Steve Drost, CUPE New Brunswick President gives his views after Premier Blaine Higgs left conference

Charles Leblanc

David Amos

Hmmmmm

http://www.teamsters.ca/

The Teamsters Union represents 125,000 members in Canada. They are affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which has 1.4 million members in North America.

For more information :
Stéphane Lacroix
Director of Communications and Public Affairs
Teamsters Canada
Cell: 514-609-5101
slacroix@teamsters.ca

https://www.facebook.com/Teamsters-Local-927-340945505997965

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDBbtBS-LP0&ab_channel=Teamsters 

James R Hoffa Remembered

Teamsters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7e1Bk21OcM&ab_channel=Teamsters 

Full General President Candidates’ Debate Video

Teamsters

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8Si8YyiKdo&ab_channel=Teamsters

Final Teamsters General President Candidates Debate 2021

Teamsters

 https://teamsterslocal25.com/president-sean-m-obrien/

Teamsters Local 25
544 Main Street
Boston, MA 02129-1113

https://www.nlrb.gov/case/01-CB-010732 

---

Date	Document	Issued/Filed By
03/26/2012	Compliance Case--Closing Letter*	NLRB - GC
08/11/2008	Notice to Employees*	NLRB - GC
07/30/2008	Informal Settlement Agreement*	NLRB - GC

The Docket Activity list does not reflect all actions in this case.

* This document may require redactions before it can be viewed. To obtain a copy, please file a request through our FOIA Branch.

Related Documents

Related Documents data is not available.

Allegations

• 8(b)(1)(A) Hiring Halls
• 8(b)(1)(B) Other Allegations
• 8(b)(1)(A) Coercion, incl'g Statements and Violence
• 8(b)(2) Union Security Related Actions

Participants

Related Cases

https://inthesetimes.com/article/hoffa-teamsters-for-a-democratic-union-reform-labor-militancy-election

Hoffa’s House Divided: The 2021 Teamster Election, Explained

A rank-and-file Teamster describes what’s at stake.

Andy SernatingerSeptember 28, 2021 

Andy Sernatinger is a member of Teamsters Local 695 in Madison, Wisconsin.

https://teamster.org/leadership/james-hoffa/ 

James P. Hoffa

General President

James P. Hoffa has been building the International Brotherhood of Teamsters into the strongest, most powerful voice in North America for working families. Under Hoffa’s leadership, the Teamsters Union is winning industry-leading contracts, engaging in vigorous contract enforcement and organizing the unorganized. Teamster positions on the issues of the day—from pension and retirement security, infrastructure development and worker rights to developing fair trade policies—now hold sway in Washington’s power corridors.

Hoffa is recognized as one of the foremost authorities on Union issues. As the most visible and outspoken critic of government trade policies and anti-worker corporate agendas, Hoffa is recognized as a leader on issues that affect working people.

Hoffa has been elected by direct-members vote five times – 1998, 2001, 2006, 2011 and 2016. He is the second-longest serving General President (Dan Tobin, 1907 – 1952) since the union was founded in 1903.
Hoffa grew up on picket lines and in union meetings. He is the only son of James R. Hoffa, former Teamsters General President (1957 – 1971). Prior to being elected General President, Hoffa worked as a Teamsters laborer in Detroit and Alaska in the 1960s. He then spent 25 years as a labor attorney representing members, local unions and Joint Councils. From 1993 until his inauguration as General President in 1999, Hoffa served as Administrative Assistant to the President of Joint Council 43 in Michigan.
Hoffa has been appointed to several committees by both Democratic and Republican administrations. His appointments include:

• 2019 – Present, Chair, Road Section, International Transport Workers Federation
• 2019 – Present, Member, Executive Board, International Transport Workers Federation
• 2015 – Present, Board Member, Roosevelt Institute
• 2010 – Present, USTR Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations
• 2009 – Present, Department of Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy
• 2013 – 2015, National Freight Advisory Committee
• 2002 – 2004, President’s Council on the 21st Century Workforce
• 2002 – 2004, Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board
  

EDUCATION

• BA, Michigan State University, 1963
• LLB, University of Michigan, 1966

Hoffa has been married to his wife Virginia for 50 years, he has two sons, David and Geoffrey, and six grandchildren.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-jo1tztVlM&ab_channel=Teamsters 

Episode 212: Flexing Political Muscle in the Corridors of Power

Teamsters

Hoffa: Passage of Infrastructure Bill Will Create Millions of Good-Paying Jobs

2021.11.06

Improved Roads, Rails, Airports, Power Grid, Water Systems Will Benefit All Americans

(WASHINGTON) – The following is a statement from Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa on the House’s passage of a $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill yesterday that would invest and rebuild in essential networks that will grow jobs.

