# Appendix — Steelworkers v. Usery > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_2133%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1977 - **Citation:** 429 U.S. 305 ## 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. l 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. 2 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 I 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. II 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. IV 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)). 3 Vv 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)). VI 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, 4 IX 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. X 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; (c) for the costs of this action; and (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 5 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. 6 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 7 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, v. 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. (c) Attached hereto as Exhibit C and made a part hereof is a 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: 9 No member shall be eligible for election as a Local Union officer or Grievance Committeeman unless - * * (c) He had attended at least one-half ('/2) of the reg- 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 * * *, (c) Article VII, Section 9 of the Local Union Elections Manual, 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 * * * (c) He has attended at least one-half ('/2) of the reg- 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 « * * (c) He has attended at least one-half of the regular 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 10 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 11 p.m. Commencing in March, 1970, only one meeting was held on the third Sunday afternoon of each month. (c) Attendance at defendant Local’s monthly meeting averaged 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 12 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 13 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. (c) Of the aforementioned nominees, the following were incum- 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 ik POSS Dr a Ce Nee a keen 61 50 Q. During the three-year period, sir, during June of 1967 through May of 1970: Did you attend any Local Union meetings? A. Yes, sir, I did. ' 51 Q. How many, sir, if you can recall? A. Approximately ten. 52 Q. Did all of the members at the meetings that you attended, sir, did they come in on time or did some of them come in late? A. There was always somebody that came in late. 53 Q. Did you ever observe persons coming in late and signing the attendance register? A. Oh, yes. 54 Q. Similarly, during the meetings that you did attend, during this three-year period: Did all of the members at the meeting, sir, did they stay until the end of the meeting? A. No. They would come and go at any time. 55 Q. Can you recall how frequently persons left early? A. Oh, it usually happened at every meeting. They would get up and leave or come in late. Sir, this would happen at every meet- ing. 56 Q. Did you ever leave early? A. Yes, I have. 57 Q. On those occasions, you had signed the attendance register? A. Oh, yes. 58 Q. Did you ever come in late? A. No. I never did come in late. 59 Q. Can you recall on those occasions that you came into the Hall, sir, how early you might have left? A. I usually stayed fairly long for the meeting. After they had started the old business and finished—and if there was anything that I wanted to stay for, and after that was over with, sir, then I left. 60 Q. Did you observe other persons leaving early? A. Oh, yes. 61 Q. And how early did they leave? A. There were some that came in and signed and turned around and left before the meeting started. MR. LAWSON: Your Honor, I would object to all of this. This seems to me that it is very speculative and it seems to me that it has little or no probity value, or any relationship to this issue. 62 MR. SERWER: Your Honor, I am talking about — MR. LAWSON: Your Honor, we are talking about a period of 36 months, three years, and whom could have gone in or out — and it is obvious that the witness is attempting to be cooperative, and he is not testifying to any real personal knowledge as to the con- duct of the meetings. THE COURT: I think that your objection goes to the weight of the testimony. It is rather evident, and the testimony as to the attendance is given and it is not related to any particular meeting within the three-year period, Mr. Serwer. In other words, the objection is overruled, Mr. \Vitness, did you ever hold any office in the Union? WITNESS LOWE: No, I have not. THE COURT: It has been stipulated here that an average of 47 persons attended each meeting; and that would be more for one meeting and less at others. Would that seem like a correct figure? Sir, would this be too many or would this be too few, as an aver- age? WITNESS LOWE: Forty something? Your Honor, I would say that was too many. MR. SERWER: Your Honor, I would like to make something clear here. To the extent that this witness personally attended a split meeting, meaning one of two meetings held per month, Your Honor, he would have no knowledge as to the total number — he only attended one meeting of the split meetings. Your Honor, the questions that I have asked do not go to whether there were 47 persons present at any one individual meet- ing. Your Honor, the question goes to whether a member can come in and sign in and leave, and whether he receives credit for that meeting. Your Honor, then he could subsequently run at some years later for an office, and he in fact, had never attended a meet- ing by merely signing and leaving, or whether he had attended just a half of a meeting. MR. LAWSON: Your Honor, I think better proof should be offered to establish that than what has been testified to here. a eee OO ee 63 MR. SERWER: Your Honor, I simply indicated as to what this line of testimony is going to. I thought there was some confusion here as to the line of ques- tioning and I wanted to clarify that. THE COURT: That goes to the weight of the evidence. It indicates that the man had enough interest to come in and sign the register, regardless of how long he did stay. MR. SERWER: That may be true. THE COURT: Can this witness explain for us the arrange- ment of the split meetings? MR. SERWER: Your Honor, I think that Mr. Lawson would know, and I am sure that he may be willing to stipulate, and I think this is within the stipulation: The Local Union had two meetings per month so as to accommodate the different shifts. THE COURT: The day shift and the night shift? MR. SERWER: Yes, Your Honor. Then there was a period of where they only had one meeting on Sunday. MR. LAWSON: Your Honor, that is paragraph 9-B of the stipulation. MR. SERV. ER: That is correct. THE COURT: Let the record so show. The matter is stipu- lated. Mr. Serwer, you may continue. (Whereupon a conference was had among co-counsel. ) MR. SERWER: No further questions. THE COURT: Mr. Lawson, do you have any questions of this witness? MR. LAWSON: A few, Your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION, QUESTIONS BY MR. LAWSON: 62 Q. Mr. Lowe, do you know how many chairs there were in the Union Hall on the election day? A. The exact number, no. a we 64 63 Q. Could you estimate, approximately, sir? A. I would say approximate one hundred to one hundred twenty chairs. 64 Q. So at any time that these people wanted to, sir, was there any restrictions for any one of the [72] (76) THE COURT: You may call one more short witness be- fore we recess for noon. MR. SERWER: Your Honor, at this time the Government will call Mr, Frve. B. G, FRYE, a witness called by the Government, being first duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION, QUESTIONS BY MR. SERWER: 1 Q. State your name, please. A. B. G. Frye. 2 Q. What is your address? A. 1304 South 7th, Terre Haute, Indiana 3 Q. Are you presently employed? A. No. 4 Q. Have you been previously employed? A. Yes, sir, 5 Q. When was your position terminated? A. Yesterday at 4:00. 6 Q. By whom were you employed? A. Stran Steel Corporation, 7 Q. When were you first employed by Stran Steel? A. In 1963. 8 Q. Has your employment been continuous, or were there [76] [82] WITNESS FRYE: Everybody was voting in front of every- body; the walls, chairs, the table and the officer's bench. THE COURT: Was there any campaigning for the officers going on there at that time? Were you doing any campaigning for yourself? WITNESS FRYE: None, Your Honor, other than being there. 65 THE COURT: Other than just being there. Was anyone cam- paigning for Mr, Uzzell? WITNESS FRYE: No, sir. THE COURT: Continue, Mr. Serwer. (By Mr, Serwer) 41 Q. During the period of June of 1967, and May of 1970, can you recall how many Local Union meetings you attended? A. According to the record, sir, it was stated that at that time I attended 35 out of 37 meetings. 42 Q. During the period : f June of 1970 and May of 1973, sir, do you know how many meetings you attended during that period of three years? A. It would be the same amount of meetings. 43 Q. Now, sir, can you describe what happens when a person walks into the room, typically, into a Union meeting? [82] * » 7 ” [86] approach to this case is really way beyond the latitude that should be given to the Government, and the issues that they are talking about, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, the Court does not want to predetermine the issue. However, it shows wide latitude was extended to anyone that wanted to show any interest in the Union meetings. All that you had to do was come and sign up, and leave at will. You could come in late and there was no one there to say that you were late, and that we are not going to record you for this meeting; is that correct? MR. LAWSON: Precisely. I don’t know whether the Government is seeking to argue that you cannot run for office unless you stay for the whole doggone meeting; I don’t think that is what they are after. However, I am not quite sure, MR. SERWER: Your Honor, well — THE COURT: Mr, Lawson, your objection is overruled. You may continue your questions. Counsel may argue this later. 52 Q. To your knowledge, sir, during this three-year period had ee he, ee 66 anyone ever been reprimanded for arriving late for a meeting, after the meeting had started? A. No. 53 Q. How often does that occur? How often did that occur during that period? A. At every meeting. 