iii
Hi
mmm
! i i
rF
t
Given By
3^
i
3 < o (/)
(5'
Q)
o
3
DO Not HeiiiuM^
internet Archive Boston scanning Center
,ent ID BPU-. Gov Docs
Chmmf
.-IV
^i^l
INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD
HEARINGS
i/ C^-i
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE
ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT EIELD
EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION PUKSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTIONS 74 AND 221, 85TH CONGRESS
JULY 15, 16, 17, 18, AND 31, 1958
PART 34
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Impr^ Labor or Management Field
[ities in the
PUBi
^ P R ,N
.w»'
■i
INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE
ON IMPEOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD
EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTIONS 74 AND 221, 85TH CONGRESS
AUGUST 5, 6, 7, 8, AND 12, 1958
PART 36
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field
INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE
ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD
EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTIONS 74 AND 221, 85TH CONGRESS
AUGUST 5, 6, 7, 8, AND 12, 1958
PART 36
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 21243 WASHINGTON : 1958
Boston Public Librmry Superintendent of Documents
JANl3 1b5y DEPOSITORY
SELECT COMMITTEE ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman IRVING M. IVES, New York, Vice Chairman JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota
SAM J. ERVIN, Je., North Carolina BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona
FRANK CHURCH, Idaho CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska
Robert F. Kennedy, Chief Counsel Ruth Young Watt, Chief Clerk
II
CONTENTS
James R. Hoffa and the International, Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America
Page
Appendix , 13707
Testimonv of —
Adlefman, Jerome S 13445, 13578, 13700
Balkwill, William H 13322, 13338
Belles, Ernest G 13616
Bellino, Carmine S 13336, 13702
Bitonti, John 13620
Brennan, Owen Bernard 13398, 13488
Brennan, William J 13548
Bushkin, Jack 13365
Davidson, Eml^rel 13458
DeLucia, Paul (Ricca) 13575, 13583
Feldman, Samuel 13565
Finazzo, Sam 13483
Fitzgerald, George 13439
Fitzsimmons, Frank E 13588
Grosberg, Herbert L 13410, 13448
Held, George 13598
Hoffa, James R. 13277, 13379, 13407, 13495, 13533, 13629, 13666, 13667, 13695
Kelly, James P 13666
Lantz, Conrad 133 16
LoCicero, Thomas 13357
Marroso, Samuel J 13452
Meissner, John C 13344
Miller, William H 13297
Morgan, Arthur L 13609
O'Carroll, Patrick P 13477
Quasarano, Raffaele 13483
Roberts, Robert D 13532
Rose, Lulubelle 13562
Salinger, Pierre E. G 13349, 13481, 13582
Scott, Robert P 13673
Stern, Max 13569
Watkins, Vincent B 13312
EXHIBITS
Introduced Appears on page on page 1. Check No. 1352, dated May 2, 1949, payable to Conrad S. Lantz, in the amount of $1,000 drawn on account of De- troit Institute of Laundering 13319 13707
2A. Check No. 1203, dated September 30, 1948, payable to cash, in the amount of $1,000 drawn on account of Detroit In- stitute of Laundering 13332 13708
2B. Check No. 1538, dated April 17, 1950, payable to cash, in the amount of $2,000 drawn on the account of Detroit Insti- tute of Laundering 13332 13709
2C. Check No. 1347, dated April 24, 1949, payable to W. H. Balkwill, in the amount of $1,000 drawn on the account
of Detroit Institute of Laundering 13332 13710
3A-0. Fifteen checks in various amounts drawn on the account of Detroit Institute of Laundering from June 2, 1948,
through April 27, 1951 -- 13338 (*)
*May be found in the files of the select committee.
ni
IV
CONTENTS
Introduced Api)ears on page on page
3P-DD. Check stubs and ledger sheets, "legal expenses" and
"travel and entertainment" 13338 (*)
4. Contract, agreement, and scale of wages between Detroit Institute of Laundering and Laundry and Linen Drivers Union, Local 285 "_ 13350 (*)
5A. Check dated March 15, 1955, payable to cash, in the amount of $500, signed by Benjamin Dranow and endorsed by Wilbur Clark's Desert Inn 13371 13711
5B. Check dated March 15, 1955, payable to cash, in the amount of $1,500, signed by Benjamin Dranow and endorsed by Wilbur Clark's Desert Inn 13371 13712
5C. Check dated March 15, 1955, payable to cash, in the amount of $1,100, signed bv Ben Dranow and endorsed by Hotel Flamingo, Inc___I 13371 13713
6A. Check No. 1010, dated March 17, 1956, payable to Sam Marroso, in the amount of $250, drawn on special ac- count of Herbert L. Grosberg 13437 13714
6B. Check No. 1011, dated March 17, 1956, payable to Sam Marroso, in the amount of $50, drawn on special account of Herbert L. Grosberg 13437 13715
6C. Check No. 1015, dated April 16, 1956, payable to Sam Marroso, in the amount of $300, and drawn on special account of Herbert L. Grosberg 13437 13716
6D. Check No. 1029, dated January 29, 1957, payable to Sam Marroso, in the amount of $208.17, and drawn on the special account of Herbert L. Grosberg 13437 13717
7. Picture of Jimmy Quasarano 13468 (*)
8. A group picture marked "Truck bombers" in which appears
the picture of Bernard Brennan 13492 (*)
9. Field report dated August 12, 1948, re Herman Kierdorf by
Phihp H. Collins, parole officer, Division of Pardons,
Paroles and Probation 13507 (*)
10. Check No. 1810, dated June 21, 1956, payable to Samuel
Feldman, in the amount of $750, drawn on the account of
Dewey's Famous, Inc 13567 13718
11. Photograph of the home formerly occupied by Paul DeLucia
at Long Beach, LaPorte County, Ind 13577 (*)
12. Plat of a survey made by Richard R. Frame, professional
engineer for the State of Indiana, consisting of 8 lots
which involves property of DeLucia or the Teamsters 13579 (*)
13. Trust Agreement No. 96 transferring property in tract B,
lots 37, 38, 39, and 40 to Teamster locals and back to
Paul DeLucia and back to Teamsters 13581 (*)
14. Trust Agreement No. 97 transferring tract A, lots 35, 36,
41, and 42 from DeLucia to the Teamsters 13581 (*)
15. Minutes of the executive board meeting of local 337, Jan-
uary 4, 1957 13582 (*)
16. The Long Beach zoning ordinance 13586 (*)
17. Decision by the National Labor Relations Board; Report
and Recommendation on Objections to Conduct Affecting
the Results of the Election of Teamsters Lhiion 13613 (*)
18. Letter dated September 26, 1957, addressed to Mr. Arthur
Morgan, Minneapolis, Minn., from Elmer J. Ryan, at- torney at law, St. Paul, Minn '. 13613 13719
19. Letter dated January 5, 1943, addressed to Manpower
Branch, Civilian Personnel Division, War Department, Washington, D. C, re induction of Roland Bovne Mc- Master,\signed by James R. Hoffa ." 13639 (*)
♦May be found in the files of the select committee.
CONTENTS
Introduced Appears on page on page
20. Document, prospectus of North American Rare Metals.
Ltd_._ 1 13656 (*)
21 A. Check No. 1318, dated April 19, 19.56, payable to Ahmed
Abass, drawn on local 299 in the amount of $12,000 13662 13720
21 B. Check stub No. 1318, dated April 19, 1956, payable to
Ahmed Abass for "Personal, 2d mortgage" in the amount
of $12,000 13662 13721
22. Check dated August 6, 1956, payable to Benjamin Dranow,
in the amount of $4,430, signed by Jack Bushkin 13664 13722
23. A\'ithdrawal card issued to Robert P. Scott: "Not active in
business," by local 50, Barbers Union 13686 13723
24. Ledger sheet showing the years Robert P. Scott paid dues
to Local 50, Barbers Union: 1943, 1944, 1945, 1956, and
part of 1947 13686 13724
25. Telegram received by Robert Scott from Elmer Albrecht,
secretary-treasurer, local 552 13689 13725
26. Check No. 415 dated February 21, 1955, payable to Joint
Council 43, in the amount of $3,000 and signed by
Frank Collins, Joint Council 43, defense fund 13704 13726
Proceedings of —
August 5, 1958 13275
August 6, 1958 13377
August 7, 1958 13451
Augusts, 1958 13547
August 12, 1958 13629
*May be found in the files of the select committee.
INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD
TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1958
United States Senate, Select Committee on Improper Activities
IN THE Labor or Management Field, Washington, L
The select committee met at 10 : 30 a. m., pursuant to Senate R tion 74, agreed to January 30, 1957, in the caucus room, Senate Building, Senator Jolin L. McClellan (chairman of the select mittee) presiding.
Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; S( John F. Kennedy, Democrat, Massachusetts; Senator Sam J. ] Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Frank Church, Dem Idaho ; Senator Irving M. Ives, Republican, New York ; Senator E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota ; Senator Carl T. Curtis, E lican, Nebraska.
Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Paul Tii assistant counsel; John J. McGovern, assistant counsel; Carm Bellino, accountant; Pierre E. Salinger, investigator; Ruth Y. chief clerk.
(At the convening of the session, the following members were ent : Senators McClellan, Ives, Ervin, Kennedy, Curtis, and Chi
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
Good morning.
Mr. HoFFA. Good morning. Senator.
The Chairman. The Chair will make a brief opening state Today the committee resumes its inquiry into the policies, prai and activities of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, C feurs. Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, and particularly respect to the same under the leadership and direction of Jan Hoffa, general president of this labor organization.
At the time Mr. Hoffa appeared before this committee last he did not hold the top position in the Teamsters Union. Since however, at a convention in Miami, Fla., he was elected to the dency with attending circumstances that raised serious questic the propriety and validity of his selection.
Nevertheless, he now heads the Nation's most powerful union, potential for good and evil in the position he holds is tremei The teamsters have both the capacity and the opportunity to mighty driving and constructive force for the welfare of its mer and for the betterment of the American economy. If the powe ability of the International Teamsters Union should be imprc directed and misused, then it could become an extremely evi
13275
13276 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
destructive force in the social, political, and economic life of our country.
Obviously, tlie direction of this international union will depend upon the integrity and the motivation of that leadership. This is of great concern, not only' to this committee and the Congress but to all decent, law-abiding American citizens evei-ywhere.
On the basis of previous testimony before this committee, replete with improper practices and conduct on the part of Mr, Hoffa and some of his associates, a serious question has arisen in the minds of the committee as to Mr, Hoffa's motivation and the direction and leadership he proposes to give this great and important union.
As spelled out in the committee's interim report, the evidence had shown that in numerous instances Mr. Hotfa has alined himself with certain underworld characters, who are a part and parcel of the crimi- nal elements and most sinister forces in this country.
When he testified before the connnittee, Mr. Hotfa said he would attempt to divest himself of some of his associations and give this union the character and quality of leadership and administration worthy of the importance and high purposes of this great labor organization.
In these hearings the committee will be interested in ascertaining whether he has been successful — or what efforts and progress he has made in that direction.
It will be recalled that when Mr. Iloft'a testified before, he suffered seriously from 'iack of memory,'' and thus avoided answering many pertinent questions seeking information, about which he had knowl- edge and in which the committee was interested.
It is to be hoped that his memory has improved and that he can now give the committee the cooperation and assistance it is entitled to receive and that he, as an American citizen and the leader of this great union, is under obligation to give.
This series of hearings will not be of 1 day's duration. The affairs of this union and its top officers are so intricate and complex that it may well engage the attention of the committee here in public hear- ings for several weeks.
Mr. Hoffa will be expected to remain here during that time to answer all pertinent questions, to give explanations, or to refute any testimony the committee may hear of improper practices, or that which may be derogatory to him personally.
We have a right to expect from him candid and truthful answers. For him to do less would seriously compromise his position and cast further doubt upon his integrity and the propriety of his union leadership,
I believe Mr. Hoffa observed recently in Seattle, Wash., that the Teamsters have the power to shut down the economy of this Nation at its will. That I think we can concede. Any union in which such tremendous power is reposed also bears equal obligation and responsi- bility to the people and to the Government of the United States.
It is unthinkable that the leaders of any such powerful organization should have an alliance or understanding in any area of its activities with racketeers, gangsters, and hoodlums.
Such an alliance or any working arrangements with such characters and elements places a dangerous force at the jugular vein of America's economic life.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13277
The committee is convinced that the great mass — the million and a half members of the Teamsters Union — are honest, law-abiding citizens. The committee is interested in serving them — in protecting their interest and their welfare.
The committee is also interested in ascertaining the truth regarding policies, activities, and practices associated with this union and its leadership and with labor-management relations generally that need to be corrected or prohibited.
To that end the committee seeks information with a view of sub- mitting recommendations to the Congress for appropriate remedial legislation.
Notwithstanding Mr. Hoffa's reported remarks of contempt for this committee, its source of authority, the United States Senate, and the purposes and objectives for which the committee labors, the com- mittee will pursue its duty and carry out the mandate in the resolu- tion creating it.
In this, we hope to have, and have every right to expect, Mr. Hoffa's cooperation and assistance.
(At this point. Senator Mundt entered the hearing room.)
This is something he owes to the great mass of working people — • dues-paying members whose interest he is supposed to represent, whose welfare he is supposed to promote, and whose rights he is ■dutybound to protect.
The committee shall now proceed as faithfully and diligently in the course herein set forth as it is within its capacity to do so.
Senator Ives. Mr. Chainnan, before you start, I would like to com- mend you upon that statement. It is an excellent presentation. I think it expresses the feeling of every single one of us. Before we get through with this series of hearings, at which Mr. Hoffa will be present, I have a feAv questions I expect to ask him.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Ives.
Are there any other comments ?
Senator Curtis?
Senator CtiRTis. No statement.
The CiiAiRMAx. Senator Kennedy ?
Senator Kennedy. No statement.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hoffa, will you be sworn, please, sir?
You do solemnly swear that the evidence you give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Hoffa. I do.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES R. HOFFA, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, EDWARD BENNETT WILLIAMS, GEORGE FITZGERALD, AND DAVID PREVIANT
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your business or occupation.
Mr. Hoffa. My name is James R. Hoffa, 16154 Robeson, Detroit, Mich., and I am president of the International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, "Warehousemen, and Helpers of America.
The Chairman. You have counsel.
Mr. Counsel, identify yourself.
13278 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. HoFFA. Yes, sir, I have counsel today, and I desire my counsel to make a statement j^rior to the hearing also.
The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, identify yourself for the record.
If you have more than one
Mr. Williams. My name, sir, is Edward Bennett Williams of Washington, D. C.
So that there will be no misunderstanding about my role here, I would like to say for the record that I appear here as general counsel for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chautl'eurs, Ware- housemen, and Helpers of America, to counsel with the president during his appearance here. I should like to just take one minute,. Mr. Chairman, to say a few
The Chairman. May I ask before you do that if there are other counsel representing him ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Mr. George Fitzgerald of Detroit, Mich., and Mr. David Previant,. of Milwaukee, Wis., also appear here as counsel.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a couple of words relative to the subject that you spoke on a minute ago. I think in order to evaluate the pertinency of this interrogation, it is necessary to state a little of the background that has shifted since the witness' last appear- ance here on August 23d. As the Chair indicated, he has become president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
The Chairman. Is there any objection on the part of the committee to permit counsel to make a brief backgi'ound statement ?
Without objection, you may proceed.
Mr. Williams. On January 23, of this year, Mr. Chairman, as the direct result of an order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the witness became seated as president of this union; on January 31, just 8 days later, this international union vol- untarily did unto itself what no union has done. It submitted itself to the equity jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, acting through a court-appointed board of monitors. That board of monitors, Mr. Chairman, was appointed to advise the president and his executive board on matters of democratic procedures, financial procedures, on questions of conflict of interest, and on the removal of trusteeships in local unions.
It is exactly 6 months to the day since that board of monitors has been in operation. I can report to you, Mr. Chairman, that there has been no recommendation that has been made by this outside, impartial board of monitors which has been refused. I say this to point out to the chairman and the committee that many of these matters which may be pertinent here are under the equity jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and that they are matters which are under the continuing scrutiny of the court and its appointed officers.
I feel that this is a very important piece of information against which to assess the pertinency of this interrogation because I am sure that this committee does not want to intrude itself as a part of the legislature into a case which is actively under the scrutmy of the judiciary.
The Chairivian. The committee will not intrude upon the preroga- tives of the court. We have no intention of doing that. Tlie re-
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13279
sponsibility and authority vested in the court does not oontlict, neces- sarily, in any instance, so far as I know, with the purposes and objectives of this committee to ascertain what improper practices may be current or may have occurred in the past that may warrant and command the attention of tlie legishitive branch of the Government with respect to laws to remedy such conditions, if they exist.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. Senator Mundt.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Williams — I would like to ask counsel a couple of questions about this board of monitors, so that I can be sure that I understand the picture in my own mind.
Wliat is tlie anticipated life expectancy of this board of monitors?
Mr. Williams. Senator Mundt, the consent decree, which was entered into voluntarily by this international imion, provides that the board of monitoi-s shall sit for no less than 1 year, and that they shall sit, unless discharged by the court, in any event until the next conven- tion of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
In the normal course of events, under the constitution, the next convention of the international brotherhood would be in 1962.
Senator Mundt. So they have a minimum life of a year ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. And a maximum life until the next convention ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. And would you give just a quick, brief rundown of what their responsibilities are and what their authority is, if any ?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Senator
Senator Mundt. It would be helpful, too, I think, to have in the record the identity of the members.
Mr. Williams. Under this consent decree, and I repeat this inter- national under the presidency of the witness entered into this volun- tarily, the board of monitors is given jurisdiction over, first of all, democratic procedures within the union. They have the right to counsel with and make recommendations to the general executive board of the Teamsters on these matters : On the election of officers, on the right to honest advertised elections, on the right to fair mii- form qualifications to stand for office, and, furthermore, on the right to freedom to express views at meetings.
In other words, they have been given the jurisdiction voluntarily by the IBT to police intraunion democracy.
Secondly, they have been given jurisdiction voluntarily by the inter- national under the presidency of the witness to police financial and accounting controls and procedures of the international.
They are authorized to and they have already. Senator Mundt, made an audit of the international, through Price, Waterhouse and they are continuing to make other audits at the local levels through this same accounting firm.
In addition, they have been empowered to see that no officer of the international has any conflict of interest in the performance of his duties. In other words, if any officer of the international has any- thing which can be construed as an investment which might conflict or an interest which might conflict with the full performance of his duties to the international, they have the authority to police this and
13280 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
bring it to the attention of the court. I might say to you, Senator, that the past 6 months during the existence of this board of monitor- ship, every investment, every interest, that any international officer has had, has been divested, several months ago, which could possibly be at war with the letter or spirit of this provision of the decree.
Again, they are authorized and empowered to look into the situ- ation of trusteed locals. The last time that this witness appeared here, Senator Mundt, I believe there were some 118 locals in trustee- ship. As of this morning, my best information is that the figure is 45. In other words, the number of locals in trusteeship have been more than halved.
They are now less than 50 percent of what they were. During the existence of this board of monitorship, which originally was headed by Chief Judge Nathan Cay ton, formerly chief judge of the Munic- ipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and which was filled further by Godfrey Schmidt, of New York, and L. N. D. Wells, of Dallas, Tex., all the recommendations which were made by the board of monitors to the president and the general executive board were abided by.
Every recommendation was adhered to. I may say to you, sir, that there were scores and scores of these. Chief Judge Cay ton resigned in April of this year, and he was succeeded by a District of Columbia lawyer, Martin F. O'Donoghue. Since Mr. O'Donoghue assumed the chairmanship of the board of monitors, again there have been numer- ous recommendations. I can report to you that as of this moment none has been declined. There are some still under advisement, but none has been declined by the president of the general executive board.
Senator Mtjndt. Is Mr. Schmidt still a member of the board of of monitors ?
Mr. Williams. Mr. Schmidt is still a member.
Senator ISIundt. The only change is the judge who has been re- placed by Mr. O'Donoghue.
Senator Mundt. Is that former District of Columbia Jiggs Dono- hue?
Mr. Williams. No; it is not. Senator Mundt. They are two dif- ferent men. The chairman of the board is Mr. O'Donoghue.
Senator Mundt. I would like to ask a question about the consent decree, under the terms of which this voluntary arrangement was made.
Is there anything in that arrangement whereby the recommenda- tions of the board of monitors have to be accepted? Or what hap- pens under the consent decree if the board of monitors unanimously recommend to the Teamsters that this be done and the Teamsters say, "We don't think this is right, we can't do it, or we wouldn't do it."
If you have an impasse, what happens ?
Mr. Williams. As of this moment, Senator, that situation has not taken place.
Senator Mundt. I understood that you said they had all been fol- lowed. But this is a conceivable contingency. I am wondering, under the terms of the consent decree, what happens then ?
Mr. Williams. Under the consent decree, if there were an arbitrary pattern of noncooperation by the general executive board and its presi- dent, with the recommendation of the board of monitors, and arbitrary
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13281
pattern of ignoring the board and failure to cooperate, the board has taken the position, through the chairman, Mr, O'Donoghue, that it could go to Judge Letts, who is the judge who signed the consent decree, and call these facts to his attention for what action he would take.
Senator Mundt. In other words, you are telling us that this board does have some power, that there are some teeth in it, that if over a period of some time a pattern were developed that they could enforce it, or they could go to the judge and ask him to enforce it?
Mr. Williams. I am saying that under the decree they have recom- mendatory and advisory powers only. As of this date, the question of whether they have teetli or not is a moot question because it has not arisen. Everything has been abided by.
Senator Mfndt. Is there any question in your mind but what the court, if it desired, could enforce the recommendations of the board if the board found that there were this arbitrary unwillingness, which, happily, does not exist, but which could exist?
Mr. Williams. I don't want to leave you with the impression for a moment. Senator, that the general executive board has surrendered the autonomy of this international to the board of monitors.
Senator Mundt. I am trying to find out what the facts are.
Mr. Williams. I don't want to suggest to you for a moment that the board of monitors can run this union under the decree, because we have not given them that kind of power. We have given them advisory and recommendatory power, and we have adhered to their recom- mendations.
If we should refuse to accept their recommendations in an isolated case here and there, certainly there would be nothing that they could do about it, because we retain in the executive board and in the presi- dent the final power to act in the administration and control of this union. But I did say to you that if there were an arbitrary flaunting as a pattern of the advice and recommendations of the board of moni- tors, then they have taken the position, and I suppose the chairman of the board is in a better position to answer than I what he conceives his own functions and powers to be, but they have taken the position that they could go to the United States district court and seek relief there.
Senator Mundt, What I am trying to establish primarily, Mr. Williams, in my own mind, is whether or not this board has a decree of administrative responsibility and authority which would indicate that perhaps some of the questions that we propose to ask should be directed to them instead of Hojffa and Bennett, or Hofi'a counseled by Bennett,
It appears clear to me then from what you have said that whatever questions are pertinent to this inquiry can appropriately be directed to Mr, Hoffa, that he continues to function as president of the Team- sters, and he has not flaunted these things arbitrarily ; he is the man in control and can also speak with authority and is a free agent. Is that correct ?
Mr. Williams. Senator, may I say to you I hope that this commit- tee will, in the exercise of its functions, and in the spirit of fairness, call the two chairmen of the board of monitors who have sat in office over the past 6 months during Mr. Hoffa's administration, and ask them, as impartial officers of the court, whether or not this union hor-
13282 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
been conducted in the spirit of this decree, which decree, I may say, encompasses more reforms, I think, than any legislation that has been proposed in either House of Congress, looking toward the restoration of union democracy and the control of finances of the international.
Senator Mundt. Why do you call them 2 instead of 3 ?
Mr. Williams. Well, call all four of them, if you wish, Senator. But I suggested the chairmen.
Senator Mundt. I thought there were three members.
Mr. Williams. I suggest that you call the chairman who resigned in April because of the pressure of other business and the chairman who succeeded him, because they would be in a position to speak for the board.
Senator Mundt. I thought you were talking about the entire board.
May I say, speaking for myself, I think that is a very appropriate suggestion, provided this inquiry dips back into the general affairs of the Teamsters Union, and I am not sure whether it is going to or not. But if so, I would think that would be a very helpful suggestion. You do agree with me, then, that Mr. Hoffa appears here free from any legal restraints or restrictions in his capacity as a Teamster to freely respond to the questions ?
Mr. Williams. Senator, I will make that decision with ]\Ir. Hoffa as each question is propounded.
Senator Mundt. You must have some general idea of the degree in which he is exercising his authority now and the degree it is cir- cumvented by the court. That is the purpose of my inquiry, not being a lawyer.
Mr. Williams. I don't have an}' general idea, Senator, what ques- tions are going to be propounded.
Senator Mundt. I don't either, but I am trying to get a general idea of his status, vis-a-vis the court and vis-a-vis his office.
The only thing I understand is that they entered into a voluntary consent decree and that Mr. Hoffa is here to accept or reject recom- mendations that are made by the board of monitors and, to his credit, you have testified that he has accepted all of them.
But I thought you said he had the right to reject them. That would indicate to me that he was a free agent.
Mr. Williams. Senator, perhaps this would answer your question. Mr. Hoffa is here to cooperate with this committee and answer any questions that are asked bona fides, which are relevant and germane to a legislative purpose, which is the sole function for which this com- mittee sits.
He will answer questions which are pertinent and germane to a bona fide legislative purpose.
Senator Mundt. I think that is a big enough kimona to cover all of the questions we are going to ask.
Mr. Williams. I certainly hope so.
The Chairman. Senator Curtis.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Williams, these monitors who are officers of the court, as I understand it, are they confining their function to the current operation of the union ?
They are not exercising any powers of investigation over past acts, are they ?
Mr. Williams. Senator, I would have to say to you that it was my concept of this decree, when it was entered into, that thev would con-
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13283
fine themselves to the current operation of this union, but the fact is otherwise because they have looked into grievances which are very, very old. As a matter of fact, they have dipped back into grievances of rank and filers that are as old, to my knowledge, as 10 years, in some instances, and they have scrceened some cases which antedate the administration which is now in office.
So that it isn't accurate to say that they are concerning themselves solely and exclusively with the current operation of the union.
Senator Curtis. Did the monitors contend that there was a current problem by reason of some complaint, even though it was 10 years
ago ? . . .
Have they taken jurisdiction in regard to anywhere it was ad- mittedly it was a closed case and had no relevancy to any current operations ?
Mr. Williams. Yes ; they have. I have a case in mind.
Of course, it is in my mind because it struck me as being so fan- tastic. A rank and filer claimed that certain welfare benefits had not been paid to him, which were owing to him since 1948. The board of minitors went into that case and we conducted a thoroughgoing investigation of it, we conducted a field investigation of it, at the in- stance of the general president, and satisfied the board of monitors on the case.
They have gone back into cases
Senator Curtis. But that man claimed as of this date that he had something coming ?
Mr. Williams. As a result of something that happened 10 years ago.
Senator Curtis. But he alleged that he had a current claim?
Mr, Williams. He alleged a current claim, yes.
Senator Curtis. Could you provide me witli a copy of that decree?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir; I will provide you with a copy of it as soon as we have a break in the recess. I will have a photostat made for you.
Senator Curtis. That is all.
Senator Ives. I would like to get something cleared up with counsel. He said that he was advising Mr. Hoffa to reply to all questions with- in the limitations of what is called appropriate legislative domain. Is that the term that you used ?
Mr, Williams. It is not the term I used but I will adopt your term.
Senator Ives. Wliat term did you use ?
Mr. Williams. I said that I would advise the witness and he is free, of course, to accept or reject my advice, but I shall advise him to an- swer all questions which are relevant and germane to what I regard as a bona fide legislative purpose.
Senator Ives. All right, I will accept that.
Now, will you kindly tell me, that being the case, what you consider not to be a bona fide legislative purpose ?
Mr. Williams. If tliis committee, for example, and I am sure or I certainly hope this isn't the case, were conducting a personal vendetta against Mr. Hoffa for the sole purpose of getting him removed from office, I would not think that that was a bona fide legislative purpose, Senator. In other words, if the committee had as its objective to humiliate and expose and castigate and degrade Mr. Hoffa in public
13284 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
here, I would think it was outside of its legitimate function as a committee.
I would then advise him, sir, not to cooperate in a vendetta against himself.
Senator Ives. May I ask a question ? In that connection, has there ever been any evidence of anybody on this committee trying to do thattoMr. Hoffa?
Mr. Williams. Senator, I am not under oath
Senator Ives. Now wait a minute. There were times when some of us got kind of disgusted because he ducked questions. As I said once before, he has the most convenient f orgettery of anybody I have ever known. Now, just because we nail him on that account doesn't mean we are trying in any way to injure him. He brings that on himself. There is no vendetta here. Now go ahead.
Mr. Williams. You asked me a question.
Senator Ives. Go ahead and answer it.
Mr. Williams. I would like to have the opportunity to answer it.
Senator I\t:s. Go ahead.
Mr. Williams. I feel, Senator, and I have examined the record very carefully that there were areas which were gone into during the life of the interrogation of this witness which could have no real rela- tionshp to a legislative purpose. I feel. Senator, and I must say this in all candor to you since you asked me, and I assume you will respect my views as a lawyer.
Senator Ives. I certainly respect your views and I regard you very highly as a lawyer.
Mr. Williams. I feel there were areas of interrogation when it appeared to me, at least, as a lawyer looking over the record when the questions were designed more to humiliate the witness than they w^ere to elicit information that would be helpful to this committee in proposing legislation to the United States Senate.
Senator Ives. Now, just a minute. I know of no question that could possibly have been asked him during tlie previous hearing, a year ago this month, which in any way could humiliate him, that wasn't brought on by himself.
Anybody who ducks questions the way he did is bound to bring on that kind of questioning, and he deserves it. It does have a legislative purpose. The way he acted here the last time is almost contempt of the Senate. The questions definitely had a legislative purpose. You and I may not agree.
Mr. Williams. We don't.
Senator I'S'es. I am very broad in this matter. I don't think that there is a thing in kingdom come that doesn't come within the pur- view of legislative activity or scope. Even if it is outside of the Constitution, it is not really outside because perhaps it calls for a constitutional amendment. So anything we do is within our limi- tations.
Mr. Williams. I thought that was your view.
Senator Ives. It is my view and it always has been.
The Chairman. Is there anything further ?
The Chair will make this observation: It is inherent in the law profession for lawyers to disagree and honestly so many times, and to make objections to the court as to the relevancy or pertinency of testi-
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13285
mony. So the fact that counsel may feel that some questions were not relevant or not pertinent or that the committee may feel they were is something that is not unordinary or unusual.
It occurs daily in the trial of cases everywhere. While this is not a trial, the committee, of course, in this instance has the tinal judg- ment and final authority to rule as to whether a question is pertinent or whether it will serve the legislative purpose. I can assure counsel and his client that insofar as I am concerned, and I believe I speak for every member of the connnitte, there is no comfort or measure de- rived from this character of an investigation, insofar as I am con- cerned. But we do have a duty, and a very high duty, and a very re- sponsible mission here or function to perform because we all know that there are practices going on, and it has been demonstrated, and it has been placed on the record over and over again that there are prac- tices going on in management-labor relations which need legislative attention.
We will try to conduct these hearings with propriety and dignity becoming tlie United States Senate committee. We may disagree, and we wil proceed. As long as the witness and his counsel respect the committee, I intend, so far as the Chair can control it, for the com- mittee to treat all who come before us accordingly.
Proceed, Mr. Counsel.
Senator Ervix. I wish to make an observation : If I ever should have occasion to need an advocate, I wouldn't want one who would regard things which affected me in a judicial manner. I would want him to be a little bit prejudiced in my favor. That is all.
The Chairman. Now, there is one question, or one thing, I think we should get straight for the record. Counsel, you stated a few moments ago that you appeared here as general counsel for the international union. Now, there is some question might arise as to whether that con- forms or comes within the rule of the committee. So far as the Chair is concerned, he is willing to waive any technicality in that respect so long as counsel desires to act and Mr. Hoifa desires to have him act as his adviser in the course of these proceedings. He has a right to coun- sel of his choice, and the fact that you may represent the international union would not, in my opinion, in any way disqualify you, but you must place yourself in the position here at this time of representing Mr. HofTa.
Mr. Williams. I understand that.
The Chairman. And not as counsel for the union.
All right, with that record straightened out now, we may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, did jon know Mr. Joseph Holtzman ?
Mr. HoFFA. Yes, I did.
Mr. Kennedy. He was a close friend of yours, was he ?
Mr. HoFFA. I knew .Toe Holtzman.
Mr. Kennedy. He was a close friend of yours ?
Mr. HoFFA. I knew Joe Holtzman.
Mr. Kennedy. He was a close friend of yours ?
Mr. Hoffa. I knew Joe Holtzman.
Mr. Kennedy. He was a close friend of yours ?
Mr. Hoffa. Just a moment. I knew Joe Holtzman, and he wasn't any particular friend of mine.
Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the Question.
21243--^8— pt. 36—2
13286 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The CiTATRMAN. Let us start off riglit liere. This is public business. The question is wliether he was a close friend seems proper, and you know a lot of people who may not be close friends, and may just barely be acquaintances. In order to show the association and throw light on testimony that may be forthcoming, it is quite proper the witness to answer as to his acquaintanceship, whether it is one of friendship or one of business association, or any other pertinent factor that might help us to evaluate testimony as we proceed.
Go ahead, Mr, Counsel.
Mr. Kennedy. Was he a close friend of yours ?
Mr. HoFFA. I say he was an acquaintance.
Mr. Kennedy. An acquaintance?
Mr. HoFFA. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You used to visit with him ?
Mr. HoFFA. Occasionally.
Mr. Kennedy. And he came to visit you ?
Mr. HoFFA. Occasionally.
Mr. Kennedy. "What was his business, Mr. Hoffa ?
Mr. HoFFA. He had a dry-cleaning concern, and he was a labor- relations consultant.
Mr. Kennedy. How long have you known him, or had you known him?
Mr. Hoffa. Probably since 1934.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he have a partner ?
Mr. HoFFA. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the partner's name ?
Mr. Hoffa. Jack Bushkin.
Mr. Kennedy. Is he still alive ?
Mr. HoFFA. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. He is a friend of yours ?
Mr. Hoffa. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Is he a close friend of yours ?
Mr. HoFFA. An acquaintance.
Mr. Kennedy. Just an acquaintance ?
Mr. Hoffa. He is a person that I know and he is a friend, but a friendly acquaintance.
Mr. Kennedy. A friendly acquaintance ?
Mr. HoFFA. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you visit with him occasionally ?
Mr. HoFFA. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And he visited with you occasionally ?
Mr. HoFFA. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Holtzman and Mr. Bushkin were in this labor- relations business together ; were they ?
Mr. Hoffa. I believe they were.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever discuss any contracts with them ?
Mr. Hoffa. I certainly did.
Mr. Kennedy. You did on occasion ?
Mr. Hoffa. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you negotiate any contracts with them ?
Mr. Hoffa. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You did do that ?
Mr. Hoffa. Yes, sir.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13287
Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any money from Mr. Holtzman ? Mr. HoFFA. I borrowed money from Holtzman and Biishkin both. Mr. Kennedy. When was this ?
Mr. HoFFA. I believe I will have to refer to the record because I Testified to that the last time I was here— did you say "when" ? Mr. Kennedy. Yes. Mr. HoFFA. Some time in 1952 or 1953. Mr. Kennedy. How much money did you receive ? Mr.HoFFA. $5,000. Mr. Kennedy. From each one ? Mr. HoFFA. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And I believe the record shows that that was in .cash that you got from them ? Mr. HoFFA. That is correct. Mr. Kennedy. And that there was no note on it ? Mr. HoFFA. That is correct. Mr. Kennedy. And did you pay them both back ? Mr. HoFFA. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. And there was no interest paid ? Mr. HoFFA. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. So they at least were close enough friends that they ^vould loan you money without interest in cash and without any evi- dence that there was in fact a loan ; is that correct ? Mr.HoFFA. They did.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, do you know or did you know Mr. John Paris ?
Mr. HoFFA. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. How long ago did he die ?
Mr. HoFFA. Three or four years.
Mr. Kennedy. How long had you known him ?
Mr. HoFFA. Probably 15 or more years, 10 or 15 years or more.
Mr. Kennedy. You were a close friend of his ?
Mr. HoFFA. Not necessarily.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he used to visit you ?
Mr. HoFFA. You mean at home ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. HoFFA. I don't think that he ever did.
Mr. KJENNEDY. He was a business agent of the Laundry Workers' Union, was he ?
Mr. HoFFA. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. He was married to a woman by the name of Sylvia?
Mr. HoFFA. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. She is a friend of you and your family ?
Mr. HoFFA. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And they have a son ?
Mr. HoFFA. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. "\Miat is his name ?
Mr. HoFFA. Charles O'Brien.
Mr, Kennedy. And he is with your union, is he ?
Mr. HoFFA. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy, He used to be with the Retail Clerks' Union ?
Mr. HoFFA, That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And the Retail Clerks' Union had its headquarters in the Teamsters' Buildinsf ?
13288 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. HoFFA. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. In Detroit ?
Mr. HoFFA. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And he is now working for yonr union, local 299?
Mr. HoFFA. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. He is a business agent for 299 ?
Mr. HoFFA. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, on Mr. Holtzman and Mr. Bushkin, did they represent on any occasion the Detroit Institute of Laundry ?
Mr. HoFFA. They may have, and I believe they did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have some discussions with them about that?
Mr. HoFFA. I don't think tliat I discussed it with them.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss the Detroit Institute of Laundry with Mr. Holtzman ?
Mr. HoFFA. I may have.
Mr. Kennedy. Can you remember that?
Mr. HoFFA. No ; I don't.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember?
Mr. HoFFA. No ; I don't.
Mr. Kennedy. In 1949, did they make arrangements for you to visit with any of the representatives of the Detroit Institute of Laundry ?
Mr. HoFFA. I don't know whether they did or not, and I met some representatives of the laundry and I don't know who arranged the meeting.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't know how that was arranged ?
Mr. HoFFA. No.
Mr. Kennedy. What did they come to see you about ?
Mr. HoFFA. With the question of the dispute between their organi- zation and our organization.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us about .what conversations you had with them ?
Mr. HoFFA. Well, how long ago was that ?
Mr. Kennedy. I said 1949.
Mr. HoFFA. I believe that the contract was open for negotiations, and there arose a question between the employers and our union as to whether or not there was a right to strike or a necessity to arbi- trate the differences when they couldn't agree.
Mr. Kennedy. This is not then, this is back in 1949. That was in 1951 when there was a question about that. That is when the con- tract was up for renewal, and I believe the man conducting the nego- tiations was Mr. Isaac Litwak, of Local 295 of the Teamsters.
Mr. HoFFA. Let us go back a step. You have asked me whether or not Holtzman had ever talked to me about the question of the laundry institute ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. HoFFA. To the best of my knowledge the only time that I ever knew Holtzman was engaged or involved in any way with the laundi'y institute was the one incident where he was involved Avitli Litwak.
Mr. Kennedy. In 1951 ?
Mr. HoFFA. That could have been, and I am not sure of the date.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they come to see you on two different occasions then, the representatives of the Detroit Institute of Laundry ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13289
Mr, HoFFA. I don't know if it was once or twice, and they did come to see me.
Mr. Kennedy. Going back to 1949 when the contract was np, and Mr. Litwak was negotiating the contract, do you remember they came to see you on that occasion ?
Mr. HoFFA. I think that your facts are wrong. I think when they came to see me there was a question involving the contract as to wliether or not he could strike because I believe, and this is only from me, there were certain sections open for negotiations. When they got into a deadlock, I believe it was a question whether they could strike or had to arbitrate. And I don't recall any other incident that I ■discussed with them.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, all I asked you was whether in 1949, when this contract was up, and there were negotiations going on be- tween Mr. Isaac Litwak and this representative of the Detroit Insti- tute of Laundrv, they came to visit you on that occasion.
Mr. Hoffa. I say they came to visit me, and the best I can recall was one contract. Whether it was the one you mentioned first or the second one, I don't recall but it seems to me that the question involved, as I stated before
Mr. Kennedy. We have gone through that, and it was a 3-year con- tract. Let me see if this refreshes your recollection. It was a 3-year contract, I believe, signed in 1949, and in 1951 there was a question, as you explained, as to whether local 285 could strike. I believe that they came to see you on that occasion for you to make a determination as to whether local 285 had the right to strike at that time.
Now, I am trying to find out, prior to that, in 1949, when there were negotiations on tliis contract, whether representatives of the Detroit Institute of Laundry came to see you ?
Mr. Hoffa. It seems to nie unless you refresh my memory in some other direction, it seemed to me I only had one dealing with the question of the laundry institute and Litwak, and that was the ques- tion of the arbitration or the strike. I don't recall, and I don't think that I did meet with the laundry owners concerning the contract when it expired, because I don't remember any incident where there was a threat of strike other than the one time.
Mr. Kennp:dy. Do you remember the representatives of the De- troit Institute of Laundry coming to your office and complaining about the difficulties that they were liaving with Isaac Litwak?
Mr. Hoffa. I believe they did come to my office once or twice, and we did discuss it but it seems to me again that that was the particular time of the dispute whether you could or couldn't strike.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Holtzman arrange one or both of those meetings ?
Mr, Hoffa. No; I believe an attorney arranged it if I recall rightly, and I don't think Holtzman arranged it, and I don't recall offhand, but I think there nnist have been an attorney.
Mr. Kennedy. What was Mr. Holtzman doing in this matter ?
Mr. Hoffa. Well, I wouldn't know.
Mr. Kennedy. You said that you had talked to Mr. Holtzman about it.
Mr. Hoffa, I didn't say that.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hofi'a, you said that you thought originally xhnt Mr. Holtzman was involved in this.
13290 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. HoFFA, I said if tliey employed liim and I understood tiiey did, why you would have to ask them what they employed him for.
Mr. Kennedy. I want to ask you what conversations you liad.
Mr. HoFFA. You can't ask me, because I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. I can ask you what conversations you had with them, and I can ask wdiether lie arranged any of the meetings.
Mr. HoFFA. If he arranged them, and 1 don't think that he did, I think a lawyer arranged them.
Mr. Kennedy. Tliat is a slight change, with you that is all right.
Mr. HoFFA. It might be a slight change, but it is the truth. In any event we had the meetings, put it that way.
Mr. Kennedy. I understand that, and now I want to find out Mr. Holtzman's involvement, and did he have any conversations with you about this ?
Mr. HoFFA. I think Holtzman represented them.
Mr. Kennedy. Did other people come when Mr. Ploltzmau was there?
Mr. HoFFA. No, I don't believe Holtzman was present when they were in my office.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Holtzman just had his conversations alone with you then, is that right ?
Mr. HoFFA. I don't think he had any conversations with me con- cerning the contract except the fact that his people wanted or may have wanted to meet. I don't know if he arranged it or not.
Mr. Kennedy. What conversations did you have with Mr. Holtz- man about this contract?
Mr. HoFFA. Well now, what conversations I had would probably concern the question of the dispute. Now what the exact conversa- tion was, I certainly couldn't recall. It Avasn't tliat important.
Mr. Kennedy. You can't remember whether he arranged the meet- ing and you think it is possible, though ?
Mr. HoFFA. I don't know if he did or not, either him or an attorney, and I don't know which one arranged it, and it seemed to me it was an attorney that arranged it.
Mr. Kennedy. ^\^ien you had your conversations with Mr. Holtz- man, the representatives of the Detroit Institute of Laundry were not present, is that right ?
Mr. HoFFA. I don't know if I had a discussion with Holtzman or not.
Mr. Kennedy. I thought that you said that you did.
Mr. HoFFA. No ; I didn't say that at all.
Mr. Kennedy. You found out Mr. Holtzman was representing the Detroit Institute of Laundry ?
Mr. HoFFA. He may have been.
Mr. Kennedy. You understood that, Mr. Hoffa, and you must have understood it from what Mr. Holtzman said ?
Mr. HoFFA. I think that you are right.
Mr. Kennedy. So then any conversations that you had with Mr. Holtzman about this was just between you and Mr. Holtzman, and no one else present ?
Mr. Hoffa. Not necessarily, and we may not have had a conversa- tion, no more than the fact of arranging a meeting ; I don't know.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13291
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any conversations about the Detroit Institute of Laundry or about the contract with Mr. Holtzman when anyone else was present ?
Mr. HoFFA. 1 don't recall having a discussion Avith Holtzman about the contract.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Holtzman arrange it?
Mr. HoFFA. He may have had.
Mr. Kennedy. Ditl you participate in any of the contract negotia- tions for the contract in 1949 '?
Mr. HoFFA. I don't think that I ever met with the negotiating com- mittee of the Laundry Institute.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you ordinarily go to meetings of the locals?
Mr. HoFFA. Where there is a question involving a serious strike, that can involve other local unions, as president of the council, I do many times ; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you go in 1949 to these negotiations ?
Mr. HoFFA. I don't recall whether I did or not. I don't think that I did.
Mr. Kennedy, Do you remember coming- into the Detroit Leland Hotel in 1949, in connection with those negotiations ?
Mr. HoFFA. No ; I don't remember. If I did, I don't remember.
(At this point, the following members were present: Senators McClellan, Ives, Ervin, Church, Kennedy, Mundt, and Curtis.)
Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember that ?
Mr. HoFFA. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember giving instructions to Mr. Litwak to sign the contract at that time ?
Mr. HoFFA. I never did instruct Litwak to sign the contract to my recollection. I told Litwak, the time that I can recall, that in my opinion he was bound by arbitration. I can't recall any other meet- ing I had with the Laundry Institute.
Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about a meeting in 1949 at the Detroit Leland Hotel, Mr. Hoffa. Did you come into the meeting at the Detroit Leland Hotel when Mr. Litwak was meeting with the Detroit Institute of Laundry and have discussions with him at that time about signing the contract ?
Mr. HoFFA. I could have easily, but don't recall. There would be nothing unusual about it. I go into hundreds of meetings every
Mr. Kennedy. How many meetings of the Detroit Institute of Laundry did you ever go to when they were carrying on negotiations with your union representative ?
Mr. Hoffa. I don't recall, and I don't believe I did, attend any meetings of the full negotiating board of the laundry companies. I believe that I met with the representatives of the association.
Mr. Kennedy. So that your recollection is that you never went, is that right?
Mr. HoFFA. My recollection is that I met with the representatives of the association, but I do not recall, and I don't think I did, meet- ing with the laundry owners. I possibly could have,
Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about the representatives of the asso- ciation, and a meeting of it at the Detroit Leland Hotel. Did you go to such a meeting ?
13292 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. HoFFA. If I did, I can't recall it and I don't believe I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever go to any meeting where there were negotiations on the contract between the Detroit Institute of Laundry and your union representative ?
Mr, HoFFA. I don't thinlv I ever met tlie negotiating committee of the Laundry Institute. I don't believe I did.
Mr. Kennedy. You never did^ You never went to a meeting be- tween the representatives of the Detroit Institute of Laundry and your own union representative, Mr. Isaac Litwak ?
Mr, HoFFA. Well, if I did, it escapes my memory.
Mr. Kennp:dy. You don't remember tliat?
Mr. HoFFA, No, I don't. I met the representatives of the council, but I do not recall any negotiating meeting.
Mr. Kennedy. Would it refresh your recollection that you told Mr. Litwak at that meeting that if he did not sign a contract, that you were going to take over the negotiations and settle these problems yourself ?
Mr. HoFFA. I never told Isaac Litwak or any other business agent that.
Mr. Kennedy, You never said anything like that?
Mr. HoFFA. Just a moment. You asked me whether I said I would take over the negotiations, I had no authority as president of the council at that time, or president of my own local union, to take any such action.
Mr. Kennedy, Do you deny that vou had such a conversation, Mr, Hoffa?
The Chairman, The witness says he has no authority to do that or he never did it.
The question is specific: Do you deny that you did it or did not doit?
A man may say "I have no authority to do that" and yet would do it. To clarify, did you do it or did you not do it ?
Mr. HoFFA. I don't recall the conversation or the meeting at all.
But if I would have said any such a thing it would have been to the effect that if they had made an offer, that it should be submitted to the membership, and I would be bound by the membership, with no authority to change their vote. I may have told them to submit it to a membership meeting.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Do you remember telling them that at a meeting at the Detroit Leland Hotel ?
Mr, HoFFA. I don't even remember the meeting.
Mr, Kennedy, Do you remember in 1949 Mr. Litwak was dis- turbed about your interceding in this contract ?
Mr, HoFFA. I don't believe he was.
Mr. IvENNEDY, Do you remember that ?
Mr. Hoffa. No, I don't. But I don't believe Isaac has ever been disturbed by what I do,
Mr, Kennedy. Do you deny that he was disturbed at that time about your interceding in the contract ?
Mr. HoFFA. He was very disturbed about tlie owners.
Mr, Kennedy, What?
Mr. HoFFA. He was very disturbed about the owners.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa, you have not answered any questions for the last 25 minutes.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13293
Mr. HoFFA. That isn't true.
Mr. Williams. Mv. Chainnan, I think this is a good point to ask what pertinency this 1949 negotiation in an intracity dispute has to do with the legislative purpose of this committee. I don't see the pertinency of it.
I have not objected, because I don't want to interrupt the continuity of this interrogation, but I seriously challenge the pertinency of this line of questions.
The Chairman. The Chair will make this observation and ruling :
As counsel well knows, in presenting a case, you cannot present every- thing in one sentence or with one witness. There are going to be wit- nesses here, I understand, who will testify regarding what occurred at that time. It will involve, I may say for your information, what appears on the face of it to be corruption. This committee and the Congress is interested in the administration of affairs of unions with respect to whether they are corrupt, or Avhether those who have the responsibility of representing unions keep faith with their responsi- bilities.
That will be involved throughout these hearings as a part, only, of what the committee is interested in. Proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. In 1949, Mr. Hoffa, Mr. Isaac Litwak, was disturbed at your intercession in the contract, was he not ?
Mr. HoFFA. Well, if he was, he didn't express it to me.
Mr. Kennedy. You never knew about tliat ?
Mr. Hoffa. He was disturbed about the general president, if I recall, intervening in this dispute.
Mr. Kennedy. He was disturbed about what ?
Mr. HoFFA. I believe, now that I recall it, I believe he was disturbed about the general president intervening in this dispute.
Mr. Kennedy. Who was the general president ?
Mr. HoFFA, Dave Beck.
Mr. Kennedy. He intervened in this dispute in Detroit?
Mr. HoFFA. If my memory serves me right, Dave Beck refused to grant strike authority. I am doing this from memory, but I think that the record will show that when Litwak filed for the question of strike sanction, that he was refused the right to have strike benefits by the international, wliich did not keep him from striking but would have kept him from having financial benefits.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. HoFFA. He was executive vice president, I am informed by Lawyer Williams, but he was having the same authority as president since he was generally operating the international union.
Mr. Kennedy. Then it was not the general president ?
Mr. HoFFA. Well, it could very well have been Dave Beck who was acting as executive vice president.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it Mr. Tobin or Mr. Beck ?
Mr. HoFFA. Well, it was probably — it was Mr. Beck.
Mr. Kennedy. I thought you said it was the general president.
Mr. HoFFA. Well, my memory happened to slip, and this is 9 years ago, and I am now correcting it, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Did anybody give you any instructions to inject your- self into the contract negotiations?
Mr. HoFFA. I probably gave myself instructions.
Mr. Kennedy. Why?
13294 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. HoFFA. Because I am president of joint council 43.
Mr. Kennedy. So yon did inject yourself into this contract ?
Mr. HoFFA. Yes, I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Now we are making some progress.
Mr. HoFFA. That is fine.
Mr. Kennfjjy. Did you go to the meeting, then, at the Detroit Leland Hotel ?
Mr. HoFFA. I don't know whether I did or not. I do not recall the meeting. It is possible. It is 9 years ago, and one meeting more or less doas not mean that much to me.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have conversations w^th Mr. Holtzman about this contract ^
Mr. HoFFA. I may have had. I don't recall.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember that at all ?
Mr. HoFFA. It wasn't that important.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember at all ?
Mr. HoFFA. I don't even remember the contract except the one question of where we were involved in the dispute of arbitration or strike. That is the outstanding thing in my mind concerning any- thing to do with the laundry institute.
The Chairman. Mr. Hoil'a, I believe you said you borrowed $5,000 each from Mr. Buslikin and Mr. Holtzman.
Mr. HoFFA. That is correct, sir.
The Chaikman. Do you recall when you borrowed that money ?
Mr. HoFFA. I think I said it was 1952 or 1953. Yes, I testified it was 1952 or 1953, Senator.
The Chairman. All right.
Now, prior to that time, had you had any financial transactions with either of these men ?
Mr. HoFFA. No, not prior to that time.
The Chairman. Did you subsequent to that time ?
Mr. HoFFA. It is the only transaction I had with them concerning the loaning of money to myself.
The Chairman. I beg your pardon ?
Mr. PIoFFA. It is the only transaction I had of them loaning me any money.
The Chairman. All right. That is a matter of loan. Is that the only business transaction you had with them in which money was involved ?
Mr. HoFFA. Concerning money, yes.
The Chairman. Either before or since ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. HoFFA. Yes, sir.
Concerning the loaning of money, yes.
The Chairman. I am not talking about just concerning the loan- ing of money. I am talking about any other financial transaction or business transaction with them in which money was involved.
Mr. HoFFA. I may have asked Bushkin or I wanted him to buy me something at wholesale. I don't know. But so far as other than purchasing something from them, that is the only financial trans- action I had.
The Chairman. In other words, the borrowing of the money that you have testified to, and the possibilities that you may have asked
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13295
them to do you a favor, to get sometliing wholesale for you, according to your testimony, are the only business transactions you have had with them involving money or other valuable considerations, is that correct ?
Mr. HoFFA. That is right.
The Chairman. When were these Loans repaid, Mr. Ho if a ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. HoFFA. Well, apparently — I want to correct the record. I have had my accountant try to straighten out some of these answers since the last time. My accountant shows here money was borrowed the latter half of 1951 and was paid back in 1953, according to his records that he has been able to reconstruct.
The Chairman. All right.
In the transaction, I believe you said the money you received in the nature of loans was all cash ?
Mr. HoFFA. That is right.
The Chairman. From each one ?
Mr. HoFFA. That is right.
The Chairman. How were they repaid ?
Mr. HoFFA. By, I believe, a money order.
The Chairman. A post office money order ?
Mr. HoFFA. My secretary had the order made out and I would assume that it was, Senator. It could have been a bank draft, but I believe that it was a money order.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions, gentlemen ?
Senator Curtis.
Senator Curtis. Your secretary handled the repayment, the details ■of transmitting i
Mr. HoFFA. I believe she did. She normally does for me. That is why I said that.
Senator Curtis. What is her name ?
Mr. HoFFA. Diane Dubrescu.
Senator Curtis. What is her current address ; do you know ?
Mr. HoFFA. Offhand I don't know.
Senator Curtis. She lives in Detroit ?
Mr. HoFFA. That is right.
Senator Curtis. That is all.
Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. You say, Mr. Hoffa, that your accountant pro- duced records which described the repayment of these funds ?
Mr. HoFFA. No, I did not say he produced records. I said I have had him trying to reconstruct, talking to people, about certain loans that I have made as to the dates I paid them back and the dates I borrowed the money.
Senator Kennedy. Mr. Hoft'a, liow did the accountant reconstruct this if he had no records ?
Mr. HoFFA. He probably talked to the people.
Senator Kennedy. Who did he talk to ?
Mr. HoFFA. I imagine he talked to the people involved.
Senator Kennedy. He talked to you ?
Mr. HoFFA. We discussed the matter ; yes.
Senator Kennedy. And you told him what had happened ?
13296 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. HoFFA. No, I told him when I borrowed the money, when I thought I borrowed the money and when I thought I paid it back, and he checked it, and these are the records he gave me.
This shows how your memory can shp. Instead of 1951, apparentlv it was 1952.
Senator Kennedy. Who else did he talk to in making the report to you ?
Mr. PIOFFA. I assume the people who were involved.
Senator Kennedy. How many people were involved ?
Mr. HoFFA. Offhand, do you mean the loans ?
Senator Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. HoFFA. I would have to count them and tell you.
Senator Kennedy. Did he talk to Mr. Holtzman ?
Mr. HoFFA. Holtzman happens to be dead.
Senator Kennedy. Who else did he talk to ?
Mr. HoFFA. Probably Bushkin.
Senator Kennedy. In other words, the people he talked to were you and Mr. Bushkin. Did he talk to others ?
Mr. HoFJW. I don't know.
Senator Kennedy. You come and make the statement that your accountant indicated that you borrowed the money in such and such a year and repaid the money in such and such a year.
When did your accountant make this study ?
Mr. HoFFA. "^Vlien did he make it?
Senator Kennedy. Yes. Did he make it in the last few months?
Mr. HoFFA. In the last few days.
Senator Kennedy. And you can't tell us who he talked to beside.s you. Mr. Hoft'a, and the other gentleman who was involved?
Mr. HoFFA. I think you will have to ask liim, Mr. Senator.
Senator Kennedy. I am asking you. You are the one who made the report to the committee about what your accountant found, and now we find that there are no records, that he merely talked to you and the other gentleman involved, and that the whole transaction was in cash.
Mr. HoFFA. Senator, I don't see anything strange about that, and I think I have answered your question.
Senator Kennedy. Mr. Hoff'a, will you tell me? I am interested because you read a document here purporting to come from your accountant, and it looks like all your accountant relied on was your statement and the statement of the other gentleman. There are no other records in existence.
Mr. HoFFA. '\^niat else would he rely on. Senator?
Senator Kennedy. I would think usually when a loan is made, particularly to anyone in your position, or who represents an employer association, some record would be kept, and some record would be kept of the payments back. Instead, there are no records kept.
It was a cash transaction between you and we only have your word and the word of the other gentleman as to whether the money was paid back.
Mr. HoFFA. I guess you will have to take our word.
Senator Kennedy. I want to say to your counsel, who raised the question as to whether these were proper questions for the committee, that the bill which passed the Senate does deal with the proprietor
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13297
of an employer or employer association making a payment to a union leader.
I think it is completely within the bounds and within the legis- lative area of this committee that we interrogate Mr. Hoffa on this ; subject.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions at this time ?
Mr. Kennedy. Not right now, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Holl'a, you may stand aside for the present.
You will be recalled.
Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. William H. Miller.
Mr. Hoft'a might like to stand by.
The Chairman. Mr. Miller can sit over here.
I think it is fair to the witness when we have testimony that he hear it and try to clear up these points as we go along.
Mr. Miller, be sworn, please.
Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this Sen- ate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so lielp you God ?
Mr. Miller. I do.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM H. MILLER
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Miller. Be seated. State your name, your place of residence, and your business or occupation.
Mr. Miller. William H. Miller, Watersmeet, Mich. I operate a motel and restaurant up there.
The Chairman. Do you have counsel or do vou waive counsel, Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. I have no counsel.
The Chairman. You waive counsel. All right.
Proceed, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Miller, you were in the laundry business, were you, for a period of time?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. How long were you in the laundry business?
Mr. Miller. Fifteen years.
Mr. Kennedy. Up until when?
Mr. Miller. 1950.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Miller, there were negotiations that took place in 1949, in connection with the contract between the representatives of llie Detroit Institute of Laundry and the Teamsters Union?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. That was local 285 of the Teamsters?
Mr. Miijler. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And the representatives of that local was Mr. Isaac Litwak; is that correct?
Mr. Miller; That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You have prepared a statement, have you not, that has been submitted to the committee, giving the background and the .-ituation that occurred in connection with those negotiations?
Mr. Miller. Tliat is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to liave permission for llie Avitness to read that statement.
13298 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. Was that statement submitted within the rules?:
Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; it was.
The Chairman. All rifjht.
Mr. Miller, you are prepared, as you read that statement, to read it under oath, and the statements therein are your sworn testimony.
Mr. Miller. Yes. Well, the first thing I would like to say on this is Mr. Salinger contacted me by telephone, and we had a very poor connection, so that I could not hear him on the phone, and he would have to tell the operator what he wanted to ask me, and then I would have to repeat to the operator, I believe he called me about three times, and we could not get a good connection.
