Appendix — Steelworkers v. Usery

Supreme Court brief1977

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

APPENDIX

Supreme Court of the Anited States

Octosrr Trem, 1975

No. 75-657

Loca 3489, Unrrep STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,

AFL-CIO anp Unrrep STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,

AFL-CIO,

Petitioners,

Vv.

WiriuiaM J. Usery, Secretary of Labor,

Respondent

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Seventh Circuit

Petition for Certiorari Filed November 3, 1975

Certiorari Granted February 23, 1976

INDEX TO APPENDIX*

Relevant Docket Entries in the Proceedings Below .. ..... 7

Completes .ncccccccscccccvcvccescccsscvsvevcccceees 2

Ty PPPETTIITTETETET ELLE LTTE TET 5

Stipulation of Facts (Including Exhibits) ................ 7

Temmberigt TmCerpte oc cece ccccscvcccvcccccccsececes 56

Peetiee GE ABO oc ciceccessscncescecccececccevccces 105

* The Opinion and Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Seventh Circuit is reprinted in the Appendix to the Petition for

Writ of Certiorari, beginning at page la. The Decision and Order of

the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana

is reprinted in the Appendix to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, be-

ginning at page 17a.

Relevant Docket Entries in the Proceedings Below

Nov. 23, 1970, Complaint filed. Summons issued.

Feb. 23, 1971, U.S. Steelworkers moves to intervene as a party

deft. Also files a Motion for enlargement of time.

Mar. 10, 1971, Motion to Intervene Granted. United Steelwork-

ers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC made a party defendant pursuant

to Rule 24(a) F.R. Civ. P.

Aug. 17, 1971, Defts file answer to pltf’s comp! aint, first defense

and second defense.

Apr. 27, 1973, Pasties file stipulation of facts.

May 10, 1973, This cause came on before the Court for trial

without the intervention of a jury. . . . Plaintiff rests. . . . De-

fendant rests. . . . Court now takes this cause under advisement.

Apr. 30, 1974, Court enters Memorandum of Opinion and

plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED.

June 26, 1974, Plaintiff files notice of appeal.

Aug. 5, 1975, Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Seventh Circuit reversing the order of the district court and

entering judgment for the pltf.

Nov. 3, 1975, Petition for writ of certiorari and record filed.

Feb. 23, 1976, Petition GRANTED.

In THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

SouTHERN District oF INDIANA

Trrre Haute Division

James D. Hopcson, Secretary of Labor, United States

Department of Labor,

Plaintiff,

Vs.

LocaL 3489, Unrrep STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,

AFL-CIO-CLC,

Defendant.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff brings this action under Title IV of the Labor-Manage-

ment Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (Act of September 14,

1959, 73 Stat. 519 et seq., 29 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), hereinafter re-

ferred to as the Act.

Jurisdiction of this action is conferred upon the Court by section

402(b) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 482(b)).

Ill

Defendant is, and at all times relevant to this action has been, an

unincorporated association maintaining its principal office at 625

North 13th Street, Vigo County, Terre Haute, Indiana, within the

jurisdiction of this Court.

Defendant is, and at all times relevant to this action, has been, a

local labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce

within the meaning of sections 3(i), 3(j) and 401(b) of the Act

29 U.S.C. 402(i), 402(j) and 481(b)).

Defendant is, and at all times relevant to this action has been,

chartered by and subordinate to the United Steelworkers of Amer-

ica, AFL-CIO-CLC, hereinafter referred to as the International, an

international labor organization engaged in an industry affecting

commerce within the meaning of section 3(i) and 3(j) of the Act

(29 U.S.C. 402(i) and 402(j)).

Defendant, purporting to Act pursuant to and in accordance

with the Constitution of the International and its own Constitu-

tion, conducted a nomination of officers on May 17, 1970, and an

election of officers on June 22, 1970, which nominations and elec-

tion were subject to the provisions of Title IV of the Act (29 U.S.C.

481 et seq.).

Vil

On June 23, 1970, Bernard G. Frye, a member in good standing

filed a written protest to the May 17, 1970 nomination and the

June 22, 1970 election of officers with defendant’s Recording Sec-

retary. ‘This protest was heard and rejected by the defendant’s

membership at a regular meeting conducted on July 19, 1970. By

letter dated July 22, 1970, Frye appealed this decision to the Jnter-

national. By letter dated September 3, 1970, Frye was informed

by the International that a Commission had been appointed to in-

vestigate his complaint. By letter dated September 23, 1970, hav-

ing invoked the remedies available under the International Consti-

tution for three calendar months following the election without re-

ceiving a final decision, Bernard Frye, acting pursuant to and in

accordance with section 402(a) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 482(a)),

filed a complaint with the plaintiff.

VIII

Plaintiff investigated the complaint pursuant to section 402(b)

of the Act (29 U.S.C. 482(b)), and as a result of the facts shown

by his investigation, found probable cause to believe that violations

of Title TV of the Act occurred during the conduct of the defend-

ant’s nomination and election which had not been remedied at the

time of institution of this action,

The following violations of section 401 of the Act (29 U.S.C.

481) occurred in the conduct of said election:

(a) Section 401(b) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 481(b)) was vio-

lated in that defendant failed to elect its officers by secret ballot

among the members in good standing.

(b) Section 401(e) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 481(e) ) was violated

in that;

(1) Members in good standing were denied the nght to be can-

didates and to hold office by the imposition of an unreasonable

qualification; and

(2) Members in good standing were denied the right to vote for

and otherwise support the candidates of their choice.

The violations of section 401 of the Act (29 U.S.C, 481) found

and alleged above may have affected the outcome of defendant’s

June 22, 1970 election.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment:

(a) declaring the nomination conducted on May 17, 1970, and

the election conducted on June 22, 1970, to be null and void;

(b) directing a new nomination and election for all offices under

the supervision of the plaintiff;

(d) for such other relief as may be appropriate.

Peter G. Nasu WiiuiaM D. RucKELSHAUS

Solicitor of Labor Assistant Attorney General

Grorce T. AVERY

Associate Solicitor

aa rors : United States Attorney

Regional Solicitor

RoBertT YETMAN

Attorney

U.S. DepartMENT OF LABOR HARLAND F. LEATHERS

Of Counsel Attorney, Department of Justice

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SoUTHERN District oF INDIANA

Terre Haute Drvision

Civil Action

No. Th 70-C-117

James D. Hopeson, Secretary of Labor, United States

Department of Labor,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Loca. 3489, Unrrep STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,

AFL-CIO-CLC,

Defendant.

MOTION TO INTERVENE

United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, moves pursu-

ant to Rule 24(a), F.R.Civ. P., to intervene in this action as a party

defendant, and in support thereof shows as follows:

1. Movant is an International Union, with whom more than

3,000 local unions are affiliated.

2. Movant’s International Constitution contains rules and pro-

cedures governing the nominations and election of officers in each

of its affiliated local unions, which must be followed by each of said

local unions.

3. Defendant is a local union affiliated with movant, and as such

was required to implement the “meeting attendance” requirement

contained in movant’s International Constitution.

4. Movant has been informally advised by Plaintiff that Para-

graph IX of the complaint herein is directed at, and will challenge,

the validity of said “meeting attendance” requirement.

5. Movant therefore has a direct interest in the outcome of this

action, for a decision favorable to Plaintiff would cast doubt on the

validity of this provision of movant’s International Constitution,

while a decision favorable to Defendant would vindicate this pro-

vision of movant’s International Constitution.

WHEREFORE, movant prays that this motion be granted and

that United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, be granted inter-

vention as a party defendant.

Respectfully submitted,

Unrrep STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,

AFL-CIO-CLC

A. E. Lavy7son

BERNARD K.LEIMAN

1500 Commonwealth Building

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222

MicHaeLt H. GotrTresMAN

1000 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036

KerrH C, Rerse

Rocap, Rocap, Reese & Young

708 Union Federal Building

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

SOUTHERN District oF INDIANA

TerRE Haute Drvision

Civil Action

No. Th 70-C-117

Peter J. BRENNAN, Secretary of Labor, United States

Department of Labor,

[Successor to James D. Hopcson,

Resigned]

Plaintiff,

Loca 3489, Unirep STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,

AFL-CIO-CLC,

AND

Unrrep STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC,

Defendants.

STIPULATION OF FACTS

It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the plaintiff

and defendants, acting through their respective attormevs, that at

all times mentioned herein, the following facts are true and may be

accepted as true without further proof for the purposes of trial and

hearing on the complaint and answer thereto in the above-men-

tioned cause, and that this stipulation may be admitted in evidence.

1. Defendant, Local 3489, Uniied Steelworkers of America,

AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as defendant Local, is, and at all

times relevant to this action has been, an unincorporated associa-

tion, maintaining its principle offices at 625 North 13th Street,

Terre Haute, Indiana, within the jurisdiction of this court, and

defendant Local is and has been a local “labor organization” en-

gaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of

sections 3(i), 3(j), and 401(b) of the Act.

2. Defendant Local is, and at all times relevant to this action has

been, chartered by and subordinate to the defendant United Steel-

workers of America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as defendant

International, an international labor organization engaged in an

industry affecting commerce within the meaning of sections 3(i)

and 3(j) of the Act.

3. Defendant Local was chartered by defendant International

and had approximately 660 members as of June, 1970, all of whom

were members in good standing eligible to vote in the election of

Local ‘union officers conducted by defendant Local on June 22,

1970, The membership of defendant Local is comprised exclusively

of production and maintenance employees of Stran Steel Corpora-

tion at its Terre Haute, Indiana plant.

4. (a) Attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hercof is a

copy of the Constitution of defendant International, adopted on

August 22, 1968.

(b) Attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof is a

true copy of the Local Union Elections Manual, as amended Janu-

ary 1967, of defendant International.

true copy of the standard By-Laws for Local Unions, as amended

January, 1967, adopted by defendant Local pursuant to Article VII,

Section 5 of the International Constitution, adopted August 22,

1968.

4. Defendant Local is, and at all times relevant to this action has

been, conducting its affairs under the International Constitution,

adopted August 22, 1968, referred to as Exhibit A in paragraph

3(a) hereof, the Local Union Elections Manual, referred to in para-

graph 3(b) hereof, and the standard By-Laws for Local Unions,

referred to in paragraph 3(c) hereof. The election provisions of

the aforesaid International Constitution, adopted August 22, 1968,

the Local Union Elections Manual, and standard By-Laws for

Local Unions were, and are now, subject to the provisions of Title

IV of the Act.