54 Q. How many people did arrive late? A. It varied at different meetings. However, there were many people coming in late. Sir, I could not set down an actual number, that would be impossible. I have seen the time when ten or fifteen guys would show up late. 55 Q. Is there any rule, to your knowledge, prohibiting a per- son from signing in and leaving early? A. No. 56 Q. Has anyone ever been disciplined for doing that? A. No. 57 Q. To your knowledge, has that occurred? A. Has what occurred? 58 Q. A person signing in and leaving early? THE COURT: The Court considers that irrelevant. A. Some people sign in and leave right away, — as long as they get their name on the book. 59 Q. To your knowledge, sir, was it the general custom be- tween June of 1967 and May of 1970, for persons upon entering the room to sign the register? MR. LAWSON: I think that he has already answered that question. He testified that the first thing when they came in was to sign the register. Your Honor, that would be repet'tious. MR. SERWER: Will you stipulate that that was his answer: MR. LAWSON: I think that it is a matter of record. THE COURT: I think he just changed his answer. What is your answer to that question, Mr. Witness? WITNESS FRYE: He stated a date here. 67 It is customary now, and we are pushing the guys to sign the book. We realize the mistake there. But prior to 1970, Your Honor, the average man would just come in and sit down. We started pushing the fact that we had to keep the attendance record in order for the men to run for office. Since that election, Your Honor, we have pushed it and made sure that the men sign the books. Up until that time quite a few of the men would walk in and sit down and not even sign the book at all, and there was no effort made to have them sign it. THE COURT: In your opinion, has the attendance increased within the last three years, over the prior three years? WITNESS FRYE: Your Honor, I would say, yes. THE COURT: Who keeps the records of the attendance now? WITNESS FRYE: The recording secretary keeps the books. However, nobody sits at the door. THE COURT: The book is back at the door near the entrance so that the members can sign in? And someone makes the state- ment that if you want to be recorded as being here, you will have to sign the book? WITNESS FRYE: The people in the Hall usually tell them to sign the book. THE COURT: Proceed, Mr. Serwer. MR. SERWER: Just one moment, Your Honor. No further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Lawson. MR. LAWSON: Just one moment, Your Honor, (Whereupon a conference was had among co-counsel. ) CROSS-EXAMINATION, QUESTIONS BY MR. LAWSON: 60 Q. Mr. Frye, you lost in the 1970 election; is that correct? A. Yes. 61 Q. Thereafter, Mr. Uzzell, who was the winner, sir, he moved up to foreman in the company; is that correct? i a a eee 68 A. This is correct. 62 Q. At that time the vice-president of the Local moved up to president? A. Yes. 63 Q. Then was there an election between you and Mr. Jet for vice-president? A. Yes I would say so. Sir, I was a trustee at the time — 64 Q. That you ran for office against Mr. Jet? A. Yes. 65 Q. In that election, sir, was that election conducted the same way as the election in 1970? A. All of our elections are handled pretty much the same way, with the exception of this last one. 66 Q. You lost that election to Mr. Jet; is that correct? A. By some twelve or fifteen votes, yes. 67 Q. Did you ever protest that election? MR. SERWER: Your Honor, this is entirely outside of the scope of direct examination. Your Honor, I fail to see the relevancy — MR. LAWSON: Your Honor, I think that he is alleging that it is unfair — MR. SERWER: It is outside of the scope of direct examination and I fail to see the relevancy — MR. LAWSON: He is alleging that it is unfair, and he ran again in another election, and he lost by much less margin, and he did not protest, sir, under the same conditions. This is extremely relevant. MR. SERWER: Your Honor, one election has nothing to do with the other election. We are talking about whether the election held in June 22, 1970, was by a secret balloting [91 ] . 7 + . 97) you then get credit for that meeting? A. Yes. 95 Q. What is the minimum length of time that you spent at a meeting? A. Myself? 69 96 Q. Yes. A. As an officer, I generally tried to attend the whole thing. 97 Q. Prior to your being elected an officer, sir, how long would you stay? A. 1 would say that it would vary. We are talking about quite a time. 98 Q. All right. Let us pass on from that. Since 1963, sir, there have been elections every three years; regular election for officers, right? A. Yes, sir. 99 Q. Have there also been other elections in between? A. Yes, sir. 100 Q. Is the reason for those other elections, sir, because of va- cancies? A. Yes, sir. 101 Q. —people resigning from office? A. Yes. 102 Q. Is it fair to say that during the ten years that you have been with the Local, sir, that there has been a large turnover in officers within the Local? A. I would say, yes. 103 Q. In the election in 1970, the winner, Mr. Uzzell got 154 votes, and you received 79; is that correct? A. I would not know for sure. 104 Q. Is that approximately right? A. T have no idea right now. I was probably told at the time but I do not remember right now, If that is what you say, it must be true. I do not remember. MR. LAWSON: One minute, Your Honor. (Whereupon a conference was had