Journal of Commerce

[Ted]

Report Slams NY Waterfront CommissionJoseph Bonney | Aug 11, 2009 8:11PM GMT
The Journal of Commerce Online - News Story
Ports/Terminals | Maritime | United States

Photo courtesy Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor
NY finds abuse, neglect, poor management at harbor watchdog

The Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, created in the 1950s to combat mob influence on the docks, has been plagued by “abuse of authority, neglect of responsibilities and poor management,” the New York State inspector general said in a blistering 61-page report Tuesday.

 NOTE: { see De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144 }

The investigation resulted in the ousting of top executives of the bi-state commission, including New Jersey commissioner Michael Madonna, who was fired last week by Gov. Jon Corzine, and general counsel Jon Deutsch, terminated last October. The former New York commissioner, Michael Axelrod, was not reappointed after his term expired last year.
In a letter to the inspector general, Axelrod blamed the problems on commission staff. Other key figures in the report could not be reached for comment.

The inspector general’s report followed a nearly two-year investigation that the commission tried unsuccessfully to block in court.
The inspector general said commission officials “failed to adequately or responsibly supervise the operations of the Waterfront commission, resulting in neglect and malfeasance ranging from lackluster oversight of shipping companies to conflicts of interest and an abrogation of legal responsibilities undermining the very purposes of the commission.”

The report cited “improper hiring and licensing, misappropriation of forfeiture funds, unsupported overtime pay, misuse of Homeland Security grants, failure to fulfill responsibilities for auditing and licensing of waterfront companies, and improprieties in dealing with subjects of investigations.”

According to the report, the commission was as much as 14 years behind on its audits of company compliance with laws, and that all companies operating in the harbor had operated for at least 10 years on temporary licenses intended to be used only in special circumstances.

Deutsch was accused of conflicts of interest that included failing to recuse himself from the investigation of Al Cernadas Sr., an International Longshoremen’s Association official who pleaded guilty to conspiracy in a federal racketeering investigation in 2005. Deutsch also was criticized for allowing a convicted felon to continue to operate a warehouse company, ASA Apple, by placing the business in his wife’s name.
Commission officials also were criticized for using federal antiterrorism funds to buy a boat that was used mainly to ferry VIPs to events such as the annual Navy Fleet Week, and for assignment of Waterfront Commission policemen to prevent unauthorized people from parking in commission executives’ parking spaces.
1 2 next › last »

pg. 2

NY finds abuse, neglect, poor management at harbor watchdog

The report says that the commission received a $619,294 port security grant in 2003 to purchase wireless equipment and laptop computers to give detectives remote access to commission databases, to help identify terrorist suspects. As of December 2008, the inspector general’s investigators found that the system was not operational, and computers had never been used for their intended purpose.

The inspector general’s report blamed many of the commission’s problems on its bi-state charter, which the report said encouraged “a climate of abuse and lack of accountability fueled by perceived immunity from oversight by outside authorities.”

The inspector general’s report can be read at

http://www.ig.state.ny.us/reports/reports.html.
Contact Joseph Bonney at [e-mail].

[Ted]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=468&invol=491

U.S. Supreme Court
BROWN v. HOTEL EMPLOYEES, 468 U.S. 491 (1984) 468 U.S. 491
BROWN, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF GAMING
ENFORCEMENT, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL.v. HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES
& BARTENDERS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 54 ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 83-498.

Argued March 26, 1984
Decided July 2, 1984 *  

Section 93 of the New Jersey Casino Control Act requires annual registration of unions representing persons employed in casinos or casino hotels, and provides that a union may be prohibited from receiving dues from such employees and from administering any pension or welfare funds if any union officer is disqualified under the criteria contained in 86 for the licensing of various entities and persons. Those criteria include convictions for enumerated offenses, or any other offenses indicating that licensure would be inimical to the Act's policy, and association with other criminal offenders.

Appellees, a union whose membership includes persons employed in casino hotels in Atlantic City and the union's president, instituted an action against certain state agencies and officials in Federal District Court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief after state administrative proceedings had been begun to determine whether certain of the union's officers were disqualified under the criteria of 86.

The court denied appellees' motion for a preliminary injunction against the state proceedings, concluding that appellees were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims, which included a claim that 86 and 93 were pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The state administrative proceedings resulted in a finding that certain of the union's officials were disqualified under 86, and in an order that if the officials were not removed from office the union would be barred from collecting dues from any of its members who were casino hotel employees licensed or registered under the New Jersey Act. The state agency also concluded that it would be unnecessary to invoke the additional 93 sanction of prohibiting the disqualified officials from administering pension and welfare funds. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals held, inter alia, [468 U.S. 491, 492]   that the District Court erred in refusing to grant the preliminary injunction, and that 93, insofar as it authorizes disqualification of elected union officials, is pre-empted by 7 of the NLRA.


Held:

1. The so-called "local interests" exception to the pre-emption doctrine does not apply if the state law regulates conduct that is actually protected by federal law. Where, as here, the issue is one of an asserted substantive conflict with a federal enactment, then the relative importance to the State of its law is not material, since the federal law must prevail by direct operation of the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution. Pp. 500-503.

2. Section 93 of the New Jersey Act, to the extent that it regulates the qualifications of casino industry union officials, does not actually conflict with 7 of the NLRA - which neither contains explicit pre-emptive language nor otherwise indicates a congressional intent to usurp the entire field of labor-management relations - and thus is not pre-empted by 7. Although the 1945 decision in Hill v. Florida, 325 U.S. 538 , interpreted 7's express guarantee of the right of employees to choose their bargaining representative as also conferring an unfettered right on employees to choose the officials of their bargaining representative, Congress has subsequently disclaimed any intent to pre-empt all state regulation which touches upon the specific right of employees to decide which individuals will serve as officials of their bargaining representatives. Specifically, 504(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 generally prohibits persons convicted of specified crimes from serving as union officers, and 603(a) of that Act is an express disclaimer of pre-emption of state laws regulating union officials' responsibilities except where such pre-emption is expressly provided. Moreover, in approving a compact between New York and New Jersey, Congress implicitly approved New York's restrictions (similar to those involved here) on unions representing waterfront employees, which restrictions were upheld against a pre-emption challenge based on 7 of the NLRA in De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144 . Thus, Congress apparently has concluded that, at least where the States are confronted with the public evils of crime, corruption, and racketeering, more stringent state regulation of the qualifications of union officials is not incompatible with the national labor policy as embodied in 7. Pp. 503-510.

3. The issue whether the dues collection sanction authorized by 93 of the New Jersey Act to effect the removal of disqualified union officials abridges the employees' separate rights under 7 of the NLRA to organize, and thus is pre-empted, cannot be decided now because of the procedural posture of this litigation. Appellees' factual allegations as to this issue were never addressed by the courts below. On remand, the [468 U.S. 491, 493]   District Court should make the requisite findings of fact to determine whether imposition of the dues collection ban will so incapacitate appellee union as to prevent it from performing its functions as the employees' chosen bargaining agent. Also, the issue of the validity of 93's second sanction - prohibition of a union's administration of its pension or welfare funds - cannot be decided now, despite the Court of Appeals' holding that the sanction is expressly pre-empted by provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Because the state agency never imposed this sanction on appellee union, no concrete application of state law is presented, and the issue is hence not ripe for review. Pp. 510-512.

709 F.2d 815, vacated and remanded.

O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and BLACKMUN and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which POWELL and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 513. BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., took no part in the decision of the cases.
_____________________________

Longshoreman (ILA) are regulated as is the Casino Industry as per the above. Is it time for similar treatment (enactment of state law/commission) of the Construction Industry, Employer Associations and the UBCJA in light of the duration of the original RICO allegations and its extended 22+ year history.