Cascade General, Vigor Marine and other shipyards in the Pacific Northwest, including in the State of Washington. Cascade General, Vigor Marine and other Foti-owned or controlled shipyards have paid or agreed to pay the Boilermakers money and things of value, which have become part of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful

67
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 126. The conduct that forms the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims for damages occurred within the applicable statute of limitations and it is continuing to occur to date. 127. There currently exists no internal union remedies to exhaust before filing these actions. To the extent that there exists any obligation by the Plaintiffs to exhaust any internal union remedies with respect to the Metal Trades Department and Councils for any of the conduct such avenues have been exhausted or excused because (1) none have been identified by the Defendants despite a request asking them to identify any and/or (2) such actions would be futile because the BCTD Defendants have taken control over the Metal Trades Department and Councils, and have been directing and conducting their unlawful extortionate actions through the Metal Trades Department and Councils, including under threat of supervision, trusteeship and/or removal from office if such organizations and its officers did not comply with the BCTD Defendants’ orders directed against the Plaintiffs. RELEVANT TIME PERIOD 128. The BCTD Defendants’ unlawful extortionate conspiracy against the Carpenters secretly began around October, 2008, but was not publically

68
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

announced by the BCTD Defendants until the June 2010 Unity Rally, and continues to date. The BCTD Defendants have given no indication of ceasing. In fact, new unlawful extortionate attacks are being planned daily and have been ordered by the BCTD Defendants. (See Paragraph 30, infra.) October 1, 2008 is when the Carpenters began recruiting, accepting, and training dues-paying members who perform electrical work in the southern Illinois and St. Louis, Missouri areas, and Defendants Ayers, Hill and Williams, and the other BCTD coconspirators agreed to begin, and began, formulating, preparing and coordinating their unlawful extortionate conspiracy through the operation and management of the BCTD enterprise to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. In addition, as described in Paragraphs 11 and 163 above and 286-411 below, the BCTD Defendants have engaged in extortion schemes as a regular way of doing business for at least the same period of time. FACTS REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL EXTORTION SCHEMES I. Background and Formation of the Unlawful Extortionate Conspiracy to Obtain the Business and Property of the Carpenters and Permit Them to Acquire and Maintain an Interest and Control over the Carpenters and Development of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign A. Defendants’ Common Goals and Objectives

69
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

129. A common associational, firm, corporate and individual goal of all of the Defendants is unlawfully and through extortion to force the Carpenters to make monthly payments – and continue paying monthly payments in perpetuity – to the BCTD and Councils. Defendants’ statements, conduct, and shared personnel at high levels, establish: (1) Defendant BCTD, its Councils, member unions and affiliates worked in concert and knowingly and intentionally, to achieve their unlawful extortionate objective through a sophisticated, coordinated and far reaching campaign called the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign; (2) Defendant BCTD, its Councils, member unions, and affiliates committed substantial financial resources and personnel to the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters; and (3) all the Defendants have obligated themselves and agreed to work together on the Campaign in a coordinated, consolidated and unified way to achieve its unlawful extortionate conspiracy, and each has engaged in substantial conduct in furtherance of their unlawful objectives. B. Defendants Devise Their Unlawful Scheme of Extortion Against the Carpenters to Obtain the Business and Property of the Carpenters and Permit Them to Acquire and Maintain an Interest and Control Over the Carpenters. i. Formation of the Push-Back-Carpenters Conspiracy

70
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

130. Defendants’ conspiracy to extort the Plaintiffs represents, in large part, their personal and institutional power play to maintain their lucrative and prestigious positions in the union movement and to control, manage, and maintain a monopoly over construction unions where they dictate which dues-paying members a union can, and cannot, recruit, accept and train; dictate which craft jurisdiction it will allow a construction union to have, and not have, based on outmoded craft jurisdictional lines drawn up 100 years ago; dictate which national and local political candidates and causes construction unions must, and must not, support, financially and otherwise; dictate which collective bargaining agreements construction unions can, and cannot, sign; and, most importantly, dictate that every construction union pay – and keep paying in perpetuity – the BCTD and its hundreds of Councils a monthly fee to maintain this superannuated superstructure solely for services neither requested, wanted, nor necessary. 131. For years, the Carpenters have refused to be a member of the BCTD and numerous of its Councils. It has rejected the BCTD Defendants’ offer to join via a Solidarity Program. The money saved from not having to make monthly payments had been put to much better use, including for its members’ training. The Carpenters refused to pay the BCTD and its hundreds of Councils to maintain and expand their bloated bureaucratic salaries and benefits, and pay for services that the Carpenters did not request, and were unwanted and unnecessary.

71
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

132. This did not sit well with the BCTD Defendants because the Carpenters represented an enormous pool of money and other resources that they wanted to have and control. Indeed, for years, Defendant Williams (Painters) alone complained that the Carpenters “were not paying the Carpenters’ fair share in membership dues to the [Building and Construction Trades] Department.” (911 Flier posted on IUPAT’s Website, posted sometime in or about 2005 to the present, last checked on January 25, 2012.) Defendant Williams reiterated his objections claiming that the Carpenters’ President, Douglas McCarron, “wants to be a player without paying dues.” (Personal Agenda Flier posted on IUPAT’s Website, posted sometime in or about 2005 to the present, last checked on January 25, 2012.) However, after the BCTD Defendants formed the Push-BackCarpenters Conspiracy and unlawful extortionate conspiracy, all the BCTD Defendants began pursuing Defendant Williams long-standing goal of forcing the Carpenters to pay monthly tributes – and continue paying such tributes in perpetuity. 133. Without the Carpenters’ monthly payments, the BCTD and Councils were financially weaker with less financial resources, and were correspondingly more costly for the BCTD Defendants’ unions to finance and operate. For instance, in 2005, the BCTD’s monthly payments were $0.53 per union member, but by 2007 the payments had to be increased to $0.60 per member, due to the fact

72
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

that the Carpenters were not paying “their fair share” even though they were not a part of the BCTD, and did not desire to be a part of the BCTD. Similarly, Carpenters Regional and District Councils, including but not limited to Plaintiffs Carpenters District Council of Greater St. Louis and Vicinity, Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters, and Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, also refused to make or agree to make the monthly payments demanded by the various state and local BCTD’s Councils, which faced similar adverse financial conditions as a consequence. 134. Based in part on this financial desperation, on or after October 1, 2008, the BCTD Defendants and their co-conspirators, acting like organized crime bosses collecting their swag from involuntary members, made the decision to act in a planned, agreed upon, coordinated and unified manner to force the unwilling Carpenters and every one of its unwilling affiliates “by any means necessary”, including threats of violence, violence and vandalism to begin paying – and continuing paying in perpetuity – their monthly bloated tribute (“fair share in membership dues”) to the BCTD and its hundreds of Councils, including, but not limited to, the Washington State Building and Construction Trades Council, Seattle/King County Building and Construction Trades Council, Oregon State Building and Construction Trades Council, Columbia-Pacific Building and Construction Trades Council, State Building and Construction Trades Council of

73
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

California, Los Angeles/Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council, and St. Louis Building and Construction Trades Council. 135. As part of, and in furtherance of, the Push-Back-Carpenters

Campaign of unlawful extortionate conduct to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, the BCTD Defendants chose St. Louis publicly to announce the PushBack-Carpenters Campaign, which had previously been unannounced but was quite active and violent, as described below. The announcement came by way of a massive rally on or about June 15, 2010. Publically announcing their campaign in the manner in which it was done was to show the Carpenters that the entire BCTD organization, including its hundreds of Councils, and members’ unions, including the Painters, Plasterers, IBEW, SMW, Boilermakers, Iron Workers, and their millions of officers, agents, representatives and members, from all over the country were on-board and willing to attack when ordered to do so. Not only were the BCTD Defendants’ California organizations and individuals ready, willing and able, but so were those in New York. Not only were the BCTD Defendants’ Washington state organizations and individuals ready, willing and able, but so were those in Missouri and southern Illinois. The BCTD Defendants wanted to show the Carpenters that they were organized, committed and united in a nationwide campaign of coordinated and escalating attacks against the

74
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Carpenters all over the country, and would act using any means necessary, even outside the law, to accomplish the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign’s unlawful extortionate goals to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 136. St. Louis is where the attacks began. It was the first location the

BCTD Defendants selected to make their show of force. St. Louis was selected because, beginning in and around October 1, 2008, and continuing to the present, the Carpenters began recruiting, accepting and training dues-paying members who perform electrical work in the St. Louis, Missouri, and southern Illinois areas. This was something that outraged Defendants Ayers, an IBEW official by background from the southern Illinois area, and Hill, IBEW President. These Defendants and the BCTD believed that such dues-paying members “belonged” to the IBEW, like chattel and indentured servants, and only the IBEW could recruit, accept or train future dues-paying members. While other unions over the years, like the Painters, Plasterers and SMW, had complained about the Carpenters’ recruiting, accepting and training dues-paying members who they claimed “belonged” to their unions, it was not until the IBEW’s purported property became an issue did the entire BCTD decide to take action against the Carpenters. The BCTD Defendants have stated their belief that if this could happen to the IBEW, none of the BCTD unions were safe. Accordingly, the BCTD Defendants

75
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

got all the BCTD Governing Board of Presidents together to agree and conspire to force the Carpenters to give over to them the Carpenters’ dues-paying members whom the BCTD Defendants claimed “belonged” to them and their unions by their misguided light, force the Carpenters to abide by whatever rules the BCTD Defendants imposed, force the Carpenters to give over to them their First Amendment rights and financial resources, and force the Carpenters to pay, and continue paying, the BCTD and all Councils the monthly fee demanded despite that it was unrequested, unwanted and unnecessary. 137. Nevertheless, the Carpenters did not begin recruiting, accepting, or

training dues-paying members who performed electrical work in order to pick a fight with the IBEW, the BCTD Defendants or their unions. Rather, the Carpenters were forced to do it because the IBEW had begun stealing work that members of the Carpenters had been performing for years. The IBEW had begun doing this because it had been losing work in the St. Louis area to non-union contractors, and was unable to organize these non-union workers. The IBEW began to “legislate jurisdiction” at the expense of the Carpenters by using its IBEW members who were government inspectors to red-tag and shut down jobs where the Carpenters had performed work, claiming that only certain workers, who happened to be IBEW members, could perform the work. 138. In 2007 and early 2008, the Carpenters repeatedly objected to the

76
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

IBEW’s improper tactics but to no avail. In fact, the highest officials in the IBEW repeatedly defended such tactics, even if it meant that the Carpenters would lose work as a result. For instance, when the IBEW’s President, Defendant Hill and Executive Council member, Stephen P. Schoemehl, met with the Carpenters’ General President, Douglas McCarron and the St. Louis Carpenters highest ranking officer, Terry Nelson, in or around May 3, 2010 at the St. Louis Airport Hilton Hotel, they defended such tactics as a legitimate method of “stealing” work from the Carpenters. Hill tried to deflect the Carpenters’ criticism by asking a rhetorical question: “If you could shut down jobs to get work for your members, you would do it too.” The meeting thereafter abruptly ended. As a result of the IBEW’s refusal to stop “legislating jurisdiction” at the expense of the Carpenters, the Carpenters had no choice but to begin recruiting, accepting, and training duespaying members who perform electrical work and could not be “legislated” away from the work. 139. Upon learning of this, the BCTD Defendants and their co-

conspirators began organizing their Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and devising their unlawful extortionate schemes, seeking what they could not obtain voluntarily by unlawful extortion to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. It was easy for Ayers (former IBEW official) and Hill (IBEW

77
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

President) to get the other BCTD Presidents on board because their BCTD coDefendants and co-conspirators had been complaining for years that the Carpenters had been recruiting, accepting, and training dues-paying members that they claimed belong to them. For instance, Defendant Williams and Sullivan (former President of SMW), passed a “Unity Resolution” via satellite at their respective General Conventions in Washington D.C., and Chicago, in or around August 2004. On stage with them in solidarity and support were Hunt (Ironworkers) and John Dougherty (Plasterers President before Finley). The Unity Resolution was a coordinated protest against the Carpenters because they had been recruiting, accepting, and training dues-paying members that these union officials claimed belong to them, including members doing drywall taping, various metal construction, plastering, roofing, etc. 140. By 2008, the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators in the unlawful

extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters had had enough of what they perceived to be a pattern of misbehavior by the Carpenters, and agreed that the full force and resources, lawful and unlawful, of the BCTD, its Councils, its member unions and their affiliates, including their agents, officers, representatives and members, were going to, inter alia, make the Carpenters give over to them the Carpenters’ dues-paying members the BCTD Defendants claimed

78
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

belonged to them, make the Carpenters give over to them their First Amendment rights and resources, and make the Carpenters pay – and continue paying in perpetuity – the BCTD and Councils monthly payments. The BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators agreed that they were going to attack the Carpenters all across the United States, including in Washington state, and in every conceivable manner, lawful and unlawful, in order to pressure the Carpenters, financially and otherwise, until they lacked the resources and wherewithal to fight back and eventually succumb to their unlawful extortionate demands. 141. The following are among the actions taken pursuant to Defendants

Ayers, Hill and Williams’ unlawful conspiracy to extort the Carpenters into paying, and continue paying, the BCTD and Councils monthly bloated per capita payments in perpetuity: 142. Resolution 70: Shortly after the Carpenters began recruiting,

accepting and training dues-paying members who perform electrical work in October 2008, the BCTD Defendants and their co-conspirators began conspiring to devise ways to push-back, scare, and, if necessary, force the Carpenters into agreeing to their extortionate demands. The BCTD Defendants believed that in order to succeed, they needed the full backing of the entire AFl-CIO, and all their affiliated unions. So the BCTD Defendants drafted Resolution 70 to be introduced and passed at the AFL-CIO September 2009 Convention held in

79
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. In itself the Resolution is not unlawful, but it gives essential background to understanding the unlawful motive and conduct of the conspirators. 143. Resolution 70 urges the Carpenters to re-affiliate with the AFL-CIO

and the Building and Construction Trades Department, so the BCTD Defendants can force the Carpenters to begin making their bloated monthly payments, and continue making such tributes. Should the Carpenters refuse, the “Building and Construction Trades Department, if and when it deems it appropriate, is authorized to establish a Carpenters’ Organizing Committee for the purpose of providing opportunities to workers in the carpentry trades to work in solidarity with the affiliates of the Building and Construction Trades Department.” 144. The Resolution further gives the Defendants the power to

implement, structure and enforce the Carpenters Organizing Committee to accomplish the goal of getting the Carpenters back to the “family table” in order to accomplish their lawful and unlawful objectives goals. The Resolution provides: “The structure of the Carpenters’ Organizing Committee shall be determined by the Building and Construction Trades Department.” The Resolution further provides: “Upon the recommendation of the Building and Construction Trades Department, the president of the AFL-CIO is authorized to issue a charter or certificate of affiliation to the Carpenters’ Organizing Committee.” (Resolution

80
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

70.) 145. Prior to the convention, the BCTD Defendants and their co-

conspirators laid all proper groundwork to get the Resolution to the convention floor. Defendant Williams drafted the Resolution and introduced it at the convention. He railed at the Carpenters for recruiting, accepting, and training dues-paying members who belong to other unions, including the Painters, IBEW, Plasterers and other unions. Defendant Williams complained that the Carpenters’ conduct had cost his union and other unions millions of dollars, while being free from making the BCTD and Councils monthly payments. Resolution 70 passed by voice vote. 146. Through the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign to obtain the business

and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, Defendant Williams, and the other BCTD Defendants, are determined to recoup the millions of dollars from the Carpenters that they blame the Carpenters for having cost them. 147. Nevertheless, not all construction unions agreed with Resolution 70,

or the unlawful extortionate attacks against the Carpenters. The Operating Engineers objected to Resolution 70 and called the BCTD Defendants and their co-conspirators’ conduct and focus on the Carpenters misleading, misguided and hypocritical because they were unlawful.

81
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

148.

Vince Giblin, President of the Operating Engineers, wrote letters in

protest. The Operating Engineers are members of the AFL-CIO, but not the BCTD. Giblin knew that if the BCTD Defendants were successful against the Carpenters and forced them into making – and continuing to make – monthly payments to the BCTD and Councils, there was nothing to stop them from doing the same to his union. 149. In a letter sent to the President of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumpka,

President Giblin called the BCTD Defendants’ conduct, and the AFL-CIO’s support, “hypocritical, counterproductive, and dangerous” because of the unlawful extortionate conduct. President Gilbin warned against the establishment of a BCTD Carpenters Organizing Committee because this would have a greater chance of starting a destructive union war than resolving the BCTD Defendants’ problems. Giblin also pointed out that Resolution 70 was “a case of selective punitive action.” Giblin explained that the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators were hypocritical because they had done nothing about the Laborers that had begun recruiting, accepting and training dues-paying members in that “openly claim not only Laborers work but that of other crafts as well.” Giblin pointed out the hypocrisy in taking Carpenters to task “while silence prevailed over the actions of the Laborers.” 150. Also telling of the BCTD Defendants’ hypocrisy related to the

82
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Laborers is their acceptance of the Laborers’ documented unlawful plan to take over the Plasterers’ cement mason jurisdiction. (Exhibit “F” hereto, pg. 8, referred to as “Playbook.”) One of the reasons the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators treat the Laborers’ attacks on the Operating Engineers’ work and Plasterers’ cement mason work is because the Laborers make monthly payments to the BCTD. The Operating Engineers do not. And one of the reasons the BCTD Defendants’ ignore the Laborers’ attack on the Plasterers is because their Playbook also documents how they are “driving up the costs” to the Carpenters by a litany of unlawful and bad faith tactics, which the BCTD Defendants and coconspirators, including O’Sullivan of the Laborers, have incorporated into the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 151. The Laborers’ Playbook is a documented strategy of regulatory

harassment, and other bad faith tactics solely, and admittedly, intended to “drive up the costs” to the Carpenters and their employers through the filing of frivolous grievances, complaints, and other forms of regulatory harassment. (Exh. “F”, pp. 4-7, 10; see also Paragraphs 189-207, infra.) Such unlawful conduct is an essential part of the unlawful campaign to put unlawful pressure on the Plaintiffs to agree to Defendants’ extortionate demands to obtain the business and property

83
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. The Playbook was written by the Laborers’ Associate General Counsel, Steve Cuddy, who lives, works and has an office in Washington State. 152. President Giblin, in his letter, also responded to complaints from the

BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators that the Carpenters’ actions were forcing them to spend millions of dollars to fight off the Carpenters’ attempts to recruit, accept, and train dues-paying members that they claimed belonged to them. Gilbin pointed out that the Service Employees International Union’s President Andy Stern’s actions against UNITE-HERE, an AFL-CIO affiliate, “make [Carpenter's President] Doug McCarron look like Gandhi.” Giblin said the SEIU has plundered the assets of UNITE-HERE in order to limit that union’s ability progressively to act on behalf of, and to protect, their members “while at the same time using its deep pockets to finance raid after raid.” 153. UNITE-HERE had left the AFL-CIO in 2005 to form the Change to

Win federation but rejoined the AFL-CIO in 2009. UNITE HERE President John Wilhelm, who has similarly accused Stern of conducting membership raids against UNITE HERE, announced during the convention that UNITE-HERE is rejoining the AFL-CIO. Giblin pointed out in the letter that an AFL-CIO resolution condemning SEIU's alleged raiding was shelved for no apparent reason.

84
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

154.

In response to Resolution 70, the Carpenters’ General President

issued a statement, dated September 16, 2009. The Carpenters again explained why it has continued to refuse to make bloated monthly payments to the BCTD in perpetuity. The Carpenters explained that it has been able to put the monthly payments it had not had to make the BCTD and Councils to good use that benefitted the Carpenters’ members, as opposed to a bloated bureaucracy in Washington D.C. and elsewhere: “It can be seen in our annual expenditure of more than $175 million for the most up-to-date craft training in the industry delivered at more than 225 training centers in the United States and Canada. We took difficult steps to focus on the interests of the members by reorganizing our union to reflect the industry our members work in, instead of the industry our founders knew. Instead of staffing a Washington bureaucracy, we put hundreds of organizers in the field. We merged local health and welfare funds into regional funds to reduce benefit costs, increase bargaining power, and save tens of millions of the members’ hard-earned dollars. The AFL-CIO resolution is a solution in search of a problem.” (Carpenters’ Response to Resolution 70.) 155. To this day, Resolution 70 continues to be proudly posted on one of

the Painters’ websites. (www.dc36.org, last visited on January 25, 2012.) On the website, the Painters’ reiterate that the battle-cry that the fight against the Carpenters is “everyone’s fight.” Nevertheless, because Resolution 70 was a

85
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

solution in search of a problem, it lay dormant for the next couple of years while other plans for the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign were formulated, implemented and managed. 156. Violence and Vandalism in St. Louis: After Resolution 70 had been

drafted but before it was even passed and before their Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign was even announced, the BCTD Defendants showed their true colors and began their campaign of violent attacks against the Carpenters. On or about August 23, 2009, the BCTD Defendants’ agents violently vandalized a Carpenters Local 57 members’ work truck. The truck was parked at 4407-D Meramek Road, St. Louis, Missouri. Bricks were thrown through the trucks’ windows. To make sure the Carpenters knew why this was done and who did it, Defendants’ calling card – a “No-57” logo – was spray painted all over the truck. The “No-57” calling card was painted on the truck’s hood, driver’s door, passenger’s door, and on the front fender, causing thousands of dollars in damages. 157. As described above, Local 57 is the Carpenters local that recruits,

accepts, and trains dues-paying members who perform electrical work, that the BCTD Defendants’ claim “belong” like chattel and involuntary servitudes to, and are to be turned over to, the IBEW, as part of a deal to secure bloated payments for unrequested, unwanted and unnecessary services by the BCTD Defendants. 158. The “No-57” spray painted logo is the same logo that has been

86
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

posted on the BCTD Defendants’ internet sites (e.g., local57facts.com; respectourcrafts.com, last visited on January 25, 2012), and put on their flyers, stickers and t-shirts, including those proudly worn by the BCTD Defendants during the Unity Rally, which is described below. 159. Defendants committed these acts of violence to send a strong

message and warning to the Carpenters that they had better give in to the BCTD Defendants’ unlawful extortionate demands for monthly financial tributes, or else face a war of attrition and no quarter. 160. Threats, Violence and Vandalism Continue in St. Louis: In work-

up to the next phase of the unlawful dimensions of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign, the June 2010 massive BCTD Unity Rally, the Defendants’ agents continued their extortionate threats, violence, and vandalism. On or about April 7, 2010, the BCTD Defendants’ agents smashed a $20,000 work sign, poured sugar in the gas tank of a truck used by a Carpenters’ Local 57 member and spray painted their “No 57” calling card all over two other trucks and two work buildings where the trucks were parked. The trucks and buildings were located at 3630 South Broadway St., St. Louis, Missouri. 161. Shortly thereafter, the BCTD Defendants’ agents, Stephen and Tim

Schoemehl made veiled death threats and threats of violence and intimidation against Terry Nelson, the St. Louis Carpenters’ highest ranking officer, his family

87
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

staff and union members because under Nelson’s leadership the Carpenters recruited, accepted, and trained dues-paying members whom the BCTD Defendants claim “belong”, like chattel and involuntary servitudes, to the IBEW and their affiliates. 162. On or about, April 16, 2010, the BCTD Defendants’ agents Stephen

P. Schoemehl and his brother Tim, tag-teamed Nelson, with email threats. Stephen Schoemehl is an IBEW International Executive council member, like Defendant Hill. Tim Schoemehl, Stephen’s brother, is or was a Business Agent for IBEW Local #1 in St. Louis. At 7:25 p.m., Tim Schoemehl emailed Nelson admitting, ratifying, condoning and/or supporting the violent vandalism that had just occurred by threatening violence against Nelson, his family, staff and union members that “The walls are closing in on you terry!! Can you feel it terry? Can you fucking feel it? A few minutes later, at 7:29 p.m., in a coordinated attack, Stephen Schoemehl followed up with an email calling Nelson “a twisted, antilabor, egotistical little prick.” Stephen Schoemehl then, like his brother, threatened Nelson that “The walls are closing in little man – good stuff coming your way.” Tim Schoemehl again followed up by email on April 20, 2010, reiterating to Nelson that “The Walls are getting closer!” 163. In the context of the prior and contemporaneous violent vandalism Nelson understood what the BCTD Defendants’ meant: He and the Carpenters had

88
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

better give in to their unlawful extortionate demands or else their violence would escalate and he would be buried in a coffin with the walls having closed in around his beaten and lifeless body. To this day, people still ask Nelson if he is afraid for his life because of what he and the Carpenters have done with respect to the IBEW’s chattel. In addition, based on the timing, substance, content and context of these threats, Nelson reasonably took the Schoemehl’s threats as admissions, ratification, condonation and/or support for the anti-Carpenters 57 violent vandalism that had recently occurred, as well as threats of more violence and vandalism. 164. On the heels of the Schoemehls’ admissions and continued violent

threats, the BCTD Defendants held the Unity Rally. 165. Unity Rally: Because neither passage of Resolution 70, nor the

threats of violence, violence, and vandalism succeeded in forcing the Carpenters into making the BCTD’s bloated monthly payments for unrequested, unwanted, and unnecessary services and giving over to the BCTD Defendants its duespaying members, the BCTD Defendants increased the unlawful pressure against the Carpenters by organizing and holding a massive rally in St. Louis where thousands of their agents from around the country could attend, as the speakers’ call to action in the context of the past violence could only mean that more of the same would occur.