Then he called me and said he would be up there. He made arrange- ments, and I met him there. We talked this over, and he copied it down in shorthand. After he copied it down in shorthand, he typed it out on my typewriter, and I just read it over casually, not looking it over real good. So there are some questions in here and answers that will have to be clarified a little better than they are here.
The Chairman. All right.
You may read the statement if you choose to read it, and you may point out any discrepancies in there as relate to the truth and the facts.
(The following is the affidavit submitted by Mr. Miller and ordered printed in the record at this point.)
Affidavit State of Michigan,
County of Gogebic, ss:
I, William H. Miller, who resides at box 185, Watersnieet, Mich., do make the following voluntary statement to Pierre Salinger, who has identified himself to me as an investigator for the Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field. This statement is made as the result of no promise or threat to me and with the understanding that it may be read at a public session of the above-named committee.
I am presently the owner of Bill Miller's Riverside Inn In Watersmeet. Mich. From 1935 to 19.50, I was the owner of the New Method Laundry in Detroit, Mich.
For a number of years, Local 285 of the Teamsters Union, which was headed by Isaac Litwak, attempted to organize the drivers wJio worked for my com- pany. In the early 1940's. a representative of the Detroit Laundry Owners Association notified me he had had a visit from Isaac Litwak, and that unless my drivers joined the Teamsters Union, shipments of coal and soap to my place of business would be shut off. I called the men in and told them they would have the union. When some of them protested I told them I could not operate without coal and soap. Some of my drivers wanted to haul in the soap and coal on Sundays, but I told them they would get tired of that pretty soon. At any rate, at this time they became members of the union, and as an added inducement they were not required to pay the $50 initiation fee, but rather each paid $1.
For some years, I was a member of the labor committee of the Detroit Laundry Owners Association. Other members of this committee were Horace McKnight, who was one of the owners of the Palace-Model Laundry, and Fritz Brady, the owner of the Modern Laundry.
Also assisting us in the negotiations were Howard Balkwill. the president of the association, and John Meisner, the secretary of the association.
To the best of my belief, the contract of the Detroit laiindries with the Team- sters Union came up for renegotiation in 1947. In an effort to reach a new contract with the union, a number of meetings were held with Isaac Litwak. Some of these meetings were held prior to the time the contract ran out in March and some after. I sat in on the negotiations after the contract ran out. One of the first things the managements agreed to do when the contract ran out
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13299
was to pay retroactive wages back to the expiration day for any increases we might agree to.
I attended 3 or 4 of these negotiating sessions after the contract ran out. These meetings were held at the Detroit Lelaiid Hotel and at tlie Old Wayne Club in downtown Detroit. Isaac Litwak was the principal negotiator for the union. He had other representatives with him. Litwak was adamant in all of these negotiations, asking for all kinds of new provisions in the contract. Fritz Brady and Horace McKnight had v/orked diligently getting up a memoran- dum on what the laundry owners felt they could do. Litwak took one look at this document and just discarded it and said he was not interested in reading it any further.
Litwak kept meeting every request of the laundry owTiers with the threat of a strike.
The negotiations kept dragging on and no progress was being made. Finally a lunch was arranged at which Meisner, Balkwill and I attended. This lunch was held in the lunchroom of the Detroiter Hotel. At this lunch, I suggested that perhaps we should go to someone higher up in the Teamsters and attempt to reach a settlement. Things had become critical and the union had already levied a .$10 per mend)er assessment as a strike fund. I didn't want a strike and neither did the other laundry owners.
It was agreed by Meisner and Balkwill that something should be done. They then set up a meeting with James R. Hoffa. Either Meisner or Balkwill or both reported the outcome of this meeting to me at the offices of the association in the Detroiter Hotel. I was told that at the meeting with Hoffa it had been ar- ranged that a contract could be signed with the payment of $90 per truck by all the memliers of the association to Hoffa. At that time, the association repre- sented all the laundries in Detroit. This payment would assure a 3 year con- tract. I was told at this meeting by either Meisner or Balkwill or both that Hoffa told them that the laundry owners would have to make no further con- cessions to the union. Hoffa told them, however, that he could do nothing about the concessions that had already been made. The payment of the $90 to Hoffa was to be made over a 3-year period, $45 per truck the first year, $22.50 per truck the second year, and $22.50 per truck the third year. The payments wei-e to be made in cash. Meisner was chosen as the man who would make the collec- tions. Hofta said he would appear at the next meeting with Litwak and see that the contract was settled. Meisner came to me and collected the $450 first installment before the negotiating session was held. This first payment was made in cash in the oflSce of the New Method Laundry. I do not have knowledge of how the other laundries made their payments or which ones did. I also made the second and third payments of $225 each to Meisner, in cash, in the succeetling years.
I did not attend the actual session but Meisner reported to me what happened there. Firstly, Hoffa was late in appearing. In fact, Meisner expressed the thought to me that he started worrying that the payoff might have gone down the di-ain. Then there was a knock at the door. This meeting was being held at the Detroit Leland Hotel. When the door opened, Hoffa was there with a couple of his men. Meisner said the color drained from Litwak's face when he saw Hoffa. Hoffa wanted to know what the meeting was all about. He then read the contract which had been worked out up to then and expressed the view that it was a good contract and there was nothing wrong with it. The negotia- tions were then broken off and the contract signed sometime after.
It is my feeling and belief that Meisner and Balkwill were acting in the best interests of the laundry owners and that this type of arrangement had to be made to reach a contract.
I believe all the above statement to be the truth to the best of my knowledge.
William H. Miller. NicKOLAS J. Kolinsky, 'Notary Public, Oogehic County, Mich.
My commission expires March 2, 1962.
Dated July 27, 1958.
Mr. Miller. O.K. I, William
Senator Mundt. You should make those corrections as you read it. Mr. Miller. Submit those ?
13300 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Mttndt. As you read it, when you come to something you want to correct, you should make the correction at that point.
The Chairman. That is what the Chair indicated to him.
As you come to something in there, if it is inaccurate in any sense or needs expLanation, you may pause and exphiin it.
Mr, Miller (reading) : I, William H. Miller, who reside at Box 185, Watersmeet, Mich., do make the following voluntary statement to Pierre Salinger, who has identified liimself to me as investigator for the Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field. This statement is made as a result of no promise or threat to me and with the understanding that it may be read at a public session of the above-named committee. I am presently'' the owner of Bill Miller's Riverside Inn in Watersmeet, Mich.
From 1935 to 1050 I was the owner of the New Method Laundry in Detroit, Mich. For a number of years local 285 of the Teamsters' Union, which was headed by Isaac Litwak, attempted to organize the drivers who worked for my company. In the early 1940's a repre- sentative of the Detroit Laundry Owners' Association notified me he had a visit from Isaac Litwak, and that unless my drivers joined the Teamsters' Union shipments of coal and soap to my place of business would be shut off.
I called the men in and told them they would have the union. When some of them protested, I told them I could not operate without coal and soap. Some of my drivers wanted to haul in the soap and coal on Sundays, but I told them they would get tired of that pretty soon.
The Chairman. Let me interrupt you there. There was a threat made against you by the president of the local union of the Teamsters that unless you forced your men to join the union that they would cut off deliveries to you ?
Mr. Miller. The threat was not made directly to me. It was made through the association. They contacted the association as my plant was the last plant in the city of Detroit to have the drivers organized.
The Chairman. You were a member of the association ?
Mr. Miller. I was a member of the association, and Isaac Litwak had contacted me several times to have the drivers come into the union, and I told him it was up to the drivers. I can't tell them.
The Chairman. He had previously contacted you personally about it?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
The Chairman. Trying to persuade you to have your employees join the union ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
The Chairman. And when that effort failed, then he went to the association ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
The Chairman. And he delivered, in a sense, an ultimatum to them, or to you through them, that if you did not have them join up, your supplies wotdd be cut off?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
The Chairman. All right.
As we go along, we will get these things clarified. Proceed.
Mr. Miller (reading) : Some of the drivers wanted to haul the soap and coal on Sundays, but I told them they would get tired of that
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13301
pretty soon. At any rate, at this time they became members of the union, and as an added inducement they were not required to pay the $50 initiation fee, but, rather, each paid $1. For some years, I was a member of the hxbor committee of the Detroit Laundry Owners Association. Other members of this committee were Horace McKnight, who was one of the owners of the Palace-Model Laundry, and Fritz Brady, the owner of the Modern Laundry.
Also assisting us in the negotiations were Howard Balkwill, the president of the association, and John Meisner, the secretary of the association. To the best of my belief, the contracts of the Detroit laundries with the Teamsters Union came up for renegotiation in 1947.
As I explained to Salinger, I was not sure of the year, as this had happened many years before. Since then I found it was 1949.
The Chairman. So that is one correction you make in your state- ment ?
Mr. Miller. Right there.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Miller (reading) : In an effort to reach a new contract with the union, a number of meetings were held with Isaac Litwak. Some of these meetings were held prior to the time the contract ran out in March and some after. I sat in on the negotiations after the contract ran out. One of the first things the management agreed to do when the contract ran out was to pay retroactive wages to the expiration day for any increases we might agree to. I attended the
The Chairman. That was to prevent a strike ? In other words, if you agreed from that time on, from the time the contract ran out, from the time it expired, whatever you agreed to later would be retroactive back to the date of the expiration of the contract ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Miller (reading) : I attended 3 or 4 of these negotiating ses- sions after the contract ran out. These meetings were held at the Detroit Leland Hotel and at the Old Wayne Club in downtown Detroit. Isaac Litwak was the principal negotiator for the union.
He had other representatives with him. Litwak was adamant to all of these negotiations, asking for all kinds of new provisions in the contract.
Fritz Brady and Horace McKnight worked diligently getting up a memorandum on what the laundry owners felt they could do. Litwak took one look at this document and just discarded it, and said he was not interested in reading it any farther.
Litwak kept meeting every request of the laundry owners with the threat of a strike. The negotiations kept dragging on and no progress was being made. Finally a lunch was arranged.
Well, that is wrong, we just happened to get together for a lunch. It wasn't arranged.
The Chairman. It wasn't arranged, but you were together at lunch.
Mr. Miller. We were together.
The Chairman. That correction will be made.
Mr. Miller (reading) : It was arranged at which Meisner, Balkwill and I attended.
21243— 58— pt. 36 3
13302 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
This lunch was held in the lunchroom of the Detroiter Hotel.
At this lunch, I suggested that perhaps we go to someone higher up in the Teamsters and attempt to reach a settlement. Things had become critical and the union had already levied $10 per member assessment as a strike fund.
I did not want a strike and neither did the other laundry owners.
It was agreed by Meisner and Balkwill tliat something should be done. Then they set up a meeting with James Hoffa.
I was not at that meeting, and I suggested that they meet Hoffa. Whether they met Hoffa or not, I don't know.
The Chairman. Well, that was your suggestion.
Mr. Miller. That was my suggestion.
The Chairman. You may clarify it further in your statement. Was it reported back to you that such a meeting was held ?
Mr. Miller. Well, it was reported back that they had a meeting, but they did not tell me who the meeting was with.
The Chairman. All right. Proceed.
Mr. Miller. Either Meisner or Balkwill or both reported the out- come of this meeting at the offices of the association in the Detroiter Hotel.
Well, that is not true. It was just a chance meeting or probably a telephone conversation that they had made the contact.
Tlie Chairman. In other words, that part is in error there, or is not accurate, that they reported it at a meeting ?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
The Chairman. They did report it, but not necessarily at a meeting ?
Mr. Miller. That is right. They had no reason to report it to me, because I was no official in the Institute of Laundering outside of the fact that I was on the labor committee and tiymg to work out a con- tract.
I was told that at this meeting with Hoffa it had been arranged
Well, the meeting, as I say, I don't know whether it was with Hoffa.
The Chairman. You were told that a meeting had been arranged.
Mr. Miller. A meeting had been arranged — that a contract could be signed with the payment of $90 per truck by all the members of the association, to Hoffa.
Well, there again that is not true, because I don't know who the payments were to be made to.
Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman ?
Tlie Chairman. Just a moment. You were told, though as a result of the meeting, that a settlement could be arranged by the payment of $90 per truck?
;Mr. ^IiLLER. That is right.
The Chairman. Were you interested in knowing to whom the pay- ments were to be made ?
Mr. Miller. Well, being as I suggested that it be made to Hoffa, I just took it for granted that that is who the payments were made to.
The Chairman. Did you ever learn anything different, that the meeting was held with anyone other than Hoffa ? Mr. Miller. No, I did not.
The Chairman. You never heard of it being held with anyone else to this day ?
Mr. Miller. No, never did.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13303
The Chairman. And you had suggested it with Hoffa ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
The Chairman. And they reported to you that the meeting had been arranged ?
Mr. Miller. They did not tell me who the meeting had been ar- ranged with.
The Chairman. They said a meeting had been arranged?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
The Chairman. Later they told you what the terms were, that was the proposition made to them at the meeting ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
The Chairman. Senator Curtis.
Senator Curtis. Do you at this time know with whom the meeting was held?
Mr. Miller. No, I don't.
Senator Curtis. No one ever told you ?
Mr. Miller. They never told me.
Senator Curtis. You never asked the question ?
Mr. Miller. No, I did not. I never asked the question.
Senator Mundt. Do you know to whom the $90 was paid ?
Mr. Miller. Well, I paid it to John Meisner.
Senator Mundt. You paid your $90 to Jolm Meisner ?
Mr. Miller. To John Meisner.
Senator Mundt. Was he a Teamster official ?
Mr. Miller. Well, I didn't pay him the whole $90. It was $90 per tiTick, and I paid him $45 per truck at that time, and the following year I paid him $225, and then the third year $225. It was $90 per truck over a period of 3 years, with half to be paid the first year, one- quarter the second, and one-quarter the third.
Senator Mundt. Identify for me who John Meisner is ?
Mr. Miller. He was the secretary of the Detroit Institute of Laun- dering.
Senator Curtis. Who is Howard Balkwill ?
Mr. Miller. He was the president.
Senator Curtis. Are both of those men living ?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Senator Curtis. Where do they live ?
Mr. Miller. In Detroit.
Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Proceed with your statement.
Mr. Miller (reading) : At that time, the association represented all the laundries of Detroit.
Well, they did not represent quite all of them, but nearly all of them.
This payment would assure a 3-year contract.
I have heard since that it was a 5-year contract.
I was told at this meeting by either Meisner, Balkwill or both, that Hoffa told them that the laundry owners would have to make no fur- ther concessions to the union.
Well, I don't know who they contacted, but that was the report, that they would have to make no further concessions.
The Chairman. That the laundry owners would have to make no further concessions if they carried out their plan or accepted this pro- posal of paying $90 per truck ?
13304 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Miller. That is right.
Hoffa told them, however, that he could do nothing about the con- cessions that had already been made.
The payment of $90 was to Hoffa, I said here, but I don't know for sure who got it, was to be made over a period of 3 years, $45 per truck the first year, $22.50 per truck the second year, and $22.50 per truck the third year.
The payments were to be made in cash. Meisner was chosen as the man who would make the collections. Hoffa said he would appear at the next meeting —
That is just hearsay. He did not tell me, but it is hearsay.
The Chairman. Tliat is what they reported to you ?
Mr. Miller. That is right. [Reading:]
At the next meeting with Litwak, and see that the contract was settled.
Meisner came to me and collected the $450 first installment before the negotiating session was lield. The first payment was made in cash in the office of the New Method Laundry. I do not have knowledge of how the other laundries made their payments or whicli ones did.
I also made the second and third payment of $225 each to Meisner in cash in the succeeding years. I did not attend the actual session, but Meisner reported to me what happened. Firstly, Hoffa was late in appearing. In fact, Meisner expressed the thought to me that he started worrying that the payoff might have gone down the drain.
The Chairman. Just a moment. He reported to you that Hoffa did appear at the meeting ?
Mr. Miller. Tliat is right.
The Chairman. And he had previously reported to you that Hoffa said he would settle it ?
Mr. Miller. AVell, his contacts with Hoffa agreed they would settle it, yes.
The Chairman. In other words, as a result of these folks contacting someone higher, whom at the time you had suggested as Hoff'a, and so far as you knew, you never knew anything to the contrary but what it was Hoffa?
Mr. Miller. Well, I surmised it was Hoffa.
The Chairman. Well, you have never known anything to the contrary ?
Mr. Miller. That is right, I never knew anything to the contrary.
The Chairman. When the test came at the negotiating session, it was reported to you that Hoffa showed up there ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
The Chairman. All right. Proceed. We will have other proof.
Mr. Miller. This meeting was held at the Detroit Lei and Hotel. When the door opened, Hoffa was there with a couple of his men.
Well, I am not sure who was with him.
The Chairman. That is what was reported to you ?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir. • The Chairman. Say so.
Mr. Miller (reading) : Miesner said the color drained from Lit- wak's face when he saw Hoffa. Hoffa wanted to know what the meet- ing was all about. He then read the contract which had been worked out up to then, and expressed the view that it was a good contract and that there was nothins: wrons: with it.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13305
The negotiations were then broken off and the contract signed some time later. It is my feeling and belief that Meisner and Balkwill were acting in the best interests of the laundry owners and that this type of arrangement had to be made to reach contract.
The Chairman. Is that still your honest belief about it from what you know and from what part you played in it ?
Mr. Miller. Yes, that is right.
The Chairman. In other words, there was no doubt in your mind but what there had to be a payoff to get this contract settled?
Mr. Miller. Definitely. I know I paid $450 the first year, $225 the second, and $225 the third.
The Chairman. And you were paying to get a contract and pre- vent a strike ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
The Chairman. And you were paying it in cash ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
Senator Mundt. You paid it to a man by the name of Meisner?
Mr. Miller. John Meisner.
Senator Mundt. Who is still alive ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
Senator Mundt. And who should be able to tell the committee what he did with the money ?
Mr. JVIiLLER, He should be able to ; yes.
Senator Mundt. The last you saw of your money it was in the hands of Mr. Meisner ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
Senator Mundt. It should not be very hard to find out from him what he did with the money.
Mr. Miller. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. He will be a witness, Senator.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. Miller. Well, that is all there is to it. That is the end.
The Chairman. Have you made the corrections in the written statement that you read where you found inaccuracies to be?
Mr. Miller. Well, I never met Hoffa myself.
In fact, I never seen him in my life until today, outside of pictures in the paper. But I knew that he was Litwak's boss, and whatever negotiating we had to get a contract would probably have to go through him. That is why I made the suggestion.
The Chairman. In other words, you were under pressure about this contract, there was a strike threatened against the whole industry
Mr. Miller. That is right.
The Chairman. You had been negotiating with the president of the local time and again.
Mr. Miller. That is right.
The Chairman. You were on the negotiating board, were you?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
The Chairman. And you had done your best to get a contract, to get it settled ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
The Chairman. And you had been unsuccessful ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
The Chairman. Prior to Mr. Hoffa's appearance at the meeting — • and I think the proof will show that, if you were not present at that
13306 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
meeting; — had you offered everything prior to that time that was accepted at the time that Mr. Hoffa intervened ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
The Chairman. You had already made these proposals. What is the other man's name, the president of the local ?
Mr. Miller. Isaac Litwak.
The Chairman. Litwak was rejecting the proposals ? He was turn- ing them down. You failed to get anywhere with him ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
The Chairman. But when Mr. Hoffa intervened, if he did inter- vene, it was immediately settled upon the terms that the laundry institute had offered ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
The Chairman. But it cost a little money ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
Senator I\'ls. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question ?
The Chairman. Senator Ives.
Senator Ives. I want to ask the witness if anybody has talked to him about testifying before this committee about this meeting?
Mr. Miller. No ; only Mr. Salinger.
Senator I\t:s. Nobody else has iDeen in touch with you at all about testifying?
Mr. Miller. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, he talked to Mr. Meisner.
You have talked to Mr. Meisner ; have you not ?
Mr. Miller. Well, I talked to Meisner and Balkwill.
Mr. Kennedy. Also, when you say you read this statement casually, do not your initials appear on each page ?
Mr. AIiLLER. That is right
Mr. Kennedy. It has been notarized ?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You read it over ; did you not ?
INIr. ;Miller. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You approved of the statement at that time ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Your changes you made regarding your conversa- tions with Mr. Meisner and Mr. Meisner identifying the recipient as Mr. Hoffa, those changes have been made in the last 48 hours?
Mr. Miller. Well, no, they weren't.
Mr. Kennedy. Since last night ?
Mr. ]\IiLLER. Not in the last 48 hours. I told Mr. Salinger I was not there.
Mr. Kennedy. I am asking you if in your conversations with Mr. Meisner, Mr. Meisner identified Mr. Hoffa as the recipient of the money ; did he not, to you ?
Mr. Miller. No.
Mr. Kennedy. That is what appears in the statement ?
Mr. Miller. That is what appears there, but I wanted to cor- rect it.
Mr. Kennedy. As of yesterday, your statement was correct, as of the time I talked to you yesterday ?
Mr. Miller. My statement is still correct, but I don't know
Mr. Kennedy. John Meisner identified Hoffa as the man; did he not, to you ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13307
]\Ir. Miller. Not in that many words ; no.
JMr, Keistnedt. That is what you said in the statement ?
Mr. Miller. I just took that for granted that Hoffa was the man.
Mr. IvENNEDY. You did not discuss that with Meisner ?
Mr. Miller. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Tliat is what appears in your statement.
Mr. Miller. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And as of yesterday you stated to me in the office that that was correct ?
Mr. Miller. Well, that is true, but, as I say, that I wasn't sure of, and I am still not sure of that, because I wasn't there.
Mr. Kennedy. But from what was reported to you, you still say that if it had not been for the intervention of Mr. Hoffa as it was related to you, this contract would not have been signed ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Hoffa did come to negotiation at the De- troit Leland Hotel as it was related to you ?
Mr. Miller. As it was related to me, that is right.
Mr. Kennedy. There is one more question I would like to ask the the witness.
Wliat caused him to change his statement?
Mr. Miller. Change my statement ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, to make corrections in it as you went along. Presumably it was right yesterday and now it is wrong.
Mr. Miller. As I told Mr. Salinger when he come up to speak to me, this happened 10 or 11 years ago. He asked me things on the telephone. He couldn't ask me direct. He relayed it to the operator and the operator had to relay it back to me. Then when he came up there, it was quite late, and I was doing other things while he was typing it out. But as far as to know John Meisner made the pay- ments to Hoffa, that I don't know because I wasn't there.
Mr, Kennedy. I know, but you read that statement before you signed it, did you not ?
Mr. INIiller. Just casually. I only looked it over once.
Mr. Ivennedy. Well, a statement like that is an important state- ment. Did you not make affidavit to it ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. When you do that, is it your custom to just casually glance at an affidavit before you swear to it ?
I am just curious to know what made you change that statement. Are you scared of something ?
Mr. Miller. No ; I am not.
Mr. Kennedy. You act that way.
Mr. Miller. No ; I am not a bit scared. But what I am trying to say is that I can't prove that John Meisner had any connections or paid any money directly to Hoffa.
Mr. Kennedy. You knew that when you signed the statement, did you not ?
Mr. Miller. Sure I knew it.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliy did you sign the statement ?
Mr. Miller. I told Mr. Salinger that.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Salinger did not make you swear to it, did he?
Mr. Miller. No.
13308 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. I^NNEDT. You swore to it yourself freely, did you not, of your own will ?
Mr. Miller. That is true.
Mr. Kennedy. Yet you come along today and make all of these revisions in it. There is something very peculiar about this.
Senator Mundt. This man looks like a good, honest American. He probably has not had much experience in appearing before a commit- tee, testifying under oath and making affidavits.
How many affidavits have you made out in your lifetime?
Mr. Miller. That is the first one.
Senator Mundt. You get up here and testify under oath and you simply do not want to say something that you are not sure of under oath ?
Mr. Miller. That is true.
Senator Mundt. Now you want to tell us the true facts as you understand them ?
Mr. Miller. That is true.
Senator Mundt. I commend you for that. If there are any changes to be made, you should make them, because you are testifying under oath, and you do not want to get in trouble.
Mr. Miller. That is true.
Senator ]Mundt. I think your testimony has been helpful, and the greatest significance of it, as I see it, is that you have at least told us the name of the man who told you that they met with Mr. Hoffa in the Detroit Leland Hotel.
Mr. Miller. That is right.
Senator IMundt. There is no question in your mind but what they told you that?
Mr. Miller. They were at the meeting.
Senator Mundt. That they were at the meeting with Hoffa?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
Senator Mundt. And their names are Meisner and — who is the other one ?
Mr. ]\IiLLER. Balkwill.
Senator Mundt. It seems to me that that is enough contribution for one fellow to make, and I do not criticize you at all for the fact that you are simply trying to be sure that what you tell us is the absolute truth.
Mr. Miller. That is true.
The Chairman. The Chair undertook to give the witness every opportunity to make any correction he wished to as he presented his statement. The corrections have been made, according to his testi- mony.
Senator Curtis.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Miller, I want to ask you about the happenings when your drivers were first organized. You say you were the last one to have your drivers unionized ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
Senator Curtis. Were your supplies of coal and soap actually cut off?
Mr. Miller. No.
Senator Curtis. They were threatened ?
Mr. Miller. Threatened, that is right.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13309
Senator Curtis. Did those communications that amounted to a threat come to you or to the suppliers of coal and soap ?
Mr. Miller. Well, Mr. Litwak had made me 3 or 4 visits, and he wanted to organize the drivers. I told him to go ahead. He talked to the drivers, and said he couldn't get them organized, that they didn't want to join the union. I said, "That is up to you. Wliat do you want me to do, put them in ?"
So he contacted the institute and they give me a telephone call and told me I better join the union, because they could stop my coal and soap supplies coming in.
(At this point. Senator Mundt withdrew from the hearing room.)
Senator Curtis. In other words, your drivers didn't want to join the Teamsters Union ?
Mr. Miller. They definitely didn't want to.
Senator Curtis. And the organizer reported to you that they did not want to join?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
Senator Curtis. Did you personally know your drivers ?
Mr. Miller. That is right ; I did.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could have order in the room ? I can't hear.
The Chairman. Let us have order.
Senator Curtis. You believed that was the opinion of the majority of your drivers, they didn't want to join the union ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
Senator Curtis. So then the approach was made to you that you put them in the union, that is correct ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
Senator Curtis, And you were threatened with having your sup- plies of coal and soap and anything else you might use shut off if you didn't force your drivers into the union ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
Senator Curtis. Were any other supplies involved besides coal and soap ?
Mr. Miller. No, sir; it was just a telephone threat, and that is what it was. They said there are other supplies that could be shut off, but there was only soap and coal mentioned.
Senator Curtis. Was your place ever picketed ?
Mr. Miller. No.
Senator Curtis. Was anything said about picketing ?
Mr. Miller. It was never mentioned. They never mentioned any picket lines.
Senator Curtis. Did you put your men in the union ?
Mr. Miller. I did.
Senator Curtis. Was there reaction to that?
Mr. Miller. Well, they were very unhappy, and their remark was that they accused me of selling them down the river.
Senator Curtis. And they were put in the miion against their will because you were threatened with being shut up if you didn't force them to join?
Mr. Miller. That is true.
Senator Curtis. Well, I think that is a very bad set of facts. It is not unusual, however. The law gives to workers the right to organize
13310 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
and bargain collectively, and it doesn't give to unions any rights to organize somebody that doesn't want to be organized. That is just illustrative of certain elements of unlawful conduct.
That is all.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions at this time ?
Senator Church. Mr. Miller, in connection with the testimony that you have just given, in this telephone conversation when you were ad- vised that unless your truckers joined the Teamsters Union these sup- plies would be cut off, with whom was that telephone conversation?
Mr. Miliar. Well, it came from the institute..
Senator Church. Do you recall who gave you that inf onnation ?
Mr. Miller. Mr. Balkwill.
Senator Church. Of the institute ?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
Senator Church. You had no direct communication from the rep- resentatives of the Teamsters themselves ?
Mr. Miller. No.
Senator Church, But it was Mr. Balkwill, of the institute, who told you that he had been advised by the Teamsters that unless your truckers were put into the Teamsters Union, these supplies would be cut off ; is that correct ?
Mr. Miller. That is true.
Senator Church. There is one other aspect. Let me follow that up with this question : Then you proceeded to put these truckers into the Teamsters' local ?
Mr. Miller. That is true.
Senator Church. Did I understand you to testify that as a part of that arrangement, each paid $1 instead of the customary initiation fee?
Mr. Miller. That is true.
Senator Church. ^Yho paid that ? Did the employees pay it, or did you pay it ?
Mr. Miller. The employees paid it.
Senator Church. And after you put them into the Teamsters, you had no further difficulties with regard to your supplies or any further troubles in that connection ?
Mr. Miller. No.
Senator Church. Now, as far as you can personally testify of your own knowledge, you were a member of the negotiating committee of the institute that was attempting to get a new contract with the Team- sters Union for all of the members of the institute ; is that correct ?
Mr. Miller. That is true.
Senator Church. And certain offers had been made, and these offers had not been accepted by the president of the Teamsters' local with whom you were dealing ?
Mr. Miller. That is correct.
Senator Church. And then, if I understood, and correct me if 1 misunderstood your testimony, you directly testified that you were ad- vised by Mr. Meissner and Balkwill that a payment should be made by the members, and the payment was $90 per truck. ^ Now, were thev the ones who told you this ?
Mr. Miller. Well, I don't know how they agreed on the $90.
Senator Church. But were they the ones who told you that that would be the amount required ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13311
Mr. Miller. Well, when Jolin Meissner came to me, he said it would be $90.
Senator Church. Did he tell you that this $90 per truck would have to be paid in order to get a contract ? Was that his explanation to you?
Mr. Miller. Oh, yes ; we understood that.
Senator Church. It was clearly understood that this was in pay- ment for a contract ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
Senator Church. And then later these same two men informed you that Mr. Hoffa did appear at a meeting in which these negotia- tions for a contract were being discussed ?
Mr. Miller. Well, as I say, we were having lunch and there was probably several of us there, and he wasn't at the meeting, but the report did come back that Mr. Hoffa came to the Leland Hotel in 1949.
Senator Church. And the report came from whom? Who told you this ? That is what I was trying to get.
Mr. Miller. John Meissner told me that.
Senator Church. Then you paid the $90 per truck, in 3 install- ments ?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
Senator Church. And to your knowledge did other laundry owners also make this payment ?
Mr. Miller. I don't know.
Senator Church. But any way, you made the payment ?
Mr. Miller. I made it.
Senator Church. Shortly thereafter, a contract was entered into, and the contract consisted of the same terms that had been previously offered but not accepted by the union ?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And the local union official who had been conduct- ing the negotiations, Mr. Isaac Litwak, was very upset that Mr. Hoffa had gone over his head ?
Mr. Miller. That is as they told it to me ; that is right.
The Chairman. All right.
Senator Curtiss. I have one other question. At the time that this attempt was made to organize your drivers, did you have any con- troversy or trouble with your drivers or any dispute with them ?
Mr. Miller. None whatsoever.
Senator Curtis. They were not complaining about their pay and their working conditions ?
Mr. Miller. No.
Senator Curtis. Did any of them belong to the Teamsters Union at that time ?
Mr. ]\IiLLER. Well, that I don't know for sure, but previous to that there had been one or two who had belonged to it, but whether any of them belonged to it at that particular time, I don't know.
Senator Curtis. You had 10 drivers ?
Mr. JNIiLLER. That is right.
Senator Curtis. So far as the Teamsters Union was concerned, they were just outsiders butting in, were they not, and they did not represent your drivers ?
Mr. Miller. No.
13312 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Curtis. That is all.
The Chairman. Tlie committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12 : 25, the committee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p. m., the same day.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
The Chairman. The committee will be in order.
(Members of the committee present at the convening of the session were : Senators McClellan and Ives. )
The Chairman. Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Vincent Watldns.
The Chairman. Will stand and be sworn ? Do you solemnly swear that the evidence, given before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Watkins. I do.
TESTIMONY OF VINCENT B. WATKINS
The Chairman. Mr. Watkins, state your name and your place of residence and your business or occupation.
Mr. Watkins. Vincent B. Watkins, 587 Henley, Birmingham, Mich. I am a partner of the Grand Laundry.
The Chairman. Mr. Watkins, do you waive counsel ?
Mr. Watkins. I do, sir.
The Chairman. How long have you been in the laundry business ?
Mr. Watkins. I have been in the business about 30 years. I have owned the Grand Laundry since 1944, and I have been a partner of it since 1944.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy, proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Watkins, were you a member of the negotiating committee of the Detroit Institute of Laundry in 1949?
Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir,
Mr. Kennedy. The others that were on that committee with you were Mr. Horace McKnight ?
Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And Charles Ladides, Howard Balkwill, and John Meisner; is that correct?
Mr. Watkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, were you having difficulties reaching an agree- ment with Mr. Isaac Litwak of local 285 of the Teamsters ?
Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. He was very adamant in his position about signing a contract with you ?
Mr. Watkins. Quite so.
Mr. Kennedy. And he particularly wanted to go into a 5-day week, which you felt would be very costly ; is that right ?
Mr. Watkins. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it ultimately discussed that it would be neces- sary or steps should be taken to get somebody higher up in the Teamsters Union ?
Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That took place at a meeting of your group, did it?
Mr. Watkins. That some arrangements should be made to ap- proach someboy higher up in the Teamsters ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13313
Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. How long had these negotiations been going on before you decided to go to someone higher up ?
Mr. Watkins. If I remember correctly, it was a couple of months.
The Chairman, Iu the meantime had the contract expired ?
Mr. Watkins. I don't remember.
The Chairman. But you do know that the negotiations had been going on for around 2 months at least before you decided to try to go over the head of the president of the local union ?
Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, I believe the record shows that the_ contract expired in February and your negotiations were going on in April, May, and June of that year ?
Mr. Watkins. Yes.
Mr. Ivennedy. After you had this discussion about going to a higher up in the Teamsters Union, did a report then come back ta you that it was going to cost some money i
Mr. Watkins. It did, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Who gave you that report?
Mr. Watkins. I don't remember correctly, but I remember at the meeting that the gentlemen whose names you have read off were present, and I can't say which one made the report.
Mr. IvENNEDY. One of this group made a report that it was going to cost some money ?
Mr. Watkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Then did you discuss or did he report to you how much money it was going to cost ?
Mr. Watkins. To my recollection, not at that particular meeting.
Mr. Kennedy. This money was to be paid to the higher up in the Teamsters Union, as you understood it ?
Mr. Watkins. Presumably so, yes.
Mr. ICennedy. Now, were you ultimately told how much it was going to cost ?
Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you remember w4io told you that?
Mr. Watkins. No ; I don't remember for certain, but I would say it was probably Mr, Balkwill or Mr. Meisner.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Now, liow mucli did you understand it was going to cost each laundry owner?
Mr. Watkins. Up to yesterday when your Mr. Willse refreshed my memory, I didn't remember exactly. But the figure that he men- tioned of $90 a truck, that has been discussed here today, sounds reasonable to me.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that to be paid all at one time?
Mr. Watkins. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. It was $90 a truck, to be paid over a 3-year period ?
Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And it was $90 a truck for the first year ?
Mr. Watkins. No.
Mr. Kennedy. $45 for the first year ?
Mr. Watkins. I believe so, yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Then it was to be followed bv 2 payments, the suc- ceeding years of $22.50, is that right ?
13314 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Watkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Over a 3-year period ?
Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Did you decide to make that payment ?
Mr. Watkins. I did.
Mr. Ivennedy. And did you collect the money ?
Mr. Watkins. Did I pay the money, you mean ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. I^NNEDY. How much money did you pay altogether ?
Mr. Watkins. I don't remember.
Mr. I^NNEDY. Do you know approximately how much ?
Mr. Watkins. I think at that time we had someplace between 12 and 15 trucks.
Mr. Kennedy. So you paid $1,000 or $1,200 ?
Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. To whom did you give this money ?
Mr. Watkins. Mr. Meissner.
Mr. KJENNEDY. Was it explained to you that the money would have to be in the form of cash ?
Mr. Watkins. I think so, and at least that was the medium of exchange.
Mr. Kennedy. After you paid the cash to Mr. Meissner, did the Detroit Institute of Laundry go get the contract signed ?
Mr. Watkins. I don't remember the chronology of it.
Mr. Ivennedy. But subsequently ?
Mr. Watkins. ^Vliether it was after the payment or whether it was after the meeting where they said that they had had a discussion with someone, but nevertheless the contract was ultimately signed.
Mr. Kennedy. And it was generally or basically on the terms that you wished to have the contract signed at that time ?
Mr. Watkins. Yes, because we had already given up so much we couldn't get back, that what was left we felt we had to keep.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not have to give anything more ?
Mr. Watkins. No ; we did not give the 5-day week.
Mr. Kennedy. It was explained to you that the concessions already made would have to remain in effect, but you wouldn't have to give any more ?
^Ir. Watkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And you didn't have to give in to any more points and the contract was signed, is that right ?
Mr. Watkins. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that Mr. Litwak was upset at the fact that Mr. Hoffa had gone over his head in this matter?
Mr. Watkins. I don't think so. I don't think I had any knowledge of that situation.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it ever reported to you ?
Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir; I think it was discussed years afterwards, that there was some upsetment. But I don't remember exactly.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand Mr. Hoffa had intervened in this contract ?
Mr. Watkins. No ; I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13315
The Chairman. Do you know whether the other laundry owners had to pay the same as you did ?
Mr. Watkins. No; I presumed that they did, but I don't know.
The Chairman. Was that the understanding that all of them would have to pay ?
Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir ; I would say that substantially is correct.
The Chairman. You were not agreeing to something that was not applicable to all of your associates, were you?
^Ir. Watkins. I hope not.
The Chairman. Well, you tried to make a little certain about it at the time ?
Mr. AYatkins. I expected that they were all contributing some- thing.
The Chairman. That was the general idea ?
Mr. Watkins. That is correct.
The Chairman. What was the purpose of the contribution ?
Mr. Watkins. Presumably to get a contract closed that we were having great difficulty in closing, despite what we felt was a ];)resenta- tion of good facts and figures.
The Chairman. Well, placing it in another terminology, you were paying off, is that correct ?
Mr. Watkins. In the vernacular ; yes.
The Chairman. Can you give any other appropriate description for it?
JNIr. Watkins. No, sir.
The Chairman. Did you regard that as a legitimate transaction?
Mr. Watkins. No, sir.
The Chairman. Why not ?
Mr. Watkins. Because I think it is morally wrong.
The Chairman. You think, too, that it was an exploitation of the situation ?
Mr. Watkins. Yes.
The Chairman. Did you understand that money was going into the union treasury ?
Mr. Watkins. No ; I don't think that I had any such understanding.
The Chairman. You never even had any such suspicion, did you ?
Mr. Watkins. No ; I don't believe so.
The Chairman. Then what you actually paid it for or what you all paid it for was to keep from having further trouble with the union?
Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir.
(At this point. Senator Church entered the hearing room. )
The Chairman. In other words, it was an exaction that was made of you in order to let you have peace ?
Mr. Watkins. That is right.
The Chairman. But you felt you had no other alternative under the circumstances, was that correct ?
Mr. Watkins. I am afraid so ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. Well, you know how you felt about it at the time, and I don't think that you would just
Mr. Watkins. I had made a commitment that they would go higher up before I realized that it would cost money, and I am afraid if I knew it would cost money to start with I would not have been in favor of it.
The Chairman. In other words, if you had known that going higher
13316 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
up was going to involve you in this kind of a shady deal, you wouldn't have agreed to it ?
Mr. Watkins. That is correct.
The Chairman. And you do regard it as a form of extortion, do you not ?
Mr. Watkins. Yes.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions ?
Actually, if you had 12 trucks, it cost a total of more than $1,000?
Mr. Wx\TKiNS. That is right.
The Chairman. And you paid it ?
Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And you paid it in cash ?
Mr. Watkins. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. So that there would be no record of it ?
Mr. Watkins. That is correct.
The Chairman. Is there anything further ? Are there any further questions?
All right, thank you, you may stand aside. Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Conrad Lantz.
The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence, given before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and notliing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Lantz. I do.
TESTIMONY OF CONRAD LANTZ
The Chairman. State your name, and your place of residence, and your business or occupation.
Mr. Lantz. My name is Conrad Lantz, I live in Bellriver, Ontario, and I am general manager of the LaMeasure Bros. Laundry.
The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ?
Mr. Lantz. Yes : I do.
The Chairman. Have you formerly lived in the United States ?
Mr. Lantz. Yes.
The Chairman. Are you a citizen of this country or of Canada ?
Mr. Lantz. Of the United States.
The Chairman. A citizen of the United States ?
Mr. Lantz. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. What business did you operate in this country?
Mr. Lantz. The Pilgrim Laundry.
The Chairman. Where ?
Mr. Lantz. 1949, from 1939 and they still own it.
The Chairman. And 3'ou stiH operate it ?
Mr. Lantz. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Where is it located ?
Mr. Lantz. In Detroit.
The Chairman. All right, you may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. You are the manager of the LaMeasure Bros. Laundry ?
Mr. Lantz. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. How long have you held that position ?
Mr. Lantz. About 3 yeare.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13317
Mr. Kennedy. What position did you have in the laundry business in 1949?
Mr. Lantz. I was an owner of the Pilgrim Laimdiy, and I still am.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have difficulties in negotiating a contract with the Teamsters Local 285, Mr. Isaac Litwak in 1949 ?
Mr. Lantz. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Was he taking a very adamant position in connec- tion with the signing of the contract ?
Mr. Lantz. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And you were having a great number of problems^ is that right ?
Mr. Lantz. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it then discussed among your committee that you would make an approach to someone higher up in the Teamsters Union ?
Mr. Lantz. That is correct.
Mr. Ivennedy. And could you tell the committee what you were told then? After it was decided to make that approach to someone higher up in the Teamsters Union, was it then reported back to you that it would be necessai-y for some money to be paid ?
Mr. Lantz. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us how much money it was decided upon ?
Mr. Lantz. I believe it was around $90 per truck.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, was it explained to you as to whom the money would be given ?
Mr. Lantz. I was told it would be given to Mr. Holtzman who was engaged as labor relations man.
Mr. Kennedy. And did you understand why it was to be given to Mr. Holtzman ?
Mr. Lantz. I presume because he had the contract with the higher- ups.
Mr. Kennedy. Specifically were you told as to who Mr, Holtzman was close to ?
Mr. Lantz. I presume the name of Mr, Hoffa was mentioned.
Mr. Kennedy. I am not asking what you presume, and weren't you told?
Mr. Lantz. Frankly, I can't remember. It was quite some time ago.
Mr. Kennedy. Weren't you told, or you remembered about 5 hours ago in my office downstairs ?
Mr. Lantz. I am sorry, Mr. Kennedy. Vriiat was that again ?
Mr, Kennedy. You remember about 5 hours ago in my office down- stairs. Let me just ask you this : When it was stated that money would be paid to Mr. Holtzman, why was it explained to you that the money would go to him ?
Mr. Lantz. Well, he was in the labor-relations business, and I pre- sume as such was entitled to a fee,
Mr. Kennedy. What else was explained to you about Mr. Holtz- man?
Mr. Lantz. That was it.
Mr. Kennedy. That was all that was said about Mr. Holtzman?
21243—58 — pt. 36— 4
13318 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Lantz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Was anything said about his connection with any individual in the Teamsters Union ?
Mr. Lantz. As I said, I presume.
Mr. Kennedy. I am not asking what you presume. I am asking what was said at that time.
Mr. Lantz. I can't remember that far back.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you tell me this morning at 9 : 30 in my office that tlie reason the money was to be paid to Mr. Holtzman is because, "he had the ear of Mr. Hoffa" ?
Mr. Lantz. Possibly, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, there is no question about "possibly." You told me that.
Mr. Lantz. I don't remember the exact words and perhaps you have it written down, but I don't, and I didn't write them down.
Mr. Kennedy. You told me that this morning, and isn't that correct, as to why the money was paid ?
Mr. Lantz. I believe I told you that he was in the labor relations, and he had a direct communication with Mr. Hoffa.
Mr. Kennedy. And that was the reason the money was paid to him ; was it not ?
Mr. Lantz. Well, as a consultant, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. But also because of the fact that he was a close friend or he had the ear of Mr. James Hoffa ?
]Mr. Lantz. And apparently was quite conversant with our problem in connection with the 5-day week.
Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it correct that at least part of the reason the money was going to be paid to Mr. Holtzman, and I will say the only reason you gave me in my office downstairs, was that he had tlie ear of Mr. Hoffa ?
Mr. Lantz. That was probably very close to it.
Mr. Kennedy. That is not probably very close to the truth ; that is the truth ; is it not ?
Mr. Lantz. Mr. Kennedy, perhaps you have it written down, and I don't remember it.
Mr. Kennedy. That is what you told me this morning. Isn't that correct, the reason the money was paid to Mr. Holtzman ?
Mr. Lantz. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you.
Now, did Mr. Holtzman ever go on a negotiating session for the Detroit Institute of Laundry ?
Mr. Lantz. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you ever present when Mr. Holtzman had any conversations about your problems with any union official ?
Mr. Lantz. None whatsoever.
Mr. Kennedy. He never particij^ated in any open negotiations that you know of ?
Mr. Lantz. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Kennedy. And the money was to be paid in cash, was it not?
Mr. Lantz, That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. To him ?
Mr. Lantz. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand then that Mr. Hoffa intervened in this contract?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13319
Mr. Lantz. We did have a meeting with Mr. Hoffa shortly after that.
Mr. Kennedy, After this was arranged ?
Mr. Lantz. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Hokzman arranged for you to meet with Mr. Hoffa ?
Mr. Lantz. I can't say that.
Mr. Kennedy. Who arranged for the meeting ?
Mr. Lantz. I am sorry, I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. But shortly after the arrangements were made to pay Mr. Holtzman, you did meet with Mr. Hoffa ?
Mr. Lantz. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And did Mr. Hoffa then inject himself into the ne- gotiations for this contract ?
Mr. Lantz. Yes, we met on Trumbull Avenue, at the Teamsters headquarters.
Mr. Kennedy. You went there, and also didn't he come to the negotiations for the contract at the Detroit Leland Hotel?
Mr. Lantz. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that reported to you ?
Mr. Lantz. No, not to my knowledge.
Mr. Kennedy. All right, but you did go to see him after the money was paid to Mr. Holtzman ?
Mr. Lantz. That is correct, yes, on Trumbull Avenue.
(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc- Clellan, Ives, ancl Church. )
Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask about this item.
(At this point. Senator Curtis entered the hearing room.)
The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a photostatic copy of a check dated May 2, 1949, made payable to you in the amount of $1,000 drawn on the account of the Detroit Institute of Laundry. I ask you to examine this check and state if you identify it.
(The document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Lantz. Yes.
The Chairman. Do you identify the check ?
Mr. Lantz. Yes, I do. Senator.
The Chairman. That check may be made exhibit No. 1.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 1" for refer- ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 13707.)
Mr. Kennedy. This is a check dated May 2, 1949, pay to the order of Conrad S. Lantz, for $1,000. It is written on the account of the Detroit Institute of Laundry, and it is endorsed on the back by Conrad S. Lantz. You received this $1,000?
Mr. Lantz. I received the check, that is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Then you cashed the check ?
Mr. Lantz. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat did you do with the cash ?
Mr. Lantz. I gave it to John Meisner.
Mr. Kennedy. For what purpose ?
Mr. Lantz. I believe it had something to do with the inside laundry workers union.
Mr. Kennedy. This is another laundry workers imion ?
Mr. Lantz. That is correct.
13320 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
JVIr. Kennedy. And this money was to be given to a member of that union?
Mr. Lantz. I believe so.
Mr. Kennedy. Yon were told that?
Mr. Lantz. It probably came up in our conversations.
Mr. Kennedy. Yon were told that, were you not ?
Mr. Lantz. I would say probably, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. This was to go to whom in that union ?
Mr. Lantz. Jolm Paris.
Mr. Kennedy. P-a-r-i-s?
Mr. Lantz. I think that is the spelling.
Mr. Kennedy. Was he receiving payments of money periodically ?
Mr. Lantz. That I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Is this the only check you know about ?
Mv. Lantz. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. "What was the purpose of paying Mr. Paris money ?
Mr. Lantz. I believe it was pretty much we were in negotiations at that time, on the inside contract, and I believe it was to expedite the contract.
(At this point. Senator Kennedy entered the hearing room.)
The Chairman. Who was Paris representing, the laundiy men or the union?
Mr. Lantz. The inside workers, the laundry workers.
The Chairman. Inside workers ?
Mr. Lantz. Yes ; representing the union.
The Chairman. Well, then, let's see. This was another payoff to a union man ? Is that what you are saying ?
Mr. Lantz. I say this is ; yes.
The Chairman. All right. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. How much money did you pay — I don't know whether I asked you this — how much money did you pay on the other payoff that you made ?
Mr. Lantz. I don't recall how many trucks I had, but it was prob- ably at the rate of $90 per truck.
Mr. Kennedy. And you paid over a 3-year period ?
Mr. Lantz. I believe so ; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa's name was mentioned frequently in con- nection with this, was it not, the meetings ?
Mr. Lantz. I can't say that, Mr. Kennedy.
The Chairman. Approximately how much did you pay on the other transactions ?
Mr. Lantz. "VYliat transaction. Senator?
The Chairman. Well, your part, at so much per truck. About liow many trucks did you have?
Mr. Lantz. I think I probably had about eight trucks.
The Chairman. About how many ?
JSIr. Lantz, About nine.
The Chairman. About nine ?
Mr. Lantz. Yes. So it would be about $800.
The Chairman. It cost you about $800, $400 in casli at that time and then $400 after that time for each of the 2 years ( .
Mr. Lantz. That is correct.
The Chairman. You didn't sret anv of tliis J*>1.(H)>'). did vou (
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13321
Mr. Lantz. No; I did not.
The Chairman. This came out of the treasury of the Detroit Insti- tute of Laundry.
Mr. Lantz. That is right.
The Chairman. You were a member of that institute, were you?
Mr. Lantz. Yes.
The Chairman. And part of this was dues or money that you had paid in for your membership ?
Mr. Lantz. Right.
The Chairman. And it was known at the time that this whole thing was a payoff, that it was extortion, tliat you had to do it in orde>' to save your businesses and get a contract.
Mr. Lantz. I would say so.
The Chairman. Is that the way you felt about it at that time ?
Mr. Lantz. Yes.
The Chairman. Is that the way all of you felt about it as you dis- cussed it?
Mr. Lantz. I would say so.
The Chairman. Well, there is no other explanation for it, is there? You didn't want to have to just hand out $90 per truck to somebody, did you ?
Mr. Lantz. I sure didn't want to.
The Chairman. But you had that alternative of either doing that or. continuing to have trouble over the contract and any consequences that might follow that truck ?
Mr. Lantz. I would say so.
The Chairman. Do you know any other name for this except ex- tortion ?
Mr. Lantz. No.
• The Chairman. Thank you. Are there any other questions ?
Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Curtis.
Senator Curtis. What would have happened if you had not paid the money?
Mr. Lantz. We probably would have had a strike.
Senator Curtis. What would have taken place then ?
Mr. Lantz, We probably would have gone out of business.
Senator Curtis. What I mean is, would it have been your own employees going on strike ?
Were your own employees dissatisfied ?
Mr. Lantz. Believe you me, I don't know. The union had represent- atives of the various plants there, and they were demanding a contract that we just could not see our way clear to fulfill.
Senator Curtis. Did you ever go through a strike ?
Mr. Lantz. No ; never have.
Senator Curtis. Did you explore what the result would be had you refused to pay and sought some relief in court ?
Mr. Lantz. I believe it was shortly before that, Senator, when they did have a strike situation in one of the large cities. I believe it was Philadelphia. The results were pretty drastic. They could not get relief from the courts.
Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
13322 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. Do you know why this check was not just made out to Mr. Paris to begin with ?
Mr. Lantz. No.
The Chairman. You have a pretty good idea, don't you ?
Mr. Lantz. Yes.
The Chairman. He woukhi't accept the check, would he?
Mr. Lantz. I don't know. I don't talk to Mr. Paris. We have a contract with a different union than Mr. Paris'.
The Chairman. You must have talked to him or seen him or some- body to get this money to him.
Mr. Lantz. I am sorry ; I turned it over to Mr. Meisner.
The Chairman. Mr. Meisner?
Mr. Lantz. That is correct.
The Chairman. You cashed the check and turned it back to Mr. Meisner ?
Mr. Lantz. That is right.
The Chairman. Who is Mr. Meisner ?
Mr. Lantz. The executive secretary of the trade institute of laundry.
The Chairman. In other words, he needed the cash ?
Mr. Lantz. That is right.
The Chairman. He couldn't handle the transaction by check ?
Mr. Lantz. That is correct.
The Chairman. So he used you as the man to get the money in cash and made the check to you ?
Mr. Lantz. That is correct.
The Chairman. All right. Are there any other questions ?
If not, thank you very much. Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. William Ballovill.
The Chairman. Be sworn, please, sir. You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this Senate Select Committee shall be the truth, the wliole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Balkwill. I do.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM H. BALKWILL
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your business or occupation, please, sir.
Mr. Balkwill. William H. Balkwill, 2522 West Grand Boulevard, Detroit, executive secretary of the Detroit Institute of Laundry.
The Chairman. You waive counsel, do you, Mr. Balkwill ?
Mr. Balkwill. I do, sir.
The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. You are an executive secretary of the Detroit Insti- tute of Laundry ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You have held that position for how long?
Mr. Balkwill. Since 1953.
Mr. Kennedy. What position did you hold in 1949 ?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, I was operating a laundry, and I was presi- dent of the Detroit Institute of Laundry.
Mr. Kennedy. You were president at that time ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13323
Mr. Balkwtll. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the name of the laundry that you were operating ?
Mr. Balkwill. The Fine Arts Laundry in Detroit.
Mr. Kennedy. The contract with Local 285 of the Teamsters came up for renewal in 1949, did it not?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Isaac Litwak was the negotiator for local 285?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you having considerable difficulty with Mr. Litwak during the negotiations in 1949 ?
Mr. Balkwill. That is true.
Mr. Kennedy. That would be in the beginning of the year, would it not?
Mr. Balkwill. I believe we started to discuss it in December 1948. It expired in February.
Mr. Kennedy. February of 1949 ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. But you went on and had discussions after that time?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Litwak indicated that he was going to strike all the laundries, is that right, unless he could get a contract?
Mr. Balkwill. That is always his position.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, it was his position during this period of time?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, it was.
Mr. Kennedy. And you and the rest of the institute and the mem- bers of the institute were quite concerned; is that right?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not seem to be getting anywhere with them?
Mr. Balkwill. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it then decided or discussed about going then and making an approach to a higher union official ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Of the Teamsters ?
ISIr. Balkwill. That is true.
Mr. Kennedy. You made the decision that you should go and see a higher union official. Could you tell us who suggested the arrangements as to how that could be handled ?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, I couldn't state the individual. Some of our committee suggested how we might approach it was through a labor councilor or labor relations man, Mr. Joe Holtzman.
Mr. Kennedy. Who suggested that you go see Mr. Holtzman?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, I couldn't say just who the individual was. It was one of our committee.
Mr. Kennedy. Who was it that made the suggestion ?
Mr. Balkwill. I have never stated, and I don't know exactly the name.
Mr. Kennedy. Have you been told as to who made the suggestion that you go see Mr. Holtzman ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, we were told that. We were told that Mr Holtzman might be able to do us some irood.
13324 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Who told you that ?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, I say I don't know just who told me at first.
Mr. Kennedy. You knew yesterday.
Mr. Balkwill. Well, no, I don't believe you are asking me the same question you did yesterday.
Mr. Kennedy. Who introduced you to Mr. Holtzman ?
Mr. Balkwill. Mr. Moe Dalitz.
Mr. Kennedy. Who is Mr. Moe Dalitz ?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, he is a man about the country, I would say. At that time he was interested and possibly still is interested in a laundry in Detroit.
Mr. Kennedy. And he now also has the interest in Havana and in Las Vegas, is that right ?
Mr. Balkwill. I believe so.
Mr. Kennedy. And he made the suggestion that you talk to Mr. Holtzman ?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, I don't know as he made the suggestion to me. I did not know him, you see.
But someone made a contact with Mr. Moe Dalitz, and the word was given me that we go to lunch at a place in Detroit and he would meet us there.
Mr. Kennedy. IVliat was the name of the lunch place ?
Mr. Balkwill. It was Charles' Chop House.
Mr Kennedy. Charles' Chop House?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Charles Chop House that is close to the Teamsters' headquarters?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, it is not too far.
Mr. Kennedy. Who was going to meet you there ?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, I did not know at the time, but it was Mr. Moe Dalitz that did meet us, and he introduced me to — well, I say me, he introduced Mr. Meisner and I to Mr. Holtzman, and possibly 4 or 5 other gentlemen that were there,
Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Buslikin also present at that luncheon?
Mr. Balkwill. I did not Iniow it. I believe he was.
Mr. Kennedy. It was understood that it was Mr. Holtzman that was going to be able to do you some good in this matter ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes ; that is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have some conversations with Mr. Holtz- man, then ?
Mr. Blakwill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat did he say he would do, what arrangements would he make ?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, he heard our story, if I remember right, and we had the contract there, the demands that Mr. Litwak had made. We outlined to him how far we had got to that time, the offer we had made, and the differences involved.
He made notes of that. I am not sure whether he took a copy of the contract with him, though I believe he did.
And that he would see what he could do about it. He was going to study it and see what he could do.
Mr. Kennedy. Then did he come back later on and have another conversation with you ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13325
Mr. Balkwill. Yes.
Mr. KJENNEDY. What did he tell you then ?
Mr. Balkwill. He said that — I couldn't get all the detail right now — he could get it very much as we had suggested it.
Mr. Kennedy. How much was it going to cost you ?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, the first proposition, I believe, was $25,000.
Mr. Kennedy. In cash ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You were to pay $25,000 in cash, is that right?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. What was your reaction to that ?
Mr, Balkwill. Well, we nearly fainted. It is a lot of money. We just couldn't pay it.
The Chairman. What was that money to go for ?
Mr. Balkwill. I beg your pardon ?
The Chairman. What was that money to go for, the $25,000 in cash ?
Mr. Blackwell. Well, it was for his expense. Just what he was going to do with it, I don't know. He naturally didn't tell us.
The Chairman. He just told you that that is what it would cost you ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes ; that is what it would cost for him to handle it.
Mr. Kennedy. You knew he was very close to Mr. Hojffa, did you not?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes. We knew that he knew Mr. Hoffa. He knew all the teamster fellows there.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell him you couldn't pay the $25,000?
Mr. Balkwill. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You negotiated back and forth ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you finally reach another figure that you would pay him ?
Mr. Balkwill. We finally reached a figure. If I remember rightly, it was $17,500.
Mr. Kennedy. You agreed to pay the $17,500 ?
Mr. Balkwill. We couldn't pay that at that time, but we did set- tle on getting him, I believe, $7,500, and then the balance in 2 annual payments.
Mr. Kennedy. And that would be $7,500 the first year, and $5,000 each succeeding year, is that correct ?
Mr. Balkwill. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. All of those payments were to be in cash?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. He then said that with this payment he could deliver to you the contract, basically as you wished to have it, is that right, or as it was at that particular stage ?
Mr. Balkwill. I believe with a few adjustments that he said would be necessary.
Mr. Kennedy. But you would not have to make any more major concessions, is that right ?
Mr. Balkwill. I guess that is correct ; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Isn't that correct ?
Mr. Balkwill. I think so.
13326 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy, And that you would not have a strike, that Mr. Litwak would sign the contract ?
Mr. Balkwill. Tliat is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Then did you have a meeting with Mr. Hoffa him- self?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, some time after that.
Mr. Kennedy. You went to see Mr. Hoffa ?
Mr. Balkavill. Well, there was a meeting arranged with Mr. Hoffa and some of his board, I assumed it was.
Mr. Kennedy. That was at the Teamster headquarters ?
Mr, Balkwill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And that meeting was arranged by Mr. Holtzman?
Mr, Balkwill. I believe so. We were not notified by Mr, Holtz- man, I don't believe. I believe our attorney made the arrangements. I am not sure about that.
Mr. Kennedy. It was either Mr. Holtzman or your attorney ?
Mr, Balkwell, Yes.
Mr, Kennedy. Who was your attorney ?
Mr, Balkwill, Mr, Thomas LoCicero,
Mr, Kennedy. You say that either he or Mr, Holtzman made the arrangements ?
Mr, Balkw^ill, I believe so ; yes,
Mr, Kennedy, But you think it is very possible Mr. Holtzman arranged for you to meet with Mr. Hoffa then ?
Mr. Balkwill, Well, he was an expensive counsel, I assume he made it possible,
Mr, Kennedy, Well, you paid him the money. You expected to get something out of it. So shortly after you arranged to meet with Mr, Hoffa,
Mr, Balkwill. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. So it would appear that Mr. Holtzman at least, whether you knew it or not, had made the arrangements.
Mr, Balkwill. Yes,
Mr. Kennedy. After that, you explained to Mr. Hoffa the difficulties you were having with Mr. Litwak ?
Mr. Balkwill. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Hoffa then intercede in the contract, in the negotiations for the contract ?
Mr, Balkwill. Well, not immediately. He did discuss it with us, with our group. It was sort of a hearing,
I don't believe we got anywhere with it that day. But we went on negotiating with Mr. Litwak. We had several meetings, and we did get it boiled down closer to a conclusion.
Mr. Kennedy. Then did Mr. Hoffa ever actually come to a nego- tiating session?
Mr, Balkwill, Yes, Once,
Mr, Kennedy, Mr, Hoffa came, himself?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes. The last meeting we had in concluding the contract was at the Detroit Leland Hotel.
Mr, Kennedy, This was the last meeting that you had? The last major meeting?
Mr, Balkwill, Major meeting ; yes,
Mr, Kennedy. And Mr, Hoffa came to that meeting ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13327
Mr. Balkwill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Litwak surprised to see him there?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, I don't know. You vSee, we were invited on each side, as we are here, and he come in from the other door.
He didn't come at the time the meeting started
Mr, Kennedy. Had you requested that Mr. Hoffa come ?
Mr. Balkwill. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Was IMr. Litwak angry that Mr. Hoffa had come , and was intervening in this contract ?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, he was angry before he arrived. I don't know that that aggravated it.
Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time after you made the pay- ments to Mr. Holtzman, was Mr. Litwak angry at the intervention of Mr. Hoila in this contract?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, I believe it would be normal to say "Yes," because he did not appreciate it, I am sure.
Mr. Kennedy. He knew about the fact that Mr. Hoffa was inter- vening in the contract?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, he was there.
Mr. Kennedy. And lie indicated to you and stated to you on that occasion, or on a later occasion, that he was angry at the inteiwention of Mr. Hoffa, and that you had gone over his head ?
Mr. Balkwill. Not at that time he didn't ; no.
Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, subsequently, since that time.
Mr. Kennedy. He obviously did not do it while Mr. Hoffa was present.
Mr. Balkwill. No.
Mr. Kennedy. But at a subsequent date he did make those state- ments to you ; did he not ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And following Mr. Hoffa's appearance at the De- troit Leland Hotel, the contract, the major matters in the contract, were signed ; is that right ?
They were agreed to?
Mr. Balkwill. I am sorry, I didn't get the question.
Mr. Kennedy. After Mr. Hoffa's appearance at the Detroit Leland Hotel, the major matters in the contract were agreed to between the Detroit Institute of Laundry and local 285 ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes ; that is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And it is your belief, is it not, that it was the inter- vention of Mr. Hoffa that brought about a settlement?
Mr. Balkwili.. We felt it was ; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you also believe, in discussions that you had, that the payment that you had been making to Mr. Holtzman, at least a part of that went to Mr. Hoffa ?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, we wouldn't have any right to say that it did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you believe that?
Mr. Balkwill. We would assume maybe it did. We had not any conversation to say that.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, Mr. Hoffa most probably would not take the payment directly from you in a situation such as this?
Mr. Balkwill. I am sure he would not.
13328 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. It would be going through a third party.
Where did you believe the money was going 'i
Mr. Balkwill. Well, we knew it went to Mr. Holtzman.
Mr. Kennedy. And you believed from there it went on to a third party ?
Mr. Balkwill. How many assistants he had, we did not know. He led us to believe, just by inference, because he did not mention any names, except to say that he had been instrumental in settling some waitress' contract, and he understood the problem so well. Pie didn't, as I say, mention any names, but he inferred there were a bunch of people to be paid with that money. So in the light of that, it was not so much.
Mr. Kennedy. And he told you specifically he had to take care of somebody ?
Mr. Balkwill. Some people, yes.
The Chairman. In otlier words, there was never any doubt in your mind at all except that this was a payoff?
Mr. Balkwill. No.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Balkwill, you got generally what you paid for, did you not? The contract was signed generally on the terms that you had reached at that time ?
Mr. Balkwill. Generally speaking, yes.
The Chairman. Senator Ives.
Senator I\^s. I would like to ask the witness if he realizes that, under the Taft-Hartley Act, that is a direct violation ?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, I know much better now than I did then.
Senator Ives. You know it is now ?
Mr. Balkwill. I have been told that.
Senator I\tes. Well, it is a pretty serious offense. It violates sec- tion 302 of the Taft-Hartley Act, if you are operating under that act. It is a criminal offense under it. I simply wanted to point out the seriousness of all this.
Mr. Kennedy. I have some other checks that I would like to ask you about.
Senator Curtis. Have you completed this transaction ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
The Chairman. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. You never believed that the money you were giving to Mr. Holtzman was going to Mr. Litwak, did you? For payment ?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, no, I would not.
Senator Ivennedy. You never assumed that from any conversations or any of the negotiating procedure which you had with Mr. Litwak ?
You never assumed that he was looking for a payoff, did you ?
Mr. Balkwill. No.
Senator Kennedy. There was no evidence of that ?
]Mr. Balkwill. No .
Senator Kennedy. You are stating very clearly in your mind what was the opinion of you and your associates, that whatever INIr. Holtz- man was going to do with the money, he was not going to give it to Mr. Litwak, is that what you are telling us ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13329
Mr. Kennedy. Just on that point, Mr. Litwak actually would not Gven take a cigar, as I understand it. Isn't that generally his repu- tation ?
Mr. Balkwill. That is true.
The Chairman. Senator Curtis.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Balkwill, how was this $17,500 raised ?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, it was figured out how many trucks was in- volved, and it was divided up, so much per truck.
Senator Curtis. Your members were assessed for that, according to the number of trucks they drove ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, those that had trucks. They didn't all have trucks. That is why it was a separate fund. It was not handled through the institute, you see, because they did not all participate.
Senator Curtis. Those that had trucks, did it run about $90 a truck ?
Mr. Balkwill. I believe that would be about the sum.
Senator Curtis. And they paid it in three payments ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Now, is this incident involving the $17,500 the same incident that the witness this morning, Mr. Miller, testified about?
Mr, Balkwill. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. You were present when he testified ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. How long had this strike gone along before you abandoned your efforts to try to get a settlement ?
Mr. Balkwill. It was not a strike as yet, sir.
Senator Curtis. Or the negotiations, I meant.
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, the negotiations. Possibly it was a couple of months.
Senator Curtis. Then at that point, some of your members came forth with the suggestion that they ought to take it up with somebody else ?
Mr. Balkwill. That is right.
Senator Curtis. Now, in this discussion that they ought to take it up with someone else, was any higher up in particular mentioned ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes ; I would say there was. We only know who in Detroit is higher up, Mr. Hoffa, and Mr. Brennan. We know they have associates, but we look to them as the head of the joint council, Mr. Litwak's superior.
Senator Curtis. But instead of getting in touch with any direct officers of the Teamsters Union, you got in touch with Mr. Dalitz ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes; it was one of those things that came up, and we didn't know Mr. Hoffa that well, to go and discuss the matter with him, and we thought Mr. Holtzman did possibly.
Senator Curtis. Was Holtzman the man you were seeking out to contact or did that suggestion come from Mr. Dalitz ?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, I say the suggestion. Our introduction was by Mr. Dalitz. I didn't have any conversations with him, only that I met him at the Chop House. They were there at lunch and so when we came in, we sat down, or we went in there and he introduced us and he left.
Senator CuRns. Has Mr. Dalitz been interested in the laundry business, too ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes.
13330 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Curtis. Was he at that time ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes ; not active in Detroit, though.
Senator Curtis. Was this arrangement to pay $17,500 arrived at before or after your first conference with Hoff a ?
Mr. Balkwill. It was before.
Senator Curtis. How long before ?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, I don't just recall.
Senator Curtis A week or two, would you say ?
Mr. Balkwill. It would be a week or two possibly.
Senator Curtis. That is all.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel.
Mr. Kennedy. Just in summary on this particular thing, sum- marizing your testimony, you had trouble with the union, that is No.l?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And Litwak would not sign the contract, that is No.2?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And it was then suggested that you take it up with a higher union official ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Which would be either Mr. Hoffa or Mr. Brennan?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You saw Mr. Holtzman, and arrangements were made to pay him in cash ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And that he then said that lie could arrange the contract ?
Mr. Balkwill. He thought he could.
Mr. Kennedy. That shortly after these arrangements were made, Mr. Hoffa intervened in the contract, in the negotiations for the contract ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. The contract was signed on the terms generally that were agreed, and Mr. Litwak, the local union official, was angry about the situation ?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, he didn't express too much anger in the con- clusion.
Mr. Kennedy. That is generally correct, that he was angry with the situation as it had developed ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes ; I think so.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, I want to ask you about these other checks.
The Chairman. Wlien you in the course of these negotiations and conferences with your associates referred to "higher ups," whom did you mean ?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, it depended on which union was involved.
The Chairman. Well, I am talking about the Teamsters Union.
Mr. Balkwill. Well, the Teamsters, I had said Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Brennan.
The Chairman. Wlien they referred to higher ups, whom did you understand them to mean ?
Mr. Balkwill. They mean Mr. Hoffa.
The Chairman. I mean your associates.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13331
Mr. Balkwill. They mean the same people ; yes. The Chairman. There wasn't any misunderstanding, was there? Mr. Balkwill. No ; I don't think so. The Chairman. Well, I hand you here three checks. Senator Curtis. I have one more question before you go into this other transaction. Did Mr. Holtzman at any time either name or indicate in any way who was to get the $17,500 ? Mr. Balkwill. No.
Senator Curtis. Did you have any knowledge as to who was to get it ?
Mr, Balkwill. No, not beyond Mr. Holtzman. Senator Curtis. That is all.
Mr. Kennedy. Just so we get the record clear, you understood, did you not, in your discussions with one another, that the money was to go to Mr. Hoff a, or at least part of it ? Mr. Balkwill. We only assumed that.
Mr. Kennedy, You understood from the conversations that you had had originally, and what you wanted to accomplish, and the con- versations that you had with Mr. Holtzman, that part of the money was to go to Mr. Hoff a ?
Mr. Balkwill. The conversations with Mr. Holtzman didn't in- fluence that. He didn't mention it.
Mr, Kennedy. He said he wanted the money in cash ? Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir.
Mr. KJENNEDY. And he said he could get the terms of the contract and he would see somebody ? Mr. Balkwill. That is true.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Well, from the conversations that you had with him and the facts that were developed, you understood that the money, at least in part, was to go to Mr. Hoffa, isn't that right ? Mr. Balkwill. Or someone higher up.
Mr. Kennedy. It is Mv. Hoffa or Mr. Brennan, and you under- stood that it was to go to Mr. Hoffa, did you not ? Mr. Balkwill. Well, I only had my own imagination to use. Mr. Kennedy, Based on the facts, and based on working with it at that time, you understood that the money was to go to Mr. Hoffa, did you not ?
Mr. Balkwill. That is what I understood, and I didn't talk ta anybody about it, and I might have thought so. But there was no imderstanding with anybody. Mr. Kennedy. You believed that it was to go to Mr. Hoffa ? Mr. Balkwill. Well, I wouldn't make that statement either. The Chairman. You had no curiosity about it? Mr. Balkwell. Well, yes ; I did.
The Chairman. And you kind of satisfied your curiosity in your thinking a little, didn't you ?
Mr, Balkwill. It was not much satisfaction. The Chairman. There wasn't much satisfaction? Mr. Balkwill. No.
The Chairman. Because he felt that you were simply being ex- ploited and that this was actually extortion money ? Mr. Balkwell. Yes ; that is right. The Chairman. That is tlie way you felt about it? Mr. Balkwill. That is rig-ht.
13332 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. And you know who the higher up was, don't you ?
Mr. Balkwill.. Yes.
The Chairman. And you know the manipulations that went on that caused that higher up to walk in and settle that contract, don't you?
Mr. Balkwill. I don't know it.
The Chairman. You were there ?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, not when that was done.
The Chairman. You were not there at the negotiations ?
Mr. Balkwill. At the negotiations?
The Chairman. The last negotiation meeting when the contract was agreed upon.
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Who came in there and influenced the decision to make that contract ?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, Mr. Hoffa.
The Chairman. All right.
Now I present to you 3 checks, photostatic copies, and 1 dated September 30, 1948, in the amount of $1,000, drawn on the Detroit Institute of Laundering, and made payable to cash, and apparently it bears your signature as president of the Detroit Institute of Laun- dering. I wish you would examine that check. And then I present to you another check drawn in like manner, payable to cash, on April 17, 1950, in the amount of $2,000, and bearing your signature as presi- dent of the Detroit Institute of Laundering. And then I present you a third clieck in the amount of $1,000, dated April 24, 1949, made payable to W. H. Balkwill in the amount of $1,000, and drawn on the Detroit Institute of Laundering, and signed by W. H. Balkwill as president of that institute.
Will 3'ou please examine the three clicks that I have referred to and state if you can identify them.
(The checks were handed to the witness.)
The Chairman. You do identify each of the checks that I have presented to you?
]Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Are the checks drawn by you on the account of the Detroit Institute of Laundering?
Mr. Balkwill. They are, sir.
The Chairman. Let the cliecks be made exhibits 2-A, B, and C, in order in which I presented them.
(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 2-A, B, and C," for identification and will be found in the appendix on pp. 13708- 13710.)
The Chairman. Now, then proceed, Mr. Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. As I understand it, you were not told by Mr. Holtzman what union official he would intervene with; is that correct?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. But you understood that he would intervene with a higlier union official, who was higher than JNIr. Litwak, is that correct ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Now, Mr. Litwak's title at that time was presi- dent of the local ?
Mr. Balkwill. He was president and business manager.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13333
Senator Kexnedy. Now, who besides Mr. Hotta and Mr. Brenan Jiad authority over these negotiations, with higher union officials than Mr. Litwak ? Was there anyone ?
Mr. Balkwill. I wouldn't know.
Senator Kennedy. Is the reason that you have presumed, and we don't w'ant to be inaccurate here, but the reason all along, or the only reason that you have presumed that Mr. Holtzman may have given the money to Mr. Hoffa is because. No. 1, he is a higher union official than Mr. Litwak, and No. 2, he did intervene in the case and Mr. Brenan did not. Is that the reason for your opinion or do you have other informa- tion ?
Mr. Balkw^ill. I previously stated Mr. Brenan w^as present at one of the meetings.
Senator Kennedy. You think the money could have gone to either Mr. Brenan or ]Mr. Ilotl'a ?
Mr. Balkwill. It could have.
Senator Kennedy. Who else could it have gone to or did it go to neither one ?
Mr. Balkw^ill. Well, I don't know^ the setup over there. There are quite a number of union officials, and I don't know how many might be higher than Mr. Litwak. He is j ust one local.
Senator Kennedy. What is the reason tluit you presume that it might have gone to Mr. Hotfa ?
Mr. Balkw^ill. Well
Senator Kennedy. Because he intervened in the case, and you say Mr. Brenan did too ?
Mr. Balkw^ill. I didn't say that I presumed it went to jNIr. Hoffa ; I am sorry. I said I thought it was possible.
Senator Kennedy. Are you of the opinion that Mr. Holtzman made some arrangement with somebody in a higher position than Mr. Lit- wak '? Is that what you are saying ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes; I didn't get along so good myself, and so he did better than I could in getting the settlement.
Senator Kennedy. Who did better than you did ?
Mr. Balkwill. Mr. Holtzman, and so I assume that he did have somebody's ear more than I did.
Senator Kennedy. In other words, it wasn't Mr. Litwak's ear in your opinion, from your experience with Mv. Litwak, and so it is higher than Mr. Litwak, and you don't know who that might be ?
Mv. Balkwill. Not for sure.
Senator Kennedy. But the only two union officials that you know- that intervened with either Mr. Brenan and/or Mr. Hoffa, is that correct ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, that is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hoffa was close to Mr. Holtzman, was he not ? You understood that?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, I understood that.
Senator Kennedy. Was Mr. Brenan close to Mr. Holtzman ?
Mr. Balkw'ill. Well, I have seen them quite often, all 3 or 5 union officials, and sometimes Mr. Holtzman at lunch, in the past, since then, and before.
21243—58 — pt. 30 5
13334 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR P'lELD
The Chairman. We have presented these checks and they have been identified. Are there any questions about them? Can you give us some explanation of the checks?
You wrote 1 check for $2,000 to cash, and another 1 for $1,000 to cash, and those checks written to cash appear to have your endorse- ment on the back.
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, it appears that I cash them, sir.
The Chairman. You identify your signature ?
Mr. Balkwell. Yes, it is my signature.
The Chairman. You cashed those two checks for cash '.
Mr. Balkwill. Three of them, sir.
The Chairman. You also cashed one that vou made out to your- self?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, yes, that was probably made direct to me. I don't believe that is my writing, is it'?
The Chairman. Well, you signed the check made out to yourself.
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, possibly if I had made it out, I would have made it out to cash, and the other part I made it out.
The (^HAiRMAX. You have 8 checks involving $4,000, and tell us what this is all about ?
Mr. Balkwill. Sir, could you tell me if the dates are all the same \
The Chairman. No, I gave you the dates, and the earliest one i> September 80, 1948, $1,000. The next one is April 24, 1949, $1,000, and the third one is April 17, 1950, $2,000.
Mr. ]1\LKWH.L. Those were in the same category, but to a ditfei'enl party.
The Chairman. In the same category, but to difl'ereut parties?
Mr. Balkwill. It was a ])ayoti' the same as the other. I mean to influence a contract, but a different union.
The Chairman. A different union ?
Mr. llvLKwiLL. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. What other miion now is that ?
Mr. Balkwill. That is the inside workers aixl it lias I>een men- tioned here previously.
The C^hair:max. The inside workers union ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, the AFL.
The Chairman. You cashed these checks?
Mr. Balkwill. And I gave them the money.
The Chairman. Gave who the money ?
Mr. Balkwill. It was a man by the name of John Paris.
The Chairman. A^^io?
Mr. Balkwill. Paris, P-a-r-i-s.
The Chairman. "\A^iat position did he hold ?
Mr. Balkwill. He was, I believe, executive business agent of the International Laundry Workers Local 129. That was the inside AYorkers.
The Chairman. You had to sweeten him up, too ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. How much did you pay him altogether ?
Mr. Balkv/ill. Well, those dates, I believe, represents all of 1 year, or ])0ssibly part of 2 years.
Mr. Kennedy. I would like to call Jilr. Bellino. if I may, at rliis time, and he can put the rest of the checks in.
IIVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13335
The Chairman. At the time that you were carrying on this nego- tiation with the Teamsters, you also carried on the negotiation with the laundry workers ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes. It was at different times.
The Chairmax. I know at different times, but all along about the same time ?
Mr. Balkwill. It was in operation.
(At this point the following members were present: Senators Mc- Clellan, Ives, Church, Keiinedy, and Curtis.)
The Chairmax. So you had to make a payoff' to the Teamsters to get a contract, and you also had to make a payoff' to the laundry workers* representative to get a contract ?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, let's say it was necessary to employ counsel on the Teamsters.
The Chairmax. This guy you paid this to was not counsel, he was representing the other side.