among co-counsel. ) 105 Q. Mr. Frye, you were elected to vice-president, sir, of this Local since 1970; is that correct? A. Yes. 106 Q. You ran unopposed for that office; is that correct? Did Mr. Stewart oppose you, let me ask you [98] eS 70 [101] RECROSS-EXAMINATION, QUESTIONS BY MR. LAWSON: 117 Q. Were you instructed not to go to the chair to mark your ballot? A. No, sir. 118 Q. Or anywhere else? A. No, sir. THE COURT: You mentioned that you were terminated at Stran Steel: Did they have a layoff or something? WITNESS FRYE: No. I got fired the other day because of Union activities. THE COURT: Are you a candidate in this next election? WITNESS FRYE: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: For what office? WITNESS FRYE: President. THE COURT: President. Who else is a candidate for president? WITNESS FRYE: Mr. Clay Jet, Mr. Forsythe and a Mr. Davis. THE COURT: Do they all fill the requirements of having at- tended the necessary meetings? WITNESS FRYE: Three of them have and one has not. THE COURT: Does Mr, Forsythe qualify again? WITNESS FRYE: Yes, he does. THE COURT: What was the fourth person’s name? WITNESS FRYE: Davis. THE COURT: He does not qualify? WITNESS FRYE: No, sir. THE COURT: I have no further questions. Would either couns.! have any additional questions? MR. SERWER: No further questions, Your Honor. CS ee 71 RE-RECROSS-EXAMINATION, QUESTIONS BY MR. LAWSON: 119 Q. Have you called that to the attention of the lection offi- cers, that Mr. Davis does not qualify? A. That is not my job. 120 Q. Would you object to him running against you? A. No, sir. I think that he is a very intelligent person, 121 Q. Thank you. MR. LAWSON: Thank you, Your Honor. [102] [108] DAVID LEROY JONES, a witness called by the Govern- ment, being first duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION, QUESTIONS BY MR. SERWER: 1 Q. What is your name, please? A. David Leroy Jones. 2 Q. What is your current address? A. 29 Oakland Avenue, Terre Haute, Indiana. 3 Q. Were yen ever employed by Stran Steel? A. Yes, sir. 4 Q. During what period of time? A. May of 1967 up until September of 1970. 5 Q. At that time did you leave your employment? A. Yes, I did. 6 Q. During this period that you were employed by Stran Steel, sir, was that work continuous? A. No. I was in the service during this period of time, also. 7 Q. Do you recall the dates that you were in the service? A. June of 1967, sir, until June of 1969. MR. SERWER: Your Honor, I would ask that the Court Re- porter mark this document for identification? THE COURT: The Reporter will mark the document, (Whereupon the Court Reporter marked a document for idenu- fication. ) 8 Q. Mr. Jones, I will hand you what has been marked as Government’s Exhibit No. 2. It purports to be a document DD2- 72 14, and the person named therein is named “David Leroy Jones”, and can you describe what this document is? A. It is a DD2-14, and it is a release from active duty. 9 Q. For what person? A. Myself. 10 Q. Is the information thereon, sir, true and correct, to the best of your knowledge? A. Yes, it is. MR. SERWER: Your Honor, I move that this document be in- troduced in evidence; offered and received in evidence. MR. LAWSON: Your Honor, I rise to ask for what purpose is this offered? MR. SERWER: Your Honor, to firmly establish the dates that the witness was in military service. THE COURT: I do not think there is any dispute about it. Show the exhibit admitted in evidence. (Whereupon Government’s Exhibit No. 2 was admitted in evi- dence. ) ( Here insert ) THE COURT: Continue, Mr. Serwer. 11 Q. Mr. Jones, what was the exact day of your entry into mili- tary service? A. June 27, 1967. 12 Q. What was the date of your release from military service? A. June 26, 1969. 13. Q. Would you describe in chronological order, sir, your loca- tion geographically while in the military service during this period of time? A. I first went to basic training at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Sir, from there I went to AIT down in Alabama, and back to Fort Campbell for a regular duty assignment and I was there until about September of 1968. 14 Q. Continue. A. And until I was released I was at Fort Riley, Kansas. 15 Q. During your two-year period, sir, what was your closest location to Terre Haute, Indiana? A. About 220 to 230 miles. 73 16 Q. For how long a period of time during this two-year period? A. About 9 months. 17 Q. Referring you now to the year of 1970: When did you re- turn from service? Was that June of 1969? A. Yes. 18 Q. Did you go back to your employment? A. Yes, sir. 19 Q. At what employer? A. Stran Steel. 20 Q. Did you attend any Local Union meetings during this period of time? A. I did attend a few of them. 21 Q. I'm sorry. A. After I returned, 22 Q. In the month of May, 1970: Were there nominations for Local office? A. Yes, sir. 23 Q. Were you nominated at that time? A. I was. 24 Q. On the date of June 22, 1970, sir, was there an election of officers? A. There was. 25 Q. Did your name appear on that ballot? A. It did not. 26 Q. Had you ever received any notification prior to the dav on which the election was held, sir, that your name would not appear on that ballot? A. No idea. 27 Q. Did you receive any information on the day of the election, sir, as to why your name was not on the ballots? A. No, I did not. 28 Q. Calling your attention to the 22nd day of June, 1970: The election was held at the Union Hall; is that correct? A. Yes, it was. 29 Q. On 13th Street? A. Yes, it was. 30 Q. What were your hours of work during this day? A. From 8:00 to 4:00, I believe. 