89
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

166.

The BCTD Defendants selected St. Louis because this was where

the Carpenters had begun recently recruiting, accepting and training dues-paying members who performed electrical work, members whom the BCTD Defendants claimed “belonged” to the IBEW. Defendant Ayers was an IBEW member and former official, and St. Louis was thought by Defendants to be an area where the BCTD Defendants believed they had a strong presence. Co-conspirator Gerald Feldhaus, Executive Secretary Treasurer the St. Louis Building and Construction Trades Council, had also written a letter to Defendant Ayers on or about December 3, 2009, calling on the BCTD Defendants and their unions from around the country “to take a united, decisive and immediate stand against the Carpenters.” In the context of the past violence, and the posting of Exhibit “C” on the local57facts.com website, this was a call for more than lawful conduct. It was a call for a new “united” national campaign of violence against the Carpenters because peaceful means had failed. 167. So on the heels of passage of Resolution 70, the BCTD Defendants

and their co-conspirators organized a massive rally in St. Louis in the spring of 2010 called the “Unity Rally.” The purpose of the rally was to show the Carpenters that the BCTD Defendants were capable of doing more than just passage of a Resolution; to show the Carpenters that they were able to organize massive numbers of BCTD union members, agents and representatives in a united,

90
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

decisive and immediate stand against the Carpenters to pressure, lawfully and unlawfully, the Carpenters into agreeing to their unlawful extortionate demands to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 168. Shortly before the Unity Rally, Defendant Hill (IBEW) published

“An Open Letter to Building Trades Workers” in the St. Louis/Southern Illinois Labor Tribune. Defendant Hill wanted to make sure that all BCTD union members, agents and representatives understood what the BCTD Defendants were expecting from them. The Labor Tribune has over 62,000 paid subscribers, including 55 unions, and is the country’s top weekly labor newspaper. The Open Letter was published in the June 17-23, 2010 edition. The front page headline read “Building trades push back on Nelson [St. Louis Carpenters]” and gave the Campaign its name: The “Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign.” 169. In the Open Letter, Hill confirmed what he had previously told

McCarron in person during their St. Louis meeting in or about the first week in May, 2010: that the IBEW and the BCTD “are prepared to do whatever it takes to protect our members and their jobs”, and get the Carpenters to succumb to the BCTD Defendants’ extortionate demands. In the context of the prior violence, “whatever it takes” means use violence, as the readers of the letter would surely know.

91
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

170.

The “Unity Rally” was held on or about June 15, 2010, at the

World’s Fair Pavilion at Forest Park in St. Louis. Various reports claim it was attended by up to 7,000 BCTD union members, agents and representatives. Defendant Ayers led a delegation that included approximately eight BCTD General Presidents, including but not limited to Defendant Ayers (BCTD), Defendant Williams (Painters), Defendant Hill (IBEW) and co-conspirators Sullivan (SMW), Finley (Plasterers), and O’Sullivan (Laborers). Each President spoke at the Unity Rally against the Carpenters. Also, at the rally were regional vice presidents and other officers representing Teamsters, Plumbers and Pipefitters, Insulators, Asbestos Workers, Ironworkers, and Sprinkler Fitters. 171. Defendant Hill spoke. He said that “one of the main goals of the

rally was to show a sense of unity among all the other trades” to address the problems with the Carpenters. As explained, this included (1) recruiting, accepting, and training dues-paying members that belonged to their unions, and (2) for not making BCTD and Councils’ bloated monthly payments, which they needed to operate and expand, and allow the BCTD Defendants’ unions to offset their expenses and reduce their BCTD payments. Defendant Hill explained: “What the carpenter leadership is doing in St. Louis is a betrayal of every principle of unity and solidarity that impacts each and everyone one of us.” 172. Defendant Ayers also spoke. He stressed that the problems with the

92
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Carpenters were national in scope and needed a national united response; that is why he, the BCTD, and the BCTD Defendants and other BCTD Governing Board of Presidents had begun the Push-Back- Carpenters Campaign, and they were there to explain what they and their union members, agents and representatives were going to do against the Carpenters to force the Carpenters’ compliance with their extortionate demands. To incite and scare people into action, Defendant Ayers warned the union members, agents and representatives that they “are being threatened all around the nation” by the Carpenters. To gleeful shouts of support, Ayers concluded by declaring that, “This problem didn’t start in St. Louis, but by God it needs to end in St. Louis!” Everyone in attendance and those who heard about the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign understood the call that, in turn, they were “to threaten” the Carpenters. In the context of the past violence, “threaten” means to threaten and use physical violence and force, not merely to carry a picket or peacefully and lawfully protest. 173. Defendant Williams (Painters) also spoke. He told the crowd that

the rally marked a “line in the sand” for the BCTD Defendants, their union members, agents and representatives. He explained that, “After today, there’s no going back.” This is because Defendant Williams knew that once they openly attacked the Carpenters, as planned, the Carpenters would fight back. Nevertheless, Defendant Williams made clear that as long as the BCTD

93
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Defendants stayed united and coordinated their unlawful extortionate attacks, they could defeat the Carpenters and force the Carpenters into agreeing to their unlawful extortionate demands. In the context of the past violence, “line in the sand” and “no going back” means to threaten and use physical violence and force, not merely to carry a picket or peacefully and lawfully protest. 174. Co-conspirator James Boland (Bricklayers’ President) also spoke.

To inspire the BCTD Defendants’ union members, agents and representatives, Boland told a story about John Flynn, who retired recently as Bricklayers’ General President, and Don Brown, business manager of IBEW Local 1, located in St. Louis. Boland explained that both men were from St. Louis and were former champion boxers. Boland said that, like these champion boxers who never backed down from anyone, the BCTD Defendants’ union members, agents and representatives were not going to let the Carpenters push them around: “Our 1.5 million members are not going to let anyone push us around.” Boland made clear that Bricklayers and IBEW’s 1.5 million members were going to participate in, support, and carry out the BCTD Defendants’ Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign. In the context of the past violence, “not going to let anyone push us around” because their champion boxers “never back down from anyone” means to threaten and use physical violence and force, not merely to carry a picket or peacefully and lawfully protest.

94
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

175.

Co-conspirator Mike Sullivan (Sheet Metal Workers’ President,

ret.) also spoke. He reiterated that the BCTD Defendants’ Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign was a united and coordinated campaign by all the BCTD’s affiliates against the Carpenters. He let everyone there know, like Boland and the others, that he was guaranteeing the full support and backing of his union and all of its affiliates from around the country. He was emphatic: “We’ll support this effort because it’s the right thing to do for everyone. When you take on one, you take on all.” In the context of the past violence, “when you take on one you take on all” means to threaten and use physical violence and force, not merely to carry a picket or peacefully and lawfully protest. 176. Co-conspirator Pat Finley (Plasterers’ President) also spoke. Like

Sullivan, Finley promised the full support of his union and all of its affiliates around the country. In the context of the past violence, promising full support means to threaten and use physical violence and force, not merely to carry a picket or peacefully and lawfully protest. 177. Co-conspirator, Terrence O’Sullivan (Laborers’ President) gave a

particularly violent speech, and got repeated cheers of support from the union officials, representatives, agents and members in attendance. In his speech O’Sullivan did not mince words and let it be known what kind of violence he expected against the Carpenters and their interests. He explained that in his

95
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

neighborhood growing up, we would hang people like Doug McCarron (Carpenters’ President) and Terry Nelson (St. Louis Carpenters’ highest officer). To communicate that this was meant as a true threat for others to act upon, O’Sullivan loudly asked the riotous audience if anyone had any rope? In the context of the prior and repeated violence, “does anyone have any rope to hang” means continued use violence and unlawful intimidation, as the listeners would surely know. Such threats of violence are consistent with O’Sullivan’s biography, which is located on the BCTD website. There, O’Sullivan describes himself and his union as one of the most “aggressive” in the country. The Playbook that the Laborers has previously developed and implemented now as part of the PushBack- Carpenters Campaign, confirms his aggressive approach to dealing with those he views as enemies. In the context of the past violence, “aggressive” means to threaten and use physical violence and force, not merely to carry a picket or peacefully and lawfully protest. 178. During O’Sullivan’s speech he railed against the Carpenters,

declaring that “We will not tolerate the B.S. the Carpenters are pulling off.” O’Sullivan went on stating: “At a time when we have tens of thousands out of work trying to hold onto their homes, keep their healthcare and keep their families together, the Carpenters decide that stealing work of fellow building trades workers (is easier than) going out to organized the unorganized.” Nevertheless,

96
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

O’Sullivan knew that this claim was completely false because the workers that the Carpenters had recruited and accepted were previously non-union workers. In making these false charges, O’Sullivan also ignored that his union was doing the same to the Operating Engineers, Plasterers and other around the country. In the context of the past violence, “not tolerate” means to threaten and use physical violence and force, not merely to carry a picket or peacefully and lawfully protest. 179. O’Sullivan continued his fiery speech by warning the Carpenters

and inciting the BCTD’s and affiliates’ union members, agents and representatives that, “The spark we light here today will spread a fire across the country” in a united opposition against the Carpenters. He promised that his union, members, agents and representatives from around the country would give their “unqualified” support and assistance in furtherance of the Campaign. In the context of the past violence, “spark” and “fire” means to threaten and use physical violence and force, not merely to carry a picket or peacefully and lawfully protest. 180. So together, the BCTD Defendants (Ayers, Hill, and Williams) and

their Co-conspirators on the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents publically united in a coordinated, nationwide, violent extortionate conspiracy and unlawful campaign against the Carpenters called the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign to force the Carpenters to give in to their extortionate demands. 181. BCTD Committee: Before the Unity Rally, as contemplated by

97
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Resolution 70, the BCTD Defendants had established the “Committee” whose purpose was to formulate, coordinate and implement the BCTD Defendants’ plans of escalating attacks against the Carpenters as part of their unlawful extortionate conspiracy. To date, the Committee has developed, coordinated and implemented a series of escalating attacks intended to financially injure and cripple the Carpenters until they are forced to give in to their unlawful extortionate demands, including turning over to the BCTD Defendants their dues-paying members that they claim belong to their unions, and begin making – and continue making – monthly payments to the BCTD and Councils. The Committee is still in existence and continues to actively work formulating, coordinating, and implementing further unlawful extortionate attacks to inflict maximum financial injury on the Plaintiffs. 182. Shortly after the Unity Rally, Defendant Ayers started travelling

back and forth across the country giving speeches to update the BCTD Defendants’ officials, agents, representatives and members about the progress of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. Defendant Ayers travelled from Washington D.C. to Virginia, Minnesota, and Nevada to speak at various conventions and meetings.

98
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

183.

For instance, on or about August 18, 2010, at the BCTD’s 68th

Convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Defendant Ayers gleefully told the delegates “the Committee is exploring all options to address this problem (i.e., the Carpenters). And you have my word that whatever measures are adopted by the committee and the Board will be executed by this Department and its affiliates to their fullest extent.” (Keynote Address, Mark H. Ayers, President, Building and Construction Trades Department, 68th Convention, August 18, 2010, Minneapolis, MN.) Ayers also let the delegates know that they were going to force, by whatever means necessary, the Carpenters to succumb to their demands: “let me be as clear as I can. No one can, and no one will, tolerate what the Carpenters have done, and continue to do.” Defendant Ayers thus promised that all BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators’ unions, officers, agents, representatives and members were at the disposal of the Committee and were prepared to comprehensively and violently attack the Carpenters when called upon. In the context of the unlawful extortionate conspiracy, this language echoes back to the acts of violence and vandalism, and anyone there would have heard them to mean “more of the same.” 184. In later speeches Defendant Ayers gave more particulars of the

Committee’s makeup. He stated that the Committee included representatives from all of the BCTD’s General Presidents’ unions. He stated that the Committee

99
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

had already drafted a plan of attack and marveled at how quickly the Committee had done so. Defendant Ault also repeatedly reiterated his promise that whatever measures are adopted by the Committee will be implemented to the fullest extent by all of the BCTD, its Councils, its affiliated unions, and their officers, agents, representatives and members. 185. For instance, in speaking on or about August 25, 2010, to the Sheet

Metal Workers Business Managers Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, Defendant Ayers stated that the Committee is being “headed by my partner Sean McGarvey” and “includes representatives of all our affiliated unions, including the SMWIA.” Defendant Ayers again confirmed that the Committee was “exploring all options” and that “whatever measures are adopted” will be executed by “the entire Department and our affiliates to their fullest extent.” He went on to talk about the plan that the Committee had written: “Their draft plan that was submitted to me is nothing less than heroic, considering the short time they had to put something together.” Ayers went on to “personally thank your Committee Representative Jim White” for the work he had done and contributed to the effort. (Remarks, Mark H. Ayers, President, Building and Construction Trades Department, Sheet Metal Workers Business Managers Conference, August 25, 2010, Las Vegas, NV.) In the context of the unlawful extortionate conspiracy, this language echoes back to the acts of violence and vandalism, and anyone there

100
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

would have heard them to mean “more of the same.” 186. Similarly, in speaking to the Virginia BCTD’s Building &

Construction Trades Council’s Convention, on August 30, 2010, at Virginia Beach, Virginia, Defendant Ayers also stated that the Committee is being “headed by our very capable Secretary Treasurer, Sean McGarvey” who is “charged with developing a plan of actions and recommendations to address” the Carpenters “in a straightforward and effective manner.” He continued to re-affirm that the Committee was “exploring all options” and that “whatever measures are adopted” will be executed by “the entire Department and our affiliates” to their fullest extent. (Remarks, Mark H. Ayers, President, Building and Construction Trades Department, Virginia Building & Construction Trades Council Convention, August 30, 2010, Virginia Beach, VA.) In the context of the unlawful extortionate conspiracy, this language echoes back to the acts of violence and vandalism, and anyone there would have heard them to mean “more of the same.” 187. Also, on or about September 14, 2010, Defendant Ayers spoke at

the Bricklayers 2010 National Convention in Las Vegas, Nevada, to give the BCTD Defendants’ officers, agents, representatives and members a status update on the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain

101
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

an interest and control over the Carpenters. Defendant Ayers began by stating, “I have to talk to you about a problem we have . . . a fox in the henhouse type of problem . . . that is in our midst. The Department has been forced to devote increasing time and resources to counter increasing efforts by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters to raid the work of other craft unions.” Defendant Ayers continued, “It’s gone on in New York . . . in the Pacific Northwest . . . in California and in mid-America. It’s a cancer that is spreading.” Defendant Ayers also talked about the Committee that the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators had established. He said that the Defendants “established a formal committee that includes representatives of all of our affiliated unions – including the [Bricklayers].” Defendant Ayers continued, “the committee is exploring all options to address” the Carpenters “And you have my word, that whatever measures are adopted by the committee and the Building Trades’ Governing Board will be executed to their fullest extent. And I would hope and expect to have the full backing of this great institution when that time arrives.” In the context of the unlawful extortionate conspiracy, this language echoes back to the acts of violence and vandalism, and anyone there would have heard them to mean “more of the same.” 188. Defendant Ayers finished his speech with the following: “To

summarize, let me simply state that the Republicans are out to get us once again . .

102
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

. and so is the Carpenters’ International. But I am here to tell you, neither will succeed . . . because we don’t run from a fight . . . Ever! Ever! Ever!” (Remarks, Mark H. Ayers, President, Building and Construction Trades Department, Bricklayers Convention, September 14, 2010, Las Vegas, NV.) In the context of the unlawful extortionate conspiracy, this language echoes back to the acts of violence and vandalism, and anyone there would have heard them to mean “more of the same.” 189. Laborers’ Playbook, and the BCTD Defendants’ Implementation

of Unlawful and Bad Faith Tactics to “Drive Up the Costs” of the Carpenters: As mentioned above, the Laborers had developed and implemented a Playbook of unlawful and bad faith tactics solely to “drive up the costs” to the Carpenters. This Playbook has been incorporated into the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign. 190. PNRCC and its Sponsored Apprenticeship Program’s Attempt to

Obtain State Approval to Train Drywall Taping Apprentices: The BCTD Defendants’ agents and co-conspirators have been attempting intentionally to block, hinder, delay, interfere with and/or obstruct the Carpenters’ sponsored apprenticeship training programs from gaining state and/or federal agency approval to train apprentice members in various work processes, including drywall taping. Defendants have done so by pursuing sham claims that are objectively baseless and brought for an unlawful motive and/or pursuant to a

103
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

policy of pursuing a series of unlawful and frivolous and bad faith protests, objections and/or charges against the Carpenters and their sponsored programs without regards to the merits and for an unlawful purpose, and continue to do so through the present. 191. The BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators have also used their

members, agents and/or representatives who are state government agency committees overseeing such protests, objections and/or charges to unlawfully use their official positions to do Defendants’ bidding and delay, block, interfere with and/or obstruct the Carpenters and their sponsored programs. 192. The BCTD Defendants’ officer, agents, representatives and

members have engaged in these tactics solely in an attempt to extort the Carpenters and secure the Carpenters’ money and property by getting them to comply with their unlawful extortionate demands to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. The BCTD Defendants have instigated, supported, condoned, authorized and/or ratified numerous objections, charges, and grievances purportedly filed and pursued by the Painters, Plasterers and Laborers and/or their agents or representatives in follow-through and implementation of the Laborers’ Playbook unlawful and bad faith tactics that in this context constitutes extortion. 193. Shortly before the Unity Rally, the Laborers held a training session

104
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

for its officers, agents, and representatives from around the Northwestern parts of the United States and Canada on using and implementing their Playbook of unlawful and bad faith tactics against the Carpenters. As mentioned, the Playbook details how the Laborers will engage in unlawful conduct to solely “drive up the costs” to the Carpenters and have admitted to conspiring with the Painters to do so as part of a “joint effort” in the drywall industry where the Carpenters have sought government approval in Washington State and California to train drywall taping apprentices. (Exh. “F”, pg. 7.). The Playbook stresses that “This fight is not a legal fight, it is an economic fight.” (Exh. “F”, pg. 10, emphasis in original). The Playbook concludes by re-iterating the unlawful means of their conduct: “If we keep the fight more costly for the Carpenters and their vertical contractors than for [the Laborers] and our contractors, we will win over time.” (Exh. “F”, pg. 10, emphasis in original). 194. The training session took place between June 7-9, 2010, at the

Laborers’ NW Regional Conference in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. At the conference, the Laborers’ Associate General Counsel, Steve Cuddy, gave a training session on the detailed Playbook he had put together. Cuddy explained (1) how the Laborers were going to take over the Plasterers’ cement masons’ jurisdiction, and, most importantly, (2) how to “drive up the costs” for the Carpenters as a way to extort the Carpenters into coming back to the “family”, not

105
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

recruit, accept, and train dues-paying members that the Laborers claimed “belonged,” like chattel and involuntary servitudes, to them and the BCTD Defendants, and to begin paying the bloated monthly “tributes” for the unrequested, unwanted and unnecessary services. (Exh. “F”.) In brief, it was about people and money. 195. In the Playbook and his presentations, Cuddy put forth a policy and

“A Step-by-Step Process to Drive up the Costs.” (Underline in the original.) Cuddy advised the Laborers’ officers, agents, and representatives to “File costly grievances” because the Carpenters “simply cannot afford to finance too many of these cases.” Cuddy explained that the legal costs can easily total $10,000$20,000. Cuddy also advised that the Laborers should engage in a continuous pattern of regulatory harassment such as by filing prevailing wage, equal employment opportunity, and apprenticeship enforcement complaints. Cuddy also advised how the Laborers could utilize these procedures without an attorney, explaining “this will keep our costs down, and raise the costs for the Carpenters and their vertical employers.” In brief, the unlawful and bad faith tactics would raise the costs to the Carpenters and force the Carpenters to give into its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 196. Cuddy further advised that the Laborers should send in covert

106
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

agents who would be loyal to the Laborers but disloyal to the Carpenters to work for the Carpenters who would spy on the Carpenters, steal information from the Carpenters, and disrupt and sabotage the Carpenters’ activities from the inside and force the Carpenters to give in to its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. Nevertheless, the Playbook was merely an updated and specific application of an earlier generic program of regulatory harassment that Cuddy had put together years before and which the Laborers had been implementing against the Carpenters beginning in 2008, shortly before the BCTD Defendants began their Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 197. In the spring of 2008, in the Northwest Laborers magazine, Cuddy

published an article advising the Laborers’ officials, agents, representatives, and members how to use Regulatory Laws for “strategic use” against their enemies. The Northwest Laborers magazine is an official publication of the Laborers and is reviewed, approved, and/or ratified by O’Sullivan himself. The tactics are an unlawful and bad faith means to force others to give up their people and money for the Laborers’ financial benefit. 198. In the article, Cuddy explained that the Laborers should combine

107
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

“economic pressure strategies” and “selective use of these various legal tactics can help unions” to “defeat other unions that challenge [the Laborers] mission.” The Laborers quickly began using the Washington state apprenticeship laws and complaint procedures against the Carpenters and their sponsored programs in order to block, delay, and hopefully, get the Carpenters and their training programs barred from training apprentices in Washington state, so the Laborers could take over such training, and the members (and dues) that such training generates. The tactics are an unlawful and bad faith means to force the Carpenters to give into its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 199. Apprenticeship training approval is important because, on both state

and federal prevailing wage jobs in Washington, employers have economic incentives to use apprentices, and when projects are covered by project labor agreements, these apprentices are required to be members of unions who must pay dues in order to remain working. If a union can control the training of apprentices, that union can control a steady supply of dues-paying members. Accordingly, the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators’ unions routinely attempt to block approval of new training programs. They fear competition and prefer the training monopolies they possess.

108
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

200.