“After years of inaction, Democrats and Republicans came together to approve important legislation that will boost necessary transportation, electrical and water networks that will create good-paying jobs and bring the nation’s economy into the 21^st century. I want to thank the Biden administration and congressional leaders for all their hard work to get this done.

“Previously, elected officials have only talked about infrastructure investment but done little about it. But now the traveling public as well as those do the work to keep the nation’s roads, rails and bridges up-and-running have reason for hope.

“This bill will modernize essential transportation systems – all critical parts of America’s supply chain. Teamsters work each day in every part of this supply chain and know firsthand that our transportation infrastructure has been neglected for too long.”

Founded in 1903, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters represents 1.4 million hardworking men and women throughout the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. Visit www.teamster.org for more information. Follow us on Twitter @Teamsters and “like” us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/teamsters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4OzXgKXOLE&ab_channel=NashvilleBarAssociation 

HOFFA! Part 1

Nashville Bar Association

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBW3gYlRuh8&ab_channel=NashvilleBarAssociation 

HOFFA! Part 2

Nashville Bar Association

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8m-Djr8l5k&ab_channel=SceneMaker

Jimmy HATES the Kennedy family| The Irishman

SceneMaker

Congressional Record: July 11, 2001 (Senate) Page S7437-S7440 

NOMINATION OF ROBERT MUELLER 

 Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition this morning to comment about the confirmation hearings which are scheduled later this month for Mr. Robert Mueller to be Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. That position arguably is as important as any position in the United States of America, perhaps even the most powerful position. 

The statutory 10-year term is 2 years longer than the maximum a President may serve under the Constitution. The Director of the FBI has power over the largest investigative organization in the world, global in its exposure. 

There are an enormous number of problems which have befallen the agency in recent years. The confirmation hearing will provide a unique opportunity for oversight for the U.S. Senate to seek to establish standards as to what the FBI should be doing in cooperating with congressional oversight. 

 The FBI is a well-respected organization. I have had very extensive opportunities to work with the FBI. After graduation from college, I was in the Air Force Office of Special Investigations for 2 years and had training from the FBI. The commanding officer of the OSI was a former top aide to Director J. Edgar Hoover. 

I worked with the [[Page S7438]] FBI on the prosecution of the Philadelphia Teamsters, an investigation which was conducted by the McClellan committee, with then-general counsel, Robert Kennedy, and saw their very fine work. Then, as Assistant Counsel to the Warren Commission, I worked with the FBI; then as district attorney of Philadelphia and for the last 20 years extensively on the Judiciary Committee. 

I have great respect for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. At the same time, my experience has shown me that there is an over concern by the personnel of the FBI with their so-called institutional image and that there cannot be a concession of any problems, which is really indispensable if problems are to be corrected. 

(Disturbance in the visitors' galleries.) 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Sergeant at Arms restore order in the galleries. 

Mr. SPECTER. We have a nominee who has been put forward by the President who has very impressive credentials: United States Attorney in Boston, United States Attorney in San Francisco, 3 years as Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department, where I had contacts and saw his impressive work. 

He will be succeeding a man, Director Louis Freeh, who came to the Bureau with extraordinary credentials and overall did a good job, although he presided over the Bureau at a time when there were many institutional failures. 

I analogize Director Freeh to the little boy on the Netherlands dike running around putting his finger in all the holes to try to stop the water from coming through. With so many holes and so many problems, it was not possible. 

 I believe similarly that the Congress, including the Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee, has not been sufficiently active on oversight. These hearings will give us an opportunity to set standards as to what the FBI should be doing in response to oversight activities by the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

 I had an opportunity to talk for the better part of an hour yesterday to FBI Director-designee Mueller and went over quite a number of issues that I intend to ask him in the public forum. I comment about these today because the Senate ought to be preparing for this hearing with unique care for this very important position. 

One of the matters I intend to discuss with Mr. Mueller in the confirmation hearings is the failure of the FBI to turn over for congressional Senate oversight a memorandum dated December 9, 1996, which was written at a time when there was a question as to whether Attorney General Reno was going to be reappointed by President Clinton. At that time, the campaign finance investigation was just being started. There was a conversation by a top FBI official Esposito, with a top Department of Justice official Lee Radek, and FBI Director Freeh wrote this memorandum to the file to Mr. Esposito actually. Referring to a meeting that he had with the Attorney General on December 6, Director Freeh wrote this memo December 9: 

I also advised the Attorney General of Lee Radek's comment to you that there was a lot of ``pressure'' on him and the Public Integrity Section regarding this case because the ``Attorney General's job might hang in the balance'' (or words to that effect). This memorandum did not come to the attention of the Judiciary Committee until April of 2000, some 3\1/2\ years later, when, in my capacity as chairman of the subcommittee on Department of Justice oversight, a subpoena was issued for all of the FBI records and writings relating to the campaign finance investigation. When this memo was discovered, Director Freeh was questioned as to why he hadn't turned it over for Judiciary Committee oversight, because it was the view of many that it absolutely should have been done. 