31 Q. What time of day did you vote? 74 A. It was after I got off work at 4:00 32 Q. About what time of day, sir; do you have any idea? A. Between 4:15 and 4:30, I believe. MR. LAWSON: Your Honor, could the witness speak a little more loudly? THE COURT: The witness is reminded to [112] * * * > + * * [116] meeting Hall: Approximately, sir, how many persons, in- cluding yourself, were in the Hall? A. Twenty, twenty-five or thirty. MR. SERWER: Excuse me, Your Honor. (Whereupon a conference was had among co-counsel. ) MR. SERWER: Your Honor, I have no further questions. THE COURT: Any questions, Mr. Lawson? MR. LAWSON: Yes, Your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION, QUESTIONS BY MR. LAWSON: 52 Q. Mr. Jones, you had not attended eighteen meetings, ob- viously, between May of 1967 and June of 1970; is that correct? A. No. Not actually. 53 Q. You were in the Army for two years; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. 54 Q. In the year that you returned, sir, how many meetings did you attend? A. I cannot say offhand. Sir, it was two or three for sure. I made up there — 55 Q. When you were nominated, sir, did you talk with anyone or did you check with anyone concerning the — A. Yes, I did. 56 Q. — concerning your eligibility? A. Yes. 57 Q. Continue. A. I asked two or three of the men down there and they said that the service counted as part of my being — the same as being on the job. 58 Q. Did you talk with the election tellers? A. No, I did not. os 75 59 Q. Did you talk with the president of the Local? A. No, I did not. 60 Q. When you say “men”, do you mean other members of the Local? A. Other members of the Local. 61 Q. Nonofficers? A. No. I do not believe that they were. I could not tell you offhand whether they were or not. 62 Q. AmI correct: You did not r y¥ dues while you were in the military? A. No. 63 Q. At the time that you say that you voted: Sir, did you say there were twenty or twenty-five people in the Hall; is that correct? [117] [121] THE COURT: You may call your next witness, Mr. Serwer. MR. SERWER: Your Honor, I will call Mr. Wilford Wassel. WILFORD WASSEL, a witness called by the Government, be- ing first duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATIONS, QUESTIONS BY MR. SERWER: 1 Q. Would you state your name, please. A. Wilford Wassel. 2 Q. Will you spell your last name? A. Yes. It is W-a-s-s-e-l. 3 Q. What is your current address? A. 2632 South 7th. 4 Q. Terre Haute? A. Terre Haute, Indiana, 5 Q. Are you currently employed? A. Yes. 6 Q. Who are you employed with? A. Stran Steel Corporation. MR. LAWSON: Your Honor, I would request that counsel keep his voice up. 76 THE COURT: Speak as loudly as you can so that everyone can hear. 7 Q. Are you a member of Local Union 3489? A. Yes, sir. 8 Q. This would be of the United Steelworkers of America? A. Yes, sir. 9 Q. Were you a member of this Local Union at the time of the June 22, 1970 election at the time of the election for Local of- ficers? A. Yes, sir. 10 Q. Did you vote in that Union election for officers on June 22, 1970? A. Yes, sir. 11 Q. Where did you cast your ballot? A. At the Union Hall. 12 Q. What time did you arrive at the Union Hall on that day? A. It was approximately between a quarter after and a quar- ter until five. I cannot give you the exact minute, sir. 13. Q. Do you recall how long you were in the Union Hall when you voted? A. The total length of time when I arrived in the door and when I left? 14 Q. That is right. [122] * * * * [128] There was conversation going on and what they were say- ing, I do not know specifically. 41 Q. Mr. Wassel, turning to the Union meetings: During the period of June of 1967 and 1970, the three years just prior to the June 22, 1970 election — A. Okay. 42 Q. Did you attend any of the Union meetings during that period? A. Yes, I did. 43 Q. Do you recall the number of meetings that you attended? A. It was either seven or nine meetings during all of those three years. I did not attend all of the meetings. 44 Q. Was it your custom to sign the attendance register upon entering, or arriving at the meeting? 77 MR. LAWSON: I am sorry. I did not hear the question. Counsel, please keep your voice up? MR. SERWER: Yes. 45 Q. Was it your custom upon arriving at a meeting, sir, to sign your name on the attendance register? A. Yes, sir. 46 Q. In fact, at the meetings that you did attend: Did you, in fact, sign the register upon arriving at the meetings? A. Yes, I signed. 47 Q. Did you ever, sir, on occasion arrive at the meeting late and sign in? A. Yes, sir. 48 Q. Do you recall the number of meetings that you arrived late at? A. Well — 49 Q. During that three-year period? A. It is hard to say that I attended the meetings and wrote my na ..t. I would not know the exact number on how many times I was late. 50 Q. Do you have any idea how late you were and what they were doing when you arrived late? A. They would be reading the old business. At that time I would say that it would be about ten to twelve minutes late. 51 Q. Did you ever, on occasion, sir, after signing in late at a meeting, leave the meeting prior to the end of the meeting? A. Yes. 52 Q. How many times did you do that? A. I would say three times. Roughly, I would say about three times. Sir, this could vary one either way. 53 Q. Do you recall what the earliest time after the start of a meeting, sir, that you left after signing in? A. It all depended on how mad I got. 54 Q. Can you recall the approximate number of minutes after the start of the meeting, sir, that you left after signing in? A. Twenty-five to thirty minutes. —_ | 78 55 Q. What was the usual length of a meeting, sir; the ones that you attended? A. One hour — forty-five minutes. 