5. With regard to eligibility to be a candidate to hold office, and

with regard to the terms of office:

(a) Article VII, Section 9 of the International Constitution

adopted August 22, 1968, referred to as Exhibit (A) in paragraph

3(a) hereof, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

No member shall be eligible for election as a Local

Union officer or Grievance Committeeman unless

- * *

ular meetings of his Local Union for thirty-six (36) months

previous to the June, 1970, election, unless his Union

activities or working hours prevented his attendance.

(b) Article VII, Section 8 of the International Constitution

adopted August 22, 1968, referred to as Exhibit A in paragraph

3(a) hereof, provided:

Section 8. All Local Union Officers and Grievance

Committeemen shall be elected for a term of three (3)

years at the last meeting in June commencing June,

1970, by a plurality vote of the members participating in

a referendum vote * * *,

referred to as Exhibit B in paragraph 3(b) hereof, provides, in

pertinent part, as follows:

Section 9. No member shall be eligible for election as

a Local Union Officer or Grievance Committeeman un-

less * * *

ular meetings of his Local Union for thirty-six (36) months

previous to the June, 1967, election, unless his Union

activities or working hours prevented his attendance.

(d) Article IV, Section 5 of the standard By-Laws for Local

Unions referred to as Exhibit C in paragraph 3(c) hereof, provides,

in pertinent part, as follows:

No member shall be eligible for election as an Officer

or Grievance Committeeman unless

« * *

meetings of his Local Union for 36 months previous to

the election, unless his Union activities or working hours

prevented his attendance.

6. The meeting atiendance requirement, as set forth in the In-

ternational Constitution, referred to as Exhibit A in paragraph

3(a) hereof, the Local Union Elections Manual, referred to as

Exhibit B in paragraph 3(b) hereof, and the standard By-Laws for

Local Unions, referred to as Exhibit C in paragraph 3(c) hereof

are applicable to and binding upon each of the thirty-seven hundred

(3,700) local unions chartered by the defendant International

Union,

7. The membership of defendant Local 3489 is composed exclu-

sively of the production and maintenance employees of the Stran

Steel Corporation situated at Terre Haute, Indiana. Throughout

the period from May, 1967 to June, 1970, the employees at the

aforesaid plant regularly worked Monday through Friday, inclusive,

on three shifts. All employees generally worked the same shift with-

out rotating, unless their jobs were changed during the three-year

period.

8. (a) Pursuant to the provisions of the International Constitu-

tion, Locai Union Elections Manual, and standard By-Laws for

Lucal Unions then applicable, to have been eligible as a candidate

in defendant Local’s June 22, 1970 election, a member must: (a)

have been in continuous good standing for a period of twenty-four

(24) months immediately preceding the election; (b) be employed

in the Terre Haute, Indiana plant of the Stran Steel Corporation;

and (c) have attended at least eighteen (18) of the regular meet-

ings held by defendant Local in the thirty-six (36) months pre-

ceding the election (June, 1970), unless his Union activities or

working hours prevented his attendance. No credit is ever given

for meetings missed for any reason other than working hours (or

Union activities) .

(b) The defendant Local held nominations for office on May 17,

1970, and an election of officers on June 22, 1970. The nomina-

tions and election were subject to Title IV of the Act.

9. (a) During the period from June, 1967 to May, 1970, the de-

fendant Local conducted 36 regular monthly meetings at the union

hall located at 625 North 13th Street, Terre Haute, Indiana. The

hall is located approximately three miles from the Stran Steel plant,

within a ten minute automobile ride from the plant.

(b) From January, 1967 through February, 1970, split meetings

were held monthly at the union hall, 625 North 13th Street, Terre

Haute, Indiana, on both the second Wednesday of every month

at 4:30 p.m., and on the second Thursday of every month at 1:30

p.m. Commencing in March, 1970, only one meeting was held on

the third Sunday afternoon of each month.

47 members per meeting.

10. Prior to defendant Local’s nomination meeting on May 17,

1970, Clifford Baker, then Recording Secretary, compiled a list of

22 names from the Local's attendance register, which list included

the names of all those Local Union members who had attended at

least 18 of the past 36 monthly meetings, which persons were thus

eligible to be nominated as candidates for a Local Union office at

the forthcoming nomination meeting and eligible to hold union

office. Attached hereto, made a part herec’, and marked Exhibit D

is a true and correct copy of the aforesaid list, which was posted at

the union hall prior to the May 17, 1970, nomination meeting.

11. Of the 22 Local members described in paragraph 10 hereof

who were eligible for union office, ten were incumbent officers of

defendant Local, as follows:

President, W. Uzzell Trustees: R. Brown

Vice President, R. Satz E. Hoffman

Recording Secretary, C. Baker B. Brackall

Financial Secretary, G. Layman Guide, R, Dayhuff

Treasurer, J. Krischak Guard, R. Erickson

12. (a) On May 17, 1970, defendant Local conducted a meet-

ing for the purpose of nominating candidates. At this meeting a

total of 53 nominations of members were made for the nine offices

as set out below. The following candidates were nominated :

President: Vice President:

W. Uzzell P. Eickelman

B. Frye R. Satz

J. Forsythe H. McCloud

P. Eickelman B. King

R. Satz M. Mahoney

D. Ross

Recording Secretary: Financial Secretary :

M. Mahoney G. Layman

C. Baker D. Ross

G. Layman D. Jones

P. Eickelman B. Frye

Treasurer : Grievance Committee:

J. Krischak F. Blade

R. Satz C, Jett

P. Eickelman M. Mahoney

D. Ross R. Dayhuff

J. Powell, Sr.

G. Layman

Trustees H, McCloud

R, Brown J. Forsythe

E. Hoffman B. King

B. Brackall B. Roth

R. Dayhuff D, Jones

F. Blade P. Lebaney

J. Powell, Jr. S. Geisert

J. Krischak B. Frye

B. Weiger

J. Krischak

Guard: Guide:

R. Erickson R. Dayhuff

H. Sessions H. McCloud

C, Hoffman

W. Larue

T. Clinkenbeard

(b) Of the aforementioned nominees, nineteen (19) persons

declined thirty (30) nominations as follows:

President: Financia] Secretary:

P. Eickelman D. Ross

R. Satz B. Frye

Vice President :

R. Sats Treasurer :

H. McCloud 0

J. Krischak

B. King

M. Mahoney R, Satz

me P. Eickelman

D. Ross

Recording Secretary:

C. Baker Trustees:

G. Layman J. Powell, Jr.

P. Eickelman J. Krischak

Grievance Committee: Guard:

C, Jett H. Sessions

G. Layman

B. Roth Guide:

B. Weiger R. Dayhuff

R. Dayhuff C. Hoffman

H. McCloud H. McCloud

S. Geisert T. Clinkenbeard

J. Krischak

Since the above-named individuals declined nominations, the

Election Committee which was thereafter constituted, as herein-

after described in paragraphs 12(d) through 12(f) hereof, did not

decide any questions concerning their eligibility to be a candidate

and to hold office.

bent officers of defendant Local Union 3489 for the period from

June, 1967 to June, 1970:

President: Willis Uzzell

Financial Secretary: Gerald Layman

Trustees:

Robert Brown

Chester Hoffman

Richard Dayhuff

Guard: Roy Erickson

(d) After the nomination of candidates was completed nomina-

tions were taken for the position of election teller to conduct the

election of June 22, 1970. The following candidates were nomi-

nated :

ELECTION COMMITTEE

POSS Dr < Bi

Eeii

(e¢) The following candidates for the position of election teller

declined :

J. Krischak

V. Batson

D. Ross

C. Hoffman

(f) An election for the position of election teller was held, and

the following were elected:

C. Baker

H. McCloud

J. Tyler

13. Following the nomination meeting of May 17, 1970, David

L. Jones and B. Brackall were informed that they were ineligible

for union office because they had attended an insufficient number

of Union meetings (David L. Jones had attended three meetings;

B. Brackall had attended 16 meetings).

14. In compiling the list of eligible candidates referred to in para-

graph 10 hereof, defendant Local did not request work records kept

by the employer, Stran Steel Corporation, nor had it ever been the

policy of the Union to check work time credits (which may satisfy

the meeting attendance requirement) unless a nominee or member

so requests. No requests of this nature have ever been made,

15. The following persons nominated at the nominations meeting

of May 17, 1970, were declared eligible solely on the basis of having

actually attended eighteen (18) or more meetings:

President:

W. Uzzell

B. Frye

J. Forsythe

Vice President: P. Eickelman

Recording Secretary: M. Mahoney

Financial Secretary: G. Layman

Treasurer: D. Ross

‘Trustees:

R. Brown

E. Hoffman

R. Dayhuff

F. Blade

Grievance Committee:

F. Blade

M. Mahoney

J. Powell, Sr.

J. Forsythe

B. King

P. Lebaney

B. Frye

“uard: R. Erickson

Guide: No eligible candidate

16. While, as indicated in paragraph 10 hereof, W. Larue had

not attended at least 18 meetings, he was permitted to run for the

office of Guide tecause of the long standing custom of defendant

Local that if there was no eligible candidate for a particular office,

the office could then be filled by a non-eligible member.

17. (a) The Election Committee conducted the balloting in the

election of June 22, 1970, at the union hall meeting room at 625

North 13th Street, Terre Haute, Indiana. Said meeting room was

approximately 60’ X 20’ and had one entrance in the front thereof

and one exit at the rear. The ballot box was located on a long

counter inside the meeting room in the back of the front room of

the hall.

(b) The Election Committee, composed of H. McCloud, J.

Tyler, and C. Baker were in charge of conducting the election. At

least two of them were present at all times with half hour lunch

periods taken on a staggered basis. They were not assisted by any

observers.

eligible to vote. Instead, for the purpose of determining eligibility

of the voters, the Election Committee obtained from Stran Steel

Corporation a monthly seniority list which was utilized for this

purpose,

(d) Defendant estimates that approximately one vote was cast

each three minutes. Further, there may have been as many as 50

voters awaiting the opportunity to cast their ballots at approximate-

ly 4:00 to 4:30 p.m.

(e) In all, 249 ballots were cast.

18. Attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit E

is a true and correct copy of a ballot used at defendant Local’s

June 22, 1970, election.

19. At the termination of the voting period, the Election Com-

mittee sealed the ballot box and tabulated the ballots.

20. The Election Committee published the following results:

Candidate Number of Votes

President

Willis Uzzell (Elected) ...........eeeeeeeee 154

Resssell Posaythee 2. cccccccccccccccccsccess 16

Basmaed Pepe occ ccccccccccccccccececcsess 79

Vice President (Unopposed )

Paul Eickelman (Elected) ...........-+00+- 228

Recording Secretary (Unopposed )

Mike Mahoney (Elected) ............+.-05. 186

Financial Secretary (Unopposed )

Gerald Layman (Elected) ..........-+-+0+. 214

Treasurer (Unopposed )

Don Ross (Elected) .......eeeeeeeeeeeeees 211

Trustees

Robert Brown (Elected) ........0.+eeeeeees 212

Chester Hoffman (Elected) ..........+0+0+- 218

Richard Dayhuff (Elected) ...........+.005 204

Weald Binds 2c cccccccccccccssccccsccoscece 41

Guard (Unopposed)

Roy Erickson (Elected) ........-.+eeeeeee: 204

Guide (Unopposed )

Wayne Larew (Elected) ...........02+ee00: 192

21. After the conduct of the election, Bernard Frye, a member

in good standing who had been nominated for the Presidency, filed

a ‘mely written protest (letter dated June 23, 1970) with the de-

fendant Local. A true copy of that letter is attached hereto as

Exhibit F and made a part hereof. In his letter, Frye, inter alia,

protested the reasonableness of the requirement of the International

Constitution that candidates for local union office attend one-half

of the regular meetings held in the thirty-six (36) months prior to

the election, and that there were no voting booths to have a “secret

ballot” election, resulting in members using walls, chairs, and tables

to vote, and in that persons marking ballots could be seen by others.

22. The defendant local denied Frye’s protest and he appealed

the decision to the Executive Board of the Defendant International

(letter dated July 19, 1970) in accordance with the International

Constitution. A true copy of that letter is attached hereto as Exhibit

G and made a part hereof. The International Executive Board

voted to withhold action on the appeal on March 22, 1971, after

a hearing had been conducted by an International Commission ap-

pointed to hear Frye’s appeal. An International Commission was

appointed and a hearing was held on September 8, 1970. On Sep-

tember 23, 1970, Frye filed a written complaint with the Secretary

of Labor, inter alia, challenging the reasonableness of the Defendant

International’s meeting attendance requirement, and defendant Lo-

cal’s failure to have voting booths in order to conduct a secret ballot

election. A true copy of the written complaint is attached hereto as

Exhibit H and made a part hereof.

23. On October 15, 1970, the International Commission pre-

pared and submitted its final decision on member Frye’s appeal to

the International Executive Board.

24. The Steel Workers Organizing Committee (hereafter

“SWOC” ), an organization representing steel industry employees,

was formed in 1936 and held its first Convention in December

1937. The rules governing convention representation and selection

of delegates provided that in order to be eligible to act as a delegate

a member must be “a regular attendant of the meetings of his

lodge.” At the Convention, SWOC formulated Rules and Methods

of Procedure to govern the affairs of lodges. These rules did not re-

quire attendance at meetings as a qualification on the right to seek

and hold local union office. No such requirement was adopted at

the 1940 Convention. (While agreeing to the accuracy of these

facts, defendant Steelworkers is of the view that they are not rele-

vant here. )

25. In 1942, SWOC was disbanded and in its place the United

Steelworkers of America (hereafter “the Steelworkers”) was estab-

lished. Under the Steelworkers Constitution, the International

President has the authority to appoint, prior to the opening date

of the Convention, such committees as are necessary to conduct the

affairs of the International Convention, subject to the approval of

the Convention (Article IV, Section 8). Among the committees

uniformly appointed by the President is the Constitutional Com-

mittee.

26. Pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution (Article IV,

Section 8), this Committee meets prior to the opening of the Con-

vention and considers all resolutions for amendments to the Con-

stitution previously submitted by local unions or recommended by

the International Executive Board. Thus, Article VI (“Conven-

tions”), Section 12 provides:

All Local Union resolutions to be considered by the In-

ternational Convention must be adopted by the Local

Union and shall be sent to the International Secretary-

Treasurer. They must be in his hands not later than ten

(10) days prior to the convening of the International

Convention. The International Secretary-Treasurer shall

submit all Local Union resolutions and any recommenda-

tions of the International Executive Board to the chair-

men of the appropriate committees.

27. The members of the Constitutional Committee, as noted, are

appointed by the International President from among the delegates

“elected at an official meeting of a Local Union or by referendum

ballot election, after the Call for the International Convention is

received and has been read to the Local Union.” (Article VI, Sec-

tion 10).

28. The Steelworkers adopts a Constitution at each of its bian-

nual Conventions. The initial action with respect to amendments

or revisions to the Constitution takes place within the Constitutional

Committee. That body receives all resolutions submitted by Local

Unions and any recommendations of the International Executive

Board concerning suggested amendments to the Constitution. The

Committee then discusses, debates and acts upon the proposed

amendments by submitting a report to the Convention recommend-

ing whether the Constitution should or should not be amended with

respect to each of the specific resolutions submitted by any Local

Union or recommended by the International Executive Board. The

report of the Committee does not set forth the reasons for its rec-

ommended actions.

Thereafter, the report of the Committee is presented to the Con-

vention and acted upon by the delegates, with or without debate

as the case may be. The Constitution may be amended only by

majority vote at the Convention (Article XIX).

The meetings of the Constitutional Committee, like all other

Committees which function in connection with the Convention,

are not transcribed. Accordingly, there is no written record of what

discussions were had within the Constitutional Committee either

with respect to the reasons for adopting a meeting attendance rule

initially in 1942 or the subsequent modifications of that rule as de-

scribed below.

The formal Convention proceedings, however, are transcribed

and what follows is a brief description tracing the historic develop-

ment of the meeting attendance rule as reflected in said formal

Convention proceedings,

29. In May 1942 at its first Convention, the Steelworkers adopted

a Constitution. Article VII, Section 9(c) of this Constitution pro-

vided that to be eligible as a candidate for local union office a

member must have

attended at least one-half of the meetings of his local un-

ion for six months prévious to the election unless his union

activities or working hours prevented his attendance.

Article VI, Section 7(b) of the Constitution imposed a similar

requirement on candidates for election as delegates. In the formal

Convention Proceedings no reasons were cited for the meeting at-

tendance requirement to hold local union office and there was no

debate on the issue on the floor.

30. At the 1944 Convention, the meeting attendance require-

ment was amended to provide for attendance at one-half of the

regular meetings of the Local for the six months preceding the elec-

tion. The formal Convention Proceedings show no reasons for this

change and there was no debate on the issue on the floor.

31. At the 1946 Convention, the terms of local union officers

were increased from one year to two years effective June 1946

(1946 Proceedings, pp. 359, 360; 1946 Constitution, Article VII,

Section 8). No change was made in the meeting attendance re-

quirement.

32. At the 1948 Convention, the period of time in which mem-

bers were required to attend one-half (1/2) the meetings preceding

elections was lengthened from six months to twelve months, both

for local union officers and for Convention delegates. The Con-

vention Proceedings relating to these changes are attached hereto

as Exhibit I.

33. At the 1952 Convention, the Constitutional Committee rec-

ommended that the meeting attendance rule be increased from

twelve months to twenty-four months for local union officers to be

effective in local union elections commencing in June 1952. Fol-

lowing debate, the original resolution was withdrawn and rewritten

to provide that the increase in attendance would be effective for

elections subsequent to June 1952. The revised resolution was

adopted by the Convention. The same change was made in the

meeting attendance requirement for delegates. The Convention

Proceedings relating to this proposal are attached hereto as Ex-

hibit J.

34. At the 1956 Convention, a resolution was introduced which

would have required that a member must attend one-half of the

meetings that his working hours did not prevent his attending. No

change in the Constitution resulted. However, there was discus-

sion on the resolution. The Convention Proceedings relating to

this proposal are attached hereto as Exhibit K.

35. At the 1960 Convention, a Local Union submitted a resolu-

tion to amend the Constitution in a manner similar to that sug-

gested in 1956, as described above. No change in the Constitution

resulted. However, there was discussion on the resolution. The

Convention Proceedings relating to this proposal are attached

hereto as Exhibit L.

36. At the 1962 Convention, the term of office for local union

officers was increased from two (2) years to three (3) years to be

effective commencing with the June 1964 elections (Article VII,

Section 8). No change was made in the provisions of the Constitu-

tion dealing with the meeting attendance rule.

37. With respect to the 1964 Convention, attached hereto as

Exhibit M is the statemezt of counsel for defendant, who was pres-

ent, concerning what transpired within the Constitutional Commit-

tee. At the Convention, the meeting attendance rule was amended

to provide that members must have attended one-half (1/2) of the

meetings in the thirty-six (36) months preceding the election, sub-

ject to the exceptions for union business or conflict in working hours

previously in effect. The Convention Proceedings relating to this

amendment are attached hereto as Exhibit N.

38. It is the position of the defendant International that the

meeting attendance requirement as set forth in the International

Constitution, By-Laws for Local Unions and the Local Union Elec-

tions Manual should be retained because it serves a three-fold pur-

pose:

(a) to encourage broad base participation in the affairs of the

union, and to obtain as large a turnout as possible at the meetings

at which the union’s business is conducted;

(b) to attempt to assure that candidates have demonstrated an

interest in and are likely to be concerned with the problems of the

union; and

affairs of the union and are, therefore, sufficiently familiar with its

problems to be able more intelligently vo fulfill the numerous re-

sponsibilities and duties attendant to holding office.

This position was made known to representatives of the Secretary

of Labor by representatives of defendant International prior to the

initiation of this suit.

39. The parties hereby further agree as follows:

(a) Attached hereto as Exhibit O and made a part hereof is a

true copy of the relevant portions of the transcript of testimony of

Herbert J. Lahne, Director of the Division of Research, Labor-

Management Services Administration, United States Department

of Labor, which testimony was adduced at the trial of the case of

George P. Shultz, Secretary of Labor v. Local Union 6799, United

Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, et al., in the United States

District Court for the Central District of California, Civil No.

68-326-EC. The testimony set forth in Exhibit O may be consid-

ered by the Court as though it were oral testimony adduced at the

trial of the cause now before this Court.

(b) Attached hereto as Exhibit P and made a part hereof, is a

chart prepared by Herbert J. Lahne, Director of the Division of

Research, Labor-Management Services Administration, United

States Department of Labor, entitled “Attendance at Union Meet-

ings as a Requirement for Nomination or Election to Local Union

Office, as Provided by National Union Constitutions and Bylaws,

June, 1967.” Exhibit P is a copy of the document received in evi-

dence as Plaintiff's Exhibit 15, in the case of George P. Shultz,

Secretary of Labor v. Local Union 6799, Umited Steelworkers of

America, AFL-CIO, et al., in the United States District Court for

the Central District of California, Civil No, 68-326-EC (Transcript,

po. 305-306).

40. The parties further agree that the following defendants’ ex-

hibits introduced and received in evidence in the mentioned Shultz

v. Local Union 6799, USWA case, are hereby made part of the in-

stant record subject to the plaintiff's right to raise here any legal

objections to their admissibility :

(a) Defendant Exhibit L in the Local Union 6799 case—Hol-

combe letier to the Honorable Robert Kastenmeir (dated February

29, 1960). This exhibit is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and

marked Exhibit Q.

(b) Defendant Exhibit N in the Local Union 6799 case—Mer-

rick letter to the Honorable Jonathan Bingham (dated November

25, 1966). This exhibit is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and

marked Exhibit R.

ler letter to Senator Javits (dated December 5, 1966). This ex-

hibit is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit S.

(d) Defendant Exhibit T in the Local Union 6799 case—ex-

cerpts from U. S, Department of Labor LMRDA Interpretative

Manual, to wit: Sections 422.205, 422.206, 422.208, 422.250. This

exhibit is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked Ex-

hibit T.

It is further stipulated and agreed that each party reserves the

right to present additional evidence at the trial.

DATED: April 27, 1973.

WituaM J. Kivsere, Solicitor of Labor

Herman Grant, Regional Solicitor

ALAN M. Serwer, Attorney

Attorneys for Peter J. Brennan,

Secretary of Labor, United States

Department of Labor,

Plaintiff.

A. E, Lawson

Attorney for Defendants

EXHIBIT D

Members eligible to run for office with 18 meetings or more.

C, Jett 251 R. Erickson 682 M. Mahoney 1040

J. Krischak 268 G. Layman 617 R. Satz 1075

D. Ross 339 W. Uzzell 622 V. Batson 1030

B King 319 C. Hoffman 683 E. Debney 1050

&. Frye 363 P. Eickelman 800 J. L. Powell 1203

R. Dayhuff 549 R. Forsythe 859 F. Blade 1244

R. Brown 521 C, Kennedy 966

J. Powell 560 H. McCloud 902

Members having attended 15 to 18 meetings.

B. Scank 227 15 W.Larue524 16 _ B. Brackall605 16

EXHIBIT E

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA

ELECTION OF OFFICERS AND

COMMITTEEMEN

LOCAL UNION 3489

President (Vote for one) Guard

Willis Uzzell ......--5+ 0 Roy Erickson .......+++ 0

Russell Forsythe .......- =)

Bernard Frye ...++++++: C) Trustees (Vote for three)

Robert Brown ......... CJ

Vice President Chester Hoffman ....... oO

Paul Eikelman ......... = Richard Dayhuff a ia c

Fred Blade ........++++ Oo

Recording Secreiary

Sau ey seereees 0 Grievance Committee

Financial Secretary (Vote for five)

Gerald Layman ere OC) Fred Blade .......+005: CO

Ed Debney .....++0+++: 0

Treasurer Russell Forsythe ........ oO

Don Rogs .....eeeeeeee oO Mike Mahoney .........

Bill King ......++++065 oO

Guide Bernard Frye ......+++: CJ

Wayne Larue .......+++ CJ James Powell ........++- CJ

EXHIBIT F

TITLE IV—filed 6-23-70 in regards to the Election of 6-22-70.

Copy of Original sent to Local Union,

1. There was no booths to have a “secret ballot”, that the men

had to use the walls, chairs, tables and anything else, with men next

to them knowing how they voted, thus leading to intimidation of

the Voters.

2. That “reasonable requests for distribution of campaign litera-

ture’ could not in most cases be made, because equal rights of the

candidates did not exist Reason: new candidates know nothing of

about the rules in the Local Union Election Manual, Only the old

candidates or incumbents had said copies. In fact, there were, ac-

cording to the Recording Secretary, only four said books for the en-

tire membership outside of the officers.

3. That only the incumbent officers had access to lists of mem-

bers, thus discrimination in favor of the incumbents and discrimi-

nation against new candidate. Reason: No knowledge was given,

because of lack of Local Union elections Manuals.

4. That because of the lack of the Local Union election Manual,

new candidates did not have the equal knowledge of the right to

inspect a “list containing the names and last known addresses of all

members’,

5. The Local Union did not make “adequate safe guards to in-

sure a fair election”. (Ballots were placed in the center of the table

where one took his own Ballot).

6. I was refused the right to have an observer at the polls, and

also at the counting of the Ballots, on the grounds that I did not

tell them in time. Title IV does not contain a time limit for having

an observer named.

7. That the requirement to have attended 18 meetings was

unreasonable because it disqualified all members (550 strong) ex-

cept 22 members, when there was a total of 15 positicns to be filled.

8. That approximately (. 51) members on lay-off status were not

given equal and reasonable notification of the nomination held

May 17, 1970 (working members were sent a special Post Card).

9, That approximately (151) members on lay-off status were not

given equal and reasonable notification of the election held June

22, 1970, thus not giving them equal rights to Vote.

10. That the election was not held in accordance with the Con-

a Sy ee

stitution and By-Laws of the Local Union, the Local Union Elec-

tion Manual does state that the Nominations would be held at the

meeting immediately preceding the election. We had a meeting the

day before the elections which was a violation of our own Manual.

11. That the Tellers did let candidates and members loiter at the

Polling Place even though one Teller states he knew of the require-

ments in our Manual which states we can’t loiter. This caused in-

timidation of the Voters because they were forced to mark their

ballots in front of all present.

12. That the elections was held on Monday, which gave the in-

cumbent an edge over the other candidates, thus not giving equal

opportunity.

13. That a Veteran who had been back to work for eight months

was not permitted to run for office even though he was nominated

because he didn’t have 18 meetings in.

14. That the Tellers did refuse to let William Field, a member

in good standing, on Lay-off, to vote and only after appealing it to

the International Representative Rust Dollars, was he permitted to

cast his Vote.

15. That the Local Union President and the International Rep-

resentative did state at three monthly meetings, the last being June

21, 1970 the day before the election, that the men on lay-off had

no right to vote.

16, That there were several meetings held at the Local (4-12

shift) which the attendance was not taken because of lack of ten

members to have said meeting even though it was to be a continu-

ous meeting. Day shift having the other half of the meeting, thus

men were not able to meet the requirement of 18 meetings,

17, That sometimes there was no guard on the attendance

Records ledger, thus permitting members to add extra names if they

so wished,

Therefore, I request New Nominations and New Elections be

held, and that the unreasonable requirement of 18 meetings be

dropped in this particular case.

Respectfully requested,

s/ Bernarp G, Frye

1304 South 7th

Terre Haute, Indiana 47802

EXHIBIT G

° 1304 South 7th

Terre Haute, Indiana 47802

July 19, 1970

(Enclosure of Charges)

International Executive Board

United Steelworkers of America

1500 Commonwealth Building

Pittsburgh, Pa, 15222

Dear Sir and Brether:

It is my unpleasant task to request of your Board to call new

nominations and election for my Local 3489 (Steelworkers).

Dear Brother, I have, to the best of my ability, followed the Local

Union elections Manual. On Page (31) thirty-one of the above

said Manual, it states, “All protests . . . must be filed in writing

with the Local Union prior to the membership meeting at which

the report of the election committee is read.”

At our Local Union meeting, held July 19, 1970, the election

committee report was read and also my protest of the election dated

June 23, 1970, Registered letter #24300, Also additional charges

filed July 14, 1970, Registered letter #64129 were read.

The Local Union, after I requested new nominations and new

election be held, entered into its minutes the following: “Objection

by C. Jetl, that such an action is not called for until after facts are

considered and studied before any action can be taken.” No addi-

tional action was taken, 1 was not permitted to give my side of the

matter, and was called out of order. The International Representa-

tive was present and rendered no help in my effort to give the facts.

Therefore, I appeal the decision of our Local and ask your Board

to call for Nominations and election be held over again for Local

3489,

Fraternally,

s/ B. Frve

EXHIBIT M

APPENDIX

In THE

Supreme Court of the United States

Ocroser Term, 1970

No. 655

James D. Hoposon, Secretary of Labor,

Petitioner,

Locat Union 6799, United Steelworkers of America,

AFL-CIO, et al.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals

For the Ninth Circuit

Petition for Certiorari Filed September 4, 1970

Certiorari Granted December 7, 1970

(392) MR. GOTTESMAN: Then I would offer a stipulation

that if I were—and we have discussed this among counsel—that if I

were called as a witness I would testify as follows: I was present

at the conventions of the International Union, United Steelworkers

of Ainerica, in 1962 and in 1964.

That the Union holds its conventions every other year. And

that prior to the 1962 convention the term of office provided in the

Constitution for Local Union officers was two years.

That at the 1962 convention the delegates voted to change the

term of office to three years and that became effective with what

was the next election thereafter, namely, the 1964 election.

In the 1962 convention no change was made in the provision of

the Constitution dealing with meeting [393] attendance. At that

time that provision stated that a member had to have attended 12—

I guess one-half of the meetings during the preceding 24 months.

At the 1964 convention I served as counsel to the Constitution

Committee of the convention. The International Officers had not

recommended any change in the constitutional provision dealing

with meeting attendance,

However, from the floor of the Constitution Committee a num-

ber of delegates proposed that that provision be changed so that it

was co-terminus with the new term of o. namely, three years.

Therefore, it recites the number of meetings that had to be at-

tended was one-half of 36.

The Chairman of the Constitution Committee, who was a mem-

ber of the International’s Executive Board, stated that in his judg-

ment that change was not required.

However, the delegates, when they voted upon it in the Consti-

tution Committee, voted that the change should be made or at

least should be recommended to the floor of the convention as a

whole. The majority so voted. The Constitution Committee made

that recommendation to the convention as a whole and it was

adopted by the convention as a whole.

So that beginning with the 1964 Constitu- [394] tion the provi-

sion has appeared that the meeting attendance requirement is one-

half of 36 meetings.

Since the ‘64 convention took place, after the 1964 elections,

the first elections which were run under the new half of 36 require-

ment were those which were run in 1967,

I might add for clarity that all of the Local Unions in the Steel-

workers elect at the same time, namely, in June of a year designated

in the Constitution. So that in June of 1967 all of its Local Unions

were conducting elections.

I offer that if called I would have so testified.

MRS. JANAVS: So stipulated. We have no cross examination

as to this testimony.

EXHIBIT N

Article Vil, Section 9—Page 47

There were 29 resolutions dealing with eligibility requirements.

Three (3) resolutions would tighten eligibility requirements so

that members on the 3 to 11, and the 4 to 12 shifts must attend at

least six (6) Local Union meetings.

Two (2) resolutions will permit absence from Local Union meet-

ing due to vacation to be an allowable reason for non-attendance.

Eleven (11) resolutions would request that a member, who is

normally excused from attending a meeting because he is working,

will get credit for such meeting if he makes his request in writing.

Four (4) resolutions would make ineligible for office those mem-

bers who performed supervisory functions in the 24-month period

prior to election.

One (1) resolution would require that attendance credits be ac-

quired prior to the time of nomination instead of election.

Five (5) resolutions would require attendance at one-half of reg-

ular meetings “for the 24 months prior to June elections that his

working hours or Union activities permit.”

Two (2) resolutions would require attendance at one-half of the

regular meetings for 36 months instead of 24 months previous to

the Local Union elections.

The Committee non-concurs in the firs: twenty-seven (27) reso-

lutions but does concur in the last two resol:itions requiring attend-

ance at one-half ('/.) of the regular meetings for 36 months pre-

vious to the Local Union elections. The Committee also recom-

mends a date change on line 28 from “June, 1964” to “June, 1967.”

Section 9, page 47, line 25, paragraph (c), will then read:

“(c). He has attended at least one-half (%) of the regular

meetings of his Local Union for thirty-six (36) months previous to

the June 1967 election, unless his Union activities or working hours

prevented his attendance.”

Committee Secretary Carcella: The Committee recommends its

adoption.

. . . The recommendation of the Committee was adopted.

EXHIBIT O

THE WITNESS: Herbert J. Lahne, L-a-h-n-e.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DONOGHUE:

Q. By whom are you employed?

A. U.S. Department of Labor.

Q. What is your present position?

A. I am Director of Division of Research, Labor-Management

Services Administration.

Q. How long have you held this position?

A. Under different organizational setups since 1959.

Q. What type of work does this Division perform?

A. We do research in the field of Union structure, administra-

tion, welfare, pension plans and anything [304] that is requested by

the Assistant Secretary under whose supervision we happen to be.

Q. This includes work in connection with the Labor-Manage-

ment Reporting Disclosure Act?

A. It does.

MR. DONOGHUE: Your Honor, we have attached to the list

of plaintiff's witnesses a summary of Mr. Lahne’s experience and

educational background.

At this time to avoid any delay, we would like to offer that as an

MRS. JANAVS: 19.

MR. DONOGHUE: 19.

MR. GOTTESMAN: No objection.

THE COURT: 19 is ordered in evidence.

(Document marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit 19 was received in evi-

dence. )

MR. DONOGHUE: At this time, your Honor, I would like

to move that Mr. Lahne be qualified as an expert in labor relations.

THE COURT: Any objection.

MR. GOTTESMAN: Your Honor, I’m not sure what an expert

in labor relations is.

We will certainly stipulate Mr. Lahne is an expert in those areas

in which his qualifications, as described in Plaintiff's Exhibit 19,

relate.

[305] THE COURT: Very well. All right. You may proceed.

MR. DONOGHUE: I would like at this time to have marked

as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 15 a chart showing a study of 72 National

Constitutions.

THE COURT: Very well. 15 for identification,

(Document was marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 15 for identification. )

MR. DONOGHUE: May that be handed to Mr. Lahne,

please?

(Exhibit placed before the witness. )

BY MR. DONOGHUE:

Q. Mr. Lahne, referring to Plaintiff's Exhibit for identification

15, could you identify this document and tell us what it is?

A. Yes, sir. This document was prepared under my direct super-

vision in my office, and as the title indicates it shows for 72 Na-

tional Unions the provisions in those Union Constitutions relating

to attendance requirements as a qualification for nomination or

election to Local office. The date is shown as of June 1967.

Q. That is the date of the election in question?

A. That is what I understand.

{306} MR. DONOGHUE: I would move now, your Honor, that

Plaintiff's Exhibit 15 be admitted.

MR. GOTTESMAN: No objection.

THE COURT: 15 is ordered in evidence.

(Document marked Plaintiff’s Exhibit 15 was received in evi-

dence. )

BY MR. DONOGHUE:

Q. Now, Mr. Lahne, would you explain in your own words ex-

actly what the chart shows?

A. Yes. This chart in its first column at the left gives the name of

the Union in a short form.

The second column gives the date of the provisions analyzed,

which are in effect as of June 1967.

The third column shows the number of members in each of the

Unions so named.

The last two columns show the attendance requirements in each

of these Unions, if there are any such requirements.

There are two columns, the two last columns show the number

or percentage of meetings which is specified in the Constitution to

be required, and the last column shows the number of months over

which that attendance must be achieved.

Looking at the—do you want me to point out the various high-

lights of the table at the present [307] time in terms of what it

shows?

Of the 72 National Unions here, which comprise 90 per cent of

the Union membership in the country, of these 72 56 of these

Unions, with 68 per cent of the membership, have no provisions

requiring attendance at meetings to be eligible to run for office.

Four of the Unions, with 7 per cent of the Union membership,

give the Local Union an option as to whether or not they have a

meeting attendance requirement.

And just 12 of the Unions, with 25 per cent of the membership,

have a mandatory provision requiring candidates for Local offices—

THE COURT: You said 25 per cent?

THE WITNESS: 25 per cent of the membership, yes, sir. 12

Unions, with 25 per cent of the total membership, have provisions

which require—

THE COURT: Mandatory?

THE WITNESS: —attendance at meetings. Now, these re-

quirements vary somewhat, but I will just refer to the period of time

required to fulfill the requirement.

Of the 12 Unions, four of them allow the requirement to be ful-

filled in six months. Two of them have the requirement subject to

fulfillment in one year. [308] Three of them provide a two-year

period over which the requirement must be fulfilled. And two of

them specify that there is a three-year period.

THE COURT: Is this one of them, the Local here?

THE WITNESS: The Steelworkers is one of the three-year

Unions.

THE COURT: One of the two—

THE WITNESS: I’m on three years now. Four of them are

six months.

THE COURT: Yes, I understand that. Two with a year, three

with two years and two are three years.

THE WITNESS: Two are three years.

THE COURT: Now, I asked you—

THE WITNESS: The Steelworkers is one of those two for

three years.

THE COURT: All right. What about the other ones?

THE WITNESS: There is one left, and that is the Boilermak-

ers. They don’t specify the period. They simply say that the mem-

ber must attend such meetings as the Local By-Laws require. That

accounts for the 12 Unions which are on this table as having man-

datory requirements.

[309] MR. DONOGHUE: We have no further questions at this

time, your Honor.

THE COURT: Very well.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. GOTTESMAN:

Q. Mr. Lahne, do I correctly understand that this table shows

only those provisions that appear in the Constitutions of Interna-

tional Unions?

A. That is correct.

Q. In compiling this table, was that the only source which was

looked to?

A. That is correct.

Q. In other words, if the Union has a standard By-Laws, which

are to become binding on each of its Local Unions, which is a doc-

ument separate from its Constitution, that was not looked at—

A. I’m sorry. I would like to correct that.

We looked at all the documents. We considered that those stand-

ard By-Laws are part of the National Constitutions.

Also I might say these Constitutions were submitted under the

requirements of the Landrum-Griffin Act, with which I am sure

you are familiar. In some cases the Constitution itself was submitted

for an earlier [310] year and supplemented by the annual reports

that these Unions are required to make. So that in some cases it is

a combination document, a printed Constitution plus the annual

report which the Union is required to make when it changes its

Constitution.

In other words, the Union may not choose to reprint the entire

Constitution, say, in 1967 when it has only one change over 1965.

So we use the 1965 Constitution, plus the documents submitted to

the Department of Labor indicating the change in 1967.

Q. Now, Mr. Lahne, you did not in preparing this table look at

any provisions which appear in Local Unions’ own Constitutions

or By-Laws?

A. We did not.

Q. This is a chart that deals with eligibility requirements for

Local Union elections, is that not right?

A. That is correct,

Q. Having in mind your position as an expert in this field, you

do know that there are at least some Local Unions that provide such

requirements in their own By-Laws?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Did you make any effort to ascertain how many Local

Unions having how much membership have their provisions in their

own By-Laws?

[311] <A. I did not.

Q. Do you have any basis to make an estimate as to how many

Local Unions?

A. You mean of the total Local Unions in the country?

Q. Yes.

A. Only my some 30 years looking at Local Union Constitutions

in other connections and dealing with Local Unions, speaking to

Local Union members and officers.

Q. No systematic effort has been made to determine—

A. No systematic effort has been made to tabulate the total

number of Local Union Constitutions, which is in the neighborhood

of 45,000—I’m sorry, there are some 45,000 Local Unions, and

there has been no systematic tabulation by anyone of the require-

ments in these Constitutions in this regard.

THE COURT: Then of the 68 per cent of the membership,

wherein the International does not provide for any attendance re-

quirement qualifications for running for office, we don’t know

whether—maybe all of those Local Unions do provide for it and

maybe none of them do, we don’t know.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, that is correct, we do not

know the exact—an exact figure. It [312] is entirely possible some

have them and some do not.

BY MR. GOTTESMAN:

Q. Now, I gather that means then for each International Union

which appears on this chart, with a little dash, signifying no provi-

sion in its International Constitution, that we are provided no knowl-

edge as to how many, whether it be none, some or all of its Local

Unions have on their own adopted a meeting attendance require-

ment?

A. That is correct.

Q. Am I correct also in understanding that the only eligibility

requirement with which this chart deals is meeting attendance?

A. Correct.

Q. Are there other provisions that appear in the Constitutions of

some or all of the Unions here, which also qualifies the right of the

members to run for office in the Union?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Would you say at least some such provision appears in the

Constitutions of all the 56 Unions which do not have a meeting at-

tendance requirement?

A. I don’t understand your question. Some such what?

Q. Are there at least some eligibility require-[313] ments, other

than simply being a member of the Union?

A. Yes, there are. There are some requirements which are prac-

tically universal in Union Constitutions.

Q. Now, are there some requirements in at least some of these

Constitutions which are intended to serve purposes comparable to

those you understand the meeting attendance requirement to serve?

THE COURT: Let’s find out first what he understands the

meeting requirement—

THE WITNESS: I was just about to—

BY MR. GOTTESMAN:

Q. All right. Can you tell us, from your experience in this field,

what you understand to be the purpose of the meeting attendance

requirement?

A. As I understand, the Union’s position as to meeting attend-

ance requirement—I am not referring only to the Steelworkers but

to other Unions which have it, and even the Unions that don’t

have it who have discussed with me the desirability or undesirability

of having it-—there is the understanding or let us say the hopeful

belief that attendance at meetings makes a member acquainted

with Union affairs, so that if he desires to run for office he will have

some knowledge of Union affairs and Union problems.

[314] THE COURT: Now, then your next question,

BY MR, GOTTESMAN:

Q. The next question is, are there Unions on this list who have

provisions other than meeting attendance provisions which are in-

tended to serve that same purpose, namely, to assure we have offi-

cers who have some knowledge and familiarity with Union affairs?

A. Well, it is a little hard to answer the question the way you

put it.

If I may refer to the universal, practically universal qualifications

for holding Union office, some of these might be so construed.

For example, that a member be—a person be a member of a

Local for at least one year is virtually a universal requirement.

Now, | suppose the answer there would be that this could be in-

tended to serve the same purpose,

The second virtually universal requirement is the requirement

that the member be in good standing, There is one which is not as

universal but very common, that the member be employed at the

trade, This is especially true in craft Unions,

I think there may be one or two others, but there are about three

possibly four qualifications which are universal among the Unions,

(315) As to the meeting attendance, as—I'm speaking of Na-

tional Constitutions—it is not that common, There are other un-

common ones, for example, prior office holding is an uncommon

requirement, a very rare requirement; more rare than even the

meeting attendance requirement.

Q. But there are some International Unions that have a prior

office holding requirement?

A. I think there are only two,

Q. Are those two on this list? |

A, Let me see, now, The Maritime Union was one and, of

course, that case was litigated and the Maritime Union has now

removed that provision, or at least—

Q. At the time of this election?

A. June '67. I guess that is true at the time of June '67, they

did,

The Garment Workers have such a provision but it is rather

qualified, It can be avoided by attending a training school in lieu

of holding prior office. I think those are the only two offhand, I

haven't memorized all the Constitutions of all Unions.

Q. To your knowledge are there any other provisions designed

to assure qualifications, other than meeting attendance and these

two you just mentioned and [316] those you have mentioned

earlier?

A. There are, for example, some Unions have a citizenship re-

quirement, There are—in addition to positive requirements there

are negative aspects, For example, criminals, Communists—

THE COURT: He is talking about requirements that-—

THE WITNESS: Which qualify a person positively, in the

affirmative sense.

THE COURT: No. He is talking about requirements from

which you could conclude the Union was insisting that the candi-

dates have an acquaintance with the Union business.

THE WITNESS: I see. Yes, in that sense I think I have men-

tioned only those—period of membership in the Local is the pri-

mary one,

THE COURT: Te there any requirement as to the period of

time the man must belong to the Union?

THE WITNESS: I think that was litigated in one case where

the time was five years and the Court considered that to be too long

for a Local office.

THE COURT: There was nothing indicated as to what the

Court felt was a reasonable period of membership?

THE WITNESS: I believe the Court at that [317] time indi-

cated that—I can only go by my memory—lI think three years. I

think the Court said possibly two or three years might be accept-

able, but the Court didn’t lay down any rule, but they felt five

years was too long.

THE COURT: There has been no litigation of this period—of

any period with respect to the attendance of meetings?

THE WITNESS: Oh, yes, there has been litigation on that. I

assume our attorneys will cite all the cases.

Actually, the meeting attendance—in the Glass Bottle Blower

cases. There are several of those.

BY MR, GOTTESMAN;

Q. Those cases involved a provision, I think, on your chart that

the Local required attendance of 75 per cent of the meetings?

A. In three years. Yes, I believe—

THE COURT: And that was held to be too severe?

THE WITNESS: Yes, The period of time,—

THE COURT: Wasn't it 75 per cent that was held to be un-

reasonable?

THE WITNESS: Sometimes, your Honor, if you will excuse

me, it is just a little hard to know just-—

(318) THE COURT: Did the Court say the three-year period

was excessive?

THE WITNESS: It was 75 per cent two years and the Court

simply said it was unreasonable. I don’t remember any other de-

tails from the decision.

THE COURT; All right,

THE WITNESS: It may be that—

THE COURT: There is an exhibit already in here—I don't

have the number of it-which refers to that case and says 75 per

cent,

MR. GOTTESMAN;: Defendant's xhibit T, I believe, your

Honor,

THE COURT;

“The Court concluded that the requirement of 75% at-

tendance at Union meetings was too high when combined

with a strict rule regarding excused absences which permitted

a member to be excused only when he was required to work

on the job while the meeting was being held. The Court also

stated that a rule which, as in this case, limits the eligible

group to 2.2% of the membership seems to be too harsh.”

That certainly makes good sense, so far as I am concerned.

[319] Q. —to your knowledge has any Court ever held a 50 per

cent meeting attendance rule invalid?

(320) A. I don’t recall any, But I will have to say again here—

[323] Q. Just one last question. As I look at this and look at the

rankings of the Unions in the order of their members, am I correct

in noting that the largest, the third largest and the fifth largest of

the Unions on your table have a meeting attendance requirement

of one form or another in the International Constitution?

I'm referring to the Teamsters, Steelworkers and I believe it is

the Machinists.

A. Well, I haven't examined that. The [324] Teamsters and

the Steelworkers, of course, I know to have a requirement. The

Machinists have a Local option.

MR. GOTTESMAN; I have no further questions.

THE COURT: Anything further?

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DONOGHUE:

Q. Mr. Lahne, could you tell the Court why you looked at

National Constitutions and not Local Union Constitutions?

A. Because it was a National Union Constitution provision

which was involved in this case.

Q. Based upon your expert opinion, would you think it would

be likely for a Local Union Constitution to contain a meeting at-

tendance requirement as a qualification of their right to be a can-

didate, absent a mandatory provision in a National Constitution?

A. I would think that only a minority of Local Unions will have

such a provision if it is not required by the National Constitution.

Q. In your opinion, would you say attendance at Union meetings

is necessary in order for a member to become knowledgeable about

the affairs of the Union?

(325) THE WITNESS: Yes, my opinion on the meeting attend-

ance rule, I might say, might not necessarily be that of the Secretary

of Labor,

My opinion on a meeting attendance rule just happens to coin-

cide with the Secretary's but for different reasons. I believe the

meeting attendance rule is not necessary to give the member a

knowledge of what transpires in the Union and what the Union's

problems are, in order to become a better officer.

BY MR, DONOGHUE:

Q. Could you tell us what other ways are available, based on

your knowledge and experience, as to how they gain this knowl-

edge?

A. Union members secure a great deal of (326) knowledge by

Union affairs and problems within the Union, issues within the

Union, through the talk that goes on in the shop, at the work place

and away from the work place, about Union affairs,

Union meetings, as they are presently constituted, especially in

Unions with anywhere from a couple of hundred members up to

many thousands, tend not to be town hall type meetings but rather

to be delegate type meetings unofficially.

Those whose offices in the Union or activity in the Union, such

as shop delegate, committeemen, informal leaders in the shop, those

who go to the meetings report back to the shop and are expected

to and are questioned by people in the shop about what went on

in the Union,

I might say this is a subject on which I wrote an entire article,

which is listed in the sheet which the Court has, which received a

prize from the American Psychological Association, as the best study

of the relationship of psychological factors to industrial matters, and

it has been cited hundreds of times and reprinted hundreds of times.

THE COURT: Mr. Lahne, the fact that there might be a bet-

ter way to acquaint the members with the business of the Union—

when I say “better’’ I mean [327] better than requiring meeting

attendance—let's assume, for the purposes of discussion, that there

is a better way to do it,

It doesn't necessarily follow their requirement of meeting at-

tendance as a means of accomplishing that purpose is unreasonable.

THE WITNESS: No, there are many—

THE COURT: There are different ways.

THE WITNESS: There are different ways.

THE COURT: And you might think and I might agree with

you that one or two ways were better, it still wouldn't make the

meeting attendance unreasonable 1 e requirement was such

as specified in these cases, if the reqhjrement were such that it made

it so onerous and made it so difficult Yor the membership to comply

with it that it would be deemed unreasonable,

THE WITNESS: Yes. I would say there are several ways of

doing it and the informal way appears to be the most prevalent,

since most Unions do not require you have a meeting attendance’

rule, they find—at least they believe and I know of no evidence

that Unions with a meeting attendance rule get any better officers

or are any better governed than those without such rules,

So there are these several ways, The vast majority of the Unions

have preferred to rely upon [328) these other ways, rather than

upon meeting attendance.

THE COURT: Now, there are 68 per cent we don’t know

what the Locals do, aren't there?

THE WITNESS: In terms of an exact survey that is correct.

THE COURT: You feel the minority of them that would

have—

THE WITNESS: The small minority would have the meeting

attendance rule.

BY MR. DONOGHUE:

Q. Would you tell the Court what you would say are the quali-

fications universally found in Constitutions?

A. I think we went through this. Good standing, a period of

membership in the Local, these are the two which are most fre-

quent,

Q. In your opinion would you say that a member who met the

universal qualifications is more qualified or less qualified than a

person who has to attend a certain amount of meetings to qualify

as a candidate?

A. I wouldn't say he was more or less. I would say, depending

upon his interest in finding out about Union affairs, whether he

attends a meeting or not, if he meets these universal qualifications

he is on a par with everyone else.

[329] Q. Based upon your experience do you find that Unions

that have these meeting attendance requirements as qualifications

has increased attendance at Union meetings?

A. No, they have not. As a matter of fact, it appears practically

nothing, your Honor, which can increase on any permanent basis

the low attendance at normal routine Local meetings.

From door prizes—TI have been places where the meeting lasted

just long enough to say, “There's beers at the back” and the at-

tendance was no better than at the place where they had fines put

on attendance, where they had meeting attendance requirements for

eligibility, except in crises times of contract negotiations and elec-

tion of officers if they are hotly contested. Meeting attendance at

Local meetings runs along on the low plane.

MR. DONOGHUE; I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Anything further?

RECROSS EXAMINATION a,

BY MR. GOTTESMAN:

Q. Mr, Lahne, I don’t want to challenge your qualifications.

Are you certain provision of beer has no effect on meeting attend-

ance?

(330) A. Well, there weren't many more people there at that

meeting and it happened to be a meeting of rough and tough guys,

Operating Engineers. This one | happen to remember was in Bal-

timore, I didn’t realize until the middle of the meeting that this

Local was under trusteeship. No one mentioned it at the begin-

ning of the meeting.

But I had gone to another meeting in the same city just the day

before and there wasn’t much difference in attendance.

Q. You stated as your view that you don’t think meeting at-

tendance is a particularly good way to assure qualifications or that

it is a necessary way?

A. It is not a necessary way. It is not necessary to qualifications.

I don’t say it is not one of the ways.

Q. That was going to be my next question.

There are reasonable men, are there not, that concede that there

is a relationship between meeting attendance and quai fications,

who see it differently than you do in that respect, one of © ‘om is

Secretary of Labor, at least, in his Interpretive Manual?

A. I am free to disagree with the Secretary.

Q. Pardon me?

A. I am free to disagree with the Secretary.

(331) THE COURT: He is asking you if you do in this regard.

THE WITNESS: Well, as a matter of fact, until you read that

exhibit I was unaware the Secretary had taken that position.

BY MR. GOTTESMAN;:

Q. Well, based on the position as expressed in that Manuel that

was read in court yesterday, are you in disagreement with the posi-

tion stated there?

A. If you will give =. “he exact language I will be glad to state

my disagreement.

MR. GOTTESMAN: Would the clerk give the witness Exhibit

T, and maybe another one or two.

THE COURT: I think it was one of the wasn’t it?

MR. GOTTESMAN: One of the | ay *Also Ex-

hibit Q.

THE WITNESS: Let's se, 1 have Rabtble 1 here. ~

THE COURT: T and Q.

MR. GOTTESMAN: I believe it is T. It has an “H” ~~

*T”’ on the bottom.

THE WITNESS: That is correct. Which part are you referring

to of this exhibit?

(332) BY MR. GOTTESMAN:

Q. The second paragraph relating to the 50 per cent, the two

years meetings. The second marginal numbered paragraph.

A. Yes, I disagree with the Secretary.

Q. Thus far, as I have understood your testimony, you have

talked about your views about the necessity for fulfilling one of the

functions of the meeting attendance rule, or, at least, one function,

namely, having more qualified officers.

Let me suggest to you some other possible justifications for it and

tell me whether you think these are equally unreasonable or less un-

reasonable or not unreasonable at all.

Might not an International Union have as one of the objectives

in requiring such a provision the desire to have a system of checks

and balances, whereby those who are, in fact, dissatisfied with the

performance of the incumbent officers, and who would be inclined

to run against them, would be motivated by the meeting attendance

rule to actually attend the meetings and therefore have a check

on what the incumbent officers are doing by the mere fact they are

there?

A. Now, what does your question relate to?

Q. The question is, is that an unreasonable [333] reason for the

Union to have a meeting attendance requircment?

A. It might be a given reason but I don’t see it as a valid reason.

Very often dissatisfaction is expressed by non-attendance at meet-

ings.

Q. Isn’t it true that very often dissatisfaction is also expressed by

attendance at meetings?

A. That is true. But, as I say, dissatisfaction, a feeling it is use-

less to go to a meeting, for example, because you are not allowed to

talk. The women especially have been known and in my presence

have walked out of meetings where altercations have started, and

there is no doubt about their dissatisfaction with the Union, but

they will not attend the meeting.

Q. You are not suggesting that in the Locals of the Steelwork-

ers

A. I am not suggesting as to any particular Local.

Q. I want to be clear. Assuming that, in fact, it is not the history

of Steelworkers Local Unions, or this one, that members are not al-

lowed to talk or altercations are common at the meetings, so that

those barriers to an opponent desiring to attend are removed?

A. I would say there is a little of this in practically every Union

one place or another.

[334] Q. I am not asking for a confirmation that we are pure

and wholesome, but I am asking whether with these barriers re-

moved there is, in fact, some reason for an International Union to

desire that?

THE COURT: He has already testified that attendance is not

an unreasonable requirement to assure acquaintance with business.

He has already testified to that, in answer to my question, so there

is no reason to go into great detail about this, and conduct a labori-

ous examination on this. I mean he has admitted that.

He thinks there are other ways that are better, but he say that

this is a reasonable way.

Isn’t that what your testimony has been?

THE WITNESS: Well, I would say, your Honor, it is a reason-

able way if it is not too restrictive.

THE COURT: Of course, if it is not too restrictive. That goes

along with it. That was included in my question.

THE WITNESS: I might philosophically, even if a hundred per

cent of the members qualified under the rule, I would still, as a mat-

ter of making elections as unrestrictive as possible, not personally

care for the rule.

THE COURT: Why, surely, I can under-[335] stand that.

You have indicated that.

MR. GOTTESMAN: I have no further questions.

EXHIBIT P

LEGEND

This table shows, for 72 national unions, representing 89 per cent

of the total union membership, which national unions do or do not

require attendance at local union meetings as a prerequisite to nomi-

nation or election to local union office. The date is as of June 1967,

the date of the election in this case. Where no figures or footnote’

appear on any line, it indicates that the national union constitution

has no meeting attendance requirement of any kind—either op-

tional or mandatory.

Attendance at Union Meetings as a Requirement for Nomination

or Election to Local Union Office, as Provided by National

Union Constitutions and Bylaws, June 1967?

§% Attendance requirements ¢

National union 2 3 ; _— Number or Number

= stg yon of

=) mouths

TD ccncddcacvecoesenetedeénse 72 17,059 a Sa OO

Constitutions with provision ..... 16 5,476 Cocco 16 oce0)

Actors & Artists ........0eccecceee 6/65 62 ae _

Ret WOEREED ccccccccccccccccese 4/67 1,403 a —

1 This table includes all national unions covered by the Labor-Man-

agement Reporting and Disclosure Act having more than 40,000 mem-

bers as listed in the Directory of National and International Labor Un-

ions in the United States, 1967, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin

No. 1596, 1968, and having 1 or more affiliated local unions filing un-

der the LMRDA. Bulletin No. 1596 does not report membership for

the United Mine Workers (Ind.) ; however, this union is included on

the basis of its membership reported in the Directory of National and

International Labor Unions in the United States, 1963, Bureau of

Labor Statistics, Bulletin No. 1395, May 1964. The constitutions ana-

lyzed are those in effect in June 1967, according to reports required

under LMRDA that were filed with the Department of Labor.

(See page 48 for footnotes)

§ Se

National union 2 62 38 Number or Number

= 2 HE per cent of of

Q ZED _ meetings months

Bakery & Confectionery Workers .... 8/66 83 ~- _

Bakery & Confectionery Workers (Ind.) 10/65 61 oa —_

PEED eo cecececoese - ceesseeescse 1/66 72 = —

PD o.oo ccesauaneeens 5/65 140 (6) 6)

PEED ccoceoscecessécceesses 1/65~ 62 _— _

De VEE cocccccccccoscces 10/65 55 -- —

DED cuseseodtseaceoossesede 9/66 149 = --

BED cnccccconccccesesestece 1/67 800 a _

Chemical Workers ........2..s005: 10/66 93 -= _

Clothing Workers .............++. 5/66 382 os —

Communications Workers .......... 6/66 $321 -- —

District 50-UMW (Ind.) .......... 4/65 232 %50% 6 (N)

Electrical Workers-IBEW .......... 9/66 875 — _

Electrical Workers-IUE ........... 1/67 320 -- a

Electrical Workers-UE (Ind.) ...... 12/65 167 — —

Engineers, Operating ...........+. 4/64 330 Majority 6 (E)

Firemen & Oilers ...........eee00. 5/66 45 — —

Garment Workers Ladies .......... 7/65 455 — —

Glass Bottle Blowers ...........+.. 7/66 68 75% 24 (E)

Glass & Ceramic Workers ......... 9/66 48 733-1/3% 1712(N)

Hotel & Restaurant Employees ..... 7/66 450 — oo

Industrial Workers, Allied ......... 9/65 83 — —_—

SD TERED cccccccdoccecccoccces 1/65 162 _ —

RAR ecccososacesecocccescoes 10/66 475 _— —

Laundry Workers (Ind.) .......... 5/65 63 - —

Lithographers & Photoengravers ... 1/66 53 _ —

Longshoremen ........-eeeeeeeee8 8/63 80 —_ _—

Longshoremen & Warechousemen (Ind.) 4/67 60 _ =

EE cdnncendtsdsesheossose 4/67 836 (8) (8)

Maintenance of Way Employes ..... 7/66 141 _ —-

Marine & Shipbuilding Workers ... 10/66 43 (9) (9)

ee 10/66 45 _ —_—

Be GRIESE cccccccccoccescecsee 7/64 353 _ _

Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers (Ind.)* 10/65 75 — —

Mine Workers, United (Ind.) ...... 10/64 245 %50% 6 (N)

| MPTTTTTTETETT TTT Le 8/66 80 — -_

ee er 9/66 252 — —

Office & Professional Employees .... 6/65 70 — _

(See page 48 for footnotes)

per cent of of

S = meetings months

Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers ... 8/65 165 -- _

Packinghouse, Food & Allied Workers 5/66 135 — os

EEE = cbcocesccacécossoceccves 1/65 201 — _

Papermakers & Paperworkers ....... 10/66 144 — _

BD cceccccccccccoesecceces 1/65 68 — _

DEED cccecccsces esececceecees 1/67 = 285 —_ _

Printing Pressmen ............+++: 1/66 114 _ _

Pulp, Sulphite & Paper Mill Workers 9/65 171 102 6 (E)

Railroad Trainmen ............... 1/65 185 117 36 (E)

Railway Airline & Steamship Clerks.. 8/64 270 — _

Raitway Carmen ........cseseeees 1/64 126 Majority 12 (E)

SD MEE cocccsccccesoceseese 7/63 500 = —

Retail, Wholesale ............+... 5/66 170 os —

EE? WEED cccccceccecoesecs 11/66 170 (12) (12)

GED «co cccescaccsccccsceeces 6/67 80 oo —

Service Me .cccccccccccee SAR 9B os —

Sheet Metal Workers ............ 1/67 100 — _

SD WEED ccccccesoccccsecees 6/67 53 — —

Stage Moving Picture Operators 7/66 62 ae --

State, County, Municipal Employees. 11/66 281 — —-

Beet cccccccccccccceccsese 9/66 993 50% 36 (E) ’

BERGER ccccccccccccesece ecccce - 1/67 125 — _

Deemetee CRE) .ccccccccecceces 10/66 1,651 1%50% 24 (N)

Telephone Unions, Alliance (Ind.).. 6/59 75 a _

Textile Workers-TWU ............ 6/66 182 ae _

Textile Workers-UTW ............ 9/64 47 a —

TEE TEED eosdceecceseesseees 1/66 103 1412 24 (E)

Transport Workers ...........+.++: 5/66 135 (5) (16)

Typographical ........seeeeeeeees 1/67 107 _- _

CED occccccovcceocesccecs 9/66 58 — —_—

Utility Workers ..........eeeeee08 6/67 72 — —

WRENS cecccccecsccceseoese 12/65 — —

(See page 48 for footnotes)

? National unions are identified by short-form titles as used in the

ices Administration, 1968; complete titles are shown on pp. vii-xv of

that publication. National unions are affiliated with the AFL-CIO,

unless identified as Independent (Ind.).

8 Source: Directory of National and International Labor Unions in

the United States, 1967, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin No. 1596,

1968. The 72 national unions included in this table account for ap-

proximately 89 per cent of the membership of all national unions re-

ported in Bulletin No. 1596.

* Attendance requirement shows the number or per cent of meetings

which a member must attend during the prescribed number of months

immediately preceding the nomination (N) or election (E) of local

officers.

5 Member must attend regular meetings of the Lodge as required by

Local Lodge Bylaws to establish eligibility.

® Member must attend 50 per cent of meetings during each month;

if local holds only 1 meeting each month, member must attend all 6

7™ Member must attend 1 meeting per quarter in each of the 4 quar-

ters prior to nomination.

8 Local bylaws may provide an attendance requirement not to exceed

50 per cent of the meetings held in the 12-month period preceding

nominations.

® Local bylaws may require attendance at a minimum of at least 1

meeting per quarter during the 8 calendar quarters preceding the quar-

ter in which nominations are made.

10 Member must not be absent from more than 2 successive meetings.

11 Member must attend at least 2 meetings in each of the 2 years

preceding the year of election, and 3 meetings in the year of election.

12 Local bylaws may provide an attendance requirement not to ex-

ceed 50 per cent of the meetings held in the 12-month period preced-

ing nominations. However, this provision may be suspended by the

Local Union Executive Board prior to nominations upon a proper

showing that there is an insufficient number of members who meet such

attendance requirement.

13 Mandatory for locals which do not have own bylaws. Locals with

own bylaws may provide lesser requirements.

14 Member must attend 6 meetings during each year.

15 Local bylaws may require attendance at a “reasonable” number of

meetings during the period preceding nominations or elections.

* Merged with Steelworkers July 1967.

** Formerly Building Service Employees.

LMSA/OLMPD

February 1969

EXHIBIT Q

February 29, 1960

The Honorable Robert W. Kastenmeier

House of Representatives

Washington 25, D. C.

Dear Congressman Kastenmeier:

This is in further response to your letter of January 19, 1960 in

which you requested information regarding the election eligibility

requirements in the constitution of the International Union of the

United Steelworkers of America. The request for information came

to you from Mr. Elmer Dunkel, 721 North Pair Oaks Avenue,

Madison 4, Wisconsin.

In our opinion, a provision requiring a member to have attended

at least one-half of the regular meetings of his local union for 24

months previous to the election before he may be eligible to hold

office, is not unreasonable if it is applied fairly and uniformly to all

‘members. It might well be unreasonable, however, in circumstances

in which attendance presented an unusual degree of difficulty for a

significant proportion of the membership, as for example, where

the loca] had an extensive geographic jurisdiction. Under the Act,

the question of whether a particular qualification is reasonable rests

with the courts. The Secretary does not have enforcement author-

ity in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Joun L. Ho_comsBe

Commissioner

EXHIBIT R

November 25,1966

Honorable Jonathan Bingham

House of Representatives

Washington, D, C, 20515

Dear Congressman Bingham:

In reply to your inquiry relating to the letter which you received

from Mr, Thomas McAdam I can advise you as follows:

Mr. McAdam filed his complaint with the Secretary of Labor on

May 29, 1966, alleging violations of the Labor-Management Re-

porting and Disclosure Act in connection with the election of offi-

cers of Lodge 1085 of the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of

America.

The complaint was thoroughly investigated by the Office of

Labor-Management and Welfare-Pension Reports; that Office

found no violations of the law which may have affected the out-

come of the election except in the followin, circumstances.

Section 481(¢) of the Act provides that every member in good

standing shall be eligible to be a candidate subject to “reasonable

qualifications uniformly imposed.” Mr. McAdam and most of the

other union members were ineligible to be candidates because Sec-

tion 26 of the constitution of this organization provides:

“Any member who desires to be elected to any office in his

lodge, must have attended a majority of the meetings of the

Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America in the 12 months

immediately preceding the month of election unless unable to

attend for just and sufficient reasons. A member shall be re-

quired to advise the Recording Secretary in a written state-

ment justifying his absence, and this to be done in the current

month; a majority vote of the members in attendance at the

meeting to determine acceptance or rejection of the offered

excuse, A record of attendance and excuses for absence to be

kept by the local lodge.”

Although Mr. McAdam and other members working nights could

have been excused from attending meetings, none of them ought

to be excused.

The Department originally concluded that there was nothing

patently unreasonable about this qualification on office holding, but

that the rule was nevertheless of questionable validity because in

operation only a few members of the local besides the incumbent

officers had satisfied this attendance requirement. Consequently,

civil action on behalf of the Secretary of Labor was filed on May

28, 1966 in the U, S. District Court for the Southern District of

New York.

Subsequent to the institution of this action, a general review of

attendance requirements as a qualification for office holding was

held by the Secretary of Labor. Upon further consideration of this

problem it was determined that measuring the reasonableness of a

meeting attendance requirement solely in terms of the number of

members adversely affected by its application in a particular elec-

tion tended to unduly penalize the legitimate interest of a union in

encouraging participation in the affairs of the union as well as ob-

taining candidates who have demonstrated an interest in, and are

likely to be concerned with, the problems of the organization. Upon

reexamination, therefore, it was concluded that it would be less than

fair to attack a meeting attendance requirement simply because of

the failure of union members to actually attend meetings (thus lead-

ing to their disqualification for office) as long as the requirement

itself could be reasonably met by all members and was uniformly

applied.

The question of whether a qualification on office holding is in it-

self reasonable is a matter which is not susceptible of precise defini-

tion. It cannot be said, however, that under all the circumstances,

the meeting attendance requirement of Lodge 1085 imposes an un-

reasonable burden upon the union members. For this reason, the

Department has determined to withdraw the case from court and

will do so as soon as appropriate papers for this purpose are pre-

pared.

Sincerely yours,

Samuet V, Merrica

Special Assistant for

Legislative Affairs

EXHIBIT S

December 5, 1966

Honorable Jacob K. Javits

United States Senate

Washington, D, C, 20510

Dear Senator Javits:

In reply to your inquiry relating to the letter which you received

from Mr. Thomas McAdam I can advise you as follows:

Mr. McAdam filed his complaint with the Secretary of Labor on

May 29, 1966, alleging violations of the Labor-Management Re-

porting and Disclosure Act in connection with the election of offi-

cers of Lodge 1085 of the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of

America.

The complaint was thoroughly investigated by the Office of

Labor-Management and Welfare-Pension Reports; that Office

found no violations of the law which may have affected the out-

come of the election except in the following circumstances,

Section 401(e) of the Act provides that every member in good

standing shall be eligible to be a candidate subject to “reasonable

qualifications uniformly imposed.” Mr, McAdam and most of the

other union members were ineligible to be candidates because Sec-

tion 26 of the constitution of this organization provides:

“Any member who desires to be elected to any office in his

lodge, must have attended a majority of the meetings of the

Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America in the 12 months

immediately preceding the month of election unless unable to

attend for just and sufficient reasons. A member shall be re-

quired to advise the Recording Secretary in a written state-

ment justifying his absence, and this to be done in the current

month; a majority vote of the members in attendance at the

meeting to determine acceptance or rejection of the offered

excuse, A record of attendance and excuses for absence to be

kept by the local lodge.”

Although Mr. McAdam and other members working nights could

have been excused from attending meetings, some of them sought

to be excused.

The Department originally concluded that there was nothing

patently unreasonable about this qualification on office holding, but

that the rule was nevertheless of questionable validity because in

operation only a few members of the local besides the incumbent

officers had satisfied this attendance requirement. Consequently,

civil action on behalf of the Secretary of Labor was filed on May

28, 1966 in the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of

New York,