Office of Dennis M.

Walsh The Review Officer 90 Civil 5722 (SONY)
15 Chester Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 dwfitzwalsh@optonline.net 914.437.9058

United States v. District Council, et al., 90 Civ. 5722 (SDNY)

NOTICE OF VETO BY THE REVIEW OFFICER To: Gauntlett Holness Trustee and Delegate Local Union 157 Peter Corrigan Financial Secretary and Delegate Local Union 157 Levy Messinetti Recording Secretary and Delegate Local Union 157 Pat Nee President and Delegate Local Union 157
With a Notice of Possible Action by the Review Officer and related procedures having been sent to the above-named persons (respondents) on May 31, 2012, and upon the facts presented in the Declaration of William J. O'Flaherty, dated June 26, 2012, incorporated herein by reference, the email exchanges between this office and Local 157 regarding the events under consideration, the submissions of Corrigan, Messinetti and Nee and having considered the statements and arguments made by Corrigan, Messinetti, Nee and Holness in the pre-action conference conducted by the Review Officer and attended by Investigators Roth and O'Flaherty with respondents called individually on June 14,2012, I fmd that there is reasonable cause to believe that beginning on or about April 26, 2012, through April 30, 2012:
(1) Holness, Corrigan, Messinetti and Nee (fiduciaries ofthe local union) engaged in concerted activity to direct payment of the funds of Local Union 157 to Holness and Corrigan in payment for moving the books, records and other property of the local union from the eighth floor of 395 Hudson Street to the first floor of 395 Hudson Street at a planned cost ofa payment to each of$484.61, said to be in consideration for seven hours of work perfonned on April 28, 2012, at time and a half as calculated by reference to the

field agreement, despite that 29 U.S.C. § 501 requires a labor organization "to hold its money and property solely for the benefit of the organization and its members" -- and prohibits self dealing by fiduciaries and requires them to account to the local union for any profit or pecuniary interest gained through their status. None made any attempt to give notice of the availability of the jobs to the approximately 10,000 other members of the local union. (2) On April 11, 2012, the District Council Director of Operations informed Nee that the local union would have to move into its new office on the first floor on the weekend of th April 28 • Neither the move nor the need for any assistance to accomplish the move was mentioned at the membership meeting on April 18,2012. (3) On April 26th, Messinetti sent an email to this office representing that due to a last minute notification to vacate their office space, the local union would be requiring the services of three members and the Financial Secretary to move the local's files and other property. The same day, Corrigan told RO Investigator Dick Roth that he was going to select outof-work members to accomplish the move, but instead proceeded to call multiple members of the executive board to ask if they would work. (4) Holness, Corrigan and a rank and file member (an acquaintance of both Holness and Corrigan) whom they selected to assist in the move arrived at the eighth floor office of the local union on April 28th at approximately seven a.m. Corrigan and Holness stated that they and the rank and file member went to lunch around noon for approximately 45 minutes. According to Holness, not much work was done after lunch and everyone left 395 Hudson Street shortly after one p.m. Thus, he and Corrigan only worked approximately 5.5 hours (see below) yet took it for granted that they would get a "full day's pay" (seven hours) and saw no conflict between their officer status and being paid on the terms stated above. (5) Corrigan admitted that when a fellow executive board member proposed that his nephew be asked to work, he declined to ask him on grounds of "nepotism" (concluding that would be inappropriate yet his getting paid as an officer and fiduciary was somehow appropriate). Though he asserted to this office that he did not seek or have an expectation of getting paid until April 30th, when it was purportedly suggested to him by at least one fellow officer (Messinetti) that he was entitled to a "day's pay," Corrigan told one or more of the three local union administrative assistants who also worked on April 28th that he was going to get paid. (6) Corrigan represented to this office in the pre-action conference that he worked seven hours and left 395 Hudson Street at 2 p.m. Building security records indicate that he arrived shortly before 7 a.m. and witness accounts place his departure at between 1 and 1:10 p.m. Corrigan's phone records show that he was on the phone for seven minutes beginning at 1: 18 p.m. having placed a call to Messinetti' s phone. (7) Nee saw no issue in having two officers of the union receive payment and not notifYing rank and file members of the opportunity to apply for the work (actually insisting that