56 Q. Is that one hour and forty-five minutes, sir? A. One hour and forty-five minutes. 57 Q. With regard to those meetings that you attended during the three-year period: Did you observe any other Union members who had signed in — signing the meeting attendance register and they left early before the end of the meeting? A. Yes. 598 Q. Do you recall the number of other Union members, sir, the ones that you saw sign in and leave early? A. Well a lot of people walked out during the middle of a meeting. Sir, this would be a big variation in number. Do you want the overall average? 59 Q. Can you tell us the approximate number at any given meeting, sir; the ones that you attended? MR. LAWSON: I think this line of testimony and this inquiry is unspecific. Your Honor, I would like to have this pinned down more. Your Honor, this line of questioning is objectionable. MR. SERWER: Your Honor, this is — MR. WASSEL: Your Honor, I do not know that “average” and “indeed”, I do not know if they make much sense. MR. SERWER: Your Honor, I think that he is able to testify to the average number of Union members that walked out at any given meeting. MR. LAWSON: Is it two, three or four — THE COURT: The objection is overruled. The witness may answer. A. Several. 60 Q. Do you recall, sir, observing any other Union members arriving late and signing in at their late arrival time? A. Yes. It is back there for them to sign when they come in. 79 61 Q. Do you recall the number of Union members that you saw engaged in that activity? Sir, this would be at the meetings that you attended? A. Would you repeat that question? 62 Q. Do you recall the number of Union members, sir, the ones that engaged in that activity of arriving late and signing in at their late arrival? A. With an average of fifteen people there at the meeting, sir, it would vary from two to three people. Sometimes it would be more and sometimes it would be less. 63 Q. On occasion, sir, did you ever see somebody sign in late — did you ever see someone else sign a name besides his own? A. Once I seen a man sign two names. 64 Q. Continue. A. I do not know who he signed, but I seen him write two names. Whether he was signing in for someone that would possibly be there later, or maybe they had been there and left and i. _ for- gotten to sign their name — sir, I don’t know. However, I did see him sign two names. 65 Q. Can you tell us whether you ever observed anybody sign in on the register at the beginning of the meeting and leave imme- diately thereafter? A. Yes. I saw it for an emergency. MR. SERWER: No further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: You said “emergency”, Mr. Witness; what particular person do you remember doing that? Do you remember any particular incident? WITNESS WASSEL: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Tell us who that was? WITNESS WASSEL: Who the person was? THE COURT: Yes. WITNESS WASSEL: Roy Mix. THE COURT: Do you remember what his emergency was? WITNESS WASSEL: He had to go and pick his wife up. ee, eK 80 THE COURT: When would this have been? Was it before 1970, Mr. Witness? Was it near 1970 — WITNESS WASSEL: I would say that it was in the year of 1969. Your Honor, I could not even give you the exact date on it. There were & lot of people that would stay there; they would sign in and stay there for the old business and then they would leave. THE COURT: Okay. WITNESS WASSEL: It happens. THE COURT: Mr. Lawson, you may cross-examine. CROSS-EXAMINATION, QUESTIONS BY MR. LAWSON: 66 Q. Mr. Wassel, in 1970 there was a nomination meeting held in May; is that correct? True. Were you nominated for any offices? No. I was not, sir. . Have you ever been an officer in the Union? No. . How long have you worked for Stran Steel in this Union? Since August of 1967, . You are here under subpoena? Yes, sir. 71 At the time that you voted in June of 1970: You signed in, as I recall, and you received your ballot and then you marked your ballot at what [134] * * * * * * * [143] sitting in chairs and voting. On the other hand by use of personal ingenuity a person could very likely cover his own particular ballot, if he wanted to prevent other people from seeing his ballot, or seeing how he voted. Also if he did not care whether other people saw him, then he probably voted in a different fashion and did not cover up his ballot. I would say that the conclusion is that the conduct of the voting process is such that no one is encouraged to vote in secret; even though there was no one there who was preventing it. Any indi- vidual could have separated himself from the group so that while he marked his ballot, it would not have been seen. 67 [>] fo?) © Co OPO>O>rO>rO> I oO 81 In reference to the attendance