Beginning in 2008, and continuing through the present, the Laborers

have been joined by other BCTD Defendants’ agents to put the unlawful Playbook into action. Examples include the Laborers, through their agent, Abbott, filing numerous complaints which make frivolous and specious allegations without regards to their merits against the PNRCC’s sponsored training program, Plaintiff Washington State Carpenters JATC, with the Washington State Apprenticeship Training Council (“WSATC”) beginning in 2008. Before implementing their unlawful Playbook, the Laborers, through one of its related and/or sponsored entities, hired a full time staff to do the research in a vain attempt to justify their regulatory harassment bad faith tactics. Among the individuals the Laborers hired was Jim Christiansen. Christenson’s job is to review all the Carpenters’ employers’ apprenticeship program related public filings to find specious and otherwise problems related to apprenticeship issues and then have Robert Abbott file specious and otherwise complaints, whether frivolous or not, on behalf of the Laborers against the Carpenters and their business interests. Christiansen was a former prevailing wage officer for Washington State Labor & Industries (“L&I”) out of their Tumwiler office. 201. So when the PNRCC and its training program in Washington State

attempted to obtain approval to train drywall taping dues-paying members, whom the Painters claim “belong” to them, like chattel and involuntary servitudes, the

109
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

BCTD Defendants’ and their agents sprang into action by implementing the Laborers’ unlawful and bad faith tactics Playbook, as part of the Push-BackCarpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 202. The Painters’ and Plasterers’ agents filed, and to this day continue

to pursue, frivolous objections trying to block, hinder, delay, and interfere with the PNRCC’s program’s attempt to obtain approval to train drywall taping apprentices. They have engaged in, and continue to engage in, various frivolous tactics solely to delay the process and to drive up the costs to the PNRCC and its training program. To date, the BCTD Defendants have been wildly successful, because they have been able to delay approval of the needed approval to put trained workers to work on public works jobs for five years and counting, and have caused an enormous increase in costs along the way and contributed to the unemployment rate. 203. The Painters District Council 5 is paying for the lawyers for both

the Painters’ and Plasterers’ agents to prosecute the objections, which are purportedly brought by their respective training programs. The BCTD Defendants’ agents who filed the objections were William Regan, Painters’ member, and Mark Markham, Plasterers’ member.

110
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

204.

Examples of their bad faith, frivolous, and objectively baseless

objections include claiming that the PNRCC’s proposed program’s standards were not reasonably consistent with the existing standards even though the proposed standards were identical to those of one of the Painters’ programs, the OregonSouthwest Washington Drywall Finishers program. 205. In addition, beginning on or about June 26, 2008, and continuing to

the present, the Laborers filed numerous frivolous complaints against the Carpenters’ training program containing numerous objectively baseless, totally fabricated and false allegations without regards to their merits. The BCTD Defendants’ agent is Robert Abbott. Abbott lists himself as the Assistant Business Manager of the Laborers District Council of Washington and Northern Idaho. He has filed the numerous and repeated charges with the WASTC against the Carpenters’ apprenticeship program about issues unrelated to the proposed drywall taping program. One of the charges alleged by the Laborers claimed that the Carpenters were allowing a signatory contractor, Ebenal General, Inc., to the work carpenter apprentices out of the known work processes by performing the work of another craft. (See, e.g., Case Nos. 08-11, 08-12, 08-13, 08-14, 08-15, 09-01, 09-02, 09-03, 09-04, & 09-05). In essence, the Abbott alleged Carpenters apprentices working for Ebenal General were doing the work of laborer apprentices.

111
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

206.

Similarly, on or about June 24, 2011, the BCTD Defendants’ agent,

Russ Robinson, filed a claim against Pacific Construction Systems (“PCS”) claiming that by using the Carpenters’ members to perform work PCS was violating the Washington State Public Works Law, WAC 296-127-01344. Nevertheless, this claim was objectively baseless and frivolous as state law did not provide that the Laborers would get the work, and PCS had been using the Carpenters to do such work for decades. When their frivolous claim failed, the BCTD Defendants retaliated. On or about October 18, 2011, their agent, Abbott, next filed an apprenticeship complaint with the WSATC against the Carpenters’ program claiming that during the past year PCS worked apprentice Carpenters outside their known work processes by stocking and scrapping of materials. These violations, like the false and frivolous Public Works violation claim, concerned a job at the University of Washington, Medical Center Expansion project. 207. As the Laborers’ Playbook admits, the purpose of these charges was

not to remedy actual violations, but were brought pursuant to a policy to solely increase the costs to the Carpenters and their employers, in order to injure them in their business and property, without regard to whether these charges had merit. Not surprisingly, L&I found no basis for any of the above allegations – no evidence, no witnesses, and no documentation to support any of these alleged

112
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

violations. The simple reason is that these allegations were totally fabricated, objectively baseless and intentionally false because the Laborers had absolutely no evidence or witnesses or documents to support the charges, and they knew it. These false, baseless and frivolous charges were filed in furtherance of the Laborers’ Playbook of bad faith and unlawful tactics as part of the Push-BackCarpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 208. After the Unity Rally, O’Sullivan’s speech and on the heels of

Cuddy’s seminars and Playbook, Abbott filed more charges against the Carpenters’ program with the WASTC. On or about August 4, 2010, Abbott filed charges again containing the same frivolous and totally unsupported allegations that they had filed before, but this time involving a different employer, Brand. Abbott claimed that the Carpenters were allowing a signatory contractor to the work carpenter apprentices out of the known work processes by performing the work of another craft. (See e.g., Case Nos.10-13, 10-14, 10-15, 10-16, & 10-17). In essence, the Abbott said the Carpenters apprentices working for Brand were doing the work of laborer apprentices. Again, L&I, on or about November 18, 2010, found no basis for any of these allegations – no evidence, no witnesses, and no documentation to support any of these alleged violations. The simple reason is

113
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

that these charges were totally fabricated, objectively baseless and intentionally false because the Laborers had absolutely no evidence or witnesses or documents to support the charges, and they knew it. 209. Also, involved in implementing the Push-Back-Carpenters

Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters as it pertains to misusing the administrative process is co-conspirator, Lee Newgent. Newgent is an official with various Washington Building and Construction Trades Councils. Newgent is also Chairman of the WSATC. On the BCTD’s Respectourcrafts.com website (see Paragraphs 246254 below, last visited on January 25, 2012), Newgent gives a videotaped interview saying that he opposes the PNRCC because they are recruiting, accepting, and training dues-paying union members, which “belong” to the Painters, like chattel and involuntary servitudes. Despite Newgent’s adverse public comments, he has refused to step aside from deciding whether the PNRCC’s training program should be approved. Instead, he has actively opposed his removal, and he has actively participated in delaying, obstructing, blocking and interfering with the approval of program on behalf of the BCTD Defendants, including refusing to process the program’s application because some other agency was considering some other complaints against the Carpenters, but not the

114
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

program, and repeatedly referring the program’s standards to an Administrative Law Judge to decide even though the standards were identical to the Painters’ program. In addition, after the first ALJ rejected all of the Painters’ and Plasterers’ frivolous objections on or about February 17, 2011, Newgent orchestrated a review of some of the original ALJ’s decision after the Painters’ and Plasterers’ lawyers failed to timely file objections and signed an order prohibiting the second ALJ to decide the matter At the WSATCH hearing that was held on about April 2011, Newgent remanded the matter to another ALJ. This has caused further delay and needlessly increased the PNRCC’s and its program’s costs. 210. In addition, as mentioned above, the Painters are paying for the

lawyers of the nominal objecting parties, which are the Painters’ competing programs and the Plasterers’ program which is not. When the PNRCC and its program filed for approval of its drywall taping training program, its long-time attorneys, the Robblee firm, abstained from representing either the Carpenters or the Painters because each was its clients and the conflict was unwaivable. Nevertheless, as discussed below (see Paragraphs 308-317 below), after the BCTD Defendants’ threatened to terminate the Robblee firm if it continued to represent the Carpenters, the Robblee firm fired the Carpenters with a promise of additional work from the BCTD Defendants and began representing the BCTD Defendants, including the Painters, directly against its former clients, without ever

115
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

seeking any conflict waiver. Now the Robblee firm has joined together with Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP, which is also the Laborers’ long-time law firm to prosecute the Painters’ and Plasters’ objections to the PNRCC’s proposed program. 211. After the ALJ decision, the Robblee firm came in and filed

untimely objections. One of their arguments was that the ALJ should have allowed into evidence the Laborers’ numerous and growing list of complaints, even though the first ALJ ruled such objections are irrelevant. As indicated above, Newgent thereafter orchestrated remand of this evidentiary ruling to another ALJ. 212. On remand, the Painters and Plasterers conducted wide-ranging

discovery, including over issues that were not relevant to any of the issues on the limited remand. For instance, they sought the identities of the apprentices who sought drywall taping training, the contractors who have agreements with the PNRCC to perform drywall taping, and the instructors who will teach the apprentices. In addition, they served discovery after the court-ordered discovery cut-off. Such discovery had no relevance to the narrow issues to be decided, but would have assisted the Laborers, Painters and Plasterers in their admitted conspiracy to pursue additional objectively baseless and frivolous complaints solely to “drive up the costs” to the Carpenters and their contractors. After valid

116
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

objections were filed to such invalid discovery, the Painters and Plasterers filed serial motions to compel. In response, the ALJ had to step in to shut them down and stop the harassing, irrelevant and bad faith discovery. This has caused further delay and increased costs, something intended. 213. SWRCC and its Sponsored Apprenticeship Program’s Attempt to

Obtain State Approval to Train Drywall Taping Apprentices: Similar to the Laborers, the Painters, through its District Council 36, have filed a pattern of frivolous and objectively baseless complaints with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) about the SWRCC’s apprenticeship program, Plaintiff Southwest Carpenters JATC. The Painters’ complaints were filed against the Program itself, as well as SWRCC signatory employers who were supplied with apprentices from the Carpenters’ program. These complaints attempt to punish the SWRCC’s program for training drywall taping apprentices through their Drywall/Lathing program, which specifically allows such training, and then to whipsaw the SWRCC, objecting to the SWRCC and training program’s attempt to get approval to train drywall taping apprentices in a stand-alone program. 214. The DIR oversees California state’s apprenticeship programs

through its Department of Apprenticeship Standards (“DAS”). 215. The Painters’ complaints were objectively baseless because the

Carpenters’ standards provided them with the right to train apprentices in drywall

117
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

taping work. For instance, the Painters filed a charge with the DAS alleging that the Carpenters’ program was violating state apprenticeship law because it has been supplying indentured apprentices to perform work in the occupation of Drywall Finishing, something the Painters claimed only its program could do. In response, the DAS promptly started a case, Painters and Allied Trades District Council 36 v. Southern California Drywall/Lather JATC, DAS Complaint No. 2008-05. On or about February 21, 2008, the DAS also referred the matter to hearing. Eventually, after much time and expenses, the Painters’ complaint was rejected by the DAS. 216. After posting Resolution 70 on its dc36.org website (last visited on

January 25, 2012), and in furtherance of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, the Painters continued to file frivolous charges against the SWRCC’s program. On or about March 25, 2009, the Painters filed charges with the California Apprenticeship Council (“CAC”) complaining that the SWRCC’s drywall/lathing apprenticeship training program was not in compliance with its drywall/lathing apprenticeship standards because it was training workers in drywall taping, something its approved program specifically allows. Prior to filing these charges, the Painters had unsuccessfully attempted to have a municipal

118
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

school district prohibit the SWRCC’s drywall/lathing apprentices from performing drywall taping on its projects. Because drywall taping was part of the Carpenters’ drywall/lathing program, the school district responded that there was no violation using drywall/lathing apprentices to perform drywall taping. The Painters then pleaded with the CAC to find a violation, falsely claiming that only its program could lawfully train apprentices in drywall taping work processes. 217. The Painters’ false and objectively baseless charges were

summarily rejected by the Acting Chief of the DAS, Glen Foreman. Mr. Foreman sent a letter, on or about May 29, 2009, to Hugh Lee regarding the Fullerton (California) Joint Unified School District, La Vista/La Sierra High School Project clarifying that the Carpenters’ program’s drywall/ lathing apprentices could be used for drywall taping on the schools’ project. The DAS pointed out that the Carpenters’ program includes “1,600 hours of Allies Ancillary Work Process in its on-the-job training requirements which include elements of the drywall finishing work.” 218. Because the Painters have continued to harass the SWRCC’s

program and apprentices, the SWRCC’s program filed for a stand-alone drywall taping program. On or about April 23, 2010, the DAS ruled that the proposed Carpenters drywall taping apprenticeship training standards were complete and should be approved. However, the Painters immediately filed objections. A

119
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

hearing was held before the Acting Chief, DAS, on July 18, 2011. On November 8, 2011, after much wasted time and expense, the Painters’ objections were rejected by the DAS and the Acting Chief approved the program. 219. The Painters, however, have not given up on their unlawful and

extortionate campaign and are currently appealing the matter to the CAC. 220. IBEW Media Campaign: Immediately after the Unity Rally, and in

furtherance of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenter, Defendant Hill announced on the IBEW website that the IBEW was also “launching a sweeping campaign”. Defendant Hill stated that they would use mounted billboards, print and radio ads in the St. Louis area against the Carpenters. Defendant Hill also said the IBEW would use rolling billboards in Las Vegas, Nevada, Cleveland, Ohio, Minneapolis, Minnesota and Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. In addition to the IBEW website, International Executive Council member, Stephen P. Schoemehl, also created www.local57facts.com as part of, and in furtherance of, the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. On this website, the BCTD Defendants also cite to the earlier article by one of the BCTD affiliates on the buildingtrades.com website that

120
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

admits to and advocates further “united” violence against the Carpenters as a means to accomplish their unlawful ends, and warns of further violence against the Carpenters. This article has now become intentionally and expressly part of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and unlawful extortionate conspiracy. (See Paragraphs 11 and 163 above.) In the context of the past violence, the implied meaning of these calls to arms was more of the same violence expanded in the nationwide campaign against the Carpenters. 221. Amending the Sound Transit PLA: In another follow-through with

the Laborers’ Playbook and in furtherance of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, Abbott and Newgent have also misused project labor agreements with public agencies. The Carpenters have long opposed using the BCTD’s Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Construction Industry because, inter alia, it is biased and has been used as a tool in the BCTD Defendants’ unlawful extortionate campaign. 222. Because of this opposition, Abbot and Newgent, on behalf of the

BCTD Defendants, specifically obtained an amendment in 2011 to the Sound Transit Project Labor Agreement which had previously excluded non-traditional jurisdictional disputes from being heard by the Plan’s arbitrators. Sound Transit is

121
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

a state agency and thus exempt from coverage by the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. 223. Some of the ways that the Plan has become an unlawful and

extortionate weapon against the Carpenters is through actions taken by the Plan and the Plan’s Administrator. The Plan is Administered by the BCTD’s General Counsel, Richard Resnik and his law firm Sherman, Dunn, Cohen, Leifer & Yellig. Resnik and his firm is also the IBEW’s General Counsel, as well as numerous other BCTD affiliates. 224. Resnik and his law firm are financially controlled by the BCTD

Defendants. His firm makes millions of dollars in fees from both the IBEW and the Defendant BCTD. For instance, for the years 2007-2010, Resnik’s firm made $8.8 million from the IBEW and $3 million from the BCTD. (See LM-2s.) In comparison, Resnik and his firm make virtually no money being the Plan’s Administrator and its attorneys. 225. Because of this control, Resnik has actively participated in actions

seeking to enforce unlawful Plan arbitration awards against the Carpenters, rather than staying neutral in such disputes. See, e.g., Standard Drywall Inc. v. Operative Plasterers’ and Cement Masons’ International Ass’n, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, EDCV 09-115-SGL (rejecting attempt to enforce unlawful Plan arbitration awards).

122
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

226.

The BCTD Defendants and Co-Conspirators Are Joined by the

Metal Trades Department’s President, Ron Ault, in Kicking the Carpenters Out of the Metal Trades Department so that the Carpenters’ Dues, Members, and Other Rights Could Be Given to the BCTD Defendants: The biggest financial hit to date that the BCTD Defendants have inflicted on the Carpenters was when they got Metal Trades Department, Ron Ault, to join the conspiracy and together kick the Carpenters out of the Metal Trades Department. 227. As described above in Paragraphs 23, 65, and 71, the Metal Trades

Department and the BCTD are each a separate labor organization, each an independent legal entity, with different legal rights, duties, obligations, and members. Each has a separate governing Constitution, executive board, President, officers, affiliated unions, and each represents different groups of workers. The Metal Trades Department represents members in the metal trades industries, including shipyards, whereas the BCTD represents members in the building and construction industries. The Metal Trades Department is much smaller and financially weaker than the Building Trades Department. Whereas the BCTD has millions of members and takes in millions of dollars in payments per year, the Metal Trades Department has only tens of thousands and, correspondingly, takes in much less. This is reflected in the outsized and unwarranted salary of President Ault, who makes $400,000 per year. In contrast, the Metal Trades Department’s

123
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

President Ault makes less than $180,000 per year. Accordingly, while the Carpenters were affiliated with the Metal Trades Department, it has no relation, and does not want to have any relation – contractual or otherwise – to the BCTD, and makes no monthly payments to the BCTD, and does not want to make any such tribute payments. 228. Looking for a way to financially injure the Carpenters in their

business and property, and quickly to obtain the Carpenters’ dues money because the Carpenters had not yet to succumb to making the BCTD’s bloated and extortionate monthly tribute payments, the BCTD Defendants figured out a direct way to steal the Carpenters’ dues, members, jurisdiction and other valuable economic rights. The Plan was simple: take control of the Metal Trades Department and force it to revoke the Carpenters’ Charters and simply take for themselves the Carpenters’ property. 229. Nevertheless, the BCTD Defendants plan ran into a “little problem.”

The Metal Trades Department’s President initially opposed to such actions, because such actions were for unlawful extortionate reasons. Defendant Ault did not want to join, and he did not want the Metal Trade Department to be used as part of an illegal conspiracy, which casts considerable light on the conduct of the others who readily joined the illegal and extortionate conspiracy. Defendant Ault even wrote a detailed Memo explaining this to the BCTD Defendants and co-

124
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

conspirators. (“Admissions Memo,” Exh. “E” hereto.) In addition, President Giblin, who had earlier protested the BCTD’s conduct to the AFL-CIO with respect to Resolution 70 (see Paragraphs 142-155), also refused to join the unlawful extortionate conspiracy. 230. Undeterred, the BCTD Defendants wasted little time quickly

convincing Defendant Ault to change his position and join their conspiracy and attempted to keep Giblin out of the loop, taking actions without his knowledge or approval. With respect to Defendant Ault, the BCTD Defendants gave him an offer he could not refuse which was taken right out of The Godfather – either join the conspiracy and implement the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters or you will not be re-elected at the November 2011 Convention, when he was up for re-election. Without the full support of the BCTD Defendants, whose officers, delegates and members made up the electorate, Defendant Ault stood no chance of re-election. Faced with the stark reality of forced early retirement, Defendant Ault reluctantly joined the conspiracy, but once in it, he has worked tirelessly helping formulate further unlawful attacks and implementing the BCTD Defendants’ directions in their unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the

125
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Carpenters. 231. So instead of protecting his Metal Trades Department’s members

and their LMRDA and common law preserved rights, including those of the Carpenters and its members, Defendant Ault allowed them to be used as pawns by the BCTD Defendants in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. And, in November, 2011, in fulfillment of the quid pro quo, Defendant Ault was easily reelected at the convention held in Las Vegas with the full support of his BCTD coconspirator-Defendants. This violated NRS 207.295 (commercial bribery) and NRS 614.140 (bribery of labor representative). 232. The BCTD Defendants’ Metal Trades Department plan of attack

began in 2010 with a strategy developed by Defendants’ BCTD Committee and approved by the BCTD co-conspirator-Defendants. It was kicked off by a letter to Defendant Ault written by co-conspirator Finley (Plasterers) on or about November 22, 2010. In the letter, the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators demanded that the Carpenters be kicked out of the Metal Trades Department so the BCTD’s General Presidents could appropriate, as if they were slaves and fungible property, the Carpenters’ members, dues, jobs, property, assets, officer positions, and other rights of property and business.

126
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

233.

At the next Metal Trades Department meeting, on or about, March

17, 2011, Finley’s letter was discussed and acted upon by the Metal Trades Departments’ Executive Council, which was made up of the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators. The meeting was held at the Murray Green Conference Room at 815 16th Street, NW, Washington D.C. 234. At the meeting, Defendant Williams made the motion to revoke the

Carpenters’ Charters with the Metal Trades Department and Councils, kick the Carpenters out and give their members, dues, jobs, stewards and officers’ positions and other property and business rights to BCTD affiliates. The motion was seconded by co-conspirator Sullivan. Through Defendant Williams, the BCTD Defendants, then “directed” Defendant Ault “to brief BCTD President Ayers and to consult with Department legal counsel and report back.” 235. Defendant Ault was also directed to make recommendations about

which BCTD union would be assigned the Carpenters’ members, dues, jobs, officer positions, and other property and business rights. In addition, Defendant Williams, and the other BCTD General Presidents, agreed to indemnify the Metal Trades Department for all losses of income, including from the Operating Engineers that had threatened to withdraw if the unlawful and extortionate actions being discussed by the Defendants were implemented, and to pay for the costs of defending the legal actions that would inevitably ensue.

127
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

236.

Defendant Ault thereafter briefed Defendant Ayers and the Metal

Trades Department’s legal counsel about what the BCTD Defendants had ordered on March 17, 2011. The Metal Trades Departments’ attorneys then got to work researching ways to attempt legally to justify the legally unjustifiable extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters now wrongfully claimed and obtained by the BCTD Defendants. 237. On May 19, 2011, another Metal Trades Department meeting was

held. At this meeting the Metal Trades Departments’ attorneys, Matisoff and his partner Keith Bolek, attended. These lawyers explained how they would attempt to justify the BCTD Defendants’ extortionate demands. 238. After obtaining final approval by the BCTD Defendants, Defendant

Ault, on or about June 1, 2011, sent the Carpenters’ General President a letter giving notice that the Metal Trades Department was terminating the Carpenters’ Solidarity Charters effective on or after August 1, 2011. However, Defendant Ault naturally failed to be candid about his actions, the involvement of the BCTD Defendants, or the reasons for taking such unexplained and serious actions, because that would have involved telling the truth that he had joined an unlawful and extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters.

128
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

239.

Defendant Ault thereafter sent messages to all of the Metal Trades’

affiliates to take action against the Carpenters, according to his directions. Defendant Ault explained that he was personally coordinating all the Metal Trades’ related actions against the Carpenters Again, Defendant Ault omitted from his communications the illegal, extortionate, and conspiratorial reasons for revoking the Carpenters’ Charters, because that would have involved telling the truth that he had joined an unlawful and extortionate conspiracy against the Carpenters to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 240. On or around July 2011, Defendant Ault dispatched his assistants,

Lisa Johnson and James Seidl, to contact each Metal Trades Department Council to have them work on compiling recommendations as to which BCTD unions would be given the Plaintiffs’ rights to business and property. On or before September 7, 2011, Ault’s assistants came back with the recommendations, which were presented and approved by the BCTD’s Defendants and other BCTD’s Presidents at a Metal Trades Department meeting with full knowledge of the illegal, extortionate, and conspiratorial reasons behind their actions. 241. On or about September 7, 2011, the Metal Trades Department held

another meeting related to implementing the BCTD Defendants Push-BackCarpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the

129
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. Defendant Ault attended, as did numerous BCTD Defendants, including Defendant Williams (Painters) and co-conspirator Finley (Plasterers). During this meeting, Defendant Williams made a number of motions to further implement the Push-Back- Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, which all passed. First, it was decided and agreed that the BCTD Defendants would pay for the Metal Trades Departments’ current legal bills related to unfair labor practice charges that had been filed with the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Second, it was decided and agreed that the BCTD Defendants would accept Defendant Ault’s recommendations as to which BCTD Defendants would be given the Carpenters’ dues, members, jobs, officer positions, assets, property, business and other valuable property. Third, Defendant Williams also directed the Metal Trades Department to conduct an “affirmative campaign to explain the actions of the Metal Trades Department in the matter of the Carpenters in terms members would understand.” The reason the Metal Trades Department needed a publicity campaign was because the Carpenters still enjoyed a lot of support from the various Metal Trades Councils who did not understand why the Metal Trades Department was intentionally starting a fight with the Carpenters, particularly

130
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

since the Carpenters enjoyed good relations with all the Metal Trades Councils, as Defendant Ault admitted in his Admissions Memo. (Exh. “E.”) 242. In an amazing moment of candor, Defendant Williams admitted and

explained the most important reason the BCTD Defendants began and were conducting the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters – the Carpenters were not making monthly payments to the BCTD and Councils. Williams stated that “we all pay dues, we are affiliated and pay dues to the AFL-CIO and the [Building and Construction Trades] Department, plain and simple – if the Carpenters wants to get back, let them come back in and pay their fair share like the other affiliated organizations,” that is, given in to the and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy’s demands to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 243. Thereafter, as instructed by the BCTD Defendants, Defendant Ault

wrote a letter, dated September 26, 2011, to all the Metal Trades Councils in a futile attempt to explain the Metal Trades Department’s inexplicable conduct and its involvement in its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. Nevertheless, Defendant Ault intentionally omitted from his letter

131
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

the reasons why the Metal Trades Department kicked the Carpenters out, because Defendant Ault fully knew it was unlawful, extortionate, and conspiratorial, and there was no lawful reason for doing it. Nevertheless, with his re-election controlled by the BCTD Defendants he did as he was told to avoid unmasking the unlawful extortionate conspiracy. 244. Nevertheless, by the time of his re-election, and having learned that

the Carpenters were in possession of his Admissions Memo, Defendant Ault finally came clean during the Metal Trades Department November 2-3, 2011, Convention in Las Vegas, Nevada. There during their presentations, Defendant Ault and the Metal Trades Department’s General Counsel, co-conspirator Matisoff, both admitted that the Metal Trades kicked the Carpenters out because the BCTD Defendants had ordered it to injure the Carpenters in their business and property as part of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 245. In fulfillment of their promise to Defendant Ault, the BCTD

Defendants and BCTD’s Presidents fully backed and delivered Ault’s re-election. 246. BCTD Launches RespectOurCrafts: On or about March 19, 2011,

the BCTD Defendants launched a BCTD website solely devoted to attacking the Carpenters and its leaders and acting as the bulletin board for public updates for

132
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

the BCTD Defendants’ officers, agents, representatives and members on the progress of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. (See www.respectourcrafts.com.) The BCTD Defendants appointed co-conspirator Duane Moore as the National Director of the Respect Our Crafts part of the Campaign. Moore is an IBEW union official, and has been since 2005. The IBEW continues to pay his salary. Moore agreed to participate in and further the BCTD Defendants’ unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 247. According to Moore, “Respect Our Crafts is a cooperative effort by

all the Building Trades member unions to . . . and bring [the Carpenters back, ‘into the fold [in order to make them pay and continue paying the BCTD and Council monthly payments]!’ Without them we are weaker [including financially].” (See www.local57facts.com/.) 248. Moore describes his National Director role in the following

manner: “it is my responsibility to coordinate, assist and advise those Building and Construction Trades Department Affiliates who are under attack by the leadership of the Carpenters. Like Defendant Ayers, Moore has travelled to

133
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

various parts of the country speaking to dissident Carpenters and other trades to assist them in the BCTD Defendants’ unlawful extortionate efforts. For instance, Moore travelled to New Jersey to speak to a group of carpenter dissidents. The dissidents reported the meeting on their website explaining the support that the Defendants would give them in exchange for their support of the Push-BackCarpenters Campaign. (See local370voice.com.) 249. As part of the Respectourcrafts website, numerous BCTD

Defendants and co-conspirators have given videotaped interviews attacking the Carpenters to advance their unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 250. The following BCTD Governing Board of Presidents and other

senior Building Trades officials from around the country gave video interviews for the website as proof that they had all agreed to the unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters and to advance it: a. Defendant Ayers, President of Building and Construction Trades Department; b. Defendant Hill, International President of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers;

134
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

c.

Defendant Williams, General President of the International Union of Painters & Allied Trades;

d.

President of the United Association of Journeyman and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, William Hite;

e.

President of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsworkers, James Boland;

f.

International President of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, Newton Jones;

g.

General President of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Michael Sullivan;

h.

International President of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers, Kinsey Robinson;

i.

General President of the Operative Plasterers’ & Cement Masons’ International Association of the United States and Canada, Patrick Finley;

j.

General President Emeritus of the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Ironworkers, Joseph Hunt; and

135
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

k.

Various BCTD Council leaders, such as from Jerry Feldhaus (St. Louis,, Missouri), Lee Newgent (Seattle, Washington), John Mohlis (Portland, Oregon), and Bob Bagelnorth (California).

251.

In his interview, co-conspirator Hite, like Defendant Williams on

many occasions, expressed the goal of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to obtain an interest in or control over the Carpenters. Coconspirator Hite explains: “Hey, you know, if the Carpenters aren’t paying their fair share in the local building trades, they should be out of there. And by fair share, I mean the local building trades, whatever their stipend is that they pay for membership; and also, they got to be paying the national -- to the national building trades of solidarity, get a solidarity membership and pay the full boat to the national building trades. I mean, we pay – and every member that’s out there working, both the national building trades and the local building trades; and they don’t. That’s not fair.” 252. The BCTD Defendants have also used their unions from coast to

coast to advertise links to the BCTD’s Respect Our Crafts website as part of their unlawful extortionate conspiracy. See e.g., Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons, Local 478 – Kennewick, Washington (facebook.com/pages/OPCMIA-

136
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Local-478); IBEW (IBEW.org/newsroom (5/25/11)); IBEW (twitter.com @IBEW (5/26/11)); IBEW Local 1 – St. Louis (local57facts.com; local 57 blogspot.com (3/19/11)); IBEW Local 6 – San Francisco, California (facebook.com/pages/IBEW-Local-6); IBEW Local 42 – Manchester, Connecticut (ibew42.com/labornews); IBEW Local 86 – Rochester, N.Y. (ibewlu86.org); IBEW Local 100 – Fresno, California (ibew100.org); IBEW Local 110 – St. Paul, Minnesota (facebook.com/pages/IBEW-Local-110); and Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons, Local 797 – Las Vegas, Nevada (opcmianevada.org/top news (4/18/11)). The BCTD Defendants’ unions have also been used to advertise their various unlawful extortionate rallies, including the 600 person mass demonstration that shut down, impeded the normal work and/or prevented a planned event from taking place at the St. Louis Carpenters’ offices and the Unity Rally, and IBEW’s Local57facts website. See, e.g. IBEW Local 332 (Silicon Valley, California) (ibew332.org/index.cfm?zone=/unionactive/ view_article.cfm&homeID=184010). 253. The BCTD Defendants have also used their unions to post print and

videos attacking the Carpenters as part of their unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. See, e.g., Painters

137
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

(iupat.org/pages/about/channel1); IBEW (ibew.org . . . Carpenters Campaign). 254. These websites are designed and intended falsely to disparage the

Carpenters’ reputation as part of the BCTD Defendants’ unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. They give further evidence the wide-ranging unlawful extortionate conspiracy that the BCTD Defendants have put together against the Carpenters. 255. BCTD Defendants Invoke Resolution 70 to Charter Carpenter

Dissident Locals and Steal the Carpenters’ Confidential Membership Information: The BCTD Defendants’ most recent escalation of its Push-BackCarpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy is their implementation of Resolution 70. Because the BCTD Defendants, as a practical matter, are incapable of starting their own Carpenters union, they have resorted to chartering dissident Carpenters groups instead, as part of their unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 256. The BCTD Defendants have little or no ability to gain support or

organize non-union workers like the Carpenters did in St. Louis with respect to the non-union electrical workers it recruited, accepted, and trained. In fact, the BCTD Defendants preferred a predator method of organizing to force public

138
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

entities and others to enter Project Labor Agreements in order to force non-union companies to be union for one project, force non-union workers to join and pay dues for that project, force contractors to pay into their underfunded pension plans and health plan with little or no chance for these workers to ever actually collect any benefits, and to use the BCTD’s Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes to “steal” workers from the Carpenters when, in fact, the Carpenters, like a traditional union, have gone out to jobsites to organize these non-union workers like it did in St. Louis and elsewhere. For instance, the BCTD Defendants, through their CURE (California Unions for Reliable Energy) coalition routinely and repeatedly engage in a practice known as “Greenmail”, a spin-off of the traditional Blackmail. “Greenmail” is the abusive and extortionate tactic of filing environmental challenges as a way to (1) force financial settlements to fund further “environmental challenges” and (2) force end-users and/or construction owners to sign Project Labor Agreements that mainly benefit the BCTD’s unions. Once the extortion is complete, the BCTD Defendants’ environmental challenges are dropped. Thus, the BCTD Defendants falsely fly the green flag of the environmental movement to extort money, dues, and agreements. The Carpenters have criticized these methods of not going about the hard work of traditional unions, and they are viciously attacked by the BCTD Defendants for telling the truth: unlawful extortionate tactics are wrong – no

139
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

matter who or what uses them: the mob, a business, or a union. The law seeks, or ought to seek, one level playing field on which to compete. 257. In or about October 2011, the BCTD Defendants chartered a group

of dissident Carpenters who had started Carpenters Independent Local #1 (“Dissident Local #1”), located in Albany, New York. (www.carpentersindependent.com.) Dissident Local #1 has no contracts with any employers. 258. As part of the BCTD Defendants’ unlawful extortionate conspiracy

to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, the BCTD Defendants chartered Dissident Local #1 on behalf of the Painters. Even though Dissident Local #1 deceptively uses the Carpenters’ name, it is not a Carpenters’ local, but rather a local union now affiliated with the Painters union in Washington D.C. and the BCTD. 259. On October 12, 2011, Dissident Local #1 held its first meeting as a

chartered Painters’ local. President Williams and his son, Jim Williams, Jr., who is an assistant to his father and also serves as the Painters’ Director of Organizing, travelled all the way from Washington D.C. to Albany, New York, to attend the meeting. Defendant Williams spoke at the meeting. After the meeting, Defendant Williams gave a videotaped interview.

140
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

260.

During the interview, Defendant Williams stated he was there to

personally deliver a message from the BCTD Defendants and Respect Our Crafts. He stated that earlier in the day, the BCTD Defendants had met and “100%” supported, condoned, and ratified the actions taken by Dissident Local #1. In a letter from Defendant Williams to Defendant Ayers, dated December 15, 2011, Defendant Williams reiterated that, as part of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, including implementation of Resolution 70, the Painters have been “assisting groups of rank and file Carpenters in the formation of new local unions in the state of New York.” He also admitted that “these efforts have the support of the Carpenters Organizing Committee of the [BCTD’s] General Board of Presidents” That is, these groups have become a working tool of the unlawful extortionate conspiracy. 261. Not only did Defendants Williams and the BCTD Defendants

support what Dissident Local #1 was doing, their agents had been instigating, advising, condoning and/or ratifying Dissident Local #1’s unlawfully obtaining, accessing and/or theft of confidential documents and information, including membership lists, from the Carpenters and the Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters, to use in the unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business

141
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 262. In the summer of 2011, Defendant Williams and his agents recruited

Joanne Lein to join the unlawful extortionate conspiracy. Joanne Lein had been an office worker for the NRCC in Albany, New York. In exchange for a job with the Painters that had been promised to her by Williams and his son, Lein began to work for the Painters, the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 263. After explaining what was expected of her – steal the Carpenters’

confidential membership and proprietary information, so the BCTD Defendants, including the Painters, could use this information to attempt to steal dues-paying members away from the Carpenters, Lien agreed to join the unlawful extortionate conspiracy. Like the dissident Carpenters who protested some of the Carpenters’ internal restructurings, she did not like the Carpenters’ restructuring of its local unions in Albany and the greater New York area. 264. Co-conspirator Joanne Lein had been an office worker for the

NRCC in Albany, New York. Lein began working as an undercover spy for the Painters and Dissident Local #1, just like the Laborers’ Playbook of bad faith and unlawful tactics had suggested as a weapon against the Carpenters. The Painters

142
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

and Dissident Local #1 are competitors and enemies of the Carpenters and NRCC and seek to financially harm them and their interests, including gaining duespaying members at the Carpenters’ expense. 265. Through her position, co-conspirator Lein gained unauthorized and

unlawful access to the Carpenters’ membership database, which is not housed in New York, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030. On numerous days from June 1, 2011 to October 24, 2011, co-conspirator Lein improperly and without authorization, accessed databases containing confidential and proprietary membership information to which she had no business accessing, and downloaded this information for the BCTD Defendants. Lein ran Member ID Rosters and custom member exports that were downloaded from the Carpenters on-line access portal. Lein knew what she was doing was illegal because in order to access the information she had to make specific requests for information that was unnecessary for her job and information which she never would have any need to download on her computer. Lein did not have authority to access the computer information, use the information in any fashion or give it to competitors of the Carpenters. 266. Co-conspirator Lein’s access and disloyal conduct for the BCTD

Defendants violated both the NRCC’s Personnel Policies Manual and the New York faithless servant doctrine. The NRCC’s Personnel Policies Manual

143
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

provides, inter alia: 5(e). Computers and Internet NRCC’s computers, computer software, printers and Internet access system should be used only for businessrelated purposes and communications. NRCC has the right to monitor all computer usage. Therefore, you should refrain from storing any data or transmitting any messages which contain any personal, private or confidential information. 6. Confidential Information As an employee of NRCC, you will have access to highly confidential information such as union organizing strategies and tactics, potential organizing targets, and confidential union and contract information. No

employee, either during or after his or her employment with NRCC shall disclose, use, sell or distribute any confidential information except as necessary to the performance of his or her duties with NRCC or except as expressly authorized in writing by the EST of NRCC. 267. Without authorization, Lein downloaded confidential documents

144
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

and, on or about September 9, 2011, gave access to such information to the Painters and Dissident Local #1’s representative, co-conspirator Jimmy Avellino. Avellino was one of the dissident Carpenters who started Dissident Local #1. He and other Dissident Local #1 representatives has posted numerous YouTube videos explaining their hostility towards the Carpenters and motive for joining the unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 268. On or after October 18, 2011, the BCTD Defendants’ agents used

the unlawfully obtained confidential membership information to visit the homes of the Carpenters’ members in an effort to inveigle them away from the Carpenters. 269. After co-conspirator Lein was caught by the NRCC, she was fired

for what she had done. Immediately thereafter, Lien openly began working for Local #1. Because Lein violated the faithless servant doctrine, she was not entitled to her compensation, which was paid. This has caused the NRCC direct and proximate financial harm for having paid her during her subversive and disloyal activities on behalf of the Painters and Dissident Local #1. 270. Co-conspirator Lein’s actions were taken on behalf of the Painters

and Dissident Local #1, and the Painters and Dissident Local #1 instigated, supported, ratified, encouraged, and/or directed Lein’s actions. In fact, Defendant

145
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Williams provided Lein with access to and representation by the Painters’ paid attorneys, including the following: Richard Furlong, of the law firm, Lipsitz Green Scime Cambia, LLP, Buffalo, New York and Joseph Kolick, Jr., of the firm Dickstein Shapiro, to assist her and advise her unlawful conspiratorial actions. Kolick had also spoke at Local #1 meetings, including at the October 12, 2011, meeting at which Defendant Williams attended. Kolick’s office is in Washington D.C. They also tried to assist co-conspirator Lein in obtaining her job back. Their efforts were unsuccessful. 271. During the videotaped interview, after Defendant Williams

acknowledged that the BCTD Defendants were 100% in support of all the actions Dissident Local #1 had taken, including co-conspirators Lein’s actions, he went on to give an update on the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. Defendant Williams explained that he personally was very happy with the overall progress of the Campaign since Resolution 70 was passed. Defendant Williams said he has been fighting the Carpenters for the past 9 years trying to get them to “pay their fair share” to the BCTD and Councils. Defendant Williams stated that during those fights, he knew he could always get one of the BCTD Defendants to hold his coat. But now that Defendant Ayers, the BCTD and all their affiliates were part

146
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

of the conspiracy, he was particularly overjoyed because now he had a whole bunch of people who not only are willing to hold his coat while he fights, but now want to get in the fight with the Carpenters as well. In context of the violent conduct, vandalism, and breaches of privacy in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and an interest in a control over the Carpenters, these remarks could only be understood that the fight would include unlawful conduct, as it did. 272. In addition, within the past few months, National Director Moore

has travelled from Washington D.C. to New Jersey to speak at New Jersey Carpenters’ dissident group meetings. At these meetings Moore has promised and provided full BCTD Defendant support in exchange for their support of and active participation in the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. (See local370voice.com.) 273. Defendant Williams and the Painters’ attorney, Kolick, have also

travelled to New Jersey to assist and Charter another Carpenters’ dissident group calling themselves the Amalgamated Carpenters and Joiners Union, IUPAT. Angelo R. Bisceglie, Jr., a New Jersey attorney, who is being paid by the Painters,

147
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

lists himself on ACJU’s website as its representative, (http://www.amalgamatedCarpenters.com/, last visited on January 25, 2012). In addition, to providing and paying for his services, the Painters have also given the Dissident ACJU support through its own staff and its other paid attorneys. For instance, on or about December 16, 2011, Bisceglie has admitted that numerous other Painters’ paid attorneys have helped the Dissident ACJU: Daniel Clifton, of the firm Lewis, Clifton & Nikolaids, New York City; Warren Borish, of the firm Spear, Wilderman, P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Also assisting Dissident ACJU has been Jim Williams, Jr., and other staff and officials with the Painters. 274. The above statements and actions are not protected by the First

Amendment, but manifestly disclose the wide scope of the BCTD Defendants’ unlawful extortionate conspiracy to implement the Push-Back- Carpenters Campaign and evinces its unlawful character that is as a regular way of doing business, the conduct and operation of which has directly and proximately caused the Carpenters concrete financial damages to its business and property, as discussed below. C. Defendants Have Substantial Motive to Extort the Carpenters.

275. All Defendants have substantial, personal financial motives to extort the Carpenters. The motives of the BCTD Defendants (Ayers, Hill and Williams) have been amply stated by Defendant Williams – to extort the Carpenters by

148
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

making them pay – and continue paying – the BCTD and Councils monthly tribute payments in money, that is, property, in perpetuity, and unlawfully to take the Carpenters’ dues and membership. The sought after payments in money and property to be made by the Carpenters on the hundreds of thousands of their members would dramatically increase the BCTD’s and Council’s revenues. Increased revenues to the BCTD and Councils will enable these organizations to lavishly fund salary increases and pension and welfare benefits contributions to its officials, including Ayers and McGreavey, and to resume their lavish lifestyles, including their BCTD-paid use of private corporate jets, that had been a staple of the BCTD leadership over the years going back to Robert Georgine, a prior BCTD President, but stopped in 2009 because of the economic downturn. Increased revenues will also result in savings to the BCTD affiliate unions, including the IBEW and Painters, because their BCTD dues will be lowered and they will no longer have to spend the millions of dollars they claimed to have spent fighting the Carpenters allowing them to lavishly fund salary increases and pension welfare contributions to their officials, including Defendants Hill and Williams and co-conspirators Duane Moore and Stephen Schoemehl. 276. Compounding the high unemployment rate and accompanying loss of dues, the BCTD Defendants were also angry about having to spend millions of dollars fighting against the Carpenters, because the Carpenters began accepting

149
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

and training dues-paying members that the Defendants’ claimed, despite their pitifully inadequate organizing efforts, were their chattel and involuntary servitudes. For instance, co-conspirator Mike Sullivan (SMW General President, Ret.) has repeatedly bemoaned the “millions of dollars” spent “defending the rights of members who don’t want to be in the [Carpenters] union.” Similarly, Defendant Williams has bemoaned the millions the Painters have spent fighting the Carpenters, which a Painters’ official from Philadelphia said totaled over $9 million. Defendant Hill made similar statements about the costs incurred by the IBEW in resisting the Carpenters, and has worried that it could cost him millions as well. Defendant Ayers has said that the Carpenters have cost the BCTD and Councils substantial sums, as well. Little of this money would have been spent had they initially organized in their traditional areas more aggressively and successfully, provided better training to their signatory employers’ workforces, and better serviced the existing members. In addition, nowhere is it written that they have to lament that the Carpenters have more aggressively organized the unorganized in its cognate areas. If they do not change their organizing practices and become more successful with the unorganized, they will continue to watch over the downward demise of construction-union market-share in the United States that has been evident for decades. Nowhere is it mandated that they have the legal right or duty to conduct an unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the

150
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters to make up for their failures in the organizing area. 277. Over the Great Recession/Depression, through to the current weak recovery, construction employment has been, and continues to be, hit particularly hard, harder than virtually all other industries. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the construction unemployment rate went from 11% in 2008, to 18.2% in 2009, to 24% in 2010, and 2011 has not seen much, if any, improvement. Its unemployment rates are at depression levels. As recently acknowledged by the BCTD, “the U.S. construction industry continues to suffer unemployment rates approaching twice the national average.” (November 15, 2011, BCTD Press Release, Statement of Mark Ayers.) In certain areas of the country and in certain trades, the unemployment has been much more severe. For instance, during the Unity Rally Defendant Hill admitted that the unemployment for IBEW members in the St. Louis area was 35%. Such high unemployment has caused the BCTD Defendants to have a warranted fear that their unions’ funding will continue to be substantially and negatively impacted by the loss of dues caused by unemployment and lack of new organizing. 278. Coupled with their own loss of membership and dues, the BCTD Defendants’ unions must still pay the bloated BCTD and Councils per capita fees.

151
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

They must fund the BCTD’s astronomical salaries and excessive expenses. For instance, Defendant Ayer’s salary is over $400,000 and his partner, SecretaryTreasurer McGarvey’s, salary is over $337,000 (which is far above even the salary of the AFL-CIO President). (2010 and 2011 LM-2’s). In addition, as in the more prosperous past, they have continued to use private jets like the corporate elites they bash daily. Whether recession or not, the BCTD’s officials and employees need to paid, like the BCTD Defendants’ unions’ officials and employees, though not necessarily at the same rates. 279. In light of these economic realities, in brief, the Carpenters represent an enormous pool of money that the BCTD Defendants seek to obtain by their unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. To illustrate the amount of income the Defendants seek to obtain from the Carpenters alone, 12-monthly payments to the BCTD will exceed $3,000,000 per year based upon the $0.60 per member fee set out in its Constitution. Multiply these payments for even ten years and the amounts quickly skyrocket into tens of millions of dollars in monthly payments. The sudden influx of new payments would allow the BCTD Defendants to offset and reduce the costs of their unions. Thus, requiring, even by extortion, the Carpenters to make

152
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

monthly payments to them would result in substantial financial gains to the BCTD Defendants, their unions and the individuals themselves. 280. Similar financial circumstances confront the BCTD Councils. For instance, the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California receives payments of $0.025 per each hour worked for each union member working. The SWRCC, which would be forced to affiliate with the SBCTCC, has over 30,000 members in Southern California. Over the span of ten years, the SWRCC would have to pay in excess of $10,000,000. 281. Similarly, the Washington State Building and Construction Trades Council receives payments from its affiliate members of $0.04 per each hour worked for each member working. The PNRCC has over 12,000 members in Washington. 282. Simply multiplying these figures shows that perpetual payments by the SWRCC and the PNRCC quickly grow astronomical even by institutional standards to say nothing to comparing the figures to the wealth of under-employed Carpenters. The sudden influx of new payments will allow the BCTD Councils to increase salaries and pension and welfare benefits contributions, and their current contributing Building Trades unions to offset their current payments. 283. Accordingly, extorting these sums from the Carpenters that is, to pony up to the BCTD and Councils bloated monthly payments in perpetuity, would

153
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

offset the BCTD Defendants’ current BCTD and Councils’ financial obligations, cease requiring them to pay and continue paying millions of dollars to fight the Carpenters, and having the Carpenters turn over to them the dues-paying members the BCTD Defendants claimed belong to them would be a financial bonanza and is a goal of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign. 284. Defendant Ault also has a substantial financial motive to join and implement the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. Most fundamentally, Defendant Ault’s job, salary, and lifestyle was on the line if he did not go along, join and actively participate and implement the conspiracy. If Defendant Ault did not go along, he would not have been re-elected in November 2011 because the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators would not have supported him. Union Politics, for sure, but at bottom it was extortion of him as it presaged more extortion of the Carpenters. 285. Defendant Ault’s illicit reward for joining the unlawful extortionate conspiracy was that he received the full support of the BCTD Defendants and coconspirators, and was re-elected in November 2011 for another four years. In addition, Ault and his staff received a 2011 raise during the worst recession since the Great Depression.

