Danielson, Murry and Greaney Testify In Olivieri Trial

Scott Danielson, the newly appointed Inspector General for the District Council, James Murry the corrupt owner of On Par Contracting who fled to Ireland and later plead guilty to fraud, was persuaded to return when the feds seized his properties, and John Greaney, the corrupt former president and business manager of Local 608 and Forde's No. 2 man who pleaded guilty to all 13 counts were called to testify last week during the perjury trial of Joseph Olivieri, the former head of the Wall-Ceiling Association.

Danielson, Murry and Greaney, among other things testified about how the out-of-work list operates, how shop stewards are dispatched from the council and how Greaney and Michael Forde, the corrupt former Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the New York City District Council of Carpenters, who pleaded guilty to participating in a 15-year racketeering scheme, helped Murry get corrupt shop stewards.

Below is a partial transcript of Danielson, Murry and Greaney being questioned by prosecutors.

Danielson direct page 78 of the trial transcript:

Q. Now, I want to turn back to something you mentioned a minute ago about how shop stewards are dispatched to job sites. How do shop stewards get assigned to jobs?

A. They get assigned off -- the District Council runs a central out-of-work list, and being a shop steward is considered like a skill. So when a contractor calls in for members to go to a job, we enter that into the system, and based on the craft, the member gets dispatched to that work site and to serve as a shop steward.

Q. Let's break that down for a minute. First you mentioned the out-of-work list. What does that mean?

A. Well, the District Council runs a out-of-work list. For members that are unemployed, they put themselves on our out-of-work list by telephone, and they also list the type of skills that they wish to perform as a carpenter. And once they're on the list, as the jobs come in they get sent out off the list in their position, and also the type of skills that they have to meet to match that contractor's request, and then they go to the job.

Q. So, basically, a person who has been out of work the longest gets assigned to the next job?

A. Basically, if he's qualified with those skills.

Q. At any given time, about how many carpenters within the Union are on the out-of-work list?

A. It usually fluctuates between 3,000. It's up towards I think between five and six right now.

Q. And typically how long does a carpenter have to wait on the out-of-work list before getting dispatched to a job?

A. It could run from anywhere from eight weeks to 16 weeks up depending on, you know, the supply and demand.

Q. And to be clear, you said that shop stewards are assigned jobs off of the out-of-work list, is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. A contractor can't simply hire their own shop steward?

A. No. That's one, that has to come off the out-of-work list.

Q. And why is that?

A. Well, basically, the District Council's also on the consent decree, and part of our out-of-work list rules and regulations, that all shop stewards must come off the out-of-work list.

Dainelson being questioned by defense lawyer Gardner during cross page 90:

Q. In running the out-of-work list, do you pick the shop stewards that go to various sites?

A. No.

Q. Who does that?

A. The computer.

Q. Okay. And how is the computer generated?

A. The computer -- basically, depending on the geographical area of the job, we have different lists, and depending on the skills that are called in, it matches the member that's available that day and that dispatches the member.

Q. So if a contractor wants to game that system or somehow manipulate that system, is that part of the allegations of the corruption against the shop stewards?

MR. LANPHER: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GARDNER: Your Honor, may we approach on that?

THE COURT: No.

MR. GARDNER: No? Then I have no further questions. Thank you.

Murray - direct page 476 of the trial transcript:

Q. Over the period of time that you were making cash payments to the head of the Carpenters' Union, how much in total did you pay to Mike Forde, approximately?

A. Over 100,000.

Q. And how, if at all, did Mike Forde help On-Par in return?

A. He would help me get shop stewards. He would -- I would know if there was business agents coming to the job site, just,I just knew everything that was happening.

MS. ZORNBERG: Now let's put up government exhibit 53 in evidence.

Q. Do you recognize who that is?

A. It's John Greaney.

Q. Who is John Greaney?

A. He's the president of the 608 Local.

Q. And Local 608, what area of the City did they cover?

A. The West Side of Manhattan.

Q. Did you make cash payments to John Greaney?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you describe those payments?

A. Well, in two areas bars up in Yonkers. I went for a few drinks with him and I went into the bathroom and I left an envelope just inside the toilet bowl.

Q. I'm sorry, say that again?

 A. I left an envelope twice in two different locations it was in the toilet bowl where we talked about.

Q. Inside the toilet bowl?

A. And then he went to pick it up.

Q. Approximately, how much in cash did you give to John Greaney?

 A. 10,000, I think two $5,000 payments.

Q. How did John Greaney help On-Par in return?

A. Same as Mike, just would tell the shop stewards, you know this coming and that coming; get shop stewards. You know, he used to know what was happening.

Q. Did Mr. Forde and Mr. Greaney know that On-Par was violating its collective bargaining agreement?

A. I would believe so.

Q. Let me show you now government exhibit

Q. Okay. And is that your signature at the bottom?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you explain to the jury how you came, how On-Par came to apply to the Wall & Ceiling Association?

A. George Dilacio gave me an application, I filled it out and I mailed it, I don't know, maybe to the District Council or the Wall & Ceiling Association.

Q. Was George Dilacio one of the individuals to whom at some point you gave cash bribes?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was the director of the Wall & Ceiling Association in 2001 when you applied?

A. I don't know.

Q. Did you know Joseph Olivieri in 2001?

A. No.

Q. Why did On-Par want to join the Wall & Ceiling Association?

A. Because I could request my own guys if I was a member of the Wall & Ceiling Association.

Q. Can you explain that?

A. Well if you weren't a member of the Association, you'd have to have a 50-50 -- it's called a 50-50 Rule, so 50 would come from the hall and then 50 would be allowed from your company. But when you're a member of the Association, you could request an individual that worked for the company for two days or three days.

Q. So, in effect, did that request system allow On-Par to pick all of its own men?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, given what you've explained about how On-Par was operating in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, how did it help On-Par to be able to use the request system?

A. You request into district council that you're using five or six people that previously worked for the company, and then they were considered -- they were -- you didn't get -- you didn't get men from the Union hall.

Q. Maybe my question wasn't clear. Let me ask it a different way. Did the request system help On-Par go on cheating the Benefit Funds?

A. Yes.

Q. How?

A. Because I'd be able to have my own guys on the job sites.

Greaney - direct pages 738 - 739 of the trial transcript:

Q. In general terms, could you describe what you did that led you to be arrested?

A. Yes. I was a corrupted union official.

Q. Could you explain that.

A. Yes, I can. Basically we were under consent decree, the carpenters union, and we have various rules to abide by. It was a federal consent decree. And one of those rules was a job referral list. And we violated that. We tried to rig it to get certain people jobs with regard to contractors, one of them being On Par Construction and James Murray. He would go to certain shop stewards and see if they would be available for certain jobs. They would come to us. And we would manipulate the out-of-work list to try and get them to be on those jobs. And then the contractor would hire some illegal immigrants. The shop steward would bring them down to the union hall. We would sign them up. And then he'd bring them back to the job. The shop steward would then not report all the hours that these immigrants would have worked, therefore, giving the contractor an unfair advantage over everyone else. He wasn't paying the benefits, which would have been about $30 an hour. Those benefits were to have come into our benefit funds down at the district council that paid for your pension, health benefits, so on and so forth. For us doing these favors, getting these shop stewards on, we turned a blind eye to what was going on and allowed this to continue. And we received -- myself and other union officials received cash payments to allow this to happen.

Q. You used the word "we" a couple of times there.

A. Yes.

Q. Who were some of the other union officials you did this with?

A. Okay. Union officials including shop stewards and business agents, Forde, McGrath, Leary, Deveraux, myself, and others.

Q. Are some of those other people you named other officers of Local 608?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. To be clear, while you were engaged in this conduct, what positions did you hold with the union?

A. In Local 608 I was the president and business manager. And within the district council in the middle of 2002, I believe, I became trustee of the funds.

Q. Is that a trustee of the union's benefit funds?

A. The union benefit funds, yes.

Q. Is it fair to say that you were engaged in this conduct for over a decade?

A. Not over a decade. I'd say from like 2000 to about 2004 or thereabouts.

Q. After that, did you continue to obstruct investigations into your conduct?

A. Yes. We have a court appointed investigator under the consent decree. He was there to monitor various things within the union. We had a corruption hot line. And he did investigations. And we tried to hide what we were doing so the whole plan wouldn't have been found out. And that included lying in depositions and just covering up the whole operation.

Q. Was that investigator you mentioned, was that Walter Mack?

A. Yes. That was Walter Mack.

Q. Could you list out some of the contractors that you took cash from while you were a business manager of Local 608?

A. Yes. Directly?

Q. Sure. Directly or payments that you shared in.

A. On Par, Euro Tech, Pitcohn, Turbo, Perimeter, Ess & Vee, and others.

Q. And you said you were arrested August 5, 2009?

A. August 5, 2009, early morning.

Q. And 13 separate charges were brought against you?

A. Thirteen charges that were brought against, yes.

Q. Did you ultimately plead guilty?

A. Yes. I pled guilty to all of the charges.

Q. Have you been sentenced yet?

A. No, I have not.

Q. How much jail time are you facing?

A. With everything combined, I could face a total of 155 years.

Q. Who will decide what sentence you receive?

A. Pardon me?

Q. Who will decide your sentence?

A. Ultimately, the judge will decide what my sentence is.

Q. Did you plead guilty pursuant to a cooperation agreement with the government?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What is your understanding of what your obligations are under the terms of that cooperation agreement?

MR. GARDNER: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. You may answer.

A. Okay. Number one, to tell the truth; number two, to stay out of trouble; and number three, to cooperate with the government where I can.

Q. What is your understanding of what, if anything, the government is promising to do under the terms of that cooperation agreement?

A. The only thing the government has said they will do would be to write a letter.

Q. And what is your understanding of what that letter does for you?

A. The letter would help decrease my sentence.

Q. Has any --

A. Hopefully.

Q. Has any promise been made to you regarding what sentence you will ultimately receive?

A. No, sir.