Director Freeh defended his inaction on the ground that it would have compromised his relationship with Attorney General Reno. But notwithstanding that fact, it is my view that this is the sort of oversight the Judiciary Committee must undertake. This will be the subject of my questioning of Mr. Mueller during the confirmation hearing. 

Director Freeh declined to appear voluntarily before the Judiciary Committee or the subcommittee to comment about this memorandum, and the committee decided not to issue a subpoena, which I thought should have been done. 

 It is my view that when a matter of this importance comes to light there ought to be a public inquiry as to what happened between the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI. It takes a congressional committee to get to the bottom of that. When Attorney General Reno testified, she said, ``I don't recall that, but if that had come to my attention, I certainly would have done something about it.''  In my view, anybody who is going to be confirmed for FBI Director has to have a commitment to making this sort of information available to Senate oversight. 

Another matter which I intend to question Mr. Mueller about is the insistence of the FBI on not cooperating with Senate oversight where there is a pending criminal investigation. Now, I understand the sensitivity of a pending criminal investigation, having some experience as a prosecutor myself, but the case law is plain that congressional oversight is so fundamental and so important that it may proceed even as to pending criminal investigations. But that has not been honored by the Department of Justice or by the FBI. And in the case involving Dr. Wen Ho Lee, the subcommittee on the Department of Justice oversight was stymied at every turn by the FBI refusing to make available information, citing a pending criminal investigation. 

Now, the chairman of the committee and the ranking member, or chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee, have standing, it seems to me, on a discrete inquiry, carefully controlled, where the prosecution would not be compromised. That is the role of oversight. But when Wen Ho Lee was indicted on December 11, 1999, immediately, the FBI used that as a reason to resist any further Senate oversight. And there was a real question of why the FBI and the Department of Justice allowed Dr. Lee to remain at large after a search of his premises in April of 1999 was conducted, and then he was at liberty, at large, until December when an arrest warrant was issued. Suddenly, he became more problematic than public enemy No. 1, when he was put in manacles and solitary confinement, in a situation which had all the earmarks of an effort at the top of the Justice Department and FBI to coerce a guilty plea. 

After the guilty plea was entered, Judiciary Committee oversight had been further stymied by the refusal of the FBI to allow access to what was going on because Dr. Lee was still being debriefed. Here again, I believe the Judiciary Committee is entitled to a commitment that oversight will be respected, and the case law will be respected, and that there may be oversight even on pending criminal investigations. 

In the case of Hanssen, who has just entered a guilty plea on an arrangement to be spared the death penalty, raises some very fundamental questions that need to be answered as to procedures in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Although this matter did not come to light until very recently, in August of 1986, Hanssen's voice was recorded by an FBI wiretap on his Soviet contact's telephone. In 1992, Hanssen improperly accessed his supervisor's computer. In 1997, Hanssen began to search the FBI computerized case database for his name, his home address, and for terms referring to espionage activities. 

 A question arises, what steps have been taken by the FBI to detect a spy such as Hanssen? There was a very probing report issued by the inspector general of the CIA after Aldrich Ames was detected as a spy, and the inspector general of the CIA, Fred Hitz, wrote this in the report: 

We have no reason to believe that the directors of Central Intelligence who served during the relevant period were aware of the deficiencies described in this report. 

That relates to Aldrich Ames. 

 But directors of Central Intelligence are obligated to ensure that they are knowledgeable of significant developments relating to crucial agency missions. Sensitive human source reporting on the Soviet Union and Russia during and after the Cold War clearly was such a mission, and certain directors of Central Intelligence must therefore be held accountable for serious shortcomings in that reporting. 

[[Page S7439]] 

Now, what that does essentially is to say that the Directors are at fault, even though they didn't know about Aldrich Ames, or have reason to know about Aldrich Ames, because the presence of spies in the Central Intelligence Agency so threatens national security that the Directors have an obligation to find out about it. 

If you make it an absolute responsibility, that, according to the CIA inspector general, would put the pressure on the Directors to find out about it. The three Directors of the Central Intelligence Agency who were in office during the time Aldrich Ames functioned--Judge Webster, Gates, and Woolsey--responded with a very hot letter denying responsibility and saying that the standard set by the CIA inspector general was too high. Well, this is a subject I have discussed preliminarily with Mr. Mueller and intend to ask him about. 

It is a very tough standard to say that a public official is liable for matters that he didn't know about or didn't have reason to know about. But if our Nation's secrets are to be guarded, and if we are to be secure from spies such as Ames and Hanssen, this is a matter that we are going to have to determine as to what is the appropriate standard. 

When I talked to Mr. Mueller, I didn't ask him for a response, but this is another subject that will be probed during the course of the confirmation hearings. The issues of management in the FBI are just gigantic; they are enormous. We have seen repeated failures by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to come forward with documents in a timely manner. In the McVeigh case, for example, the FBI had reason to know as early as January of this year that all of the documents relating to McVeigh had not been turned over to McVeigh's lawyers. Yet those documents were not made available until May. And then there was the issue about the fairness to McVeigh. No doubt he was guilty; he had confessed to the most horrendous crime in American history, where 168 people were killed in a Federal building in Oklahoma City--women, children, men, going there for official business, blameless, and it was done in a cold, calculated way. 

There was no doubt as to guilt or as to the justification for the death sentence which was imposed, but there was an obligation on the part of the prosecution to turn over all the papers. There may have been something which bore on sentencing. Here you had a 5-month delay where the Federal Bureau of Investigation had reason to know that all those documents were not turned over. 

The question is: What is to be done in the management of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to avoid this sort of an error? In an age of computerization and mechanization, we search for an answer and really must find a way that the FBI will correct these kinds of problems. 

 A similar issue was confronted in the Waco matter. It was an incident which occurred on April 19, 1993, where the compound was attacked and where so many people lost their lives in one of the most controversial incidents in American history, but it was not until August of 1999 that the FBI suddenly found a whole ream of records. Here again, management responsibilities require something much, much better than that. 

The incident at Waco is really a very sad chapter in American history for many reasons: The confrontation, the deaths, the failure of congressional oversight, the failure of candid disclosure by the officials who were in charge. 

On April 28 of 1993, Attorney General Reno and then FBI Director William Sessions testified before Congress that no pyrotechnic tear gas rounds were used at Waco. The hostage rescue team commander, Richard Rogers, who was present for their testimony but who did not testify, did not correct them. 

 Regrettably, that is an occurrence which has happened too often where there is a concern about the FBI institutional image which blinds people who ought to be coming forward and who ought to be making a disclosure as to what the facts were when there is congressional oversight and you have critical testimony by the Attorney General of the United States and by the Director of the FBI. 

When Mr. Mueller and I talked yesterday, we discussed at some length the culture of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the difficulties of even the Director finding out what is going on in the FBI. That is a challenging task which Robert Mueller is going to have to confront. 

 In the context of what has happened with Wen Ho Lee, Waco, McVeigh, Hanssen, and the campaign finance investigation, these are issues which need to be very thoroughly explored in the confirmation hearing, and we ought to come to some common understanding between those of us who have oversight responsibilities on the Judiciary Committee and the Director of the FBI as to what his standard will be and what we think the standard should be so that we can come to a meeting of the minds or so that we may not confirm a Director who does not measure up to what Congress thinks is required as a matter of legitimate oversight. 

At the same time, as I suggested before, Congress has not done its job on oversight. We had the incident at Waco on April 19 of 1993. In my view, there should have been a prompt, detailed, piercing oversight investigation of what went on there. It was not until former Senator Danforth undertook that investigation in 1999 that anything really was done. 

Who can say as to the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal building 2 years to the day after the Waco incident, when the Oklahoma City bombing occurred on April 19, 1995, whether that was related to the Waco incident or whether it might have been prevented had there been vigorous congressional oversight? 

In 1995, I served as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and moved to have oversight hearings at that time on both Waco and Ruby Ridge because I thought a great deal more needed to be done. Finally, the subcommittee was permitted to have oversight as to Ruby Ridge. 

That was an incident where Randy Weaver was on the mountain and refused to come down. There was a veritable army which approached him and had a firefight, and a U.S. marshal was killed in the process. 

The oversight in which the Terrorism Subcommittee got to the bottom of the matter, and to the credit of FBI Director Louis Freeh, the FBI changed the rules of engagement related to the use of deadly force in what was a very important matter. 

When we finished the hearings, Mr. Weaver said in the hearing room, had he known there was going to be this kind of congressional oversight, he would have come down from the mountain if he had believed there would be an inquiry and an appropriate resolution. 

It was at that time that militia were springing up in some 40 States across the United States. If Congress exercises appropriate oversight, it is my view that will do a great deal to quell public unrest and public doubts as to what is happening with Federal action in a place such as Ruby Ridge and Federal action in a place such as Waco.

 In summary, these are matters which are of the utmost importance when we will be confirming the next Director of the FBI, an occurrence which happens only once every 10 years because it is a 10-year turn, although a Director may leave earlier. Louis Freeh is leaving after 8 years, a term of office longer than the maximum a President may serve under the Constitution. The Justices of the Supreme Court have enormous power on 5-4 decisions establishing the law of the land, but there are four others who go with the one deciding vote. 