at Union meetings, it seems there was a sign-in book, at least from June of 1967 to May of 1970, which was a three-year period prior to the 1970 election. Again, it was done in what might be described as an informal manner; it was a sign-in book or a registration book that was lo- cated there. The very nature of this book was such that, and vari- ous witnesses have testified, a person could come in and he could be late and he could sign in and get credit for attendance. He could sign in and stay any length of time that he might desire and then he could leave early if he so chose and he would still get credit for attendance at that meeting. The registration book, or the sign- in book, apparently is in the custody of the recording secretary, And since the events leading up to this cause of action here, it would appear that there has been more attention paid to the fact of being certain that each member signed in if he wanted to receive credit for attendance at a meeting. That does not cover everything that has been testified to here, and special testimony has been received on other matters, and the testimony of Bernard Frye who ran for office. I would consider this to be the common thread of testimony running through these five witnesses. What additional has been running in common in their testimony that the Court has not stated, Mr. Serwer? MR. SERWER: Your Honor, may I have approximately thirty seconds to confer with my co-counsel? THE COURT: Certainly. [144] * * * * [148] That new witnesses should only testify to new matters and you should avoid further evidence or repetition on these subjects. With that, Mr. Serwer, you may go ahead and call any addi- tional witnesses that you see fit. MR. SERWER: At this time I would call Mr. David Shadrach. DAVID R. SHADRACH, a witness called by the Government, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:. DIRECT EXAMINATION, QUESTIONS BY MR. SERWER: 1 Q. Would you state your full name for the Court, please? 82 A. Yes. David R. Shadrach. 2 Q. Your current address? A. My business address is 36 South Pennsylvania, Indianap- olis, Indiana. 3 Q. Your present occupation? A. I am a Residence Compliance Officer for the Labor Man- agement Services Administration of the United States, and the Department of Labor. 4 Q. How long have you been so employed? A. Since 1962. 5 Q. Can you roughly describe the function of a Residence Compliance Officer? A. Our agency administers three statutes and one executive order. One of which is the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, and part of that Act contains Title IV. Title IV consists of the minimum standards of controlling a Local Union election, officer election. 6 Q. At some time subsequent to June 22, 1970, sir, were you assigned to conduct an investigation? A. Yes. 7 Q. — of the election of officers that was held in June of 1970? Sir, that is June 22, 1970. A. Yes. 8 Q. Of Local 3489? A. Yes, sir. 9 Q. I will show you what has already been marked as Ex- hibit D. This is attached to the Stipulation of Facts — Your Honor, this is attached to Exhibit No. 1 and it has already been admitted in evidence — sir, I will ask you if you recognize that document? A. Yes, I do. 10 Q. What is that document? A. That document was presented to me by Mr. Baker, the Mr. Baker that was the recording secretary at the time of the in- vestigation of the Union election. Mr. Baker stated that this was placed on a bulletin board in ad- vance of the nominations. This list represents members who attended in excess of fifteen meetings during the three-year period involved. 83 11 Q. There are two groups of members here. Your Honor, let the record show there is one group containing twenty-two names: Is that correct, Mr. Shadrach? A. Yes. 12 Q. And above that it states: ““Members eligible to run for of- fice’”’, sir, with eighteen meetings or more? MR. LAWSON: Your Honor, this has all been stipulated to in the record. MR. SERWER: That is correct. However, I am leading mto some questions that are not in evidence at this time. THE COURT: At this point, Mr. Serwer, the Court thinks it would be appropriate to say, and with reference to the specific points, and just ask him the questions or; you do not need to ex- plain to the Court how this came about. You and the other counsel have stipulated to it and the Court would assume that it had to be furnished either by the Labor Union or by somebody that was keeping the records; everybody agrees that this is right. Rather than telling me how each of these stipulations came about, you can just refer to the stipulation in the exhibit and ask your questions about it. 13. Q. Mr. Shadrach, referring you to Government’s Exhibit B that is attached to Government’s Exhibit No. 1, and it is in evi- dence — A. Yes. 14 Q. Prior to your receiving of that document from Mr. Baker: Sir, did you analyze the attendance record, or records, or the at- tendance register of the Defendant Local to ascertain the number of persons who had attended, sir, the number of persons who had attended at least eighteen or more meetings? A. No. It was after I received the list from Mr. Baker. Mr. Baker produced his work sheets that he had computed. He had computed the attendance for each and every member who was listed on the attendance register for this period of time. 15 Q. Did you, yourself, look at the attendance register? A. Oh, yes. I compared Mr. Baker’s work sheets with the attendance record. 16 Q. What did you find? 84 MR. LAWSON: I would object to any testimony about the attendance records. The best evidence to that would always be the register, Your Honor, itself. MR. SERWER: Your Honor, I could have subpoenaed that document, or the documents, sir, from the defendants, but I did not think there would be any substantial objection here. I was not able to do so in view of the short time for trial. Your Honor, the defendants can certainly bring the register in, if it proves, if they so desire, if Mr. Shadrach’s testimony proves anything other than the register itself. The register is in the possession of the defendants. MR. LAWSON: I really don’t know. THE COURT: What is the purpose of this line of questioning, Mr. Serwer? MR, SERWER: I am simply trying to verify that his inde- pendent investigation confirms the fact that persons on this list were, in fact, the only persons who had their names appear on the attendance register at least eighteen times. MR. LAWSON: We stipulated to that. MR. REESE: Your Honor, we stipulated to that. MR. SERWER: Will you stipulate to what I just stated? MR. LAWSON: Is that any different from what we have al- ready stipulated to? THE COURT: I will ask the questions. Mr. Shadrach, did you vertify the list of those persons eligible to run for office? WITNESS SHADRACH: Yes, sir. THE COURT: According to the records? WITNESS SHADRACH: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Did this support the list that is labeled as Ex- hibit ““D”? WITNESS SHADRACH: Yes. 85 THE COURT: All right. That will cover the matter. 17 Q. Subsequent thereto, Mr. Shadrach, did you have an occa- sion to examine work records of Stran Steel Corporation to de- termine whether any persons had worked according to their records on days that would conflict, days that conflicted with the Union meetings? A. Yes. 18 Q. What did you determine? A. Based on the analysis of the attendance register, and the work credits, sir, there were no other members of Local 3489 whose name appeared on the register as having attended fifteen or more meetings; other than the twenty-five names on the list that was pro- vided to me by Mr. Baker. 19 Q. Okay. A. With the exception of Mr. LaRue with clock number 524, and he attended sixteen meetings and they found out that he worked nine times that would be in conflict with the meetings. Therefore, the sixteen plus nine would be twenty-five — MR. LAWSON: At this time I would object to any further tes- timony. It is obvious that this is hearsay, Your Honor, without any records being here, or being produced. MR. SERWER: Well, Your Honor, again, this is an attempt to save the laborious task of going to Stran Steel Corporation and pulling out all of those records that it would take to make this de- termination. The defendant, himself, can do that—and he was aware of the substantial amount of the testimony and I offered to have the de- fendants stipulate to this. Your Honor, the defendant refused to stipulate to this. These are matters that occurred during the investigation here, and I think that they are substantially uncontested; but if neces- sary, we will bring in all of the records. Your Honor, we can sub- poena the records and offer them into evidence to prove that this individual is the only one. MR. LAWSON: Your fiviior, if I may say in response to coun- sel’s statement, and with his intention—Your Honor, on November 29, 1971 I served answers to interrogatories to plaintiff’s counsel. At that time I suggested if they were interested in the question of 86 who had worked and who had not worked that they should contact Stran Steel. Evidently, Your Honor, they have not done so and they have come in with this secondhand sort of testimony. I have no idea what Stran Steel’s records say and I do not know if Stran Steel is terribly interested in giving it to me. I do not know what relevance this has, Your Honor, as a matter of fact, to the issues of which we are involved with here. MR. SERWER: I think the work credit excuse is certainly relevant, and with the meeting attendance rule. The defendants have stipulated that they have never made an attempt to ascertain how many people were eligible for Union of- fice, by virtue of full credits. The investigator here with the Labor Department, Your Honor, has done exactly that and he found one person that was, and that is certainly relevant to the meeting attendance rule. MR. LAWSON: I do not think that could be accurately — I don’t think that accurately reflects the stipulation and I would ob- ject to any hearsay testimony of what this so-called investigator or Compliance Officer — I am sorry — this Compliance Officer found. THE COURT: Upon your investigation, Mr. Shadrach, you found one additional person who would qualify for Union office, or officer, and that was Mr. LaRue; is that correct? WITNESS SHADRACH: Yes. He was given an office during that same election. THE COURT: He was actually slected? WITNESS SHADRACH: He ran unopposed. In this same election. In other words, there were only about twenty-two eligible, and there was no one running for this one office, and Mr. LaRue act- ually ran unopposed. This is why I checked the fact, and I found that he only had sixteen meetings, