The Teamster Indictments: Putting the Fear of God into Local 25

The four of the five Local Teamsters 25 defendants are described as members of Local 25; the fifth, defendant Mark Harrington is its secretary-treasurer who is usually the guy who runs the show.

They are all charged with extortion under the Hobbs Act or conspiring to extort property of the Top Chef company namely: “money to be paid as wages for imposed, unwanted, and unnecessary and superfluous services” through the “wrongful use of actual and threatened force, violence, and fear of economic and physical harm to [Top Chef] and others.”

The indictment sets out the acts leading up the crime. It first tells how Top Chef came to the area and had filmed shows at the Museum of Science, Fenway Park and Cheers. (Didn’t Boston U.S. Attorney say they were chased out of Boston. That hardly seems the case but then again Ortiz likes to use bombastic language.) Now here are the criminal acts set out in the indictment.

1. Top Chef is a nonunion company with sufficient help without the need of Local 25. On June 5, 2014, Daniel Redmond, a Local 25 member, approached the Crew of the company while it was filming at the Revere Hotel in Boston and demanded it hire Local 25 drivers. A producer spoke with Harrington who told him he was looking to get some of his guys hired.  The producer and Harrington spoke several times. The producer said no deal; Harrington said they would start to picket them.

2. (This has nothing to do with the defendants but more a shot at Boston’s mayor.) On June 9 someone from the City of Boston told a person at Omni Parker House that Local 25 was planning to picket it on June 10 during the filming of Top Chef. That person told Top Chef it could no longer plan to film there because he did not want to be picketed.

3. On the morning of June 10 a member of Local 25 spoke with a Top Chef person and told him/her that it planned to picket its filming at a Milton Restaurant. Top Chef hired a police detail.

4. At 9:00 am on June 10 the five defendants showed up at the restaurant. “Two or three of the defendants entered the production area and began walking in lockstep toward the door of the restaurant where they chest-bumped and stomach-bumped Crew members in an attempt to forcibly enter the restaurant.” (My emphasis)

5. Throughout the morning they “continued to use and threatened to use physical violence against members of the Crew an others.” They “yelled profanities and racial and homophobic slurs . . . blocked vehicles . . . and used actual physical violence and threats of physical violence to try to prevent people from entering the set . . . prevented a food delivery truck from delivering food .. . were observed standing in close proximity to cars belonging to the Crew, nine of which were later found to have their tires slashed.”

That is it. No one was injured. No one was arrested. But the people involved in the show, if this article is to be believed, were put through a pretty hellacious time. I’m a big supporter of union picketing; I’m also not particularly fond of the way Boston U.S. attorney Ortiz goes off on verbal flourishes describing defendants, but it seems here the Teamsters did act like the thugs she described them as being. It is only fair to point out the Teamsters describe the reports of their actions as “fiction at best.”

Here is the Hobbs Act. It punished by imprisonment up to 20 years anyone who “in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce” by extortion or attempt or conspiracy.  It defines extortion as: “the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.”

I have read there is video of what happened so that might cast some light on the situation. Picketing, is not illegal nor is threatening to picket someone if you are trying to get jobs. That the employer doesn’t want you matters little. The question arises when does it cross the line into violating the Hobbs Act. The jury will have to decide whether these 5 Teamsters used “actual or threatened force, violence, or fear” in an attempt to get jobs.

It will be an interesting case to follow. It is not going to be a slam dunk if it goes to trial. However, it may never reach that point. The prosecutors will recommend basketball number type sentences will be sought if the defendants go to trial; but if they admit guilt some type of slap on the hand sentence will happen. The Teamsters won’t lose their jobs (except perhaps the secretary-treasurer) since felony convictions are not considered impairments to union membership.  

So do you take a chance on doing big time when you can do a year or two and be free? That’s the choice these 5 have. Tough times ahead for them.