154
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

II.

DEFENDANTS’ UNLAWFUL ATTACKS AGAINST THE CARPENTERS. A. Nature of Defendants’ Actions

286. The actions and events described below constitute acts and threats, express and implied, overt acts, and predicate acts engaged in by the BCTD Defendants with the specific intent to extort money, property, and business from the Carpenters to obtain it for themselves or to direct it towards others as well as to obtain an interest in and control over the Carpenters. Each such act or threat is separately chargeable as attempted extortion and/or extortion under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, Sections 186, 501 of the LMRA and the laws of a variety of States in which they occurred; they are punishable by imprisonment by more than a year under such laws. 287. The BCTD Defendants obtained and attempted to obtain the following specific property from the Plaintiffs for themselves and their affiliated unions, including those competing against Plaintiffs: a. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to make monthly payments to the BCTD and Councils, numbering over 100, and to continue making such payments in perpetuity; b. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) 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 2 3 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

dues-paying members, or otherwise do union business involving any craft work that Defendants and the other BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents determine do not belong to the Carpenters; c. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to allow the BCTD to exercise for the Carpenters their rights to recruit, accept and train dues-paying members; d. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to allow the BCTD to exercise for the Carpenters their rights to refuse to making monthly payments to the BCTD and Councils; e. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to enter into project and other agreements negotiated by the BCTD and Councils; f. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) agreeing to be bound to the BCTD’s Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes; g. The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to allow the BCTD to exercise for the Carpenters their rights to negotiate their own project agreements;

156
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

h.

The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100), to allow the BCTD to exercise for the Carpenters their rights to determine what jurisdictional dispute resolutions mechanism, if any, to be bound to;

i.

The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to give over to the BCTD and/or its designee any recruits and dues-paying members whom the BCTD Defendants determine belong to another union;

j.

The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to allow the BCTD Defendants determine which First Amendment protected protest activities and causes that the Carpenters can engage in;

k.

The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to allow the BCTD Defendants determine which political candidates and causes the Carpenters can support or oppose, financially and otherwise;

l.

The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to relinquish substantial autonomy and control over its business and union to Defendants;

157
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

m.

The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to relinquish substantial monthly dues from the Carpenters and/or its members;

n.

The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to give the BCTD Defendants considerable strategic, political and financial leverage when negotiating agreements because of control over the Carpenters’ substantial resources; and

o.

The Carpenters’ involuntary agreements (numbering over 100) to give the BCTD Defendants considerable strategic, political and financial leverage when supporting or opposing political candidates or causes because of control over the Carpenters’ substantial resources; and

p.

Resulting increased budgets for the BCTD and Councils, numbering over 100, and salaries and other benefits of Defendants Ayers, Ault and other union officials.

288. The BCTD Defendants have no lawful claim or any other claim of right to any of the money and other property extortionately demanded from the Carpenters. 289. The BCTD Defendants have obtained and seek to obtain more of the Carpenters’ money, other property, and business for themselves, the BCTD and

158
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Councils, and/or their designees, including Carpenters’ dues, members, jobs, officer positions, confidential information and other property and business rights obtained through operating and managing the BCTD and its Push-BackCarpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 290. Each of the actions and events described below was undertaken either by the BCTD Defendants themselves, or by and through their agents and with their actual knowledge, approval and/or ratification, as part of, and in furtherance of, the unlawful conspiracy alleged herein unlawfully to obtain money, property, and business from the Carpenters for themselves and others and, in fact, to acquire and maintain unlawfully an interest in or control of the Carpenters Enterprise, as described below, by interfering unlawfully and extortionately with Carpenters’ LMRDA and other independent rights, including its relations with the Metal Trades Department and Councils, relations with its business and union partners and attorneys, and in reference to the general public, by inflicting repeated, escalating and devastating financial injury upon the Carpenters to secure and maintain their unlawful objectives. The actions and events taken against the Carpenters were not isolated, but were related in that each has the same or similar purpose, participants, victim, and methods of commission and are designed to

159
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

obtain the same results by a regular way of doing business as manifested by the BCTD Defendants’ practices and outlined in the Playbook. 291. Accordingly, such actions and events constitute a pattern of repeated actions and events directed by the BCTD Defendants and their co-conspirators, against the Carpenters, in a closed, but substantial, period of time, commencing in or around October, 2008, after the Carpenters began recruiting, accepting, and training dues-paying members who performed electrical work, and continuing through and including to the present and threatening to continue indefinitely unless stopped by the actions of the Court. 292. The BCTD Defendants’ unlawful activity described herein independently poses a distinct threat of long-term continued criminal activity because Defendants’ current extortionate conduct constitutes its regular way of doing business as unions or union related entities and projects into the future with a clear threat of repetition, not only against the Carpenters, but any other union that defies their self-conceived jurisdictions and refuses to pay the BCTD and Councils’ bloated monthly tributes. Defendants have repeatedly admitted, as described herein, that they will continue to attempt to extort and extort the Carpenters until the Carpenters and their affiliates make their “contributions” to the BCTD and Councils, like an organized crime boss, by making bloated monthly tribute payments, and other “contributions” and continue in perpetuity, otherwise

160
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

the unlawful extortionate campaign will begin again and continue in perpetuity. In this regard, Defendants intend, and apparently intend in perpetuity, to attempt to extort and extort the Carpenters, and any other union or organization that defies them. Such conduct constitutes conspiracy to, attempt to, and extortion under the Hobbs Act, the LMRDA and applicable state law in which such conduct occurred. The number of locations where the Carpenters will have to pay involves over 100 locations throughout the United States, including within Washington State, for the BCTD has numerous Councils throughout the United States. Moreover, Defendants’ extortionate activities will not cease, even if they succeeded in obtaining initial agreements sought from each of the Carpenters. The initial agreement from the Carpenters that it and its affiliates make monthly payments to the BCTD and Councils must be renewed every month and never ceases. The same is true with respect to the other agreements as well. And, if such agreements are not renewed monthly, Defendants will resume using their extortionate pressure techniques to achieve such agreements from each of the Carpenters and its affiliates and any other union and union connected organization. Extortion is now part of their “playbook.” If it succeeds here, no one should think that it would not be done again. Why take a winning play out of your newly found playbook? It is painting extortion by the numbers.

161
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

293. The BCTD Defendants have no legal right or legal claim to the money, property, business, interest, and control of the Carpenters they seek to obtain by extortion. The Carpenters are not part of the BCTD, they do not want to pay and continue paying the BCTD and Councils their bloated monthly payments in perpetuity for anti-competitive services, rules, regulations and membership restrictions unrequested, unwanted and unnecessary, and they do not want to give over to the BCTD Defendants their dues-paying members as chattels or to surrender an interest in or control over the Carpenters. 294. Following Defendants’ initial “Unity Protest”, Defendants’ unleashed their multi-faceted extortionate attack on the Carpenters’ union and business interests, as described below and above. In planning, developing and executing the “Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign” and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, Defendants engaged in the following attempts to extort and extortion of the Carpenters B. BCTD Defendants’ Unlawful Threats of Violence, Vandalism and Demonstrations Against the Carpenters Around the Country Constitute Acts of Extortion.

295. As part of, and in furtherance of, the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire or maintain an interest in of control over the Carpenters,

162
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Defendants and/or agents instigated, supported, condoned, authorized and/or ratified threats of violence, violence and vandalism against the Carpenters including its representatives in Seattle, Washington, St. Louis Missouri, and southern California. 296. Seattle Threats of Violence, Violence and Vandalism: On or about October 17, 2011, the Carpenters were performing work at a job in Seattle, Washington, in front of the Plasterers’ training facility at the South Seattle College. On the job that day sugar was noticed in the bottom of the foundation footings on the west side of the project. Sugar is corrosive to the cement that would be poured if not discovered. In addition, wooden lath markers that had been placed in the ground were taken down and thrown around on the ground and the fence line, which surrounds the whole job site, had been torn open at the lock. Defendants’ agents had also surrounded the jobsite beginning at around 6:00 a.m., carrying signs saying they were from the Cement Masons, Laborers Union and Ironworkers. 297. On or about October 18, 2011, John Van Vynck, a member of the Carpenters and job superintendent, also went to speak to someone in charge about what was going on. After being directed to the person in charge, he asked what the sign stated. In response, Defendants’ agent put the sign in Van Vynck’s face, threw the sign down, and cocked his fist as if he were ready to strike Van Vynck.

163
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

298. Later that day, when Van Vynck was cleaning the parking lot, he observed that Defendants had placed brand new spike screws behind the front wheels of a vehicle driven by a member of the Carpenters, named Kenneth (last name withheld by Carpenters for safety reasons). There was only one other car in the entire parking lot, which contained dozens and dozens of parking spots. That vehicle was driven by an IBEW member and no spiked screws were placed under his vehicles’ tires. 299. Around the same time Defendants’ agents, as admitted to on the respectourcrafts website, had been in Seattle (and New York) distributing antiCarpenters’ stickers on various jobsites. 300. In response to complaints about vandalism and threats of violence on the job and towards its members, the Carpenters sent a number of representatives on or about October 19, 2011, to investigate. Jimmy Matta, Assistant to the Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters’ Executive-Secretary Treasurer, Pedro Espinoza, representative for the Carpenters, and a few other representatives, went to the job to investigate the threats of violence and vandalism. 301. Upon arriving at the job, Defendants’ agents, including Royal Robinson, Trustee of Plasterers Local Union #528 in Seattle, met the Carpenters’ representatives saying that “we really want you back in the building trades”,

164
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

which would require, inter alia, the Carpenters to pay – and continue paying – the BCTD and Councils monthly payments. 302. As the Carpenters’ representatives continued to check the jobsite for vandalism, a Laborers’ representative, believed to be Doug Strand, got in Pedro Espinoza’s face and said “Why don’t you go organize some Mexicans at restaurants?” Strand is a Vice President and Executive Board member of Laborers Local Union #242, Seattle, and attended the Playbook seminar put on by the Laborers’ associate General Counsel, Cuddy. Another Laborers’ representative, believed to be named Daryl, threatened violence against the Carpenters’ General President by threatening that “his skin need to be on this rat,” which was a giant rat balloon the Laborers routinely use. Later that morning, another Laborer representative nicknamed “Smiley” lunged at Espinoza in a violent and threatening manner, and Strand got in Espinoza’s face in a threatening manner in an attempt to intimidate and force the Carpenters to cease investigating the vandalism that Defendants had engaged in. 303. In 2009, in Seattle, Washington, the Carpenters were protesting a

contractor, Ed Diamond, that had forced Hispanic workers to use false names and training badges of others that falsely indicated that the workers had been properly training in hazardous materials. Such training was essential because the work was

165
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

being performed on an active EPA Superfund site containing arsenic, lead and other poisons. L&I eventually cited the company, Rain City, for its violations. 304. In and between May 29, 2009 and June 3, 2009, the Carpenters’ representatives were handing out fliers on Pier 66 in Seattle protesting the contractors’ actions. The Carpenters’ representatives included Jimmy Matta, Pedro Espinoza, Jimmy Haun and a few others. While the Carpenters were handing out their literature the BCTD Defendants’ agents rushed in numbers at the Carpenters’ representatives in an attempt to threaten and intimidate the Carpenters. The BCTD Defendants’ agents included Eric Gustafson of the Ironworkers Local Union #86 out of Tukwila. Gustafson and the others, including a Painters’ representative, said “They wanted the Carpenters back in the BCTD and Councils,” which would require the Carpenters to pay – and continue paying – the BCTD and Councils bloated monthly tribute payments. 305. St. Louis Threats of Violence, Violence and Vandalism: As described above in Paragraphs 156-164, in or around August 2009, April 2010, and December 2010 the BCTD Defendants and their agents made death threats and other threats of violence, committed violence and vandalism towards the Carpenters’ Local 57 members’ work vehicle, buildings and signs, and shut down the Carpenters’ offices as part of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the

166
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. C. BCTD Defendants’ Implementation of the Laborers’ Playbook of Bad Faith and Unlawful Tactics Through Pursuit of Frivolous Claims Against and Objections to the Carpenters’ Sponsored Apprenticeship Programs Constitute Acts of Extortion.

306. As set forth above in detail in Paragraphs 189-207, the BCTD Defendants, through their agents, have been implementing the Laborers’ Playbook of bad faith and unlawful tactics against the Carpenters and their sponsored apprenticeship training programs by filing false, baseless and frivolous charges and objections as part of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest in and control over the Carpenters. D. BCTD Defendants’ Stealing the Carpenters’ Confidential Membership Information in Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1080, the Faithless Servant Doctrine, and Rights of Privacy Constitutes Acts of Extortion.

307. As set forth above in detail in Paragraphs 261-271, the BCTD Defendants, through Defendant and co-conspirator Williams, and their agents, including Jimmy Avellino and co-conspirator Joanne Lein, gained unauthorized and illegal access to, and use of, the Carpenters’ membership database, giving such confidential and proprietary information in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1080, the faithless servant doctrine, and rights of privacy the Carpenters.

167
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

E.

BCTD Defendants’ Interference with Plaintiff’s Business Relations With Its Attorneys Constitutes Acts of Extortion.

308. Robblee, Detwiler & Black (“Robblee firm”) is a law firm located in Seattle that previously represented the Northwest Carpenters. As part of, and in furtherance of, the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, the Robblee firm terminated its long-standing relationship to the PNRCC, and has begun representing various BCTD affiliates unions, including the Painters, Plasterers and Ironworkers, against the Northwest Carpenters and its interests. The Robblee firm thereafter joined and participated in the extortionate conspiracy against Plaintiffs. 309. For decades, the Robblee firm represented the PNRCC. It acted as the Northwest Carpenters’ outside General Counsel, providing comprehensive legal advice and representation during litigation on virtually all matters including, but not limited to, personnel matters, contract negotiations, grievances, strike-related matters, and organizing matters. 310. Nevertheless, in or around October 2009, Robblee terminated its longstanding relationship with the Northwest Carpenters, effective immediately from all matters, including quitting representing the Northwest Carpenters in the middle of on-going, active cases.

168
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

311. For instance, the Robblee firm was representing the PNRCC in a personnel matter. The Northwest Carpenters were being sued in King County Superior Court by a former employee, Roger Daignault. Daignault v. Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters, King County Superior Court, Case No. 09-2-15934-3-KNT. Daignault claimed that he was wrongfully terminated from employment. In the middle of the lawsuit, the Robblee firm terminated its relationship with the PNRCC and filed a Notice of Withdrawal on October 19, 2009. At the time the Robblee firm filed its Notice of Withdrawal, a Motion for Reconsideration of an Order Granting the PNRCC’s Summary Judgment was pending. The Court granted the Motion for Reconsideration resulting in further motion work, and an appeal. 312. The reason given by Dick Robblee was that the Robblee firm’s Building Trades’ clients had economically threatened his firm. Robblee informed Doug Tweedy, the PNRCC’s Executive-Secretary Treasurer, and Cass Prindle, Assistant to the EST, during a meeting that was held in Robblee’s office that his other clients, at the behest of the BCTD Defendants and part of the Push-BackCarpenters Campaign and unlawful extortionate conspiracy, had given him an ultimatum: either terminate his firm’s business relationship with the Northwest Carpenters immediately, agree to cease ever representing them again and the Building Trades’ clients would immediately give his firm more work or all of his

169
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Building Trades’ clients would fire his firm. Robblee accepted the Building Trades’ promise of more work and fired the Carpenters immediately, even though it was in the middle of active matters. 313. Robblee represents virtually all of the Washington State Building Trades Unions, including the Washington State Building and Construction Trades Council, Seattle/King County Building and Construction Trades Council, Painters District Council 5 and its affiliates, IBEW Locals 46, 77 & 483, Plasterers Local 528, Ironworkers Local 86, Machinists Lodge 86, Plumbers Locals 26, 32 & 598, Roofers Local 54 and Sheet Metal Workers Locals 55 & 66. Robblee also represents the HAMTC and the Bremerton Metal Trades Council. Without these clients, the Robblee firm would have virtually no business. 314. The PNRCC incurred substantial increased costs due to the immediate withdrawal of the Robblee firm from its matters. 315. The Robblee firm has since begun representing its Building Trades’ clients against the Northwest Carpenters, including matters that they had previously not represented either the PNRCC or its Building Trades’ clients because of obvious conflict of interest disqualifications. For instance, the Painters, Plasterers and Laborers have been seeking to prevent the PNRCC from training drywall taping apprentices. (See Regulatory Harassment Section, Paragraphs 189-219.)

170
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

316. The Robblee firm at the time represented the Carpenters, Painters and Plasterers, so it abstained from representing any of these parties in the state regulatory proceedings. Nevertheless, once the Robblee firm fired the PNRCC, the Painters, Plasterers and Laborers brought the Robblee firm to represent these clients against its former client. 317. The Robblee firm’s conduct was ethically improper. They not only put their own financial interests ahead of their clients, they then represented adverse interests against their former client in matters that they previously did not do because of the obvious conflicts of interest. The Robblee firm’s conduct was part of, and in furtherance of, the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. F. BCTD Defendants’ Attempt to Control Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Rights Constitutes Acts of Extortion.

318. Over the years, unlike the BCTD Defendants, the Carpenters have not followed in lock-step support of the political candidates that the Democratic Party and the political causes that they have supported. Instead, the Carpenters have made an independent decision to support who, at the time, they believe is the best candidate for its members, whether that candidate be from the Democratic Party 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 2 3 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

members’ best interests, not just because they are in the interests of another union. In contrast, the BCTD Defendants and the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents support virtually all Democratic candidates and causes that benefit some of their more powerful members, even if those same causes hurt other members. 319. For instance, after the 2000 Presidential election, when Democratic candidate Al Gore lost and George W. Bush had been elected, the Carpenters began supporting his Presidency. In a public show of that support, the Carpenters’ President, McCarron, flew on Air Force One with the President and the President visited the Carpenters’ training centers and attended Carpenters’ functions, including a Labor Day picnic in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania in 2002. 320. The Carpenters also endorsed various Republican candidates for governor around the country, including Jeb Bush in Florida and Dick Posthumus in Michigan. Similarly, beginning in 2005, and continuing until his term ended in 2010, the Carpenters also supported Republican Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, including for his re-election in 2006. In late 2006, the Carpenters’ President, McCarron, attended a health care conference in Los Angeles hosted by Governor Schwarzenegger, which was followed up by an endorsement of Schwarzenegger for re-election in 2006 by the Carpenters’ Southwest Council’s 60,000 members.

172
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

321. In 2005, the Carpenters opposed, along with Governor Schwarzenegger, a power grab by the IBEW that tried to make only their craft eligible to work on prevailing wage solar panel projects. 322. In or around October 16, 2006, the Carpenters hosted an event at its Ontario, California training facility at which Governor Schwarzenegger was scheduled to attend. The event was part of the Grand Opening to the training facility. It is a state of the art training facility intended to show the construction industry that the Carpenters are serious and committed to spend its resources to provide its members the best training available. Training workers is something that Governor Schwarzenegger supported. 323. The BCTD Defendants and/or agents, including from the Painters and IBEW, used this event to stage a massive, violent protest against the Carpenters for their support of Governor Schwarzenegger and the President. There were over 100 protestors. They physically blocked the entrances to the training center to prevent attendees from entering. The ones that were able to enter were keyed by the BCTD Defendants’ agents causing property damages to their vehicles. Carpenters’ representatives’ cars and the cars of their trust fund trustees, including Curtis Conyers, were keyed, vandalized and damaged. Defendants’ agents threatened Carpenters’ agents, including but not limited to Dan MacDonald, with

173
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

threats of violence by saying such things as “I will kick your ass. You’re a pussy.” They bunched together in a show of force and intimidation while making such threats of violence. The police had to be called to quell the threats, violence and vandalism, and to force Defendants to open up ingress and egress. 324. The BCTD Defendant and/or agents made clear that they were protesting against the Carpenters’ support of Governor Schwarzenegger and President Bush, as well as against the Carpenters for not paying monthly tributes to the BCTD and Councils. There were signs that criticized the Carpenters’ support for Republicans, including President Bush and Governor Schwarzenegger. There were also signs criticizing the Carpenters for not being monthly duespaying members of the BCTD and Councils, including the Los Angeles/Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council and the State Building and Trades Council of California. As such, these actions not only interfered with the Carpenters’ First Amendment rights, but also were a prelude to the Push-BackCarpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters and evince the BCTD Defendants’ regular way of doing business. Because they were violent, the First Amendment affords them no shield of protection of civil liability for their conduct.

174
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

325. The Carpenters have also participated in petitioning government agencies over matters Defendants oppose. For instance, in California Defendants and/or agents have put together a group called CURE. CURE stands for “California Unions for Reliable Energy.” CURE is run under the auspices of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California by Bob Balgenorth. Balgenorth is an IBEW member, former IBEW local union official, and now is the President of SBCTCC. CURE unions only comprise three: the IBEW, Boilermakers and Plumbers. 326. CURE’s “mission is to provide” its three unions’ members jobs. The way it goes about doing so has been described as shameful and extortionate. CURE pretends to be an environmentally friendly group that seeks to protect the public from the ill-effects of energy construction projects. CURE files environmental challenges to delay and block such projects unless and until CURE obtains a Project Labor Agreement with the SBCTCC giving its unions the work. CURE’s lack of environmental concern has been blatantly exposed because, after being paid off in cash and a Project Labor Agreement, it drops all environmental challenges. Reports in the Los Angeles Times state that some of the pay-offs to CURE are as high as $400,000. CURE then uses this money for further extortionate environmental challenges. (Los Angeles Times, Labor coalition’s tactics on renewable energy projects are criticized., Marc Lifsher, February 5,

175
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

2011.) As of September 2010, Balgenorth claimed to have obtained 40 Project Labor Agreements as a result of CURE’s hostage-taking tactics. (SBCTCC Monthly Publication, Carpenters, Led by “Chainsaw” McCarron, Out to Destroy PLAs, Massacre Wages and Benefits, Bob Balgenorth, September 8, 2010. Even State Energy Commissioner Jeffrey Byron questioned CURE’s environmental bona fides: “It does strain credibility when you have an organization called CURE that is concerned with the desert tortoise and wildlife habitat and turns around and disappears when a project labor agreement is signed.” (Los Angeles Times, Labor coalition’s tactics on renewable energy projects are criticized., Marc Lifsher, February 5, 2011.) 327. Because of CURE’s extortionate tactics, which also violate Section 302 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 186 because employers give money or anything of value to labor organizations, the Carpenters (and other construction unions) have spoken against CURE’s tactics at agency meetings and to the media. For instance, on or about July 7, 2010, the Carpenters’ President sent a letter to Commissioner Robert B. Weisenmiller, California Energy Commission. The Commission was overseeing approval of construction of the Genesis Solar energy project. CURE was blocking approval through various environmental challenges while demanding a Project Labor Agreement before the project was even approved. In his letter, the Carpenters’ President “urged” the Commission to be “cautious of

176
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

any labor organizations that express opposition to these urgently needed renewable energy projects on environmental grounds.” The Carpenters’ President challenged CURE’s motives in seeking “to pressure developers and their chosen Contractors to sign outdated labor agreements that do not fit the needs of this newly emerging and evolving industry.” 328. On July 12, 2010, the Commission held a hearing at which numerous Carpenters’ officials and representatives spoke in support of the project and against CURE’s environmental extortion. Mike Draper, Vice President of the Carpenters, Western District, called CURE’s environmental challenges a “sham” to try to “beat up one of these utility companies or other contractors into signing Project Labor Agreements.” Dan Langford and Pat McGinn, representatives of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, also spoke. Langford said “Please don’t let a group that claims to represent labor, that really has questionable motives, delay this project any longer.” McGinn stated: “I’m asking you to not be fooled by thinly-veiled short term agendas that some people have.” Dan Curtin, representative of the California Conference of Carpenters, stated: “Any group that comes up here as a union group and talk to you about those kinds of issues (i.e., environmental), please take everything they have to say with a . . . grain of salt. . . . You do not need a CURE agreement to get renewable power plant sited in California. . . . Move off all of the things you’ve heard from the CURE group

177
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

about this environmental issue or that environmental issue. The motivation behind that is really inappropriate.” 329. The BCTD Defendants do not like the Carpenters’ opposition to the Democratic candidates they support with endorsements, financial contributions and/or resources, such as President Bush and Governor Schwarzenegger, and because the BCTD Defendants, particularly Hill with the IBEW, do not like the public exposure of CURE’s environmental extortionate tactics, particularly from the Carpenters, and criticisms over outdated project labor agreements. Because of this, Defendants have incorporated into their Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy a demand, along with their other demands, that the Carpenters give over to them the Carpenters’ decisions to support, financially and otherwise, and the actual financial and other support the Carpenters give candidates, and decisions to participate in public hearings surrounding CURE. As such, these actions not only interfered with the Carpenters' First Amendment rights, but also formed part of the Push-BackCarpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. As such, the First Amendment affords them no shield of protection against civil liability for their conduct. 330. To accomplish their unlawful extortionate demands, the BCTD

178
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Defendants and/or their agents have written and posted numerous articles criticizing the Carpenters’ support of Republican candidates and opposition to the extortionate tactics of CURE. Such articles have been posted and/or incorporated by hyperlink on respectourcrafts.com, local57facts.com and candaele.com/actogether. For instance, respectourcrats.com refers viewers to the Actogether website, under the title: ACTogether: Against Carpenters TOGETHER, which is a Painters’ website. There the BCTD Defendants post articles critical of the Carpenters’ support of “Republicans”, including President Bush, Governor Bush and Governor Schwarzenegger. Respectourcrafts also has articles criticizing the Carpenters’ opposition to CURE, including “Carpenters Union President Attacks CURE.”, “Carpenters Testimony Attacking CURE,” and “Carpenters Escalates Attack on CURE.” Respectourcrafts and Local57facts posts an article by Balgenorth critical of the Carpenters’ opposition to CURE, entitled “Carpenters, Led by ‘Chainsaw’ McCarron, Out to Destroy PLAs.” These articles were last reviewed on January 25, 2012. 331. The Carpenters spend and commit millions of dollars in money, time, personnel and resources across the country in support of and/or in opposition to political candidates, causes and government action. The BCTD Defendants see that as an enormous source of money and resources that they should be able to control and use for their own political purposes.

179
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

332. The BCTD Defendants have made clear that part of, and in furtherance of, the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest in and control over the Carpenters, they intend to take over and control Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, as expressed in financial, personnel and resource commitments, to select, support, and oppose particular political candidates, causes, and government actions. Once the BCTD Defendants have forced Plaintiffs “back in the fold” sitting at the “family table” through bloated monthly payments and continuing payments to the BCTD and Councils, the Defendants intend to acquire an interest in and control over Plaintiffs’ unions and exercise Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, themselves. 333. By forcing the Carpenters to give over to the BCTD Defendants its valuable First Amendment rights, Defendants would receive considerable strategic, political and financial leverage and substantially increased power and prestige, particularly dealing with politicians and others. This is because Defendants would have, for their own political agendas and purposes, control over the millions of dollars in assets, personnel and resources that the Carpenters expend every year. As such, these actions not only interfered with the Carpenters’ First Amendment rights, but also formed part of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and

180
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, so that they could control for themselves the Carpenters’ own First Amendment rights to support whomever they want, whenever they, and however they decide for themselves. G. Defendants’ Attempt to Control Plaintiffs’ Rights to Negotiate Contracts on Their Behalf Constitutes Acts of Extortion.

334. As indicated above, the BCTD Defendants do not like the Carpenters not being under their control. They do not like the Carpenters’ public opposition to Project Labor Agreements with government agencies and contractors, and refusals to sign such agreements, including but not limited to in Washington state and California. 335. The Carpenters object to the BCTD’s negotiating agreements on their behalf and without their input, including their mandatory inclusion in all their negotiated Project Labor Agreements the BCTD’s Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Construction Industry. The Carpenters know that the Plan is biased and outdated. It is biased because it is administered by the IBEW and BCTD’s attorney, Resnik. It is also biased because it uses criteria that give unions work when such unions do not represent the majority of workers. For instance, even though in Southern California the Carpenters have been representing plasterers for over a decade, represent the majority of contractors 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 2 3 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

Plasterers pay, and have a certified training program, the Plan is nonetheless used to obtain work for the Plasterers. 336. In addition, the Plan has been repeatedly amended by the BCTD Defendants, including recently as part of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, specifically to target the Carpenters including financial disincentives and burdens to challenge awards even when they are unlawful. For instance, the BCTD Defendants amended the Plan to permit damages against a union should an award not be complied with in 7 days. These amendments were implemented in May 2011. The BCTD Defendants had earlier made other amendments targeting the Carpenters, including in December 2008 to provide for an award of attorneys’ fees for a party who successfully enforces a Plan award but not for a party who successfully sets an award aside. 337. In or around September 2011, the Carpenters refused to sign a Project Labor Agreement negotiated by the Los Angeles/Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council and the City of Long Beach. In or around May 2011, the Carpenters refused to sign a Project Labor Agreement put together by the Seattle/King County Building and Construction Trades Council for a project being performed by General Contractor, Lease Crutcher Lewis, WA LLC. These

182
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

proposed Project Labor Agreements contained the Plan, which the Carpenters find objectionable. In or around January 25, 2012, the Carpenters sent a Notice to all local Government Officials in and around St. Louis, Missouri, informing them of the Carpenters’ opposition to Project Labor Agreements. 338. Because of the Carpenters’ opposition to the PLAs, the BCTD Defendants incorporated into the Push-back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy another demand, in addition to others alleged herein, that the Carpenters agree to, without input or alteration, any and all PLAs BCTD Defendants and/or agents can negotiate; so stated, the demand is an effort to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, the exercise of which goes to the heart of any union organization seeking to represent its membership for the benefit of its membership and not the interest of others. 339. To accomplish their goals, the BCTD Defendants have posted stories critical of the Carpenters’ opposition to their PLAs, including articles on respectourcrats.com. For instance, the BCTD Defendants have posted articles, “Carpenters Attempt to Disrupt PLA At Long Beach Airport,” “Carpenters Union Continues to Picket Over Airport Expansion”, and “Carpenters Led by ‘Chainsaw’ McCarron, Out to Destroy PLAs.” These articles are critical of the Carpenters’ refusal to sign PLAs and are being used by BCTD Defendants to keep

183
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

their agents motivated to continue attacking the Carpenters as part of the PushBack-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 340. By forcing the Carpenters to give over to BCTD Defendants authority to negotiate PLAs on behalf of the Carpenters, the BCTD Defendants would receive considerable strategic, political and financial leverage and substantially increased power and prestige, particularly dealing with public agencies and others considering entering into PLAs (along with the increased monthly BCTD and Council bloated payments and contributions to their benefits plans). This is because the BCTD Defendants can once again claim they represent the Carpenters, they can prohibit the Carpenters’ First Amendment protected activities, and can provide the best trained workers for the entire job because the Carpenters are included. 341. Of equal or greater importance to the BCTD Defendants though is that by taking over the Carpenters’ authority to negotiate Project Labor Agreements, the BCTD Defendants obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters’ jurisdiction, members, dues, trust fund contributions for pensions, health and training, and can give these to their affiliates, including but not limited to the Plasterers and the

184
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Painters, through the Plan. H. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa’s Violations of Section 501(a) of the LMRDA and Common Law Fiduciary Duties Also Constitute Acts of Extortion.

342. Section 501(a) provides that “officers, agents, shop stewards, and other representatives of a labor organization occupy positions of trust in relation to such organization and its members as a group.” 29 U.S.C. § 501(a). Accordingly, individuals holding such positions in a labor organization owe fiduciary duties to its members, including the right to the honest and faithful services of covered persons. 343. Common law fiduciary breach claims are expressly saved from preemption. 29 U.S.C. § 523(a). 344. The fiduciary duties imposed by Section 501 and the common law are very broad. These duties include the duty of loyalty to the organization and its members and apply to any and all covered persons’ actions and activities. Section 501 also specifically includes the following: (1) holding, managing and expending the union’s money and property solely for the benefit of the organization and its members; (2) managing and expending the same in accordance with the union constitution, bylaws and any resolutions there under; and (3) refraining from dealing with the union as an adverse party or on behalf of an adverse party in any matter connected with the covered persons’ duties.

185
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

345. A “labor organization” includes any organization of any kind, any group or any association in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or part, of dealing with employers concerning representation, grievances, wages, pay, hours or other terms and conditions of employment, or joint council which is subordinate to a national labor organization. 29 U.S.C. §402(i). 346. An “officer” includes any constitutional officer, any person authorized to perform the functions of various positions of a union, and any member of a union’s executive board. 29 U.S.C. §402(n). 347. The LMRDA defines person to include individuals and labor organizations, 29 U.S.C. § 402(d); members of labor organizations are defined to include persons, thus including both individuals and subordinate labor organization members, 29 U.S.C. §402(o). 348. At all relevant times, the Carpenters and their members, including the individual Plaintiffs, are members of the Metal Trades Department and Councils, including but not limited to HAMTC, by virtue of their participation and/or positions in the Councils’ governing bodies and/or payment of per capita fees to these Metal Trades’ labor organizations.

186
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

349. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa are covered persons under the statute and owe fiduciary duties by virtue of their positions and authority under the common law. Defendant Molnaa is an officer of the HAMTC. 350. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams are officers of the Metal Trades Department. 351. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams are agents and/or other representatives of the Metal Trades Department’s Councils, including HAMTC, by virtue of their having instigated, directed and controlled their actions in relation to the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and in control over the Carpenters. 352. Defendant Ault, by virtue of his position as President of the Metal Trades Department, and Defendants Hill and Williams, by virtue of their positions on the Metal Trades Department’s Executive Committee, are also “officers” to the various Metal Trades Department’s Councils within the meaning of the statute because these Defendants were authorized to perform, and performed, the various functions, of the subordinate organizations’ officer positions through their directions and control over the subordinate organizations. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams, through Ault, gave directions to the Metal Trades Department’s Councils’ Presidents that had to be followed because Defendant Ault threatened to

187
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

appoint a trustee over any subordinate Metal Trades Council, and remove any officer, who did not follow his direction and orders, per his authority under Section 13 of the Metal Trades Constitution. For instance, Defendant Ault threatened Quinton Jones, President of the Tidewaters Metal Trades Council, in Virginia, on or about August 30, 2011, and Molnaa, President of HAMTC, on or about September 15, 2011, that they had better follow Ault’s directives and orders or they would be removed and their Councils placed under Ault’s control. One of the duties of the Councils’ Presidents is to act as Chairman and Spokesperson of the collective bargaining agreement Negotiating Committee. (See, e.g., HAMTC By-Laws, Article IV, Section 1.) Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams also instructed and directed each Council to forward and/or direct all Plaintiffs’ communications, correspondence or questions related to them and/or the PushBack-Carpenters Campaign to Ault at the Metal Trades Department headquarters in Washington D.C. for Defendants to coordinate and respond for the Metal Trades Department and Councils. In addition, Defendants dictated and imposed terms of the various collective bargaining agreements, including but not limited to who could be job stewards, which members would be entitled to perform job assignment, which local unions could receive dues, union security rights and jurisdiction over the work assignments. In addition, Defendants dictated enforcement of the rights and responsibilities of the Council’s elected and

188
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

appointed officers, including the right to speak at meetings, vote on matters, rights held by the Councils’ President. (See, e.g., HAMTC By-Laws, Article V, Section 6.) Consequently, Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams became authorized to perform and did the functions of the various officers of the Metal Trades Departments’ Councils. 353. Defendant Ault, by virtue of his position as President of the Metal Trades Department, and Defendants Hill and Williams, by virtue of their positions on the Metal Trades Department’s Executive Committee, were also “officers” to the Carpenters that are affiliated with and represented by the Metal Trades Department and Councils within the meaning of the statute because these Defendants were authorized to perform, and did perform, the various functions of the Carpenters’ officer positions. One of the duties of the Carpenters’ officers (e.g., President) is to appoint representatives to participate in negotiating collective bargaining agreements with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, to police agreements, investigate complaints and pursue grievances, and all other aspects of collective bargaining. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa are also agents and/or other representatives of Plaintiffs’ affiliated and represented labor organizations and their members. 354. Based on these responsibilities, the BCTD Defendants, through Defendant Ault, have instructed all Councils that during collective bargaining

189
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

agreement implementation and/or negotiations with employers on behalf of the Metal Trades Department, Councils, the Carpenters, and their members, they are to remove any and all rights that the Carpenters and members have, including but not limited to the rights to dues, to refer dues-paying members, to enforce unity security clauses, to be represented by the Carpenters, to train members, to be trained by the Carpenters, to maintain the Carpenters’ jurisdiction over work assignments, to work in the Carpenters’ jurisdiction, to appoint job stewards, to be represented by Carpenters’ stewards, to jobs and particular work assignments, and/or to the opportunity to recruit dues-paying members or be dues-paying members of the Carpenters. 355. As part of, and in furtherance of, the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest in and control over the Carpenters, Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams (and the other Metal Trades Executive Council Members) violated their Section 501 fiduciary duties owed to the Metal Trades Department, Councils, and their members, including Plaintiffs, and Defendant Molnaa (and the other HAMTC Executive Council Members) violated his Section 501 fiduciary duties owed to the HAMTC and its members, including Plaintiffs. 356. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams operated and managed the Metal

190
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Trades Department, Councils and the Carpenters in violation of their Section 501 fiduciary duties, and Defendant Molnaa operated and managed the HAMTC in violation of his Section 501 fiduciary duties. 357. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs by taking the actions listed below. Such actions were not taken because they solely in the interests of the Metal Trades Department’s, Councils’ and the Carpenters’ members’ interests, but because the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators directed and ordered it as part of their Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest in and control over the Carpenters. Therefore, the actions taken, and the reasons for taking such actions were in bad faith and in total abdication of their duties as labor organization officials, agents and/or representatives to the Metal Trades Department, Councils and the Carpenters. 358. Prior to Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa taking the actions set forth herein, Plaintiffs and its members had the rights to participate in the affairs of the Metal Trades Department and Councils, including the HAMTC, including but not limited to attending meetings, having a say at meetings, obtaining information, etc. Plaintiffs’ members had the right to maintain membership with the Carpenters. The Carpenters had rights to represent its

191
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

members, to obtain and refer dues-paying members to work, and to its traditional jurisdiction. Plaintiffs had the right to nominate, vote and/or be appointed or elected to positions of stewards, delegates, agents and other representatives to the Metal Trades Department’s Councils, including the HAMTC. Plaintiffs had the right to participate in the collective bargaining process, including negotiations, with employers. 359. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa breached their fiduciary duties to the Metal Trades Department, Councils, the Carpenters and their members, including Plaintiffs, by taking the following actions at the direction, or under the control of, and for the benefit of the BCTD and its Governing Board of Presidents: a. managing the Metal Trades Department’s and Councils’ assets or property, including negotiating agreements with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, policing agreements, pursuing grievances, and all other aspects of collective bargaining; b. revoking Plaintiffs’ Solidarity Charters with the Metal Trades Department and Councils; c. managing the Carpenters’ assets or property, including negotiating agreements with respect to wages, hours, and other

192
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

terms and conditions of employment, policing agreements, pursuing grievances, and all other aspects of collective bargaining; d. taking away the Carpenters’ opportunity or right to recruit, obtain, retain, refer and/or train dues-paying members to work, and giving the same to other unions; e. taking away the Plaintiffs’ rights to nominate, select, vote on and/or hold officer positions in the Metal Trades Department’s Councils; f. refusing to process Plaintiffs’ members’ applications in order to prevent the deduction of dues from the members’ check; g. removing, suspending or expelling Plaintiffs and their members, including their stewards, delegates, agents, officers and other Metal Trades’ representatives, of the Metal Trades Department and/or Councils, and giving the same to other unions; h. prohibiting the Plaintiffs from appointing or being job stewards, delegates, agents, officers, and other Metal Trades’ representatives, of the Metal Trades Department and/or Councils, and giving the same to other unions;

193
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

i.

informing new recruits that they cannot be members of the Carpenters in order to be represented on the job;

j.

directing and/or requiring Plaintiffs’ members – some under compulsion of forced termination and/or removal from their jobs – to join and pay dues to other unions in order to retain their jobs, positions and/or obtain representation;

k.

carving up Plaintiffs’ historical representation, work jurisdiction and job-related and Metal Trades-related positions and giving the same to other unions;

l.

refusing to respond to Plaintiffs and its members’ requests for, or access to, information related to their membership status;

m.

depriving Plaintiffs and its members information related to the revocations and the right to participate or have a voice in the decision on whether to revoke the Solidarity Charters,

n.

misleading Plaintiffs and its members about the real reasons for the Metal Trades’ conduct towards the Plaintiffs;

o.

taking away from Plaintiffs and their members the opportunity and/or right to participate in representation of their members, including but not limited to with respect to policing their agreements, job sites and/or participating in their members’

194
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

grievances, including preparing their members’ grievances, having a seat when meeting with the employers over their members’ grievances, attending grievance meetings or hearings, participating in prescribing rules of procedure with respect to handling of grievances, giving reports to the Executive Committee on their members’ grievances; p. taking away from Plaintiffs and their members the opportunity and/or right to participate in preparing for and participating in collective bargaining agreement negotiations, to have a seat when meeting with the employers, to have advisors from their International be able to attend in an advisory capacity, to participate in prescribing rules of procedure with respect to collective bargaining agreement negotiations, to vote on collective bargaining agreement ratifications, and/or to participate in the authorization of separate Council discussions related to collective bargaining; q. taking away Plaintiffs and their members the opportunity and/or right to attend the Metal Trades Department’s November 2011 convention, and to attend, participate in, have a say at Metal Trades Councils’ meetings;

195
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

r.

threatening any Metal Trades Council official that he or she would be removed from office and that their Council would be placed under trusteeship if they did not comply with the directives and orders of the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents as implemented by Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams; and/or

s.

expending the Metal Trades Department’s and Councils’ money, personnel and assets in formulating, implementing, managing and operating the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and acquire and maintain an interest in or control over the Carpenters.

360. In taking the above actions, Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa dealt with the Metal Trades Department, Councils, the Carpenters and their members as an adverse party or in behalf of the BCTD, its Governing Board of Presidents and their affiliated unions, whose interests were and continue to be adverse to the interests of the Metal Trades Department, its Councils and its members, including Plaintiffs, something Defendant Ault admitted to in his Admissions Memo. 361. In taking the above actions, Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and

196
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Molnaa dealt with the Plaintiffs’ affiliated and represented labor organizations and members as an adverse party or in behalf of the BCTD, its Governing Board of Presidents and their affiliated unions, whose interests were and continue to be adverse to the interests of the Metal Trades Department, its affiliated Councils and its members, including Plaintiffs, something Defendant Ault admitted to in his Admissions Memo. 362. In taking the above actions, Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa have expended and used the Metal Trades’ money, property and assets, not to benefit the MTD, its affiliated Councils or its members, but rather to solely benefit the BCTD, its Governing Board of Presidents and their affiliated Building Trades Unions. 363. The Metal Trades Department’s, Councils’, the Carpenters’ members’ interests lay in keeping the Plaintiffs a part of the Metal Trades, as explained in Defendant Ault himself in this Admissions Memo. Their interests did not lay in being used as a weapon, devise or tool for the BCTD and its Governing Board of Presidents in non-Metal Trades disputes. Their interests did not lay in taking the above-actions, including but not limited to kicking out or punishing the Plaintiffs, because the BCTD and its Governing Board of Presidents want to extort the Carpenters into making and continue making monthly payments to the BCTD and its Building Trades-affiliated Councils.

197
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

364. In formulating, implementing, managing and operating the Metal Trades-related scheme part of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest in and control over the Carpenters, Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams have used, managed and expended Metal Trades’ resources, including but not limited to computers, correspondence, phones, faxes, Ault and his staff’s time, which are paid for by the Metal Trades Department. 365. At the direction of Defendants Hill, Williams and himself, Defendant Ault has made phone calls, sent letters, has had his staff make phone calls, draft letters for his signature, send letters, faxes and/or emails themselves using Metal Trades Department’s phones, computers, and office staff, and enlisting the assistance of the Metal Trades Department legal counsel, Bob Matisoff, O’Donoghue & O’Donoghue. For instance, on Metal Trades Department letterhead, Ault sent to the Carpenters a Notice of Revocation, that was typed by his assistant, Lisa Johnson, and copied to Matisoff, who is paid for his time by the Metal Trades Department for his time. Defendant Ault’s assistant Johnson, at his direction, also had a phone call on or about July 18, 2011, with a Carpenter representative named Walter Murcia, about the consequences of the actions taken or to be taken by the Defendants.

198
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

366. Similarly, Defendant Ault sent another letter on Metal Trades Department letterhead, related to its actions against the Plaintiffs dated September 26, 2011, that was drafted by his assistant Lisa Johnson. This letter was in response to the directive to Defendant Ault by the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents at Metal Trade Department meeting that took place on or about September 7, 2011, to begin a publicity campaign attempting to explain the Metal Trades’ conduct towards Plaintiffs. Nevertheless, nowhere in the letter did Defendant Ault ever actually explain the reasons, like he had in his Admissions Memo. This was because he was afraid to admit the truth or contradict the truth since he had already admitted in writing the reasons. So Defendant Ault merely attempted to omit the truth by omitting the reasons. 367. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams have also used Metal Trades Department resources, including use of its attorneys, on numerous other occasions. For instance, during a March 17, 2011, Metal Trades Department meeting that was held at the Murray Green Conference Room at 815 16th Street, NW, Washington D.C., in which Defendant Williams participated by phone through a number set up and paid for the Metal Trades Department, the decision was made by the BCTD General Presidents to revoke the Plaintiffs’ Charters with the Metal Trades Department and Councils. 368. Defendant Ault was also directed at this meeting by Defendants Hill

199
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

and Williams (and the other BCTD General Presidents) to brief the BCTD President, Defendant Ayers, about their decisions, and to consult with the Metal Trades Department’s legal counsel regarding implementation of their unlawful decisions and report back those consultations. Defendant Ault was also directed to make recommendations about which BCTD union would be assigned the Plaintiffs’ members, dues, jobs, and other rights. 369. In follow through, on or around July 2011, Defendant Ault dispatched his assistants, Johnson and Seidl, to contact each Council affiliate to have them work on compiling recommendations as to which unions would be given the Plaintiffs’ rights. Johnson and Seidl used Metal Trades Department and Councils’ resources, including computers, phones, paid staff time, and money making contact with the Councils and compiling the recommendations. These recommendations were typed on Metal Trades Department computers using Metal Trades Department staff time and sent by email on or about July 31, 2011, to various BCTD General Presidents. 370. On or about September 7, 2011, at another Metal Trade Department meeting, Defendant Ault’s recommendations as to the recipients of the Plaintiffs’ rights were approved by the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents. 371. Defendant Ault also spent his Metal Trades Department-paid time to brief Defendant Ayers and the Metal Trades Department’s legal counsel about

200
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

what the BCTD General Presidents had instigated, ordered and directed on May 19, 2011. The Metal Trades Departments’ attorneys then spent their time, which is paid for the Metal Trades Department, to research the implantation of the unlawful actions directed by the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents. On May 19, 2011, at another Metal Trades Department meeting, the Metal Trades Departments’ attorneys, Matisoff and his partner Keith Bolek, explained their purported strategies on how Defendants should formulate, implement, manage and operate the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, as it related to the predetermined decisions and directions. 372. Similarly, Defendant Molnaa has used his time, his staff’s time, and the HAMTC’s resources to implement, manage, and operate the Push-BackCarpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, as ordered by Ault. Defendant Molnaa and his staff are paid by the HAMTC. For instance, by September 7, 2011, Molnaa had expended HAMTC staff and resources to recommend how the Plaintiffs’ rights would be given over to other unions. In addition, on October 25, 2011, Molnaa wrote a letter on HAMTC letterhead to H.A. Parker Jr., business manager of

201
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Carpenters Local 2403, located in Kennewick, Washington, purporting to further explain the consequences of HAMTC’s decision to revoke the Charter of the Carpenters local. Defendant Molnaa has also used his time consulting with Defendant Ault and responding to questions from various Carpenters’ members about the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 373. Defendant Ault and Matisoff also spent Metal Trades Department time and resources briefing the delegates at the November 2011 Convention that was held in Las Vegas, Nevada. During Matisoff’s legal report, he admitted that the Plaintiffs were retaliated against because of issues related to the BCTD and its affiliate building trades’ unions. Defendant Ault also stated that such issues included the fact that the Carpenters have recruited, accepted and trained duespaying electrical workers in St. Louis, Missouri and Southern Illinois, locations where the Metal Trades Department has no presence, Council or representation responsibilities. 374. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa took these actions because the BCTD and its Governing Board of Presidents instigated, directed and ordered it be done as part of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy in an effort to extort Plaintiffs into turning over their

202
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

business and property and to acquire and maintain an interest in and control over the Plaintiffs. Defendants’ conduct was thus the direct means that they used against the Plaintiffs in order to force the Carpenters to give in to the Defendants’ extortionate demands. Such actions were not taken for any legitimate Metal Trades-related reasons. 375. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa took the above actions in connection with their official duties as officers, agents or representatives of the Metal Trades Department, Councils, including the HAMTC, and the Carpenters for reasons that violated their fiduciary duties under Section 501 and the common law. I. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams’ Violations of Section 501(c) of the LMRDA Constitute Independent Predicate Acts and Also Acts of Extortion.

376. Section 501(c) prohibits “any person” from unlawfully and willfully abstracting or converting to his own use, of the use of another, any moneys, funds, property, or other assets of a labor organization of which he is an officer, or by which he is directly or indirectly employed. 377. Conversion includes the wrongful misuse and abuse of money, funds, property or other assets held or controlled by a covered person. 378. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams are directly employed by the Metal Trades Department. Defendant Ault is employed as the President of the

203
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Metal Trades Department and Defendants Hill and Williams are employed as members of the Metal Trades Department’s Executive Council. 379. Defendant Ault is also indirectly employed by the Carpenters that paid the Metal Trades Department per capita payments for representation by the Metal Trades Department and Councils, including for purposes of collective bargaining, negotiating agreements with employers with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, policing agreements, pursuing grievances, and all other aspects of collective bargaining. From these payments, Defendant Ault is paid. Consequently, Ault is indirectly employed by the Carpenters. 380. As set forth above in Paragraphs 351-355, Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams held or controlled moneys, funds, property, or other assets of the Metal Trades Department and Councils, and unlawfully and willfully abstracted or converted the same to their own use and/or for the use of another. They wrongfully misused and abused the money, funds, property or other assets entrusted them for their own personal use and/or for the use of another. 381. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams wrongfully misused the Metal

Trades Department’s and Councils’ money, funds, property, or other assets by expending and using their money, resources, equipment, staff time, and attorney time formulating, implementing, managing and operating the Push-BackCarpenters Campaign extortionate schemes and conspiracy, including revoking the

204
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Carpenters’ Charters and giving their labor organization rights to other unions, including but not limited to the Painters. 382. Defendant Ault also wrongfully misused the property or other assets

of the Carpenters, as set forth in Paragraph 354 by mismanaging and seizing their property rights, including but not limited to their rights to dues, members, jurisdiction, representation, and other collective bargaining rights, and giving their property and other rights to other unions, including the Painters. 383. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams took these actions because the BCTD and its Governing Board of Presidents instigated, directed and ordered it be done as part of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest in and control over the Carpenters in an effort to extort Plaintiffs. Defendants’ conduct was thus the direct means that they used against the Plaintiffs in order to force the Carpenters to give in to the Defendants’ extortionate demands. Such actions were not taken for any legitimate Metal Trades-related reasons. 384. Defendant Williams also took the actions because it benefited him and his union, the Painters, financially and personally. By taking Plaintiffs’ property and other labor organization rights, including, but not limited to, its dues, members and jurisdiction, Defendant Williams obtained more members and dues

205
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

money for his union. For instance, Defendant Williams gave himself and his union affiliates the Carpenters’ dues, members, jurisdiction, property and other labor organization rights at various Metal Trades Councils, including the Portsmouth Metal Trades Council. This gave Defendant Williams more power and prestige, and money, including future dues that he can use to offset the millions he claimed to have spent fighting the Carpenters over the last decade. The more members a union has the more power and prestige that union’s President has. Indeed, this is exactly what the Defendants have been accusing the Plaintiffs’ President of for years, showing that this is something valuable and important – that is, seeking to have more members who can pay more dues that increases a union’s President’s own personal power, prestige, and financial reward in salaries and other benefits. Moreover, by financially sanctioning the Plaintiffs through the loss of Metal Trades’ members, dues, jurisdiction, property and other labor organization rights, Defendant Williams hoped to increase the extortion and financial pressure on the Carpenters to force them to agree to begin making and continue making the demanded extortionate payments to the BCTD and Councils. This is turn would result in substantial savings for his union’s own payments to the BCTD and Councils. 385. Defendant Hill also took the actions because it benefited him and his union, the IBEW, financially and personally. For instance, by financially

206
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

sanctioning the Carpenters through the loss of Metal Trades’ members, dues, property and other labor organization rights, Defendant Hill hoped to increase the extortion and financial pressure on the Carpenters to force them to agree to begin making and continue making the demanded extortionate payments to the BCTD and Councils. This is turn would result in substantial savings for his union’s own payments to the BCTD and Councils. 386. Defendant Ault took also these actions because it benefited him and his staff personally and directly. Because Defendant Ault did and continues to do as ordered by BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents, he and his staff also received at least a 3% salary increase effective August 1, 2011, even though taking the actions against the Plaintiffs would exact a negative financial consequence on the Metal Trades Department and the country was still suffering severely from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. 387. In addition, because Defendant Ault did and continues to do as ordered by BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents, in November, 2011, he was re-elected with the full support of the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents. He received such support because of his agreement to join the conspiracy and his subsequent actions implementing, managing, and operating the Metal Trades’ component of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire

207
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

and maintain an interest in and control over the Carpenters. Had Defendant Ault not agreed to join the conspiracy, he would not have received the support of the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents and would not have been re-elected. 388. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams knew their actions were unlawful and had a bad and evil purpose for taking the actions based on many reasons. First, Defendant Ault wrote a Memo detailing why such actions were wrongful, not in the best interests of the Metal Trades Department, and were at the direction of another union’s Governing Board of Presidents for reasons unrelated to the Metal Trades, yet Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams took the actions anyway. (Exh. “E.”) Defendants Hill and Williams were sent this Memo but chose to ignore its warnings because they interfered with the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest in and control over the Carpenters. Second, Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams attempted to conceal the true reasons for taking the actions against the Plaintiffs. In no correspondence to either the Carpenters or the Metal Trades Councils did these Defendants ever disclose the true reasons for taking their unlawful extortionate actions. It was not until November 2011, at the Metal Trades Convention, after Defendants discovered that the Plaintiffs possessed Ault’s Admissions Memo, did these Defendants finally disclose to the delegates the involvement and direction of

208
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

the BCTD’s Governing Board of Presidents. Third, during on March 17, 2011, Metal Trades Department meeting, Defendants Hill and Williams, and the other BCTD General Presidents, agreed to indemnify the Metal Trades Department for all losses of income resulting from their actions. This concern was raised because the Operating Engineers had threatened to withdraw from the Metal Trades Department if Defendants’ unlawful Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy was acted on and implemented. Finally, on March 17, 2011, during a Metal Trades Department meeting, Defendants Hill and Williams, and the other BCTD General Presidents, agreed to indemnify the Metal Trades Department for legal costs incurred defending the legal actions these Defendants knew would be filed by the Carpenters. J. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams, and Molnaa’s Violations of Section 411 of the LMRDA and Similar State Common Law Rights in Which the Metal Trades Department and Councils Operate Constitute Acts of Extortion.

389. Among the rights afforded by the LMRDA to members of labor organizations are “Equal Rights”: Each member (i.e., individuals and subordinate labor organizations) of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges to nominate candidates, to vote in elections, to attend membership meetings, and to participate in deliberations and voting upon business of such meetings. 29 U.S.C. §411(a)(1).

209
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

390. The LMRDA further provides members of labor organizations with “Due Process Rights”: No member (i.e., individuals and subordinate labor organizations) of a labor organization may be suspended or expelled, except for non-payment of dues unless each member has been (A) served with written specific charges; (B) given a reasonable time to prepare its defense; and (C) afforded a full and fair hearing. 29 U.S.C. §411(a)(5). 391. The LMRDA defines person to include individuals and labor organizations, 29 U.S.C. § 402(d); members of labor organizations are defined to include persons, thus including both individuals and subordinate labor organization members, 29 U.S.C. §402(o). 392. States’ common law rights and remedies that protect similar interests are expressly saved from preemption. 29 U.S.C. §§ 413, 523(a). 393. At all material times herein, and in relation to the Metal Trades Department and Councils, the Plaintiffs were members and/or members in good standing of the Metal Trades Department and Councils within the meaning of the statute and common law. 394. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa violated the Plaintiffs’ Title I LMRDA rights as set forth in Section 411(a)(1) & (5) and the common law. 395. As part of, and in furtherance of, the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the

210
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest in and control over the Carpenters, Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa unlawfully revoked Plaintiffs’ Metal Trades Department and Metal Trades Councils’ charters, including but not limited to the HAMTC charter, and suspended and/or expelled Plaintiffs and individual members, stewards and/or officers, including Truman Jordan, Butch Parker, Scott Flannery, Joe Baca, Bob Scott, Larry Gould, William Clayton Crawford, Rick Burwell, John Lake, Roger Johnson, Brian Thompson, Charles McWilliams, Billy Cooley, Sheryl Hollis, and Booker Sanderfer. These actions took place after September 1, 2011 and continue through the present. 396. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa suspended and/or expelled Plaintiffs by simple fiat – they said it was so. No charges were filed. No hearing was held. No opportunity was given Plaintiffs to have their opposition heard before Defendants took such actions. 397. Revoking the charters, suspending and/or expelling Plaintiffs, including those named individually, were the direct means and targets of Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa’s conduct in order to force the Carpenters to give in to the Defendants’ extortionate demands. The actions taken by Defendants directly resulted in loss of substantial rights protected by Section 411. For instance, among the items of property that the Plaintiffs’ members lost included, but are not limited to, the following:

211
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

a.

the right to vote in Metal Trades Council matters, including ratification of collective bargaining agreements,

b. c. d. e. f.

the right to hold office, the right to represent its members, the right to acquire job opportunities, the right to nominate candidates to the Metal Trades Councils, the right to attend Metal Trade Councils’ meetings and the Metal Trades Department Convention,

g.

the right to participate in the deliberations over Metal Trades Councils’ business affairs,

h. i. j.

the right to protect their jurisdiction, the right to recruit new employees to join, and the right to vote in Metal Trades Councils’ business affairs.

398. In addition, Plaintiffs’ members’ rights under their collective bargaining agreements were no longer the same after the revocations, suspensions or expulsions. For instance, prior to the revocations, suspensions or expulsions Plaintiffs’ members could be job stewards, could select their own members as stewards, could represent their members, could protect their jurisdiction and jobs from other Metal Trades’ unions, could solicit employees to join the Carpenters free from attempts by other Metal Trades’ unions attempts to raid their members

212
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

and jurisdiction, and could participate in the formulation of collective bargaining agreement proposals, and could vote for ratification of their collective bargaining agreements. After September 1, 2011, Plaintiffs could not. 399. Other classes of Metal Trades’ members were not treated the same as Plaintiffs. For instance, the Operating Engineers are not part of the BCTD. Nevertheless, the Defendants did not kick them and their members out of the Metal Trades. Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”), United Food and Commercial Workers (“UFCW”) and Teamsters are not part of the AFL-CIO. Yet their charters were not revoked, nor were their members suspended or expelled. The members of Operating Engineers, SEIU, UFCW and Teamsters did not lose and of the rights listed above that the Plaintiffs lost. 400. At no time prior to the September 1, 2011, revocations, suspensions and/or expulsions were any written specific charges served on any of the Plaintiffs. At no time prior to the September 1, 2011, revocations, suspensions and/or expulsions were any hearings held. At no time prior to September 1, 2011, were Plaintiffs given an opportunity to contest in any proceedings the actions taken Defendants. Defendants revoked the Charters, suspended and/or expelled Plaintiffs without any written charges or hearings being held. 401. In addition, Defendants, as part of and in furtherance of their PushBack-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the

213
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest in and control over the Carpenters, have caused the removal and destruction of Carpenters literature, and/or retaliated against the Plaintiffs for exercising their free speech rights. 402. These actions taken by the Defendants in violation of Title I of the LMRDA were taken in bad faith. Defendants took these actions in order to extort money, property, business and other valuable property from the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest in and control over the Carpenters. Defendants took these actions to extort the Carpenters into submitting to their demands, including making monthly payments for peace in perpetuity. The Defendants did not take these actions for any valid Metal Trades-related reasons, as admitted by Defendant Ault in his Admissions Memo and at the November 2011 Convention. This is because there is no valid Metal Trades-related reason which would warrant extorting the Carpenters’ money, property, business or other valuable property and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 403. The Defendant Metal Trades’ conduct violated the LMRDA provisions and common law protecting Plaintiffs’ Equal Rights and Due Process Rights and constituted unlawful extortion as part of, and in furtherance of their Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to

214
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

obtain the business and property of the carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. K. Boilermakers’ Violations of Section 302 of the LMRA Constitute Independent Predicate Acts And Also Acts of Extortion.

404. Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act prohibits employers from giving money or anything of value to labor organizations, subject to certain exceptions, none of which are applicable. 29 U.S.C. § 186. 405. Before and after the Push-Back- Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain in interest in and control over the Carpenters began, the Boilermakers have been attempting to replace the Metal Trades Councils in the Pacific Northwest Region, and take over all collective bargaining agreements responsibilities in relation to the Carpenters, and other crafts. For instance, in Seattle, Tacoma and Portland, the Boilermakers have signed and/or attempted to sign agreements with employers, such as Cascade General, Vigor Marine and others. Cascade General, Vigor Marine and the other companies are owned and/or controlled by Frank Foti. These employers are covered by the LMRA and perform work in an industry covered by the LMRA. 406. After the Defendants revoked the Carpenters’ Charters, they gave the Boilermakers the Carpenters’ rights, including dues, members, jurisdiction, jobs 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 2 3 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

Vigor Marine, and other companies. As a result of this, and in order to perfect such actions from Carpenters’ challenge, the Boilermakers have been trying to get the Carpenters to sign off on successor agreements expressly giving the Boilermakers the rights the Defendants and they have stolen and already given them. The Defendants have been willing to give up the Metal Trades Council’s rights by allowing the Boilermakers to do this because it furthers their Push-BackCarpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the Carpenters’ business and property and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 407. Initially, Defendant Ault opposed the Boilermakers’ advances. Nevertheless, since the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters began involving the Metal Trades Department, the Defendants have given up on opposing the Boilermakers, and in fact have now supported what the Boilermakers are attempting to do. 408. As part of the Boilermakers’ attempt to perfect its takeover of the Carpenters’ Metal Trades rights with respect to Foti’s companies, Foti and his companies, including but not limited to Cascade General and Vigor Marine, have continued to pay, lend, deliver, or agree to pay, lend or deliver, monies or other
216
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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
217
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

things of value to the Boilermakers, who thereby controlled by the employers. 409. For instance, the Boilermakers Local Union #104 has an agreement with Cascade General that was supposed to expire on or about June 30, 2011, but continues through the present. In that agreement, Cascade General has paid and/or agreed to pay the Boilermakers approximately $2,500 per month for not engaging in or supporting any labor disputes by the members or unions, including the Carpenters, since the contract expired over 6 months ago. Cascade General’s agreement to pay the Boilermakers continues through the present. Boilermakers’ agent, Dean Calhoun, admitted this to Plaintiff Bob Scott around the beginning of 2011 when Scott confronted Calhoun about the agreement. The Boilermakers and its Local 104, willfully and with knowledge of the transaction continued to engage in the transaction to benefit their union and in order to steal away the Carpenters’ rights as part of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest in or control over the Carpenters. This agreement has been reviewed, approved, and promoted by Gary Powers who is a representative from the Boilermakers International. Powers is an international representative with authority to negotiate, review and approve agreements entered by its affiliate locals, including Local 104.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

410. Similarly, Boilermakers Local 104 has signed a contract with Vigor Marine. As part of that agreement, Vigor Marine has paid and/or agreed to pay the Boilermakers $5,000 per month for recruitment efforts, including stripping non-union workers from non-union companies to go work for Vigor Marine. (Exhibit “G” hereto.) This agreement has been extended and continues through today. This agreement has also been reviewed, approved and promoted by Gary Powers from the Boilermakers International. Powers is an international representative with authority to negotiate, review and approve agreements entered by its affiliate locals, including Local 104. In fact, on or about October 1, 2010, Powers sent an email to Harry Thompson, Executive Secretary of the Puget Sound Metal Trades Council, discussing the agreement with Vigor Marine that the Boilermakers had negotiated. The Boilermakers and its Local 104, willfully and with knowledge of the transaction continued to engage in the transaction to benefit their union and in order to acquire unlawfully the Carpenters’ rights as part of the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the Carpenters’ business and property and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. 411. As part of, and in furtherance of, the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, the BCTD

218
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Defendants have instructed their local affiliates to cease opposing the Boilermakers’ attempts to take over the function of the Metal Trades Department Councils with respect to the companies owned and/or controlled by Foti because it furthers their campaign against the Carpenters. Accordingly, unions affiliated with the Metal Trades Department Councils have started signing on to the Boilermakers’ proposals on behalf of the Foti companies, including the Pipefitters and the IBEW. Defendants have also been trying to get the Carpenters to sign the agreements giving up their rights. L. The BCTD Defendants Have Directly and Proximately Caused the Carpenters Significant Concrete Financial Losses and Injuries.

412. The BCTD Defendants’ unlawful and extortionate tactics have directly and proximately caused the Carpenters significant and concrete financial harm. The Carpenters’ financial injuries flow directly from the commission of the above unlawful acts. The Carpenters and its Metal Trades’ related affiliated organizations, including Plaintiffs SWRCC and PNRCC, have lost dues and duespaying members directly by the Defendants’ unlawful attacks, including but not limited taking away their dues-paying members and rights to refer dues-paying members and giving them to other unions. The PNRCC incurred additional expenses and costs when it had to replace its attorney who quit because of the Defendants’ unlawful extortionate attacks. The PNRCC and its sponsored JATC 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 2 3 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

expenses and costs in defending against and opposing Defendants’ frivolous complaints and objections, including those filed by the Laborers and Painters. The SWRCC and its sponsored JATC program, the Southwest Carpenters JATC, have incurred additional expenses and costs in defending against and opposing Defendants’ frivolous complaints and objections, including those filed by the Painters. The Carpenters and the NRCC have lost its confidential and proprietary information to the BCTD Defendants because of Lein’s unlawful conduct. The NRCC has also lost the salary paid to Lein because of the BCTD Defendants’ unlawful extortionate attacks. The St. Louis Carpenters has lost business opportunities, employee time and productivity because of the Defendants’ unlawful attacks, including the December 6, 2010 mass picket. 413. The Carpenters SWRCC, PNRCC, Washington State Carpenters JATC, Southwest Carpenters JATC, NRCC and the St. Louis Carpenters have each also incurred financial losses in terms of time, person-hours, costs and administrative expenses in responding to Defendants’ unlawful attacks. EFFECT OF DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT 414. The BCTD Defendants’ actions as described throughout this Complaint have had a lasting and irreparable effect on the Carpenters. In addition to the tens of thousands of dollars in lost dues, lost members, lost opportunities to obtain dues and members, loss of confidential and proprietary information, and

220
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

the hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to the Carpenters responding to the BCTD Defendants’ Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters, the Carpenters brand name has been significantly tarnished. The BCTD Defendants have caused many of the Carpenters’ recruits, members and business partners to believe that they are a disreputable and undemocratic organization that deprives its members the rights guaranteed by the LMRDA, and raids other unions by recruiting, accepting and training dues-paying previously non-union members who perform work that the BCTD Defendants claim belong to a BCTD union. Many of the BCTD Defendants’ extortionate acts have painted a revolting and visceral picture of the Carpenters’ practices. Predictably, this has led to a devastating loss of goodwill in the marketplace. As described throughout, this has been the precise result intended and desired by the BCTD Defendants as part of the Push-BackCarpenters Campaign and its unlawful extortionate conspiracy to obtain the business and property of the Carpenters and to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. And worse, it is clear from the BCTD Defendants’ acts and threats that they have no intention of stopping until the Carpenters surrender to their extortionate demands, including paying, and continuing paying in perpetuity, the BCTD and Councils bloated monthly

221
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

payments and permit them to acquire and maintain an interest and control over the Carpenters. Without the Court’s intervention, the Carpenters will continue to suffer direct and significant injuries to its business and property at the hands of the BCTD Defendants and their unlawful and extortionate schemes. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) by Conspiring to Violate § 1962(a)) by the Carpenters Against Each of the Defendants 415. The Carpenters re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the proceeding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 416. Each of the Carpenters is a “labor organization” and a “person” under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1964(c). 417. Each of the Defendants is a “person” under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3), 1962(b), and 1962(d). 418. The BCTD is an “enterprise[s]” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(4) and 1962(b), which enterprise[s] was, and is, engaged in activities affecting interstate commerce at all times relevant to this Complaint. The enterprise has a common or shared purpose among individuals operating, managing and associated with them. It has an on-going organization whose members function as a continuing unit, and some continuity of structure or purpose. It has an ascertainable structure distinct from that inherent in the conduct

222
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

of the pattern of racketeering activity, as the BCTD is a “labor organization” that engage in both lawful and unlawful activities. 419. Defendants conspired among themselves within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a). Specifically, Defendants conspired among themselves that income, in the form of monthly payments paid by the Carpenters, union member dues, resulting increased salaries and benefits, would be received by Defendant BCTD; such income would be derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of activity unlawful under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(A), in which Defendant participated as a principal within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1), 1961(5), and 1962(a) – to wit: multiple, repeated and continuous acts or threats involving extortion and/or attempted extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 1951, embezzlement under 29 U.S.C. § 501(c), violations Section 186 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S. § 302, and/or chargeable under the laws of each State in which Defendant’s conspiracy, if successful, would result in the obtaining by Defendant BCTD of the Carpenters’ business and property rights described above, at least including, but not limited to, the following States: Cal. Pen. Code §§ 518, 519, 524; DC Code §§ 22-3251, 22-3252, 22-1803; Miss. Code, § 97-3-82; La.R.S. §§ 14:27, 14:66; N.J Stat. Ann. §§ 2C:20-5, 2C:5-1; N.M. § 30-16-9; Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-112; Texas Penal Code §§ 31.02, 31.03; ORS 164.015, 164.075;

223
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Pa. Con. Stat. §§ 901, 3923; Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-59, 18.2-26(3); and Wash. RCW 9A.56.110. 420. An object of Defendants’ conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) was and is that the income described in Paragraph 279 above, or the proceeds of such income, would thereafter be used and invested in the operation of the forenamed enterprise[s] for numerous legitimate and illegitimate purposes including, inter alia, the conduct of additional extortionate campaigns against the Carpenters, the payment of salaries and fees to the other Defendants for the purpose of engaging in future extortionate campaigns and otherwise, and the ongoing operation of the BCTD Enterprise. 421. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful activity in furtherance of the Defendants’ unlawful conspiracy described herein, the Carpenters have suffered substantial concrete financial injury from overt and predicate acts of the conspiracy to their business or property within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), including but not limited lost members and dues, lost or reduced promotional, contractual and/or membership recruitment opportunities, lost job opportunities, positions and work assignments, loss of confidential information increased costs due to the termination of contractual relations with its attorneys, and substantial and irreparable loss of goodwill and membership recruitment opportunities in an amount to be determined at trial.