Mr. Balkwill. Xo, but you involve the other item in your ques- tion.
The Chairmax. In the other case, you say you employed counsel?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes.
The Chairmax. In this case, you say j^ou paid it directly ?
Mr. Balkwill. Tliat is right.
The Chairmax. And you say they come in tlie same category? Tliat is wliat you said 'i
Mr. Balkwill. You are possibly right.
The Chairmax. 1 am not possibly. Isn't it exactly what you said?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, I did.
Senator CrRTis. Where is Mr. Paris now?
Mr. Balkwill. He is dead.
Senator Curtis. What was his official position ?
Mr. Balkwill. 'Well, he was business manager. I am not sure lie was president at that time.
Senator Curtis. Did he represent your workers ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes.
Senator Curtis. He already liad them organized ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes.
Senator Cl'rtis. This was during the process of negotiating with tliem?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes.
Senator Curtis. He was a local official?
Mr. Balkwill. He was a local official. He was the head of this local, and that arrangement was made direct with him. It was a consideration that was necessary for us to get f^nj settlement on the contract at that time. It run over more than 1 year. It was more tlian one contract, I believe. It was a situation that we were in- voh-ed in there that I just did not know aiw other way to do it, because lie insisted on doing it that way.
I don't know what he got for it, if anything, but he insisted tliat it was well worth it. And he could not operate without it.
That is actually what happened.
Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kexxedt. Mr. Chairman?
13336 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chaikman. Mr. Bellino, be sworn. You solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Belling. I do.
TESTIMONY OF CARMINE S. BELLINO
The Chairman. Mr. Bellino, state your name, your place of resi- dence, and your business or occuj)ation.
Mr. Belling. My name is Carmine S. Bellino. I reside in Be- thescla, Md. My occupation is certified public accountant.
The Chairman. How long have you been a certified public ac- countant ?
Mr. Belling. Since 1932.
The Chairman. How long have you been employed by the com- mittees of Congress in that cai)acity ?
Mr. Belling. Since 1947.
The Chairman. And you have been working for this committee since it was established ?
Mr. Belling. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Mr. Bellino, liave you made a study of the Detroit Institute of Laundry books and records?
Mr. Belling. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Their financial records ?
Mr. Belling. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Are there certain checks that we found which were of questionable nature?
Mr. Belling. Yes, sir.
Mr. IvENNEDY. That is over a period of what time ?
Mr. Belling. From 1948 through 1951.
Mr. Kennedy. And what is the total amount involved ?
Mr. Belling. $16,000.
Mr. Kennedy. For that i-year period, is that right ?
Mr. Belling. Yes, sir.
IMr. Kennedy. Could you tell us about the checks we are interested in?
The Chairman. Does that include the checks here for $4,000 that the witness has identified ?
Mr. Belling. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That includes the $4,000, and then we had a wit- ness identify a $1,000 check also this afternoon.
Mr. Belling. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. That includes $5,000. It was $16,000 altogether?
Mr. Belling. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that total amount of money paid to Mv. Paris?
jMr. Balkwill. Yes ; if tlie the checks are that amount.
Mr. Kennedy. "Would you tell us about the checks and how they are marked on tlie books and records ?
Mv. Belling. The first check was dated June 2, 1948, payable to John C. Meissner, in the amount of $1,500. It was shown to reimburse for check from him, indicating that Meissner may liave used his own check and this was reimbursement to him.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13337
The Chairman. It shows reimbursement or what?
Mr. Belling. In this case on the check stnb book, it merely says to reimburse for check from him, account 21. Account 21 is legal ex])enses. It is charged to legal expenses.
The Chairman. So if that money went to Paris, it was charged as legal expenses ?
Mr. Belling. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Belling. The next check is No. 1159, dated June IT, 1948; that is payable to cash. It was cashed by John Meissner on June IT, 1948. The records show for extra legal expenses.
The Chairman. Extra legal expenses i
Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. The next one is dated September 30, 1948, check No. 1203, payable to cash, in the amount of $1,000, and en- dorsed by Mr. Balkwill. That is shown for labor counsel expenses.
The Chairman. What kind ?
Mr. Belling. Labor counsel expense.
The CiiAiRMA.N O. K.
Mr. Belling. That was $4,000 in 1948. In 1949, on April 24, 1949, a check to W. H. Balkwdll in the amount of $1,000, cashed by him. That is shown as special expenses for drivers contract.
The Chairman. That was a little more accurate.
Mr. Belling. Yes, sir. The next one was check No. 1351, dated May 2, 1949, payable to Samuel P. Baker, in the amount of $1,000. That was shown as expenses negotiating committee. The next one, check No. 1352, dated May 2, 1949, payable to Conrad S. Lantz, $1,000.
It is shown as reimbursed expenses in negotiating union contracts. May 2, 1949, check No. 1353, to John C. Meissner, in the amount of $1,000. That is shown as leimbursed expenses negotiating union con- tracts. That makes another total of $4,000 in 1949.
In 1950, on April IT, 1950, is a check payable to cash in the amount of $2,000, endorsed by Mr. Balkwill. That is shown as legal. The next one is May 18, 1950, check No. 1549, payable to cash, $1,000, endorsed by J. W. Meissner.
That is shown for legal expenses.
The next one is check No. 1563, dated June 16, 1950, payable to cash, $1,000, endorsed by John C. Meissner, That is shown as legal expenses.
December 19, 1950, check No. 1645, John C. Meissner, $2,000, en- dorsed by Meissner, shown in the books as legal expenses.
In addition, there are 4 checks issued in 1951, which were charged to travel and entertainment. Check No. ITOO, dated April 2T, 1951, payable to S. P. Baker, $380.50, endorsed by Baker and cashed.
Check No. ITOl, of the same date, to C. S. Lantz, $560.25, endorsed by Lantz. Check No. 1T02, dated April 2T, 1951, W. H. Balkwill, $805.T5, endorsed by Balkw^ill; and check No. 1T03, dated April 2T, 1951, to John C. Meissner, $253.50, endorsed by Meissner. The total of those 4 checks is $2,000.
Senator Curtis. What was that money used for ?
Mr. Belling. According to the testimony it was used to pay off John Paris, the business agent of the inside workers laundry union.
Senator Curtis. How much of it ?
Mr. Belling. All of it, according to Mr. Balkwill,
Senator Curtis. All $16,000?
1333S
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
r^**
The Chaikjiax. Let me at this moment make all tho.-^e cheeks to which this witness has testified exhibit Xo. 3 A, B. C. D, and such further letters as you need.
(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 3 A through O" for reference and may be fomid in the files of the select committee.)
The CuAiRMAX. Let the ])lK)tostatic copies of the check stubs and ledger be attached and further lettered accordingly.
(The docnments referred to were marked "'Exhibits 3P through I>D" for reference and may be found in the tiles of the select cor-i- mittee.)
TESTIMONY OF HOWARD BALKWIIL— Resumed
The Chairmax. Senator Curtis.
Senator Ciutis. Mr. Balkwill, do you know of any payoffs to any- body where the recipient is still alive t
Air. Balkwill. Xo, 1 don't. Senator.
Senator Ci'htis. Either in your business or any other?
Air. I^ALKwiLL, Xo. I don't know.
Senator Chikch. Air. Chairman?
The.CHAiRMAX. Senator Church.
Senator Church. Air. Balkwill, at this time, this period under in- quiry, you were president of the Detroit Institute of Laundry : were you not '?
Air. Balkwill. Yes, Senator.
Senator Church. Could you tell me something about the Detroit Institute of Laundry ? Does it comprise all the oi)erating laundries or neai'ly all the operating laundries in the Detroit area?
Air. Balkavill. The majority, the larger laundries.
Senator Church. The larger portion of the laundries?
Air. Balkwill. Yes. the larger laundries. There are a lot of small laundries.
Sen.ator Chur< h. "Would it be a fair statement to say that your membership comprises the bulk of the laundry business, volumewise, in Detroit ?
Air. B.vLKwiLL. It did at that time.
Senator CncTiCH. These negotiations that you were conductiii<r with the — well, let's refer to the negotiations with the Teamsters I'liion — these negotiations had to do with a contract that would affect all of your members ?
Air. Balkwill. The one witli the Teamster tliose that had drivers.
Senator Church. Those that had drivers?
Air. Balkwill. Yes, sir.
Senator Church. But all of those that had drivers would have been affected by these negotiations?
Air. Balkwill. Yes, that is right.
Senator Church. In other words, in this sense it was industrywide, the negotiations ?
Air. Balkwill. Yes : that is right.
Senator Chlt^ch. You referred to the payments that were made in this connection to Air. Holtzman as a payoff. From the testimony that has come into the committee thus far, I would regard that as seemingly an accurate description of what was in fact involved.
Cnion onlv affected
Do Not Kemove
Internet Archive Boston Scanning Center
Shipment ID BPL: Gov Docs
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX 1 H'^ LAEOR FIELD
13339
•'■It vo
M W
If 111 ■.:0
This committee has as its objective the iuvesti<>atio]i of improper practices in the hibor-management lield. Very rarely have I found that all the ang^els are ever in one camp. A payoii' is a practice that enables you to secure an objective by sweetening the pot, so to speak, with certain people with whom you can deal to secure that objective.
NoAv, didn't you and the other members of the institute regard that payoff that you made as a very improper practice, so far as manage- ment was concerned ?
Mr. Balkwii.l. Yes ; we felt that way about it.
Senator Church. Yet you testified that it was not as the result of any direct contact on the part of the Teamster leadership in the first instance, but it w^as, rather, as the result of certain suggestions that were made among your own membership, that the initiative was taken to contact Mr. Holt /.man in order that this payoff could be arranged.
You were the ones that motivated this from the time that you decided to get hold of Mr. IToltzman to see if you could go upstairs and get the thing settled.
Mr. Balkwill. "Well, as I say, it was self-defense.
Senator Church. Self-defense ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes; that is right.
Senator Church. You had a contract and you could not come to terms with Mr. Litwak, and he was negotiating on behalf of the truck- drivers he represented.
You weren't able to come to terms. In other words, your offer was unacceptable to him, and his demands were unacceptable to you; is that correct ?
Mr. Balkwill. That is right.
Senator Church. So in order to make a contract acceptable to you, it was suggested among your membership that perhaps you could arrange a payoff through ]\lr. Holtzman with those higher up in the union.
This seems to me to be a very im})roper practice. You say it was a matter of self-defense. "Why?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, it was a matter of doing it one of two ways, probably, and the question was which might be successful.
Now, other parties had taken the method of employing exjjensive counsel, lawyers with political influence, new people in "Washington. These are facts. You know them. And we knew that cost a lot of money, more than involved in this case.
So we discussed those angles. W^e did not h.ive that much money. "We ended up paying moi-e money than we ever thought we would. However, it Avas spread over the contract, the ?> yeai's. After we had gotten started, we got carried along with it.
We didn't feel we had any choice because the demands were so heavy. So we went along with the deal. As has been mentioned here before, I am sure some of our members would never have listened to the idea had they known what they were going to get into.
After we had got started with it and committed ourselves to ])ay the man, we could not back out very well without welching on a rleal we had made with him. He was to handle the deal.
How he did it we did not know, how he was going to do it, any more than if we had employed counsel. There was no law we knew
m
m
13338 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman, Let nie at this luoment make all those checks to which this witness has testified exhibit No. 3 A, B, C, D, and such further letters as you need.
(The document's referred to were marked "Exhibits 3 A through O" for reference and may be fomid in the tiles of the select committee.)
The CiiAmMAx. Let the ])hotostatic copies of the check stubs and ledo:er be attached and further lettered accordingly.
(The docnnients referred to were marked "Exhibits 3P through DD'' for reference and may be found in the tiles of the select com- mittee.)
TESTIMONY OF HOWARD BALKWILI^— Resumed
The Chairman. Senator (\n'tis.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Balkwill, do you know of any payoffs to any- bod}' where the recii)ient is still alive ^
Mr. Balkwill. Xo, 1 don't, Senator.
Senator Curtis. Either in your business or any otliei- '.
Mr. Balkwill. No, I don't know.
Senator Church. Mr. Chairman i*
The^CHAiRMAN. Senator Church.
Senator Church. Mr. IValkwill, at this time, this period under in- quiry, you were president of the Detroit Institute of Lanndry; were you not?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, Senator.
Senator Chitrch. Could you tell me something about the Detroit Institute of Laundry ? Does it comprise all the operating laundries or nearly all the operating laundries in the Detroit area?
Mr. Balkwill. The majority, the larger laundries.
Senator Church. The larger portion of the laundries?
]\Ir. Balkwill. Yes, the larger laundries. There are a lot of small laundries.
Sen.ator Church. Would it be a fair statement to say that your membership comprises the bulk of the laundry business, volumewise, in Detroit?
JMr. Balkwill. It did at that time.
Senator Church, These negotiations that you were condncting with the — well, let's refer to the negotiations with the Teamsters Union — tliese negotiations had to do with a contract tliat would affect all of your members?
Mr, Balkwill. The one with the Teamsters Union only affected those that had drivers.
Senator Church. Those that had drivers?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, sir.
Senator Church. But all of those that had drivers would have been affected by these negotiations?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes, that is right.
Senator Church. In other words, in this sense it was industrywide, the negotiations ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes ; that is right.
Senator Church. You referred to the payments that were made in this connection to Mr. Holtzman as a payoff. From the testimony that has come into the committee thus far, I would regard that as seemingly an accurate description of what was in fact involved.
IMPROPER ACTRITIt.S IX THV. LAEOR FIELD 13339
This committee has as its objective the investigation of improper practices in tlie hibor-manaoement fiekh Very rarely have I found that all the angels are ever in one camp. A payoff is a practice that enables you to secure an objective by sweetening the pot, so to speak, with certain people with whoni you can deal to secure that objective.
Now, didn't you and the other members of the institute regard that payoff that you made as a ver\' improper practice, so far as manage- ment was concerned ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes ; we felt that way about it.
Senator Church. Yet you testified that it was not as the result of any direct contact on the part of the Teamster leadership in the first instance, but it was, rather, as the result of certain suggestions that were made among your own membership, that the initiative was taken to contact Mr. Holt /man in order that this payoff could be arranged.
You were the ones that motivated this from the time that you decided to get hold of Mr. Holtzman to see if you could go upstairs and get the thing settled.
Mr. Balkwill. Well, as I say, it was self-defense.
Senator Churcfi. Self-defense?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes; that is right.
Senator Ciiurcii. You had a contract and you could not come to terms with Mi". Litwak, and he was negotiating on behalf of the truck- drivers he represented.
You weren't able to come to terms. In other words, your offer was unacceptable to him, and his demands were unacceptable to you; is that correct ?
Mr. Balkwill. That is right.
Senator Church. So in order to make a contract acceptable to you, it was suggested among your membership that perhaps you could arrange a payoff through Mr. Holtzman with those higher up in the union.
This seems to me to be a very improper practice. You say it was a matter of self-defense. "Why?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, it was a matter of doing it one of two ways, probably, and the question was which might be successful.
Now, other parties had taken the method of employing ex])ensive counsel, lawyers with political influence, new people in Washington. These are facts. You know them. And we knew that cost a lot of money, more than involved in this case.
So Ave discussed those angles. We did not have that much money. We ended up paying more money than we ever thought we would. However, it was spread over the contract, the 3 years. After we had gotten started, we got carried along with it.
We didn't feel we had any choice because the demands were so heavy. So we went along with the deal. As has been mentioned here before, I am sure some of our members would never have listened to the idea had they known what they were going to get into.
After we had got started with it and committed ourselves to ])ay the man, we could not back out very well without Avelching on a deal Ave had made with him. He Avas to handle the deal.
Plow he did it we did not know, hoAv he was going to do it, any more than if we had employed counsel. There Avas no laAV AA^e knew
13340 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
tliat we could employ to compel the man, Mr. Litwak, to accept a- reasonable ot^'er which we had offered him.
Senator Church. Ordinarily, when management and labor try to come to terms over a bar<iainin_<>- table, they negotiate back and forth and they finally reach common oround.
Always yoii feel that your last offer is reasonable and their demands are unreasonable.
But in this case you paid $17,500 in what you have described as a payoff to get yourself a contract that strongly conformed, basically conformed witli, the last offer that management made; is that not correct ?
Mr. Balkw^ll. Well, there was one big item involved. We avoided accepting that at that time. Now, if you are familiar with what that was, you would know that we got off cheaply.
Senator Ciiurcit. You got off cheap ?
Mr. Balkwill. Yes.
Senator Church. In other words, the $17,500 was cheap enough a price to pay as compared to what Mr. Litwak was asking for the people, the t]-uckers, that he represented ?
(At this ])oint. Senator ^fcClellan withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. Balkwill. Yes; his demand was not good for iis or his people either.
It has ruined the industry. It has been forced on us since then. We did not pay any further than that. It has since been forced on us, after that contract expired, and it has put half of the laundries out of business, and the others are dying on their feet. You can understand why we did fight that; that we went to that extent to avoid accepting it at that time.
We did avoid half of it for, I believe it was, 18 months. This con- tract was for 5 years, I believe. In the middle of the contract, we had agreed in there to consider the issue again; we were forced to accept a portion of the demand. The other was delayed until the end of the contract. Then it was opened. They could strike ajrain. We didn't choose to do this all over again, so we had to take it. I was going to say live with it, but we could not do that. Many of our launclries have passed out. That is just the essence of it and the truth. If we did wrong — I don't think that is any question about it. We are over 21 and we know — I am sure we could not have gotten permis- sion from any court to do it.
That is why it had to be cash.
Senator IvENXEDY. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Ives. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kenxedt. In answer to Senator Church, you stated that it was your initative which secured the services of Mr. Holtzman. Why did you go to Mr. Holtzman instead of someone else to make this payoff?
What was it about Mr. Holtzman that made him particularly quali- fied to handle this arangement?
Mr. Balkwill. Well, he was known to have handled some other cases labor cases like that; not in our industry, but he was quite well known in some circles in Detroit. I didn't know him, but he had been in the dry-cleaning field. He was in that business himself.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 13341
Senator Kenxp^dy. He had done what in the fields Writmg in the field?
Mr. Balkwill. He had done some work liiniself simihir to this.
Senator Kennedy. Do you mean some payoli' work before 't
Mr. Balkwill. I woukhi't say ''payoff." Negotiations. How suc- cessful they were, I don't know. J3ut these were common conversa- tions. I could not say who said
Senator Kennedy. It takes a little more than going to someone you regard as an expert in the field and asking him to be the intermediary in the payoff to the union leaders. What was there about Holtzman?
Mr. BxVLKwiLL. Vre did not ask him to do that.
Sejiator Kennedy. Was it the fact that he was friendly with the top leadership of the union ?
Is that the reason ?
Mr. Balkwill. Most successful men in that field are.
Senator Kennedy. Are what?
Mr. Balkwill. Are on friendly terms with the officials of the union. I try to liold that position myself. I haven't been too successful.
Senator Kennedy. You can't be any more precise as to why Mr. Ploltzman was tlie man that you would go to on what is an outrageous offer ?
Mr. BxVLKAViLL. I didn't know much more about it myself. I was just told. I did not know Mr. Holtzman to speak to him even.
Senator Kennedy. Was it because you were looking for someone who was friendly with the top officials of the Teamsters i
Mr. Balkwile. We were looking for someone tliat could do the job. We didn't think anyone else could.
Senator Kennedy. There is no sense beating around the bush. What was the reason you tliought Mr. Holtzman could do the job?
Mr. Balkwill. I did not say ; I just thought so. We thought so.
Senator Kennedy. Whoever thought so among your group.
Mr. Balkwill. I believe that w;is the motivating idea ; yes.
Senator Kennedy. That you thougiit Mr. Holtzman was on terms wdth the leadership of the Teamsters wliicli would make such an offer through him acceptable to that leadership ; is that correct?
Mr. Balkwill. He would be able to convince them in some manner.
Senator Kennedy. You knew the manner he was going to convince them in was to be through this money. Did you understand in obtain- ing the services of Mr. Holtzman, that Mr. Holtzman was on terms of such intimacy w^ith the leaders of the union that he would be the inter- mediary for such an offer to secure for you the prevention of having to place in your laundries the 5-day week