« 이전계속 »
He said, “Well, for $250 I think that I can get Ernie and make a compromise.
Mr. KENNEDY. So did he bring Ernie in to see you!
Mr. GOTTLIEB. I didn't pay Ernie, and I paid Augie. I didn't pay that at that time. I still stalled for time.
Mr. KENNEDY. Who did you finally pay?
The CHAIRMAN. The Ernie you have been talking about, that is Ernie Rupolo?
Mr. GOTTLIEB. Well, I think that was the name. I believe that is the name.
The CHAIRMAN. I hand you a photograph here and ask you to examine it and state if you identify it.
(A photograph was handed to the witness.) Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes, that is it.
The CHAIRMAN. Is that a picture of the Ernie you have been talking about?
Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes.
(The photograph referred to was marked "Exhibit 13” for reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.)
The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Counsel, do you want this record put in also?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I would like to do that.
TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH CORRIGAN—Resumed
The CHAIRMAN. You may identify this. I present to you what purports to be a police record of one Ernie Rupolo. Would you examine it and state if you identify it.
Mr. CORRIGAN. Yes, sir. This is the prisoner's criminal record, New York City Police Department. It is a criminal record of Ernest Rupolo, alias "Ernie the Hawk."
The CHAIRMAN. Did you know him as "Ernie the Hawk”?
(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 13A” for reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.)
The CHAIRMAN. What are the convictions on it!
Mr. CORRIGAN. There are seven arrests, convictions are for petty larceny, burglary, vagrancy, felonious assault in the first degree, an assault involving a gun.
The CHAIRMAN. What was the longest sentence that he received; some 5 to 10 years, wasn't it?
Mr. KENNEDY. I believe 5 to 10 years.
Mr. Chairman, we have had considerable amount of testimony regarding Ernie Rupolo, and he was involved in our earlier hearings as the gunman for Mike Miranda, and for Vito Genovese to kill a man by the name of Gallo, and he put the gun to Gallo's head and the gun didn't go off and he went in and fixed the gun in his home and then he came out the second time and put the gun to Gallo's head and shot him five times in the head.
Mr. Gallo lived, and then ultimately Mr. Genovese was indicted and was to be tried in connection with this case, after he was brought back from Italy, and the key witness who was being kept in police custody in jail, the key witness was poisoned to death so the trial wasn't able to go ahead.
This picture, you can see, Mr. Rupolo here in the picture, just before tħis picture was taken, had been shot in the eye, right under the nose, and in the chin. He is rather a notorious character.
Mr. Gottlieb, did you ultimately talk to the attendant at the bar, the new bar owner, as to that?
TESTIMONY OF BENJAMIN GOTTLIEB, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL,
SAMUEL MEZANSKY AND JOSEPH M. GODMAN—Resumed Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes, I did. I decided that I would go in and find out who the new people that took over the bar were, and I found two very pleasant young men who had purchased the bar.
Mr. KENNEDY. And they said they had no intention of turning the business over to Rupolo?
Mr. GOTTLIEB. I expected that they would possibly tell me that so-and-so OK'd me, or something. But they never raised that question, and I didn't question them as to what connection they had with Augie or Ernie. So I just let it go at that. I found that they were reasonable, pleasant, and didn't disturb me.
Mr. KENNEDY. Do you think you might have just been taken for $150 ?
Mr. GOTTLIEB. I think I might have been taken.
Mr. KENNEDY. Formerly you paid the label fees and the union dues to Local 1690 of the Retail Clerks; is that right? You paid them directly?
Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes, sir. Mr. KENNEDY. Lately you have increased the salaries of your employees and had them pay it?
Mr. GOTTLIEB. That is right.
Mr. KENNEDY. In passing also—and we will have more testimony about it at a later time you also had difficulty with local 19, did you not?
Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes, sir.
Mr. KENNEDY. And that was also a union that was run by people with questionable records, as you understood it?
Mr. GOTTLIEB. I believe so.
Mr. KENNEDY. That is all.
Senator KENNEDY. As I understand, Mr. Gottlieb, the net worth of your equipment is approximately $85,000 to $90,000 ?
Mr. GOTTLIEB. The net worth?
Senator KENNEDY. Book value. As I understand it, if you included the value of the locations which you have been able to develop, it would bring the figure up to around $250,000.
Mr. GOTTLIEB. Well, you don't know until you make a deal.
Senator KENNEDY. Approximately. In other words, it indicates the value of these locations and the amount of money that is involved in attempting to maintain your locations. How many locations did you have?
Mr. GOTTLIEB. In music, about 125; and in cigarette machines, approximately 250.
Senator KENNEDY. So that is 375. That was 375 which would represent the difference between $85,000 and $250,000. It would indicate that those are worth more than $1,000 each, averaging it out.
Mr. GOTTLIEB. Well, it probably wouldn't average out quite that much. But there are other factors involved. There is bonuses involved; there is advances; loans involved in that whole picture. It would bring it up to about that much.
Senator KENNEDY. It indicates, however, what is at stake, and the pressures that would be brought to bear for a $1,000 location or a location which is worth more or less than $1,000; is that right? It indicates there is a great interest in maintaining these locations, and that there is a good deal at stake and pressures involved between the competing operators in maintaining one location as opposed to another; is that right?
Mr. GOTTLIEB. Yes, sir.
Senator KENNEDY. I would like to ask you or your attorney why it was that in the case where a picket line might be established around a location in order to force out your machines, or force you to buy stickers, why it was that the secondary-boycott provisions of the TaftHart Act could not have been invoked against such a picket line ?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) Mr. GOTTLIEB. I am sorry, Senator; I just didn't get the question. Senator KENNEDY. Does the counsel wish to comment on that?
Mr. MEZANSKY. We obtained an injunction in the State court. The contention was that this was not
Senator KENNEDY. Was this intrastate or "no man's land"?
Mr. MEZANSKY. We did get an injunction against the picket line eventually.
Senator KENNEDY. Is there any reason why in all of these cases where a genuine labor dispute was not involved and it was merely an attempt to use a picket line for the purpose of a secondary boycott which it was—is there any reason to believe that the State courts would not have issued an injunction if the operators or the owner of the installations had been willing to take a suit to the State court?
Mr. MEZANSKY. Well, there is a line of cases that always confront us. These unions contend that they are picketing for organizational purposes. In other words, the sign that these pickets carry states that the machine in that particular location is not serviced by a member of that particular union; so we are always faced with the contention that that sign is an expression of free speech, and it is educational picketing, and that the picketing was solely for organizational purposes.
Senator KENNEDY. The picketing was not against the employer, but against the machine? Mr. MEZANSKY. Yes.
Senator KENNEDY. If this had been in interstate commerce, I will ask you, why wouldn't the provisions of the Taft-Hartley be involved, which clearly says forcing or requiring any employer or self-employed person. This would be to engage in, or induce or encourage the employees of any employer to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to perform any services where an object thereof is (a) forcing or requiring any employer or self-employed person to join any labor or employer organization, or any employer or other person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person.
It seems to me from the cases I have heard described, if they were in interstate commerce and within our competence, a secondary boycott would be involved. What is your judgment?
Mr. MEZANSKY. I believe you are correct. As a matter of fact, that was the basis for the injunctions issued by the State court under the New York law, which is similar to the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
Senator KENNEDY. It seems to me if the operators or owners of the installations were willing, were not afraid of other pressures, more physical than a picket line, were willing to take these cases to court, that I don't know of any court that would refuse an injunction in the cases as I have heard them described today and the ones I have read of yesterday, because there isn't a labor dispute.
The picket line is a fraud. No matter how they may cover it up by the signs on the pickets, that they are carrying, it is quite obvious what this operation is. I would think that you would be successful unless there is some stringent provision in the New York law in getting an injunction.
Mr. MEZANSKY. We were successful. We did obtain an injunction against local 531 and against local 19. But there is a practical difficulty.
First of all, we cannot locate these unions. For instance, local 19 had no address. We couldn't find where the officers were located. We couldn't serve them with process. The pickets would go to a store owner and would try to intimidate the sto owner or in some instances one of the men behind the union, local 19, Amalfitano, would simply make an appearance at the location and the machine would immediately be turned around or disconnected.
We couldn't locate Mr. Amalfitano for quite some period of time, nor could we locate any other official. Under the New York law, in order to sue an unincorporated association, you must serve either the president or the treasurer. I have been advocating some law in New York requiring labor unions to register as the corporations are required to do; that is,
we can sue a corporation by serving process on the secretary of state. There is no such law in respect to labor unions.
These paper unions, they simply have no address nor a telephone, and we can't find them. By the time we are able to get out our injunction papers and serve them, the machines have been disconnected and other machines installed.
Senator KENNEDY. In the legislation which Senator McClellan is interested in, that I have been interested in, I don't think there is any doubt that every union in interstate commerce would have to be so registered. There might be another word used, but they would have to report to the Secretary of Labor.
Obviously, of course, as you say, the use of a union in order to enforce a racketeer's demands should be done away with. But I would think that it would indicate some necessity for the State of New York to consider this experience, as we are considering it on the national level.
It seems to me that if it were in interstate commerce, not in "no man's land,” but in interstate commerce, you could have an appeal brought to the Board, in the case of a secondary boycott, or I would think that you might be able to get some action, if the interstate commerce were affected, where it seems to me that the Department of Justice, in a conspiracy between one operator and a union, or you might have to have two operators in order to meet the provisions of the antitrust law, that you can get action by the Department of Justice on restraint of trade, if it were in interstate commerce.
It is difficult, of course, for us to deal with intrastate, but I think it indicates quite clearly the fact that New York is going to have to consider what action it can take in order to meet the intrastate problem.
Mr. MEZANSKY. I think the provisions you spoke about are very important, and we do hope that legislation of that sort is enacted. As I say, there are these practical difficulties.
I was just wondering, even under the Taft-Hartley law, you still have those lines of decisions about educational picketing and organizational picketing. The contention of a union in those particular cases is that they are not trying to force or compel any boycott, or compel any unfair labor practice, but they are merely advertising as a matter of free speech, they are advertising that the standards of employment in respect to that particular machine are lower than the standards of the particular union that is doing the picketing.
Senator KENNEDY. I know it is difficult to look behind the signs always for a National Labor Relations Board, but I would think in the case of the union described, in the absence of a legitimate labor dispute, I would think it would be possible to get action by the Board. I think it is certainly being examined. I would think that the third remedy, of course, is the State courts.
In fact, you did get an injunction regardless of whether the New York State law was adequate or not. In other words, I would think that most of the courts would give you some protection against the misuse of a union by racketeers for the purposes of, really, extortion.
Mr. MEZANSKY. You take the case of local 19. We obtained an injunction there at the very end of the trial, and the judge made some very serious and very important findings. He was going to hold some of the defendants for the grand jury. But even before he signed the