224
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) by Conspiring to Violate § 1962(b)) by the Carpenters Against Each of the Defendants 422. The Carpenters re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 423. The Carpenters each are a “person” under 18 U.S.C. § § 1961(3) and 1964(c). 424. Each of the Defendants is a “person” under 18 U.S.C. § § 1961(3), 1962(b), and 1962(d). 425. Each of the Carpenters is a “labor organization” and an “enterprise” within the meaning of is 18 U.S.C. § § 1961(4) and 1962(b), which enterprises were, and are, engaged in activities affecting interstate commerce at all times relevant to this Complaint. 426. Defendants conspired among themselves within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b). Specifically, Defendants conspired among themselves to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Carpenters through a pattern of activity unlawful under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(A), to wit: multiple, repeated, and continuous acts of embezzlement under 501 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 501(c), violations of Section 186 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S. § 302, or threats involving extortion and/or attempted extortion chargeable under the laws of each State in which Defendants’

225
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

conspiracy, if successful, would result in the obtaining by Defendants of an interest in or control of the Carpenters and its property rights described above, at least including, but not limited to, the following States: Cal. Pen. Code §§ 518, 519, 524; DC Code §§ 22-3251, 22-3252, 22-1803; Miss. Code, § 97-3-82; La.R.S. §§ 14:27, 14:66; N.J Stat. Ann. §§ 2C:20-5, 2C:5-1; N.M. § 30-16-9; Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-112; Texas Penal Code §§ 31.02, 31.03; ORS 164.015, 164.075; Pa. Con. Stat. §§ 901, 3923; Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-59, 18.2-26(3); and Wash. RCW 9A.56.110. 427. Defendants’ activities described herein have obstructed, delayed or otherwise affected commerce. 428. As a direct and proximate result of the BCTD Defendants’ unlawful activity in furtherance of Defendants’ unlawful conspiracy described herein, the Carpenters have suffered substantial concrete financial injury from overt and predicate acts of the conspiracy to their business or property within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), including but not limited lost members and dues, lost or reduced promotional, contractual and/or membership recruitment opportunities, loss of confidential information, increased costs due to the termination of contractual relations with its attorneys, and substantial and irreparable loss of goodwill and membership recruitment opportunities in an amount to be determined at trial.

226
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)) by the Carpenters Against Defendants Ayers, Hill, Williams, Ault and Molnaa 429. The Carpenters re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 430. Each of the Carpenters is a “person” under 18 U.S.C. §§1961(3) and 1964(c). 431. Each of the Defendants listed above is a “person” under 18 U.S.C. § § 1961(3) and 1962(c). 432. The BCTD is an “enterprise” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § § 1961(4) and 1962(c), which enterprise was engaged in activities affecting interstate commerce at all times relevant to this Complaint. 433. Each of the Defendants listed above were and are employed by or associated with the BCTD Enterprise and has conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in the management and operation of the affairs of the BCTD Enterprise in relationship to the Carpenters through a pattern of activity unlawful under 18 U.S.C. § § 1961, to wit: multiple, repeated and continuous acts of embezzlement under Section 501 LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 501(c), violations of Section 186 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S. § 302, threats involving extortion and/or attempted extortion under 18 U.S.C. §1951, and extortion or attempted extortion, chargeable under the laws of the following States: Cal. Pen. Code §§ 518, 519,
227
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

524; DC Code §§ 22-3251, 22-3252, 22-1803; Miss. Code, § 97-3-82; La.R.S. §§ 14:27, 14:66; N.J Stat. Ann. §§ 2C:20-5, 2C:5-1; N.M. § 30-16-9; Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-112; Texas Penal Code §§ 31.02, 31.03; ORS 164.015, 164.075; Pa. Con. Stat. §§ 901, 3923; Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-59, 18.2-26(3); and Wash. RCW 9A.56.110. 434. As a direct and proximate result of the BCTD Defendants’ violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), the Carpenters have suffered substantial concrete financial injury to its business or property within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) including, but not limited lost members and dues, lost or reduced promotional, contractual and/or membership recruitment opportunities, lost job opportunities, positions and work assignments, loss of confidential information, increased costs due to the termination of contractual relations with its attorneys, and substantial and irreparable loss of goodwill and membership recruitment opportunities in an amount to be determined at trial. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (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 435. The Carpenters re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 436. Each of the Carpenters is a “person” under 18 U.S.C. § § 1961(3) and 1964(c).
228
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

437. Each of the Defendants listed above is a “person” under 18 U.S.C. § § 1961(3), 1962(c), and 1962(d). 438. The BCTD is an “enterprise” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § § 1961(4) and 1962(c), which enterprise was engaged in activities affecting interstate commerce at all times relevant to this Complaint. 439. Each of the Defendants listed above were employed by or are associated with the BCTD Enterprise, and has conspired within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). Specifically, the Defendants conspired to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the management and operation of the affairs of the BCTD Enterprise in relationship to the Carpenters through a pattern of activity unlawful under 18 U.S.C. § § 1961(1)( to wit: multiple, repeated, and continuous acts of embezzlement under Section 501 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 501(c), violations of Section 186 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S. § 302, threats involving extortion and/or attempted extortion under 18 U.S.C. §1951, and extortion or attempted extortion or threats involving extortion and/or attempted extortion, chargeable under the laws of each State in which Defendants’ conspiracy, if successful, would result in the obtaining by Defendants of the Carpenters’ property rights described above, at least including, but not limited to, the following States: Cal. Pen. Code §§ 518, 519, 524; DC Code §§ 22-3251, 223252, 22-1803; Miss. Code, § 97-3-82; La.R.S. §§ 14:27, 14:66; N.J Stat. Ann. §§

229
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

2C:20-5, 2C:5-1; N.M. § 30-16-9; Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-112; Texas Penal Code §§ 31.02, 31.03; ORS 164.015, 164.075; Pa. Con. Stat. §§ 901, 3923; Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-59, 18.2-26(3); and Wash. RCW 9A.56.110. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful activity in furtherance of BCTD Defendants’ unlawful extortionate conspiracy described herein, the Carpenters have suffered substantial concrete financial injury from overt and predicate acts of the conspiracy to their business or property within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), including but not limited lost members and dues, lost or reduced promotional, contractual and/or membership recruitment opportunities, lost job opportunities, positions and work assignments, loss of confidential information, increased costs due to the termination of contractual relations with its attorneys, and substantial and irreparable loss of goodwill and membership recruitment opportunities in an amount to be determined at trial. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.080(3)(a) by Conspiring to Violate Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.080(1)(a) by the Carpenters Against Each of the Defendants) 440. The Carpenters re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the proceeding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 441. The BCTD is an “enterprise” within the meaning of Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.010(8).

230
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

442. Defendants conspired among themselves within the meaning of Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.080(3)(a) to violate Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.080(1)(a) . Specifically, Defendants conspired among themselves that income, in the form of monthly payments paid by the Carpenters, union member dues, resulting increased salaries and benefits, would be received by Defendant BCTD; such income would be derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of activity unlawful under Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.010(4), in which Defendant participated as a principal within the meaning of Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.010(4), 9A.82.010(12), and 9A.82.080(1)(a) – to wit: multiple, repeated and continuous acts or threats involving extortion and/or attempted extortion under and/or chargeable under Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.56.110 in which Defendant’s conspiracy, if successful, would result in the obtaining by Defendant BCTD of the Carpenters’ business and property rights described above. 443. An object of Defendants’ conspiracy to violate Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.080(1)(a) was and is that the income described in Paragraph 279 above, or the proceeds of such income, would thereafter be used and invested in the operation of the forenamed enterprise for numerous legitimate and illegitimate purposes including, inter alia, the conduct of additional extortionate campaigns against the Carpenters, the payment of salaries and fees to the other Defendants

231
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

for the purpose of engaging in future extortionate campaigns and otherwise, and the ongoing operation of the BCTD Enterprise. 444. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful activity in furtherance of Defendants’ unlawful conspiracy described herein, the Carpenters have suffered substantial injury to their business or property within the meaning of Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.100(1)(a), including but not limited to the removal, suspension, or expulsion of the Carpenters and its members, including stewards, delegates, agents, officers and other Metal Trades’ representatives, of the Metal Trades Department and/or Councils, lost members and dues, lost or reduced promotional, contractual and/or membership recruitment opportunities, lost job opportunities, positions and work assignments, increased costs due to the termination of contractual relations with its attorneys, and substantial and irreparable loss of goodwill and membership recruitment opportunity. 445. Pursuant to Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.100(1)(c), the Carpenters request an award of reasonable investigative and attorney’s fees. 446. Pursuant to Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.100(4)(b), the Carpenters request injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants from using Carpenters’ business and property rights, including its members’ union dues, to engage in illegitimate purposes, including conducting extortionate campaigns against the Carpenters.

232
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

447. Pursuant to Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.100(4)(c), the Carpenters request injunctive relief ordering the dissolution of the BCTD enterprise and/or a reorganization of the BCTD prohibiting the BCTD Defendants and their BCTD co-conspirators from sitting on its Governing Board of Presidents, or having any authority or control, direct or indirect, over the BCTD. 448. Pursuant to Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.100(4)(d), the Carpenters request that Defendants be ordered to pay three times the actual damages sustained by the Carpenters. 449. Pursuant to Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.100(4)(f), the Carpenters request Defendants be ordered to forfeit as restitution damages that the Carpenters incurred as a result of Defendants’ unlawful activities that are part of a pattern of unlawful conduct. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (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 Against Each of the Defendants) 450. The Carpenters re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 451. Each of the Carpenters is a labor organization and an “enterprise” within the meaning of Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.010(8) and § 9A.82.080(2)(a), which enterprises were, and are, engaged in activities affecting interstate 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 2 3 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

452. Defendants conspired among themselves within the meaning of Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.080(3)(a) to violate Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.080(2)(a). Specifically, Defendants conspired among themselves to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Carpenters through a pattern of activity unlawful under Rev. Code Wash. 9A.82.010(4), to wit: multiple, repeated, and continuous acts or threats involving extortion and/or attempted extortion, chargeable under Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.56.110 in which Defendants’ conspiracy, if successful, would result in the obtaining by Defendants of the Carpenters’ business and property rights described above. 453. Defendants’ activities described herein have obstructed, delayed or otherwise affected commerce. 454. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ racketeering activity in furtherance of Defendants’ unlawful conspiracy described herein, the Carpenters have suffered substantial injury to their business or property within the meaning of Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.100(1)(a), including but not limited to the removal, suspension, or expulsion of the Carpenters and its members, including stewards, delegates, agents, officers and other Metal Trades’ representatives, of the Metal Trades Department and/or Councils, lost members and dues, lost or reduced promotional, contractual and/or membership recruitment opportunities, increased costs due to the termination of contractual relations with its attorneys,

234
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

and substantial and irreparable loss of goodwill and membership recruitment opportunity. 455. Pursuant to Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.100(1)(c), the Carpenters request an award of reasonable investigative and attorney’s fees. 456. Pursuant to Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.100(4)(b), the Carpenters request injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants from using Carpenters’ members’ union dues to engage in illegitimate purposes, including conducting extortionate campaigns against the Carpenters. 457. Pursuant to Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.100(4)(d), the Carpenters request injunctive relief ordering Defendants to pay three times the actual damages sustained by Plaintiffs. 458. Pursuant to Rev. Code Wash. § 9A.82.100(4)(f), the Carpenters request injunctive relief ordering Defendants to forfeit as restitution damages that the Carpenters incurred as a result of Defendants’ unlawful activities that are part of a pattern of unlawful conduct. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Tortious Interference with Contract by the PNRCC Against Defendant BCTD 459. The PNRCC re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the proceeding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

235
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

460. There was a valid contractual relationship between PNRCC and the Robblee law firm that had existed for decades. However, in October 2009, the Robblee firm abruptly ended its contract with the PNRCC and withdrew from an active case for which it was acting as counsel for the PNRCC. 461. Defendant BCTD, through their officers, representatives, and members, including the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators, had knowledge of the contractual relationship between PNRCC and the Robblee law firm. 462. Defendant BCTD, through their officers, representatives, and members, including the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators, intentionally interfered with the contractual relationship between PNRCC and the Robblee firm by causing the Robblee firm to terminate the contractual relationship it had with PNRCC through improper means. Defendant BCTD, through their officers, representatives, and members, including the BCTD Defendants and coconspirators, threatened to fire the law firm, unless the Robblee firm immediately fired the PNRCC, including all active cases, and promised in return that the Robblee firm would receive immediate additional work as a reward. Immediately after firing the PNRCC, the Robblee firm began representing the BCTD Defendants’ affiliates against the Carpenters, and continues to do so through today.

236
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

463. Defendant BCTD intentionally interfered with the contractual relationship between PNRCC and the Robblee law firm for an improper purpose: to further the Push Back Carpenters Campaign and unlawful extortionate conspiracy. 464. As a result of Defendant BCTD’s intentional interference with the contractual relationship between PNRCC and the Robblee law firm, PNRCC has suffered damages. The PNRCC has incurred substantial increased costs due to the immediate withdrawal of the Robblee firm from its matters. PNRCC is entitled to damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 465. The actions taken by Defendant BCTD were malicious, oppressive or in reckless disregard of the rights of the PNRCC. The conduct was malicious because it was accompanied by ill will, spite, and for the purpose of injuring the PNRCC and in reckless disregard of the PNRCC’s rights because under the circumstances reflects a complete indifference to their rights, and in the face of a perceived risk that its actions would violate the law. The PNRCC is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages. EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation of LMRDA Section 411 by the Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs Against Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa 466. The Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by this reference each of the allegations set forth in all prior paragraphs.

237
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

467. The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosures Act (“LMRDA”) provides members of labor organizations with “Equal Rights”: Each member of a labor organization (i.e., individuals and subordinate labor organizations) shall have equal rights and privileges to nominate candidates, to vote in elections, to attend membership meetings, and to participate in deliberations and voting upon business of such meetings. 29 U.S.C. §411(a)(1). 468. The LMRDA provides members of labor organization with “Due Process Rights”: No member of a labor organization (i.e., individuals and subordinate labor organizations) may be suspended or expelled, except for nonpayment of dues unless each member has been (A) served with written specific charges; (B) given a reasonable time to prepare its defense; and (C) afforded a full and fair hearing. 29 U.S.C. §411(a)(5). 469. The LMRDA defines person to include individuals and labor organizations. 29 U.S.C. § 402(d). Members of labor organizations include both individuals and subordinate labor organization members. 29 U.S.C. §402(o). 470. At all material times herein the Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs were members in good standing of the Metal Trades Department and its Councils, including the HAMTC. 471. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa are officers and agents of the Metal Trades Department and violated the Carpenters and the Individual

238
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Plaintiffs LMRDA rights, by directing the unlawful suspension or expulsion of the Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs through the revocation of the Solidarity Agreements without having provided any of the Due Process Rights required in violation of 29 U.S.C. §411(a)(5), by taking adverse actions against the Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs that were not taken against any other similarly situated members, including removing them from jobs and positions, by preventing and prohibiting the Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs from attending Metal Trades meetings, including the Convention 472. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful conduct of Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa, the Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs have suffered compensable damages. 473. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount proven at trial and to injunctive relief fully restoring their rights and prohibiting these Defendants from interfering with such rights in any way in the future. 474. The actions taken by Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa were malicious, oppressive or in reckless disregard of the Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs’ rights. Their conduct was malicious because it was accompanied by ill will, spite, and for the purpose of injuring the Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs. Their conduct was in reckless disregard of the Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs’ rights and under the circumstances

239
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

reflects a complete indifference to their rights or safety. In addition, Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa acted in the face of a perceived risk that their actions violated federal law. Their conduct was oppressive because they injured or damaged or otherwise violated the Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs’ rights through the misuse or abuse of authority or power. The Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages. NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation of Common Law Fiduciary Duties by the Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs Against Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams, and Molnaa 475. The Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the proceeding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 476. Common law breach of fiduciary duty claims are expressly saved from preemption. 29 U.S.C. § 523(a). See also, 29 U.S.C. § 413. 477. Officers, agents and representatives of labor organizations occupy positions of trust in relation to such organization and their members. As officers, agents, and/or representatives of the Metal Trades Department and its Councils, including the HAMTC, and the Carpenters’ Metal Trades’ affiliates, Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa owe fiduciary duties to their members, including the right to the honest and faithful services of covered persons. 478. The fiduciary duties imposed include the duty of loyalty to the

240
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

organization and its members, including, but not limited to (1) holding, managing and expending the union’s money and property solely for the benefit of the organization and its members; (2) managing and expending the same in accordance with the union constitution, bylaws and any resolutions there under; and (3) refraining from dealing with the union as an adverse party or on behalf of an adverse party in any matter connected with the covered persons’ duties. 479. The Carpenters and Individual Plaintiffs are members of the Metal Trades Department and Councils, including the HAMTC; and the Individual Plaintiffs are members of the Carpenters. 480. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams are agents and/or other representatives of the Metal Trades Department’s Councils, including HAMTC, by virtue of their having instigated, directed and controlled the actions of these Councils, including HAMTC, in relation to the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and unlawful extortionate conspiracy. 481. Defendant Molnaa is an officer of the HAMTC. 482. Defendant Ault, by virtue of his position as President of the Metal Trades Department, and Defendants Hill and Williams, by virtue of their positions on the Metal Trades Department’s Executive Committee, were also agents and representatives of the Carpenters and its members, which are affiliated with and represented by the Metal Trades Department and Councils.

241
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

483. As part of, and in furtherance of, the Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and unlawful extortionate conspiracy, Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams (and the other Metal Trades Executive Council Members) violated their fiduciary duties owed to the Metal Trades Department, Councils, and their members, including Plaintiffs, and Defendant Molnaa (and the other HAMTC Executive Council Members) violated his fiduciary duties owed to the HAMTC and its members, including Plaintiffs. 484. Defendants Ault, Hill and Williams operated and managed the Metal Trades Department, Councils and the Carpenters in violation of their fiduciary duties, and Defendant Molnaa operated and managed the HAMTC in violation of his fiduciary duties. 485. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs by taking the actions listed below. Such actions were not taken because they were solely in the interests of the Metal Trades Department’s, Councils’ and the Carpenters’ members’ interests, but because the BCTD Defendants and co-conspirators directed and ordered such actions as part of their Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign and unlawful extortionate conspiracy. Therefore, the actions taken, and the reasons for taking such actions were in bad faith and in total abdication of their fiduciary duties as labor organization officials,

242
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

agents and/or representatives to the Metal Trades Department, Councils and the Carpenters. 486. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa breached their fiduciary duties to the Metal Trades Department, Councils, the Carpenters and their members, including Individual Plaintiffs, as set forth above in Paragraphs 342375. 487. Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa’s breaches of fiduciary duties have directly targeted the Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs and proximately caused the Carpenters and Individual Plaintiffs damages, including, but not limited to, loss of dues, jobs, work assignments, negotiated rights and privileges and dues, administrative time, resources, fees and expenses, and loss of other rights. 488. Individual Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount to be proven at trial and to injunctive relief fully restoring Individual Plaintiffs’ rights and prohibiting Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams, and Molnaa from interfering with such rights in any way in the future. 489. The actions taken Defendants Ault, Hill, Williams and Molnaa were malicious, oppressive or in reckless disregard of the rights of the Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs. The conduct was malicious because it was accompanied by ill will, spite, and for the purpose of injuring the Carpenters and the Individual

243
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Plaintiffs and in reckless disregard of their rights because under the circumstances reflects a complete indifference to their rights, and in the face of a perceived risk that its actions would violate the law. The Carpenters and the Individual Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: 1. Grant the Plaintiffs judgment for damages and pre-judgment interest

according to proof at trial; 2. 3. Grant the Plaintiffs punitive damages according to proof at trial; Grant the Plaintiffs their costs, disbursements, reasonable

investigative and attorneys’ fees; 4. Grant the Plaintiffs a declaratory order and judgment that the

Defendants’ conduct complained of herein has violated the law; 5. Grant the Plaintiffs injunctive relief (a) enjoining the Defendants, and

their officers, agents, successors, employees, and all others acting in concert with any of them, from engaging in any further extortionate conduct, interference with contractual relations, campaigns or conspiracies against the Plaintiffs or from engaging in any other conduct that violates any of the Defendants’ duties toward the Plaintiffs; (b) ordering the dissolution of the BCTD enterprise and/or a reorganization of the BCTD prohibiting the BCTD Defendants and coconspirators from sitting on its Governing Board of Presidents, or having any

244
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

authority or control, direct or indirect, over the BCTD or the Metal Trades Department, or any of their Councils; (c) ordering the Defendants restore all of Plaintiffs’ rights and privileges as members of the Metal Trades Department and Councils; (d) ordering the Defendants and their co-conspirators, and their unions, to disgorge all ill-gotten income and gains received from their unlawful extortionate campaign and conspiracy; and 6. equitable. Grant Plaintiffs such other relief as the Court may deem just and

DATED: February 21, 2012

DECARLO, CONNOR & SHANLEY, APC

By: /s/ Daniel M. Shanley Daniel M. Shanley, WSBA #41243 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Daniel M. Shanley, WSBA #41243 E-Mail: dshanley@deconsel.com DeCARLO, CONNOR &SHANLEY A Professional Corporation 533 South Fremont Avenue Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213)488-4100 Fax: (213)488-4180 [Of Counsel:] G. Robert Blakey E-Mail: blakey.1@nd.edu William J. and K. O’Neill Professor Room 3102 Eck Hall of Law *Notre Dame Law School
245
COMPLAINT CASE NO.

Case 2:12-cv-00109-EFS

Document 1

Filed 02/21/12

1 2 3 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

Notre Dame, IN 46556-4639 Phone: (574) 631-5717 Fax: (574) 641-4197 *for identification only

CASE NO.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful