JOHN DOAR - OF COUNSEL

JOHN JACOB RIECK, JR. ASTOR BUILDING

WALTER MACK -
(212)619-3730
7TH FLOOR
OF COUNSEL
AMY ROTHSTEIN 217 BROADWAY
EILEEN MlNNEFOR NEW YORK, N.Y. 10007-2911
-
DAVID RIVERA
FACSIMILE: (212)962-5037
e-mail: firm@doarlaw.com

CONFIDENTIAL: NOT FOR PUBLIC FILING

PENDING COURT REVIEW

June 29,2004

BY HAND
Hon. Charles S. Haight, Jr.
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007

Re: United States of America v. District Council of New York City

and Vicinitv of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America. et al. 90 Civ. 5722 (CSH)

Dear Judge Haight:

Enclosed is the Independent Investigator's Report Concerning Shop Steward

Assignments Obtained by Local 608 Member John Corrigan. This is the first of several
reports I intend to file, as I previously advised Your Honor, with respect to discrete
subjects of concern that I have had cause to investigate pursuant to my appointment.

As with the report I submitted on June 15 pertaining to the District Council's Anti-
Corruption Program, I have given the District Council and its attorneys an advance draft
of the report and have incorporated some of their suggested revisions. Additionally, I
have attached counsel's June 24 letter as Exhibit A to the enclosed report and, in
response to counsel's comments about Local 608 Business Manager John Greaney, I
enclose a (redacted) memorandum of Investigator Don Sobocienski's interview with Mr.
Greaney as Exhibit B.
 As I mentioned in the cover letter I sent with the Anti-Corruption Program report, I
believe that all of the reports I file should be filed publicly once they have met with Your
Honor's approval. I respectfully suggest that both the District Council and the
Government be given an opportunity to apply to the Court for modification of the report
or redaction of any material that they believe should not be made public. I suggest that
such an application should be made within ten days of the report's filing and that the
other party and I be given another seven days to respond to that application. I believe that
allowing the parties this opportunity would balance the public's right to information about
significant issues in the New York City construction industry with the parties' rights to
persuade the Court that there is certain information that should properly be kept
confidential, that I should undertake further effort to make the report more valuable, or
that the report should be modified to address a party's concerns.

I also take this opportunity to provide the Court with a revised page 17 to my
Report to the District Council of Carpenters Concerning the Operation and Effectiveness
of its Anti-Corruption Program. The new page 17 corrects a typographical error in n. 11,
regarding my intention to recommend perjury cases to the United States Attorney.

My next report will deal with an issue of substantial significance to out-of-work

carpenters: the "request" system now in effect and its impact on those carpenters.

As always, I am available to provide whatever additional information Your Honor

may wish. Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Walter Mack
Independent Investigator

cc: Gary Rothman, Esq. (By facsimile: 2 12-571-7124)

AUSA Ed Scarvalone (By facsimile: 2 12-637-2686)
AUSA Lisa Zornberg (By facsimile: 2 12-637-2686)
VI. Culture

The most troubling aspect of my tenure has been the routine lying and

demonstration of disrespect for the investigative process by Carpenters who are

questioned by Anti-Corruption fact-gatherers1'. I have already recommended to the

District Council that it make clear to all Carpenters that attendance and courtesy are

important obligations of union membership for those summoned for investigative

questioning. I have recommended further that all Carpenters be advised that the union

membership of any Carpenter who lies or obstructs an investigator's efforts to discover

the truth will be in serious jeopardy.

The importance of members' truthful cooperation with investigations cannot be

overstated. I believe that the corruption and other misconduct issues arising at or

concerning job sites would virtually disappear in short order if even only one Carpenter at

each job site where such issues currently exist would come forward and provide the Anti-

corruption Program representatives with truthful, accurate information about what is

wrong at the site. Achieving this objective is the Program's greatest challenge but I

believe that it is achievable in a strong, fraternal organization led by incorruptible leaders

imbued with principles of integrity and intolerance for violations of union obligations.

l1 As for Carpenters who I believe have lied to me under oath, if the Court concurs in my
assessments and recommendations, I intend to refer those cases to the United States Attorney for
appropriate criminal action.
 CONFIDENTIAL: NOT FOR PUBLIC FILING
PENDING COURT REVIEW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 90 Civ. 5722 (CSH)

DISTRICT COUNCIL OF NEW YORK CITY AND

VICINITY OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATOR'S REPORT CONCERNING

SHOP STEWARD ASSIGNMENTS OBTAINED BY
LOCAL 608 MEMBER JOHN CORRIGAN
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.

11. The 40-hour OSHA "Certification" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.

IlI. The 7 World Trade Center Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

IV . TheAOLSite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
.

V. The Trump North Berry Job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

VI. The Trump R & J Job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

VIJ . The Eurotech Job at 1 World Trade Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

VIII . Sorbara Job at 26Ih Street and Sixth Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

IX . The A & M Wallboard Job at the St. Mortiz Hotel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

X. Joseph Connolly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

XI . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
.

INDEX TO EXHIBITS ON CORRIGAN REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

I. Introduction

Walter Mack, the Independent Investigator appointed pursuant to the Stipulation

and Order signed by the Court on December 17,2002 ("the Stipulation and Order"),

respectfully submits this report pursuant to f 6 (a) and (i) of the Order, authorizing the

Independent Investigator to make written reports to the Court as he deems it appropriate.'

As I already have apprised the Court, I intend to submit a series of reports about discrete

subjects that have implications for to the Out-of-Work List ("OWL"). The current report

addresses concerns that John Corrigan7sshop steward assignments have raised with

respect to the functioning and integrity of the shop steward assignment system that is the

subject of the Stipulation and Order, which is "intended to improve the District Council's

job referral rules and to curb opportunities for abuse and corruption of those rules."

(Stipulation and Order at 2).

I note that Mr. Corrigan's shop steward assignments were a subject of the Clarke

Complaint referred to in the Stipulation and Order which, generally, removes from my

jurisdiction allegations raised by Mr. Clarke. (Stipulation and Order, f 6 (a)). However,

the Stipulation and Order authorizes me to investigate such allegations if they also present

themselves in the course of my own investigations "regardless of whether those facts or

' Paragraph 6 (i) of the Stipulation and Order also requires the Independent Investigator to
issue written reports to the District Council at the close of each investigated matter. Consistent
with that requirement, I submitted a draft of this report to the District Council for review and
comment; the final version reflects certain of the District Council's comments. It is my typical
practice to apprise the District Council on a regular basis of investigations underway or
contemplated.
circumstances were the subject of an allegation raised in the Clarke Complaint andlor

Clarke Motion[.]" Id. Indeed, Mr. Corrigan ("Corrigan")'~ assignment to a major project

for Sorbara Construction Corp. at 7 World Trade Center in February of 2003 was referred

to me by the District Council's OWL Supervisor pursuant to T[ 1 (c) (4) of the Stipulation

and Order because the shop steward dispatch request for this project "identifie[d] a skill

certification that [is] uncommonly requested," to wit, 40-hour OSHA (Occupational

Safety and Health Administration) certification. Eventually, my investigation expanded

to include other shop steward jobs that Corrigan had obtained, in almost every instance

aided by his purported 40-hour OSHA certification.

11. The 40-Hour OSHA "Certification"

In reviewing District Council records to determine the number of shop stewards

who had 40-hour OSHA certification, I determined that there was only one other steward

(Joseph Connolly ["Connolly"]) who had listed this certification with the OWL and

whose shop steward dispatches also merited s c r u t i n ~ .I~then undertook various other

investigative measures including: an inquiry of a representative of the OSHA Outreach

Training Program; an inquiry of the New York District Council of Carpenters Labor

Technical College ("Carpenters' School"), through its Director, Martin Daly; an interview

As of May 13,2003 only two other members were listed in OWL records as having a
40-hour OSHA certification: shop stewards Jamie Aguilar and Michael Livingston, both of
whom completed 30-hour OSHA training courses. For reasons still unexplained, the District
Council did not recognize a 30-hour OSHA certificate and mistakenly characterized these
certificates as 40-hour OSHA certificates.
of Local 608's Business Manager; and an interview of a Local 608 Business Agent. I also

took the depositions of Corrigan and Connolly, their purported OSHA trainer, the Local

608 business agent who had responsibility for the 7 World Trade Center site, and

superintendents and foremen of several sites at which Corrigan has worked in recent

years, including 7 World Trade Center. No one whom I deposed or questioned could tell

me what a 40-hour OSHA certificate was or what it signified.

Apart from the fact that Corrigan and Connolly were two of only four Carpenters

whose OWL listing included the 40-hour OSHA credential, probably the most striking

fact that my investigation disclosed is that neither of these men even purports to have

taken a 40-hour OSHA course. Indeed, I ascertained that the OSHA Outreach Training

Program's authorized trainers are permitted to issue Course Completion Cards for either

10-hour or 30-hour courses, not for 40-hour courses. Donald Sobocienski, the chief

investigator working with me on this engagement, ascertained this not only by speaking

with an OSHA Outreach Training Program representative, but also from a conversation

with Martin Daly, the Director of the Carpenters7 School.

I have yet to receive an adequate explanation for how the 40-hour OSHA

certificate came to be listed as a skill by the OWL staff. Rather, various people, including

Corrigan, speculated that the 30-hour Course Completion Cards that Corrigan and

Connolly each received were most likely "added" to the 10-hour Course Completion

Cards that most shop stewards obtained by taking a course at the Carpenters' school.
(Once this investigation was underway, however, the District Council was unable to find

any record demonstrating that Mr. Corrigan actually had the 10-hour class certification.)

Another wrinkle in this scenario is presented by the questionable manner by which

Corrigan and Connolly obtained their 30-hour certificates. Each of them testified that

rather than take a classroom course to get their 30-hour Course Completion Cards, they

each had private on-the-job training from one John Murphy, a safety coordinator on sites

at which they had ~ o r k e d .Upon

~ checking with OSHA, I found that while John Murphy

is an authorized OSHA Outreach Training Program instructor, OSHA had no records of

the required submission by Instructor John Murphy certifying that either Corrigan or

Connnolly had completed an OSHA course he had taught. When I deposed Mr. Murphy,

he testified that he has submitted to OSHA the names of all of the people he has trained

since 1998. (Corrigan's card is dated 1998; Connolly's is dated 1999. Both cards appear

to have been signed Mr. Murphy.) He testified that he knows John Corrigan but does not

remember whether or not he trained him. As was his practice, he would have submitted

Corrigan's name to OSHA if he had trained him. He does not know Joseph Connolly and

did not recall his name. He did, however, say that he believed that the signature on both

Although Comgan initially testified that Mr. Murphy "might have educated me 50,60,
70 hours," under closer questioning, he calculated that Murphy had given him between 5 and 15
sessions, each of approximately 90 minutes' duration. Therefore, whatever instruction Comgan
might have received in this informal setting fiom Mr. Murphy could not have exceeded 22.5
hours.
Corrigan's and Connolly's Course Completion Cards appeared to be his.4 Consistent with

the information I received from OSHA and from Martin Daly, the Carpenters' School

Director, Murphy testified that he has never heard of a 40-hour OSHA course.

Obviously, the fact that Comgan and Connolly were two of the very few District

Council shop stewards who were listed with the OWL as having a 40-hour OSHA

credential gave them an enormous advantage over other shop stewards in obtaining

assignments whenever that "skill" was specified by a contractor or business agent. My

investigation into Comgan's job assignments demonstrated that his 40-hour OSHA listing

created a significant benefit to him. Indeed, he was referred to several lengthy and

therefore financially desirable5jobs because of this purported credential. Furthermore, it

is apparent from his own testimony that fiends of his who were job superintendents or

foremen were informed of his 40-hour OSHA "certification" and were encouraged to list

it as a requirement of the job in order to virtually assure that he would be referred from

the OWL. This certainly was true of the 7 World Trade Center job.

After reviewing the draft of this report, the District Council's attorney

characterized it as "fixated" on the absence of a 40-hour OSHA certification. (Letter of

Mr. Murphy testified that he sometimes issued the Course Completion Cards with the
line for the student's name left blank in case the student or hisher employer wanted the name to
be typewritten.

' While I see nothing derogatory or unfair about the word "lucrative" in this context, I
removed the word as an accommodation to the District Council. (See Rothman Letter at 2-3.)
Many of these jobs were lengthy and involved substantial overtime, making them financially
rewarding and therefore desirable to any shop steward who could obtain them.
Gary Rothman, dated June 24,2004 ["Rothman Letter"], submitted herewith as

Supplemental Exhibit A, n. 1.) I am indeed "fixated" on the significance of this false skill

because so few carpenters were listed as having it and because it therefore, when

combined with contractors' and/or business agents requests for it, resulted in giving

Messrs. Corrigan and Connolly an overwhelming advantage over other shop stewards in

obtaining choice assignments.

