Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

UNITED STATES v. BAKER

November 23, 1960

UNITED STATES of America
v.
Robert Benjamin BAKER



The opinion of the court was delivered by: MARSH

The defendant, Baker, *fn1" was convicted on a three-count indictment which charged him with having violated the Taft-Hartley Act, § 186(b), Title 29 U.S.C.A., *fn2" on three occasions. Thereafter, he presented motions for judgment of acquittal and, in the alternative, for a new trial. The reasons advanced in support of his motion for judgment of acquittal and a new trial may be summarized as follows:

1. There was insufficient evidence from which the jury could find that the money accepted by defendant was received other than as loans.

 2. There was insufficient evidence from which the jury could find that the defendant was a representative of any employees of Exhibitor's Service Company (ESCO).

 3 The testimony of the defendant before a Senate Committee (Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field) should be stricken as violative of Title 18 U.S.C. § 3486, and that said testimony was improperly received in evidence.

 The court is of the opinion that both motions should be denied.

 Since the defendant was found guilty as charged, the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom must be viewed in a light most favorable to the Government. Connelly v. United States, 8 Cir., 1957, 249 F.2d 576. *fn3" Thus viewed, the evidence disclosed that during December, 1957, and January, 1958, ESCO was a corporation doing business as a common carrier and lawfully entitled to transport goods, inter alia, between points in Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio; that it employed members of Locals 211 and 249 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (International Union); that these employees were engaged in an industry affecting commerce; and that George F. Callahan, Jr. was president and treasurer of ESCO.

 The International Union operated under a constitution *fn4" which provides that the International Convention is the supreme governing authority; the Union consists of chartered Local Unions, Joint Councils and Area Conferences; the Locals are affiliated with a Joint Council and with an Area Conference; all these bodies are subordinate to the International Union which has jurisdiction over all member workers.

 The officers of the International Union are a General President, General Secretary-Treasurer, and 13 Vice-Presidents, all of whom comprise a General Executive Board. Extensive supervisory power is given to the General President and the General Executive Board.

 Defendant was an organizer and representative of the Central Conference (T., pp. 42-43). He took orders from James Hoffa and Harold Gibbons. Since 1952 to January 28, 1958, Hoffa was a Vice-President of the International Union, a member of the General Executive Board, and Chairman of the Central Conference, which includes eastern Ohio where some of ESCO's operations were conducted. ESCO also conducted operations in Pennsylvania where it had its principal place of business; Pennsylvania is included in the Eastern Conference. Hoffa had been elected General President in October, 1957, and took office on January 28, 1958. Gibbons was Secretary-Treasurer of the Central Conference; he had been elected Vice-President in the latter part of 1957 and took that office also on January 28, 1958.

 In the latter part of 1957, Locals 211 and 249 were engaged in a jurisdictional dispute, and ESCO was trying to negotiate a new contract with Local 211, whose President was one Cozza. ESCO was threatened with a strike. ESCO's president, Callahan, and one Weinheimer, an ESCO salesman, consulted Hoffa about ESCO's troubles. As Vice-President and member of the General Executive Board, Hoffa discussed the strike 'with everybody I could get hold of, to try to straighten it out' (T., p. 42). As Vice-President, Hoffa brought the jurisdictional matter to the General Executive Board (T., p. 45).

 Hoffa discussed ESCO's troubles with defendant, who worked under Hoffa's personal supervision as Chairman of the Central Conference, because they 'affected some part of (ESCO's) Ohio operation, which is Central Conference' (T., pp. 53, 54; see also T., p. 44).

 It was stipulated that the General Executive Board in August, 1957, took action in regard to the jurisdictional dispute between Locals 211 and 249, which involved ESCO (T., p. 89).

 On December 18, 1957, Local 211 went on strike against ESCO.

 After the strike started, the defendant was in Pittsburgh on two occasions in December, 1957, and in the latter part of January, 1958. His expenses were paid by the Central Conference; the vouchers were approved by Hoffa and Gibbons. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.