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. LOCAL 30

June 24, 1993

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
LOCAL 30, UNITED SLATE, TILE AND COMPOSITION ROOFERS, DAMP AND WATERPROOF WORKERS ASSOCIATION, et al.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: LOUIS C. BECHTLE

 AND NOW, TO WIT, this 24th day of June, 1993, upon consideration of defendant Joseph Traitz's ("Traitz") application for clarification of the court's May 23, 1988 decree ("decree") imposed on Roofers Local 30/30B ("Local 30/30B" or "union"), IT IS ORDERED that the application to clarify the May 23, 1988 decree to permit Traitz's employment with National ECO Systems, Inc., is denied.

 In his application, Traitz seeks a clarification of the court's decree that would permit him to continue with his employment with National ECO Systems, Inc. ("NES"), a family-owned business. In ruling on Traitz's application, the court must decide whether Traitz's continued employment with NES is in violation of the decree's ban on employment in the "roofing or related construction industries." For the reasons stated below, the court finds that Traitz's employment with NES is a violation of the May 23, 1988 decree.

 Background

 On May 23, 1988, the court entered a comprehensive decree in the above-captioned civil RICO action, granting relief by imposing a "decreeship" upon Local 30/30B, a union that had a long history of abuse, corruption and violence. (Decree at P 4.) In addition, and more particularly related to the application presently before the court, the decree also imposed employment limitations on the individual defendants (former officers and/or employees of the union) who had been convicted of wrongdoing. The decree's restrictions barred the named individuals from participating in the management or operation of the union, or any affiliated entity, as well as placed limitations on other related employment opportunities.

 The court need not address in depth the factors upon which it relied in imposing both the "decreeship" and the prohibitions upon the individual defendants. See United States v. Roofers Local 30/30 B, et al., 871 F.2d 401 (3d Cir. 1989); United States v. Roofers Local 30/30 B, 686 F. Supp. 1139 (E.D. Pa. 1989). Essentially, the court found that the individual defendants were responsible for a pattern of racketeering activity through which the affairs of Local 30/30B were conducted. Accordingly, the court placed the various restrictions upon the individual defendants and their employment opportunities so as to prevent continued or future racketeering activity within the operation of Local 30/30B.

 Discussion

 Traitz's application is directed at one aspect of the court's decree, that is, the following prohibition on employment:

 
Each of the individual defendants is, until further Order of court, prohibited from engaging in employment in the roofing or related construction industries, in any capacity, within the geographical area of the jurisdiction of Local 30/30B as that jurisdiction existed on the day these civil proceedings were filed. The court will consider allowing employment in the roofing or related construction industries within the jurisdictional area in a non-supervisory or non-leadership role upon application to the court of any affected defendant.

 (Decree at P 7 (emphasis added).)

 Traitz asserts in his application that NES "solely hauls away trash and debris," and states that NES has "approximately six employees, three vehicles, and is managed, owned and primarily controlled by" his mother, Barbara Traitz. (Application at PP 4-5.) In support of the application, Barbara Traitz asserts in an affidavit that Traitz's "role in the company was that of a sales person soliciting new non-roofing contracting work involving demolition debris removal." (Affidavit at P 5.) Ms. Traitz states that her son simply functions as what might be called a salesman, bringing in new work to the company of a non-roofing nature, and that, thereafter, other employees handle the accounts. (Affidavit at P 7.) Ms. Traitz sets forth that, in the past and at the time of the execution of the affidavit, NES has done business with ten roofing companies, all of which were served by another employee. (Affidavit at PP 12-13.) Finally, Ms. Traitz asserts that Traitz "has absolutely no contact with any of the roofing customers in any manner whatsoever" and that he "is solely a salesperson for new, non-roofing customers." (Affidavit at P 14.)

 In deciding Traitz's application, the court will assume the accuracy of the facts recited in Ms. Traitz's affidavit concerning the conduct of the business affairs of NES. Upon consideration of the averments made in Traitz's application and Ms. Traitz's affidavit, the court must deny the application.

 The court's decree barred the individual defendants, including Joseph Traitz, from working in the "roofing or related construction industries, in any capacity, within the geographical area of jurisdiction of Local 30/30B." (Decree at P 7.) This employment restriction reflects the court's concern that the individual defendants possess the capability of continuing their past pattern of racketeering activity should they be permitted to be employed in related construction industries. *fn1" To the extent that Traitz's activities as an employee of NES involve employment in the "roofing or related construction industries," his employment is in violation of the decree. This employment is prohibited "in any capacity," including solicitation and sales activities within the roofing or related construction industries.

 At the very least, Ms. Traitz's affidavit demonstrates that some of the Traitz's sales activities involve the construction industries. (Affidavit at PP 5, 9 and 15.) Paragraph 9 of the affidavit states that Joseph Traitz solicited Wyatt Construction Company, Nealson Construction and Painters Local 641. The court believes that the phrase "roofing or related construction industries, in any capacity" gives clear and unambiguous notice as to the kind of employment which is prohibited. Traitz's sales activity plainly constitutes work in the construction industry and, accordingly, is prohibited by the ...


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.