Counsel's letter also suggests that this report should note that the District Council

has not looked behind the skills and certifications submitted by its members. (Rothman

Letter at 2.) I do not view this as flattering to the District Council. As noted elsewhere in

this report, the fact that so few carpenters had this purported skill, coupled with its role in

obtaining shop steward assignments, should have provoked an inquiry by the District

Council leadership. Even the most superficial inquiry - talking to an OSHA

representative and to the Carpenter's own Director of its training arm - would have

disclosed that there is no 40-hour OSHA skill and, one would hope, triggered some

investigative s c r ~ t i n y . I~do, however, commend the District Council for reforming the

process by refusing to list any skill that has not been offered at the Carpenters' School at

Nor do I think that this report suggests that it is not commendable for carpenters to
enhance their training and professionalism. (See Rothman Letter at 2.) My view, as reflected in
this report, is simply that neither Messrs. Corrigan nor Connolly can be complimented (see id.)
for offering false safety certificates from non-existent training sessions. Such certifications not
only give them an unfair advantage over other carpenters in obtaining shop steward assignments,
but they have no value - or perhaps negative value - on a job site where the contractor does not
know what the certificate means or may have enhanced expectations of the shop steward's
knowledge and ability to address safety issues.
least twice in a six-month period. I am also pleased that, as the Rothrnan Letter states (at

2), business agent certification is now required for all requests for the newly-listed skill.

111. The 7 World Trade Center Site

Thomas McGeown ("McGeown"), Sorbara Construction's site superintendent, was

working on the foundation of the 7 World Trade Center site for some time prior to Friday

February 7, 2003, when he called in the dispatch request to the District Council that

resulted in John Corrigan's assignment to the site the following Monday. McGeown had

worked with Corrigan on several previous projects and thought highly of his abilities,

particularly with respect to safety issues. McGeown also testified, however, that both

Sorbara and Tishrnan, the developer, had safety officers assigned to the site (McGeown

Deposition, Exhibit 1, at 48.)

In January of 2003, Corrigan, having recently completed several weeks in a

rehabilitation facility for alcohol dependence, visited 7 World Trade Center to have lunch

with his brother, who was already worlung on a construction project there. While at the

site, Corrigan stopped in to see McGeown and the two discussed Corrigan's skills.

Corrigan testified that although he was not interested in getting this job, he advised

McGeown that he had a 40-hour OSHA certification which, if requested as a required

skill, would result in his assignment there. (Corrigan testified that he believed that four or

five other shop stewards had the 40-hour OSHA skill listed with the OWL. [Corrigan

Deposition, Exhibit 2, at 141- 421.) McGeown testified that Corrigan asked him to
request the 40-hour OSHA certification in order to advance his chance of getting the

referral.

And that is what McGeown did. He testified that although he has never before or

since done so, he called in the dispatch request himself. And, also contrary to his and his

employer's practice, McGeown requested a particular skill for a Carpenter shop steward.

(The Manning Request Form, attached as Exhibit 3, confirms that McGeown was the

caller and that he requested a shop steward with 40-hour OSHA ~ertification.)~When

the OWL supervisor flagged this request as unusual and referred it to John Greaney

("Greaney"), Local 608's Business Manager, to verify the necessity for this skill, Greaney

asked Joseph Firth ("Firth"), the 608 Business Agent with responsibility for the site, to

obtain written confirmation from Sorbara Construction that this skill was necessary.

Comgan's testimony about how his letter was obtained is somewhat confusing.

He said that he was notified of his referral to the job on the afternoon of Friday, February

7, the day that McGeown called in the dispatch request. He testified further that he tried

to reach Business Agent Joseph Firth that day but was unable to reach him until Monday,

February 10. When he did reach Firth on Monday, Firth told him that the OWL office

required a letter from Sorbara articulating 40-hour OSHA certification as a required skill

Sorbara Construction produced for my review every written request for carpenters they
have made since 1999. McGeown's letter requesting a shop steward with 40-hour OSHA
certification for 7 World Trade Center is the only instance of a written request for a particular
skill. Counsel for Sorbara advised me that requesting specific skills was contrary to the
company's policy, since the union is apprised of what the job entails and therefore knows what
skills are necessary.
for this assignment. At this is the point, the testimony becomes unclear as to whether

Corrigan or Firth asked McGeown for the letter and as to when the request was made.

When asked whether he had a conversation with McGeown about what the letter should

contain, Corrigan replied that "[hle knew that he had to put down 40-hour OSHA

because he talked to me about it before the job started." (Id. at 137.) He then testified

that "I think I told him he had to put all the requirements in the letter" and that the

requirements included the 40-hour OSHA certification. (Id.)

Firth testified that he is a friend of Corrigan's and that he did not "want to put him

in a spot." (Firth Deposition, Exhibit 4, at 156.) Firth's testimony regarding Corrigan's

assignment to the 7 World Trade Center Sorbara project is also somewhat confusing and

is internally inconsistent. He testified initially that he did not think that Corrigan, fresh

out of rehab, was ready to come back to work. (Id. at 100.) Then he testified that when

he heard that Corrigan had been dispatched to this job site he was surprised, but thought

"good for him." (Id. at 113-14). He then testified that he had thought that Corrigan had a

good chance of getting this job because he had been on the list and there was a lot of

activity at around that time, with shop stewards being referred to jobs on a frequent basis.

(Id. at 114.)

Firth testified that he first learned of the 40-hour OSHA request when he saw the

Manning Request Form and that, had he called the job in, he would not have included 40-

hour OSHA as a necessary skill for the job, although he understood that "safety was the
big thing" for this job. (Id. at 112, 116-17.) Firth initially testified that eight or nine

other shop stewards had the 40-hour OSHA certification listed with the OWL (id. at 116);

he later testified that it was only Corrigan, Connolly and one other shop steward who had

this listing. (Id. at 180.)

It is Firth's testimony about how the letter from McGeown was obtained that is

particularly convoluted and internally inconsistent. First he testified that he directed

Comgan to get the letter from McGeown but that he called McGeown himself when he

did not get the letter quickly enough. (Id. at 127.) Then he testified that he had simply

told Comgan that he had to speak with McGeown, without mentioning the need for

written confirmation of the 40-hour OSHA request. (Id. at 127-29.) Then he said he was

not sure if he had spoken with McGeown himself or had Comgan take care of it. (Id. at

129-30.) A little later he testified that he thinks that he may have spoken to McGeown,

only to contradict himself again, saying that he thinks that he did not speak with

McGeown (Id. at 131,135,148-49.) Firth also testified that he went to the jobsite, where

he was told that McGeown was in a meeting and that he "probably" told Corrigan that he

needed something in writing from Sorbara about why the 40-hour OSHA request was

made (Id. at 141). Comgan told him, Firth testified, that he would speak to McGeown

and "have him send it over." (Id. at 147.)

IV. The AOL Site

This job, Comgan testified, was "the biggest concrete job in New York City . . .
since the Trade Center" and had been anticipated in the industry for fifteen years.

(Corrigan Deposition at 117.) Corrigan wanted the job and discussed it, in advance, with

everyone he knew at Sorbara: "foremen, supers, anybody who had a say, powers to [sic]

be in the company, friends of mine that work for them. I have numerous friends that

work for them." Somewhat inconsistently, Corrigan testified that he did not have to ask

anyone at Sorbara to help him get the job, because such a request would have been

unnecessary since "[tlhey would love to see me there." (Corrigan Deposition at 118.)

Corrigan testified that George Fitzgerald, Sorbara's superintendent of this job, was among

the Sorbara people with whom he spoke. (Id. at 119-20.)

The dispatch request for the AOL job was telephoned in on March 20,2001, with a

start date of March 2 1 and a requirement for a 40-hour OSHA certification. The job

could not be filled on March 21 because Comgan had been dispatched to another job and

was not immediately available. No other shop steward met the requirements and the

District Council records reflect that the contractor agreed to delay the dispatch one day

rather than remove the 40-hour OSHA job requirement. Consequently, Corrigan was

dispatched to this job on March 22.

George Fitzgerald ("Fitzgerald") testified that in asking the District Council for a

shop steward to be assigned to a Sorbara concrete job, it is his practice never to identify

for the Business Agent the specific skills required (Fitzgerald Deposition, Exhibit 5, at

53.) In the case of the AOL job, Fitzgerald contacted the Local 608 Business Manager,
John Greaney, about two weeks prior to the start date. He met with Greaney and Gerry

Philbin ("Philbin"), a Local 608 Business Agent, and described what the job entailed (a

steel building encased in concrete with two concrete towers). He did not recall

discussing with anyone skills that the assigned shop steward would need to have. (Id. at

87, 92-94.)

Subsequent to Fitzgerald's deposition, the Manning Request Form for this job

(Exhibit 6) was furnished to us; the form identified Fitzgerald as the person who had

called the job in, requesting the skills of concrete, wood framing, protection and 40-hour

OSHA. Fitzgerald subsequently submitted an affidavit saylng that he had reviewed the

Manning Request Form and that it did not reflect any request that he had made.

(Affidavit of George Fitzgerald, sworn to March 24,2004 ["Fitzgerald Affidavit"], and

Exhibits thereto, attached collectively as Exhibit 7.) Albert DeRoss ("DeRoss"), another

Sorbara superintendent who worked on the AOL project, testified that he was unaware

that specific skills had been requested for this job and that he had had no discussion of

required skills with Fitzgerald or anyone else. Consistent with the information I received

from Fitzgerald and from counsel for Sorbara, DeRoss said that he has never asked, orally

or in writing, for a specific skill other than concrete. (DeRoss Deposition, Exhibit 8, at

42 .)

Even more dramatically, Fitzgerald swore that he did not write a letter,

handwritten on Sorbara's letterhead, purporting to be signed by him, requesting a

concrete shop steward with, inter alia, 40-hour OSHA certification. (Fitzgerald

Affidavit, 77.) DeRoss, whom I deposed after Fitzgerald and after I had obtained the

Manning Request Form and the handwritten letter purporting to be fiom Fitzgerald,

testified that he did not recognize the handwriting on the letter and had no idea where it

had come fiom. He testified further that Sorbara does send letters to employees fiom

time to time on the company's letterhead. (DeRoss Deposition at 5 1,53-57.)

Given the serious implications of this information, I retained a handwriting expert

to analyze the letter along with handwriting exemplars provided by Fitzgerald, DeRoss,

and John Corrigan. The handwriting expert, Gregory A. McNally, ruled out Fitzgerald

and DeRoss as having written the note and determined that John Corrigan had, in fact,

done so. His determination as to Corrigan was "based on the presence of individual

identifylng handwriting characteristics found in both questioned and known documents,

and the absence of any fundamental differences." (May 10 letter of Gregory A. McNally,

submitted herewith as Exhibit 9.) He added that: "[tlhese identifylng features can be

demonstrated in a court of law." (Id.)

Shortly after receiving Mr. McNally7sreport, I contacted Corrigan's attorney,

Richard Dienst, and advised him that I had serious questions about his client's testimony

that he had not authored the note requesting a shop steward with 40 hours of OSHA

training for the AOL job. I suggested to Mr. Dienst that he consult with Corrigan about

whether he wished to take advantage of my previously-extended invitation to return to my

office to correct his testimony prior to my submission of this report to the Court. On June

7,2004 Corrigan did, in fact, return with counsel and acknowledge in an unsworn

statement that he is "95% certain" that he did, indeed, write the note purporting to be

from Sorbara Construction, requesting a shop steward with 40 hours of OSHA training.8

(A copy of the interview notes taken by Chief Investigator Sobocienski is submitted

herewith as Exhibit 10.)

V. The Trump North Berry Job

The skills requested on the Manning Request Form for this job, telephoned into the

OWL office on November 1, 1999, were: wood framing,9protection, layout, ramsetlhilti,

CPR, 10-hour OSHA and 40-hour OSHA. (Exhibit 1 1.) The requester was listed as

North Berry General Carpenter Foreman John Vecchione. (Id.) Corrigan initially

testified that he did not know why North Berry had requested this particular skillset, but

then conceded that there was a good chance that he had mentioned his 40-hour OSHA

listing to John Vecchione ("Vecchione") and advised him that if it were listed as a

required skill, Corrigan would be likely to get the assignment. (Corrigan Deposition at

87-89). (Corrigan agreed that few shop stewards had wood framing and 40-hour OSHA

as listed skills.) Not surprisingly, Corrigan got this referral.

Because of this revised statement and his struggle with personal health issues, I am
unwilling to recommend criminal perjury charges against Mr. Corrigan.

Corrigan had contacted the OWL earlier that day and had added wood fiaming as a shll,
simultaneously deleting fiaming.
 I note, however, that Vecchione denied knowing that Corrigan had a 40-hour

OSHA listing and said that he did not recall telephoning the dispatch request to the OWL

office or playing any role in obtaining the assignment of a shop steward for this job.

Vecchione also testified that he did not know whether Corrigan had OSHA training and

had never discussed Corrigan's skills with him. (Vecchione Deposition, Exhibit 12, at

71-73,77,84.)

VI. The Trump R & J Job

Corrigan got referred to this job on July 12,2000, in response to a dispatch request

that was telephoned in by Local 608 Business Agent Joseph Firth on July 11. The skills

requested were: framing, drywall, hilti, welding, protection, CPR, 10-hour OSHA and 40-

hour OSHA. (See Exhibit 13.) Earlier that day, Corrigan had added framing and drywall

to his skillset. Corrigan conceded that he might have played a role in getting these

particular skills requested because it was part of the "game plan" at the District Council to

have him assigned as the shop steward.

The explanation for this, given by both Corrigan and Firth, was that Corrigan had

been working on another job at the Trump site when, on several occasions, a non-union

cabinet manufacturer attempted to deliver kitchen cabinets for installation on the site, in

violation of union rules. Corrigan testified that despite offers of bribes, he refused to

allow the non-union cabinets to be delivered and reported the situation to his Business

Manager, who in turn reported it to the District Council. A meeting was held at the
District Council, with union leadership and counsel present, and it was decided, Corrigan

testified, that he should remain on the site so that he could continue to resist attempts of

the cabinet manufacturer to deliver non-union goods and, indeed, to encourage this

manufacturer to become a signatory to the Carpenters' contract. (Corrigan Deposition at

90-93.) Corrigan further testified that he succeeded in this goal and then left the job. (Id.

at 93 .)lo

Corrigan's testimony on this subject was confirmed to some degree by Business

Agent Joseph Firth, although Firth did not concede that there was a plan for Corrigan,

specifically, to be assigned. Firth told me in an interview that he selected the skills

requested on the dispatch form in an effort to insure that a "total ball busting" shop

steward would be assigned. (Memorandum of Interview of Joseph Firth attached as

Exhibit 14.) Firth said that he "probably" knew that Corrigan had 40-hour OSHA

certification listed but that he did not know how many others did." He said that he

reasoned that anyone ambitious enough to have the skillset he listed would be a "ball

'OCounsel's letter commenting on the draft of this report states that Corrigan was wrong
about the sequence of events and recites information offered to me for the first time. (Rothman
Letter at 3.) I express no opinion as to counsel's assertions because questions about the extent of
my jurisdiction and about attorney-client privilege deterred me fiom undertaking to examine the
roles played by the higher level District Council officials, lawyers or investigators in District
Council discussions of this matter. Of course, I am willing to do so at the Court's direction.

I' I note that in deposition testimony prior to this interview, Firth said at first that he
thought that a total of eight or nine carpenters had the 40-hour OSHA listing (Firth Deposition at
116); he subsequently identified only Corrigan, Connolly and one other carpenter as having this
listing. (Firth Deposition at 180.)
buster" with respect to non-union work. Local union 608 Business Manager John

Greaney, in an interview with counsel present, said that he instructed Firth to "put

everything down" with respect to the skills he should request in order to get the shop

steward whom the union needed on the site. (Memorandum of Greaney Interview on

February 2,2004, attached as Supplemental Exhibit B.)

The District Council's appreciation of how unusual the 40-hour OSHA listing was

also vividly illustrated in the Report to the Executive Committee of the Investigation

Committee Into the Complaint of Eugene Clarke, dated January 2002 ("District Council

Investigative Report"). In that report, the authors addressed the allegation that Corrigan

had been tipped off to adjust his skillset in order to be selected for the August 2000

Eurotech job at the World Financial Center. The report notes that there were fewer than

"1 0 people in the entire District Council" who possessed this credential in August of 2000

and that, therefore, "Corrigan's 40-hour OSHA certification alone can explain this

dispatch as convincingly as any other reason." (District Council Investigative Report at

7.)

VII. The Eurotech Job at 1 World Trade Center

In looking at the dispatch request and related documentation for this job, I noted

that the requested skillset, which had been telephoned in by Local 608 Business Agent

Gerry Philbin, was: wood framing, drywall, heavy gauge, welding, CPR, and 40-hour

OSHA. I also noted that just that very morning Corrigan had deleted concrete and added
gauge frame to his skillset. Corrigan testified that he made these changes because it was

very hot and he wanted to work indoors. (Corrigan Deposition at 103.) Corrigan also

testified, however, that he had two friends who worked for the foreman on the job and

had told him what Eurotech was looking for. Furthermore, he told them about his 40-

hour OSHA listing and he "might have" asked them to include that skill in the shop

steward request. (Id. at 104.) He noted further that "[all1 the people in the business

presume I have it. . . . There's only like four or five guys who had it. I think the company

requested it. I know some of the foremen. They probably put this in knowing there was a

chance that they get me as the steward" (Id. at 105.)

I note that at this point in Corrigan's testimony, counsel to the District Council

announced that steps have been take to eliminate the 40-hour listing. (Id. at 107.)

VIII. Sorbara Job at 26thStreet and Sixth Avenue

The dispatch request for this job (Exhibit IS), gives Fitzgerald's name as the caller

and lists the following requested skills: concrete, wood framing, layout, CPR and 40-hour

OSHA." Corrigan obtained the referral after adding concrete and deleting drywall. He

testified that he had known Fitzgerald for fifteen years and that it is very possible that he

had spoken with Fitzgerald in advance and encouraged him to list 40-hour OSHA and

CPR. (Corrigan Deposition at 109-10). As discussed above with respect to the AOL job,

Sorbara superintendent George Fitzgerald testified that he has never asked for a specific

" Fitzgerald testified that he had left responsibility for staffing this job to DeRoss, who
reported to him. (Fitzgerald Deposition at 62.)
skill, including 40-hour OSHA. (See also Fitzgerald Deposition at 62-64). The testimony

of Albert DeRoss, who was Fitzgerald's deputy, was similar. (DeRoss Deposition,

Exhibit 8, at 44.)

The job lasted for five to six months. (Id. at 111.)

IX. The A & M Wallboard Job at the St. Moritz Hotel

The Manning Request Form for this job shows Business Agent Gerry Philbin as

the caller on January 3 1,200 1. The requested skills are: protection, metal framing, wood

framing and 40-hour OSHA. (Exhibit 16.) Corrigan was referred to the job. Just that

day, he had added protection and framing, among other additional skills, to his skillset.

He said that he does not recall why he made these changes and that he did not know

anyone at A & M Wallboard. He also testified that he left the job after a few days

because it was in the dead of winter and very cold. (Corrigan Deposition at 112.)

X. Joseph Connolly

It is clear to me that Joseph Connolly, too, benefitted improperly from a

combination of the bogus 40-hour OSHA credential and the assistance of contractor

representatives andfor District Council officials who cooperated with Connolly to

virtually assure that he would obtain lengthy and therefore financially rewarding job

assignments. Mr. Connolly's testimony about this issue was patently disingenuous. He

repeatedly denied or said that he could not remember having received advance word

about the skills that were to be required for a particular job (see Connolly Deposition
[Exhibit 171 at 45-46,56, 58, 59, 61, 63, 66-67, 82-83, 85,98); and repeatedly said he did

not know or did not remember why he added or deleted particular skills resulting in swift

dispatches to desirable jobsites (id. at 57, 62-63'69, 72, 76,77-79, 81-82). I found the

numerous asserted failures of recollection to be particularly undermining of Connolly's

credibility. These denials and memory lapses had their intended effect: I was unable to

obtain evidence of collaboration by any particular contractor or business agent despite my

firm belief that Connolly had to have been receiving advance information about the skills

requirements for many of the desirable job assignments he received, aided also, of course,

by his bogus 40-hour OSHA credential.

Given the lack of evidence and the time lag since the events in question, I do not

believe that I can recommend pejury charges against Mr. Connolly.

XI. Conclusions

It is clear to me that both John Corrigan and Joseph Connolly were able to

manipulate the out-of-work list by claiming a credential - 40-hour OSHA training - that

they did not possess and that in fact did not even exist. What is somewhat less clear but

nevertheless suggested by the evidence is that District Council business representatives

were complicit in Corrigan's and Connolly's machinations. With respect to Corrigan, the

evidence strongly suggests that insertion of the 40-hour OSHA requirement on the

Manning Request Forms for certain jobs was made not only by company superintendents

and foremen, at Corrigan's own suggestion, but also on at least one occasion by Business
Agents when it served union purposes to have Corrigan as shop steward.

Beyond that, the fact that Corrigan and Connolly were permitted to list a bogus

credential which led directly to their repeated lengthy and therefore desirable job

assignments raises questions about the District Council's commitment to oversee the

OWL with meticulous care, particularly since the issue had been brought to the District

Council's attention. Giving the District Council the benefit of the doubt and assuming

that no one deliberately encouraged or permitted the use of a non-existent credential by

Corrigan and a few others, there was at the very least negligence in permitting this to

occur. Indeed, Martin Daly, the Director at the Carpenter's own school, could have told

anyone who asked him (as I did) that the 40-hour OSHA skill did not exist.13 It seems to

me that the fact that so few shop stewards purported to have this credential, coupled with

its role in determining the outcome of dispatches to desired jobs, should have put the

District Council on notice sufficient to raise questions and generate investigative efforts.

The separate issue of Corrigan's (and, I believe, Connolly's) ability to list and de-

list skills in response to information received from friends in the industry about upcoming

jobs is more complicated. It is perhaps impossible to eliminate the advantages that some

people are given when industry friends pass along information and until just recently

l3 As noted above, Corrigan lacked not only proper 30-hour certification (OSHA had no
record of the certification that John Murphy purported to give Conigan after giving him private,
on-the-job, training) but he lacked even the 10-hour certificate that most other shop stewards
obtained after taking a course at the Carpenters' School. (Conigan, who took this course on-line
shortly before I deposed him, maintained that he previously had earned the 10-hour certificate but
that the District Council had lost the records evidencing it .)
there has been no prohibition against allowing shop stewards to attempt to persuade a

contractor to include in their manning requests specific skills that match their own. In

any event, I am less concerned about this issue now because the District Council and the

Government have substantially addressed the problem by altering the OWL rules to

prohibit last-minute skillset changes. Beginning in or about February of 2003, pursuant to

the Stipulation and Order, the OWL rules prevent any skillset changes from becoming

effective until 30 days after the member has entered them. This, combined with my

regular observation of current shop steward dispatches has led me to believe that

manipulation of shllsets coupled with manipulation of dispatch timing is an abuse that

definitely occurred in the past but is much less likely to occur today.

I am heartened by the fact that the District Council currently is in the process of

developing a protocol for evaluating not only whether a requested skill is appropriate for

the job, but also whether a member's listed skill is genuine and, in the case of

certifications, current. I am hopeful that the findings contained in this report may

encourage greater overall vigilance and proactivity by District Council leadership in an

effort to insure that the OWL works fairly for all members.

Dated: New York, New York

June 29,2004

d
Respectfull ubmitte

Walter Mack, Independent Investigator

Amy Rothstein
Of Counsel
 INDEX TO EXHIBITS ON CORRIGAN REPORT

Exhibit No . Description Report Citation

1. Transcript of Thomas McGeown Deposition with exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . .7

2. Transcript of John Corrigan Deposition with exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3. Manning Request Form for 7 World Trade Center (also exhibit

S-TM-20 to McGeown deposition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Transcript of Joseph Firth Deposition with exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Transcript of George Fitzgerald Deposition with exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Manning Request Form for AOL job site (also exhibit

S-GF-5 to Fitzgerald deposition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Affidavit of George Fitzgerald. sworn to March 24. 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Transcript of Albert DeRoss Deposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Letter from George A . McNally. dated May 10. 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Memorandum of Corrigan Interview on June 7. 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Manning Request Form for Trump job site (also exhibit

J2C-5A to Corrigan deposition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

John Vecchione Deposition with exhlbits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Manning Request Form for Trump job site R & J (also exhibit
J2C-5B to Conigan deposition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Memorandum of Firth Interview on December 15. 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Manning Request Form for 26th& 6thAvenue job site (also exhibit
S-GF-2 to Fitzgerald deposition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Manning Request Form for St. Moritz Hotel (also exhibit

J2C-5E to Corrigan deposition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Transcript of Joseph Connolly Deposition with exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

 SUPPLEMENTAL
EXHIBITS ADDED TO REPORT
AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENTS
FROM DISTRICT COUNCIL
FRANKDURKAN
BRIAN O'DWYER
O'DWYER & BERNSTIEN, L L P PAUL O'DWYER ( 1 9 0 7 - 1 9 9 8 )
OSCAR BERNSTIEN ( 1 8 8 5 - 1 3 7 4 1
GARY SILVERMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHRISTOPHER DOWNES' P A U L O'DWYER WAY O F COUNSEL:
VICTOR GRECO THOMAS J . HUGHES, J R
CODY K. M L C O N E
5 2 D U A N E STREET
- NEW YORK. N.Y. 1 0 0 0 7
ANNE M . PAXTON

GARY P. ROTHMAN'
STEVEN ARIPOTCH ( 2 1 2 ) 571-7 100 ALSO A D M I T T E D l N H J

J . P DELANEY '' ALSO ADMITTEO I N CT

(516) 2 4 8 - 4 2 2 4
DAVID H SCHULTZ.' A L S O A D M I T T E D I N PA b N J

MICHAEL CARROLL'' F A X ( 21 2 ) 5 7 1-7 1 2 4

J A N I N E L. HOBERT
R A O L GARCIA
ANGELIOUE NYE
GWENDOLYN COYLE
D O N N A A CANFIELD
ROBERT D U N N E
J A S O N 5. FUIMAN'
STEVEN C . KASARDA

June 24,2004

Walter Mack, Esq.

Doar Reick & Mack, Esqs.
2 17 Broadway
New York, New York 10007

RE: Comments on the 11's Corrigan Report

Dear Walter:

Some comments on the Draft Corrigan Report, some of which we have already
discussed.

The 40- Hour OSHA "Certification": It has always been the position of the District
Council, during the 11's investigation of this matter and since, that the error in the listing
of this skill was, as the I1 has correctly set forth in footnote 2 of the draft, that the 30-hour
OSHA certificate was "mistakenly characterized ...as 40-hour certificates". The report
should state that the I1 has been informed and there is no reason to question, that every
carpenter who has submitted a 30-hour certificate has been mistakenly listed in their
OWL portfolio as having the 40-hour skill. The I1 has been provided copies of those
certificates by the OWL office. The report should, therefore, indicate that while the skill
has been mistakenly characterized as a 40-hour OSHA certification (the I1 uses the term
"bogus", which does not at even acknowledge an appropriate recognition of an OSHA
training level more advanced than the 10-hour class), no individual possessing a 30-hour
certificate has been prejudiced by this mistaken characterization.'

In the middle of page 4 there is a discussion about how the 40-hour skill came to
be listed by the OWL staff. The report should recite that the first recorded listing of the
skill was October 19, 1999 and that~itwas listed for John Corrigan. The District Council
was still under supervision of the UBC at the time. It should state that the I1 has been

1
It should be acknowledged that the analysis in the report would not be different if the skill had been listed
as "Extra OSHA" or something of the sort. The report is f ~ a t e don the fact that, officially, there is no
official OSHA 40, period.
 Walter Mack, Esq.
June 24,2004
Page 2

informed the operator who input that data in October 1999 as a member of the OWL staff
(and is still employed at the District Council Benefit Funds office) was interviewed by
DC counsel and the OWL supervisor. The employee recalls, refreshed in part by records
shown to her, being the person who made the entry, but does not recall why she entered
"40" instead of "30" as the designation. The I1 has indicated he may wish to interview
the worker, but has not as of this writing.

The report should state the protocol employed by the OWL to list "certified"
skills, such as OSHA, CPR, certain welding skill and others, has relied on the honest
reporting of members and the submission of a copy of their course certification cards.
This is what Corrigan and Connolly, like other members have done with respect to the
various "certificate" skilk2 Until now, the DC has not looked behind or investigated the
bonafides of the certificates. Engaging in such activity became an issue for the DC to
consider and indeed, for individuals submitting certificates for significant skill courses,
like OSHA, the DC is now requesting additional supportive documentation if the
individual did not take the course work at the Carpenter's Labor Technical College.

The report should also recite that prior to this administration's communications
with the Government there was no recognized protocol for adding skills to the OWL.
Now, the District Council will only add a skill to the list after it has been offered at the
Labor Technical School at least twice in a six month period, following which all requests
for such skill will be flagged for certification by the OWL office.

The 11's statement at page 6 of the draft, "My investigation into Corrigan's job
assignments demonstrates that his 40-hour OSHA listing created a significant benefit to
him", is consistent with the conclusions Report to the Executive Committee on the Clarke
complaint and comes as no surprise. Whether it was mistakenly called 40-hour OSHA,
or was accurately labeled 30-hour OSHA, such enhanced training was and is possessed
by a small number of carpenters, so mathematically it has to afford those possessing it an
advantage in being assigned to jobs, where the skill is appropriate to the iob. About this
there can be no doubt. What must be recognized and should be stated by the I1 to give a
true and balanced picture to the Court, is that all carpenters have an equal opportunity and
freedom to take these courses and to list their certifications in their OWL portfolios.
Moreover, both the DC and individual carpenters should complimented for any efforts to
enhance the training and professionalism they bring to the job.3

We ask the I1 to eliminate the "lucrative" reference in the phrase "lengthy and
therefore lucrative jobs" here and at page 19. The term implies the carpenter has received
compensation on the job he was somehow not entitled to, that he had not worked for.

2
The July 24,2001 Clarke complaint to the Executive Committee, referenced in the 11's report at page 2,
did not raise this aspect of Corrigan's dispatches and was not a topic of investigation for the investigation
committee.
3
Indeed, the concrete industry foremen and supervisors deposed by the Il all believed the safety awareness
brought to their jobs by Corrigan was an advantage to them - even if they did not specifically know what
OSHA 40 was.
 Walter Mack, Esq.
June 24,2004
Page 3

That is not the case here. Shop stewards receive journeyman's wages and are to be paid
only for hours actually worked. The I1 has not determined that Corrigan was paid for
work not performed or that he was paid other than the proper wages and benefits for
hours actually worked. Secondly, what standard has the I1 applied to characterize a job
as "lucrative" and where does that standard come from? The I1 has never discussed this
issue with the District Council, yet it finds its way into this draft4. We joked about it a bit
at yesterday's anti-corruption committee meeting, but I still maintain it unduly
besmirches the carpenter for receiving his proper wages for work actually performed and
should be eliminated from the draft.

The AOL Site: On page 11 of the draft, last line - What do you mean the District
Council "found" the manning request form? I am unaware of thls. Was it missing?
Surely it had been provided to Clarke's attorney and was attached to his various
submissions prior to Fitzgerald's deposition.

The Trumv R&J Job: Corrigan's dispatch record reflects he was referred to work for R&J
at the Trump project beginning July 12,2000 and his last day of work at the project was
July 17,2000, when he put his name back on the OWL. Prior to this assignment, he had
been employed primarily by Northberry Concrete, also at one of the Trump project sites
on 1 2 ' ~Avenue.

Regarding any "game plan'' to get him the R&J job in order to keep non-union
made cabinetry from coming on to the site, Corrigan's recollection of how such a plan
took shape is not accurate in an important respect. There was only one meeting with
Corrigan held at the District Council with counsel, Steve Barry of Barry Security, John
Greaney and "union leadership". That meeting was on the afternoon of July 21,2000 and
concerned Corrigan's allegations of being offered a bribe(s) to allow the non-union
cabinetry to come on the site.5 No "game plan" to have Corrigan assigned as the shop
steward for R&J was, or could have been, hatched at that meeting. As the dispatch
records reflect, the "plan", as it were, was affected on July 11,2000 when the job was
called in and was over by July 17th,when Corrigan put his name back on the OWL.

John Greaney has asked to have the last sentence of the first paragraph on page 16
clarified with respect to what he told Joe Firth. As Greaney recalls, he told Firth to "put
in everything" in order to get a good steward who will resist the non-union cabinets. He
did not tell identify the specific skills Firth should ask for.

- p p p p p

4
The I1 is, of course, fiee to state anything he wants in his report. The I1 has, however, discussed virtually
all of these issues with the District Council.
' Upon reviewing the draft, I conferred with my colleague, Gary Silverman and Steve Barry of Barry
Security, Inc. about this meeting. Silverman and I each recalled there being no issue at the meeting who
would or should be the steward at the job; Corrigan was the steward. In a conversation I had with Steve
Barry on June 23,2004, he was able to confirm, based on records he had of the event, the date of the
meeting and to also concur there was no discussion at that meeting about who the steward would or should
be. This was the first "anti-corruption case" for the newly elected District Council. Barry reported the
alleged bribe offers to the Manhattan District Attorney's Officefor investigation.
Walter Mack, Esq.
June 24,2004
Page 4

Conclusions: Page 20, third line - the reference to District Council "officials" should be
changed to "business representatives" as is suggested by the evidence. In fact, the report
should reprise the theme established in the 11's first report, that any manipulation issues
in this case were manifested in the field, not in the offices of the District Council or by
the District Council officers. The report should clearly state there was no evidence of
involvement or complicity in Corrigan's job shopping by District Council officers and
that the systems which may have facilitated the activity found by the I1 were in place
prior to January 2000, when the current administration took office.

Thank you for the observation of the effectiveness of the 30 day lag in skill set
changes for stewards. That was a District Council recommendation to the government
and it has had its desired effect.

Thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts about this draft report with
you.

Pete Thomassen, Pres.

Denis Shiel, 111, V.P.
Maurice Leary, D O 0
Scott Danielson, 0WL
John Greaney, Local 608
 DRAFT

ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL

MEMORANDUM

TO: Walter Mack

FROM: Don Sobocienski

DATE: February 13,2004

RE: Interview of Local 608 Business Manager John Greaney

On 2/2/2004 Walter Mack, court appointed Independent Investigator for the District
Council of Carpenters interviewed Local 608 Business Manager John Greaney in the offices of
District Council of Carpenters, 395 Hudson Street. Also present during the interview were Gary
Silverman, Esq. of O'Dwyer & Bernstein, LLP and Investigator Don Sobocienski. Gary
Rothman, Esq. of O'Dwyer & Bemstein, LLP was present for a short period at the beginning of
the interview. Mr. Greaney provided the following information:

Mr. Greaney recalled that it was John Comgan who first notified "us" that a non-
signatory company had tried to deliver kitchen cabinetry to the Trump buildings. Mr. Greaney
stated that Mr. Comgan was the Shop Steward for the concrete contractor at the Trump site when
a representative of the non-signatory cabinet company offered Mr. Comgan what Mr. Greaney
recalled was between $10,000 and $20,000 to permit the cabinets to be delivered to the site.

Mr. Greaney stated that all of Local 608 were involved in this issue of the cabinets. In
addition to himself, Mr. Greaney specifically recalled that Joe Firth and Geny Philbin had a
direct involvement in the matter. Mr. Greaney stated that the representative for the company who
was a Hasidic Jew, wanted to "work out a deal" to have the cabinets delivered and had met with
Joe Firth at the offices of Local 608 for this purpose. Mr. Greaney stated that he had no personal
contact with the representative, but did have occasion to see him from a distance outside the
offices of Local 608. Mr. Greaney described the representative as younger than 50 years of age
and dressed in the typical black attire wom by Hasidic Jews.

Mr. Greaney stated that subsequent to Mr. Comgan reporting that he had been offered a
bribe to permit delivery of the cabinets, there was a meeting held at the District Council attended
by himself, John Comgan, Mo Leary, Gary Rothman, Steve Barry and possibly Joe Firth and
Gerry Philbin. Mr. Greaney stated that he does not know what if anyhng Steve Barry did with
the information provided by Mr. Comgan. Mr. Greaney stated that he had no further contact
with Mr. Bany subsequent to that meeting. Mr. Greaney stated that it was determined by Local
608 and the District Council that the Shop Steward assigned to R & J Carpentry (the drywall
contractor at the Trump building in question) should be "somebody good ... to make sure nothing
happens". To insure that this happened, Mr. Greaney stated that "(he) took the ball" and
instructed Joe Firth, who submitted the manning request for a Shop Steward for R & J at the
Trump site, "to put everything down" in terms of the skills requested for the Shop Steward
dispatch. Mr. Greaney was adamant that he instructed Mr. Firth to "put down as much as (he)
could to get the right person there so that these people wouldn't h c k with him". Mr. Greaney
explained that in his opinion not all Shop Stewards possess the fortitude to defend the union
obligation in this type of a situation. Mr. Greaney advised that he did not know that John
Comgan would be the Shop Steward dispatched to the Trump site, but stated that he believed
that "John would be a good person to be there" and was pleased when Mr. Comgan received the
dispatch. Mr. Greaney was informed that John Corrigan was the only Shop Steward at the time
of this dispatch to possess the 40 hr. OSHA skill. Mr. Greaney acknowledged that by requesting
40 hr. OSHA a skill needed for the Trump job, it virtually assured that Mr. Comgan would be
dispatched to the job. Mr. Greaney advised that he had no knowledge as to what 40 hr. OSHA
meant as a skill and followed up by stating it must have meant something.

Mr. Greaney acknowledged that there were other Shop Stewards previously dispatched to
R & J at the Trump site, but he did not know the circumstances as to why there was a need for a
new Shop Steward whlch resulted in Mr. Corrigan's dispatch.

Mr. Greaney was asked if he possessed any additional insight concerning the identity of
the handwritten letter ostensibly signed by George Fitzgerald requesting a Shop Steward for the
AOL job site, apart fiom what he had written in his letter to Mo Leary on t h s subject. Mr.
Greaney stated that he did not believe that the Fitzgerald letter had been written by any of his
Business Agents at Local 608 and if he were to determine differently, he would recommend that
the agent be fired.

REDACTED