The FBI, with all of its power--most of what it does is necessarily confidential and secret--requires that there be very profound changes in FBI management on the items which have been mentioned and an attitude that will not emphasize the institutional image to the sacrifice of not having appropriate congressional oversight, not having appropriate congressional disclosure of the memorandum referred to, having appropriate congressional disclosure when a matter is pending, even if it is a criminal matter. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the memorandum from Director Freeh, dated December 9, 1996, be printed in the Congressional Record. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: 

[[Page S7440]] 

December 9, 1996. 

 To: Mr. Esposito. 

 From: Director, FBI. 

Subject: Democratic National Campaign Matter. Memorandum As I related to you this morning, I met with the Attorney General on Friday, 12/6/96, to discuss the above-captioned matter. 

 I stated that DOJ had not yet referred the matter to the FBI to conduct a full, criminal investigation. It was my recommendation that this referral take place as soon as possible. 

I also told the Attorney General that since she had declined to refer the matter to an Independent Counsel it was my recommendation that she select a first rate DOJ legal team from outside Main Justice to conduct the inquiry. In fact, I said that these prosecutors should be ``junk-yard dogs'' and that in my view, PIS was not capable of conducting the thorough, aggressive kind of investigation which was required. 

I also advised the Attorney General of Lee Radek's comment to you that there was a lot of ``pressure'' on him and PIS regarding this case because the ``Attorney General's job might hang in the balance'' (or words to that effect). I stated that those comments would be enough for me to take him and the Criminal Division off the case completely. 

 I also stated that it didn't make sense for PIS to call the FBI the ``lead agency'' in this matter while operating a ``task force'' with DOC IGs who were conducting interviews of key witnesses without the knowledge or participation of the FBI. 

I strongly recommend that the FBI and hand-picked DOJ attorneys from outside Main Justice run this case as we would any matter of such importance and complexity. 

We left the conversation on Friday with arrangements to discuss the matter again on Monday. The Attorney General and I spoke today and she asked for a meeting to discuss the ``investigative team'' and hear our recommendations. The meeting is now scheduled for Wednesday, 12/11/96, which you and Bob Litt will also attend. 

I intend to repeat my recommendations from Friday's meeting. We should present all of our recommendations for setting up the investigation--both AUSAs and other resources. You and I should also discuss and consider whether on the basis of all the facts and circumstances--including Huang's recently released letters to the President as well as Radek's comments--whether I should recommend that the Attorney General reconsider referral to an Independent Counsel. 

It was unfortunate that DOJ declined to allow the FBI to play any role in the Independent Counsel referral deliberations. I agree with you that based on the DOJ's experience with the Cisneros matter--which was only referred to an Independent Counsel because the FBI and I intervened directly with the Attorney General--it was decided to exclude us from this decision-making process. 

Nevertheless, based on information recently reviewed from PIS/DOC, we should determine whether or not an Independent Counsel referral should be made at this time. If so, I will make the recommendation to the Attorney General. 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an extract of a report from CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz be printed in the Congressional Record. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: 

We have no reason to believe that the DCIs who served during the relevant period were aware of the deficiencies described in this report. But DCIs are obligated to ensure that they are knowledgeable of significant developments related to crucial Agency missions. Sensitive human source reporting on the Soviet Union and Russia during and after the Cold War clearly was such a mission, and certain DCIs must therefore be held accountable for serious shortcomings in that reporting. 

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/21/nyregion/john-c-cheasty-star-witness-in-teamsters-case-dies-at-96.html

This court has been requested by the captioned plaintiffs to certify the within action as a class action pursuant to CPLR 901 and 902, with the following individuals designated as the members thereof; to wit,"all individuals who are or were participants or beneficiaries of participants in the Brewery Workers Pension Plan (Brewery Plan) as of August 7, 1973 when the agreement to merge the Brewery Fund and the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (Teamsters Fund) was executed, who ceased to be active participants prior to December 1976 and who elected to receive benefits under the terms of the plan of benefits of the Teamsters Fund and who did not receive benefits under the terms of the plan of benefits of the Teamsters Fund." It is asserted by the plaintiffs that class certification is warranted herein since "all members of the putative class are receiving or have received benefits under the terms of the Brewery Plan; however, these benefits are less than the benefits they would have receive[d] under the terms of the merger agreement. . .which they seek to obtain in this case." More to the point, the plaintiffs contend that the agreement to merge the Brewery Plan and the Teamsters Plan, signed by the respective trustees on July 30, 1973 and August 7, 1973, was violated by the absence of contributions on their behalf on or after December 1, 1976.

The subject merger was to become effective thirty days after notification to the parties that the Internal Revenue Service had approved their individual agreements. Accordingly, the parties were each required to forthwith seek that approval and to ". . .execute or cause to be executed any and all documents necessary to implement this Agreement." The Teamsters not only failed to abide by the foregoing terms, but on February 4, 1974 voted not to proceed with the merger, which resulted in the initiation of litigation for the specific performance of said merger. [*2]On April 11, 1975, The Queens County Supreme Court upheld the merger and directed the Teamsters to comply, which they failed to do. Consequently, on April 29, 1976, the Brewery Fund Trustees applied for the IRS approval on behalf of the Teamsters. On September 28, 1976, the IRS issued a letter of approval, and the New York State Supreme Court thereafter, in a supplemental enforcement proceeding, ". . .declared that the Brewery Fund was 'fully integrated' with the Teamsters Fund as of December 1, 1976." Brewery Workers Pension Fund et. al. v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund, et. al., No. 9997/74 (NY Sup. Ct., April 12, 1977). On two subsequent occasions, the Teamsters were held in contempt for refusing to adhere to the terms of the merger, which they purged ". . .by inter alia, accepting the Brewery Fund assets and giving notice to Brewery Fund members. Nevertheless, they ultimately refused to provide higher Teamsters Fund benefits to participants, like Plaintiffs, who were actively employed when the Merger Agreement was executed and who 'but for' Defendants' wrongful conduct, would have been actively employed on the merger's effective date (had the IRS approval been sought as required under the Agreement), but who, due to an intervening plant closing, were no longer employed on December 1, 1976." It is also the plaintiffs' contention that they are entitled to benefits under the merger agreement under state common law claims, and that the "prevention doctrine" would bar the defendant from effectively arguing as to any delay in effective merger date since the defendant was the cause of such delay. The plaintiffs further contend that the requirements for class certification under CPLR 901 fully apply, in that the size of the claimants makes joinder impracticable; there exists questions of law and fact common to the class that predominates any individual concerns; and, the captioned individuals typify the concerns of the other class members, and will adequately represent their interests. In addition, the plaintiffs assert that the defendants' act of suing them as a class in prior litigation for a finding that ". . .the class of former Brewery Fund participants for whom no contributions were made on or after December 1, 1976, were not entitled to receive benefits under the terms of the Teamsters plan," was a tacit admission that a class action is appropriate. In that case, Brewery Delivery Employees Local Union No. 46, IBT, et. al. v. Mosely, et. al., Civ. 80-1476 (E.D.NY), the parties settled on an agreement that the statute of limitations would be tolled for "rights or claims which may be asserted against the Fund by members of Local 46 on whose behalf contributions were made into the Brewery Workers Pension Fund between 1973 and 1976 and who were not given the option to elect to become members of the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund." The plaintiffs also note that in prior unrelated litigation involving the Teamsters, Miele v. NYS Teamsters Pension Fund, 81 Civ. 0084, the Teamsters had furnished

". . .a computer print-out of all participants in the Brewery Pension Plan who, following the effective date of the Merger Agreement between the Brewers and Teamsters Pension Funds, were denied benefits under the Teamsters Plan. . . .a total of 1,148 members."

In response to the foregoing, the defendants cross-moved this court for an order, pursuant to CPLR §§501 and 510(3), to transfer the within matter to the New York State Supreme Court in Onondaga County as a more convenient forum. They predicated that request on the fact that

". . .(1) the rules of the Pension Fund mandate that any action brought against it be commenced in the County of Onondaga, (2) the convenience of material witnesses and interest of justice support a change in venue[,] and (3) the Southern District specifically ruled in the previously dismissed federal court action brought by Plaintiffs that the most convenient forum is the County [*3]of Onondaga, to which it transferred the matter. Seitz, et. al. v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund, 953 F. Supp. 100 (S.D.NY 1997)." The defendants also contend that, by its terms, the merger agreement resulted in two entities, the Pension Fund and the Brewery Plan and, that "[t]his meant that, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, only Brewery members who worked and had contributions made on their behalf after December 1, 1976 were eligible to have a portion of their benefits determined under the Pension Fund's Plan. All other Brewery members, like Plaintiff Rocco and Mr. Casey, were eligible for benefits solely under the Brewery Plan." Plaintiff Rocco ". . .ceased being a member of the Brewery Fund on March 26, 1976 and received an Early pension under the Brewery Plan effective June 1, 1984. . . .Mr. Casey retired on a Disability Pension under the brewery Plan effective February 1, 1976. He died on March 9, 1982." The defendants further note that all prior litigation, ". . .some 22 federal and state courts over the last 28 years have also recognized that the effective date of the Brewery Merger was December 1, 1976 and that this is the operative date for determining a Brewery member's eligibility for benefits." In their memorandum of law, the defendants also highlight the fact that the Northern District Court, in the matter of Seitz, et. al. v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund, 97-CV 232, went on to confirm the December 1, 1976 effective merger date (Jan. 7, 2000); determine that it had jurisdiction under ERISA to adjudicate plaintiffs' claims; dismiss plaintiffs' complaint on the merits for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Aug. 7, 2000); find that plaintiffs were without standing to assert such claims (June 9, 2000) as they were not participants or beneficiaries in the Pension Fund's Plan; and, finally, that plaintiffs failed to plead or argue any pendant claims under New York common law or statute. The defendants reinforce the foregoing by noting that said rulings were upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Seitz, et. al. v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund, 281 F.3d 62 (2nd Cir. 2002) and that the U.S. Supreme Court denied Certiorari. Furthermore, the defendants argue that by virtue of the holdings aforementioned, the plaintiffs are barred from asserting any claims under New York State law by the principles of res judicata since "a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from re-litigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action." (Citing Meagher v. Cement and Concrete Workers' Pension Fund, 921 F. Supp. 161, 164 (S.D.NY 1997); Hennessey v. Cement and Concrete Workers, 963 F. Supp, 963 F. Supp. 334, 337 (S.D.NY 1997), and a host of other cases, including Buechel v. Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 740 NYS2d 252 in its reply memorandum of law), and/or collateral estoppel since ". . . an issue of fact or law actually litigated and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction in a prior action may not be re-litigated in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies." (Citing, United States v. Alcan Aluminum corp., 990 F.2d 711 (2d Cir. 1993), citing Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979); Remington Rand Corporation v. Amsterdam Rotterdam Bank, 68 F.3d 478 (2d Cir. 1995), etc. The defendants also distinguish the fact that David Seitz, unlike the plaintiffs herein, had been a member of Local 46 who had made contributions to the Pension Fund after December 1, 1976.

With regards to class certification, the defendants point out that CPLR §902 specifically required that the plaintiffs had to have moved therefor within sixty days after the filing of its responsive pleading herein, and that the courts may not extend this period (citing in particular, [*4]O'Hara v. Del Bello, 47 NY2d 363, 418 NYS2d 334). Accordingly, since its answer was filed on September 19, 2002 and the plaintiffs did not make this motion until June 4, 2003, they are barred therefrom. In addition, the defendants note that the tolling of the statute of limitations afforded by the Mosley, infra settlement, by its terms, applied only and specifically from the filing of that action in 1980 until its settlement in 1990, not to the within action which was commenced some twelve years after execution of the settlement agreement.

In their reply, the plaintiffs note that this action was remanded to state court after the date that the defendants assert that the instant motion should have been filed. Consequently, their motion can in no way be viewed as untimely. In addition, the plaintiffs argue that "the 60 day requirement is not a statute of limitations, and a motion for class certification may be granted under appropriate circumstances even if it is brought after the expiration of that period." (Citing, John Bourdeau, Paul Coltoff, Christine M. Gimeno, 3A Carmody-Wait 2d §§19:395, a fourth department case, and some miscellaneous opinions). The plaintiffs then reassert their arguments for class certification, along with pointing out that the defendants have not filed an answer in state court; i.e, in this action. With regards to the request for change of venue, the plaintiffs argue that in Seitz, et. al. v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund, supra, 953 F. Supp. 100 (S.D.NY 1997), "[t]he Eastern District of New York, which encompasses Kings County, was found to be a proper venue after the issue was briefed before Judge Batts in the Southern District of New York;" however, the plaintiffs concede that his opinion was silent vis-a-vis the "purported plan rule requiring venue in the county of Onondaga. . ." In any event, the plaintiffs assert that the trustees exceeded their authority in adopting such a rule as "[t]here is nothing in the Trust Agreement that permits the Trustees to abridge Plaintiffs' rights by adopting a venue provision or to limit or regulate litigation against or by the Fund."

The Defendants, in response to the foregoing, submitted a reply memorandum which essentially reiterated their position against class certification and for a change of venue, save to assert that the plaintiffs had not initially quantified the number of the purported class in its original motion, but only did so in their supplemental affirmation on the basis of archival material, which they were unable to provide via discovery since ". . . Josephine Dontino, the person who allegedly generated the document some 25 years ago, retired from the pension fund, is in her 80's and is incapacitated. This is one of the reasons why this action is also barred by the statute of limitation since said statutes are designed to protect defendants against the elements of time, notably, the loss of evidence and faded memories of witnesses." (Citing Carmody Wait 2d, "Limitation of Actions,"§13.2 (1994) (the policy behind the statutes of limitation is to protect defendants from the revival of claims where 'evidence has been lost, memories have faded and witnesses have disappeared')." (Citing Meyers v. Frank, 550 F.2d 726 (2nd Cir.), cet. Denied, 434 U.S. 830 (1977); Vastola v. Maer, 39 NY2d 1019, 387 NYS2d 246 (1976), McCarthy v. Volkswagen of America, 55 NY2d 543; etc.) Insofar as its failure to have submitted an answer is concerned, the defendants argue that their response in the federal matterserved after removal but prior to remand to state courtis sufficient, especially in light of the fact that the plaintiffs had agreed to an extension of time for service of the same. Lastly, with regards to the plaintiff's argument that the trustees exceeded their authority in adopting a venue rule, the defendants argue that ". . .the venue rule was adopted by the Pension Fund's trustees pursuant to ERISA and the Agreement and Declaration of Trust. The right to adopt a venue derives from the Trustees' [*5]'exclusive authority to control and manage the operation and administration of the plan' and fiduciary mandates imposed upon them by ERISA. In this regard, ERISA provides that 'Every employee benefit plan shall be established and maintained pursuant to a written instrument. . .and the fiduciaries. . .shall have the authority to control and manage the operation and administration of the plan. 29 U.S.C. §1102(a)(1)." Finally, the defendants assert that since the venue rule applies to participants as well as applicants of the Plan, it is immaterial that the plaintiffs are not members of the Plan. The fact is that "[t]he plaintiffs here applied for benefits under the Pension Fund's Plan and were denied because they did not have contributions made after December 1, 1976, the 'effective date' of the Brewery Merger as adjudicated by the courts."

CPLR § 901 provides, in pertinent part, that "one or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all if: 1. the class is so numerous that joinder of all members whether otherwise required or permitted, is impracticable; 2. there are questions of law or fact common to the class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members; 3. the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; 4. the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; and, 5. a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. CPLR § 902 adds that "within sixty days after the time to serve a responsive pleading has expired for all persons named as defendants in an action brought as a class action, the plaintiff shall move for an order to determine whether it is to be so maintained. An order under this section may be conditional, and may be altered or amended before the decision on the merits on the court's own motion or on motion of the parties. The action may be maintained as a class action only if the court finds that the prerequisites under section 901 have been satisfied. Among the matters which the court shall consider in determining whether the action may proceed as a class action are: 1. The interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; 2. The impracticability or inefficiency of prosecuting or defending separate actions; 3. The extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class; 4. The desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claim in the particular forum; and 5. The difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action."

The controversy presented by the various arguments of the parties is whether the plaintiffs meet the statutory prerequisites and have timely moved for class certification, or whether prior judicial proceedings have resolved that determination and therefore preclude any reexamination thereof on the basis of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. This court cannot proceed to make that analysis, however, in light of the venue issue herein presented. The law is clearly established that "contractual forum selection clauses are prima facie valid and enforceable." (See McIntosh County Bank, et. al. v. St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, 4 Misc 3d 1017(A), 2004 WL 1878201 (NY Sup.), 2004 NY Slip Op. 50920(U), citing Premium Risk Group, Inc. v. Legion Insurance company, 294 AD2d 345 (2nd Dept., 2002); and Koko Contracting Inc. v. Environmental Asbestos Removal Corp., 272 AD2d 585 (2d Dept., 2000). Although the plaintiffs argue that the trustees did not have the authority to designate Onondaga county as the forum for any fund disputes, they have failed to convincingly demonstrate that agreeing to such a contractual provision is de hors the bounds of permissible and/or legitimate contractual parameters, much less fiduciary action. The fact is that "[i]n order to set aside such a clause, the party seeking to do [*6]so must establish that enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable or unjust, that the venue selection clause is void because of fraud or overreaching or that permitting the matter to proceed to trial in the venue established by the contract would be so difficult and inconvenient to the party challenging the provision [that he or she] would effectively [be] denied his or her day in court. (See McIntosh County Bank, et. al. v. St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, 4 Misc 3d 1017(A), supra, citing Hunt v. Landers, 309 AD2d 900 (2nd Dept., 2003); and Hirschman v. National Textbook Company, 184 AD2d 494 [2d. Dept., 1992]). The McIntosh County Bank, et. al. v. St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, 4 Misc 3d 1017(A), supra, court went on to aptly note that "Agreements are to be interpreted in accordance with their plain meaning."(citing Green field v. Philles Records, Inc., 98 NY2d 562 (2002); Katina, Inc. v. Famiglietti, 306 AD2d 440 [2nd Dept., 2003]). "The court may not make a new agreement for the parties under the guise of interpretation." (Citing Rodolitz v. Neptune Paper Products, Inc., 22 NY2d 383 [1968]. See also, Iacobacci v. McAleavey, 222 AD3d 406 [2d Dept., 1995]). Accordingly, this court sees no other alternative than to have the within matter transferred to the Supreme court of Onondaga County pursuant to the terms of the parties' Merger agreement above discussed.

WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, the defendants' motion for a change of venue is granted, and the plaintiffs' request for class certification is hereby deferred to the Supreme Court of Onondaga County. In addition, the Kings County Clerk is hereby directed to forthwith transfer the case file to the Onondaga Supreme Court for its deliberations. This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.

_______________________________