2

only officers should do the work). Three other local unions accomplished the same move without compensating any members. (8) Nee falsely stated to this office that after speaking with Corrigan on Thursday, April 26, 2012, he had no further conversations about the move until Tuesday, May 1, 2012. Phone records and witness statements reveal that he had two phone conversations with Corrigan on Saturday, April 28th , the day of the move. (9) Messinetti, the local union recording secretary, took it upon himself to write and submit to this office (under Nee's name in the email signature and unbeknownst to Nee) a Paragraph 5.b review notice, though it has never before been his responsibility or practice to do so. The 5.b notice was not accurate, declaring an intention of the local union to pay Corrigan, Holness and the rank and file member for seven hours of work when less than six had actually been performed (and Messinetti made no effort to determine how many hours of work had actually been performed). Messinetti ignored the strictures of Section 501, submitted the 5.b notice before the proposed expenditures had been submitted to the executive board or the members of the local union (contrary to the Guidance distributed by this office to the local unions on August 11, 2010; see attached) and stated in the preaction conference that he assumed "if you [the Review Officer] had any problem with it" the expenditure would simply be vetoed. According to Nee, Messinetti told him (after Nee learned about the Paragraph 5.b notice that was sent to the Review Officer and asked Messinetti about it) that Corrigan told him to send the notice. (10) None of the respondents articulated any benefit to the membership that would be brought by Corrigan and Holness, officers and fiduciaries of the local union, receiving $484.61 in local union funds for less than six hours of work not brought to the attention of or offered to the members of the local union. Further,1 find that there is reasonable cause to believe that by on or about May 1,2012, Nee and Messinetti caused to be printed and mailed an election notice (copy attached) which purported to give notice of nominations for an "alternate" delegate to the District Council position, for which there is no authority in the Constitution of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, a fact known by Nee and Messinetti before the notice was prepared. The correction of the notice required the printing and mailing of a second notice card at a cost to the local union of approximately $3,592.88 (copy attached). The cost of the corrected notice and waste oflocal union assets was a direct result ofthe actions of Nee and Messinetti. The conduct of Pat Nee violated the Stipulation and Order entered in this matter on June 3,2010 (the Stipulation and Order) and presents grounds for a veto pursuant to Paragraphs 5.b.iii (c, d and e) and 7 of the Stipulation and Order. On December 12, 2011, Nee executed an agreement with this office (copy attached) in response to a previous Notice of Possible Action in which he acknowledged that "I have erred and failed to fulfill my obligations pursuant to Paragraph 5.b.i of the Stipulation and Order. 1 regret that such errors and omissions occurred and pledge that such conduct and omissions will not again occur." He also agreed that should his service in any regard be vetoed (after being given an opportunity to explain himself, which he

3

.
received in the present circumstance) he waived the right to review pursuant to Paragraph 11 of the Stipulation and Order. His service as President and delegate of Local 157 is hereby vetoed. The conduct of Levi Messinetti violated the Stipulation and Order and presents grounds for a veto pursuant to Paragraphs 5.b.iii (c, d and e) and 7 of the Stipulation and Order. His service as Recording Secretary and delegate of Local 157 is hereby vetoed. The conduct of Peter Corrigan violated the Stipulation and Order and presents grounds for a veto pursuant to Paragraphs 5.b.iii (c, d and e) and 7 of the Stipulation and Order. His service as Financial Secretary and delegate of Local 157 is hereby vetoed. The conduct of Gauntlett Holness violated the Stipulation and Order and presents grounds for a veto pursuant to Paragraph 5.bjii (c, d and e) ofthe Stipulation and Order. His service as a trustee of Local 157 is hereby vetoed. Further, the expenditures proposed in the Paragraph 5.b notice of April 30, 2012, for Corrigan and Holness are hereby vetoed. The proposed expenditure for the rank and file member referred to above may be submitted to the membership for consideration at the next regular meeting of the local union. Dated: June 26,2012

Review Officer

4

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful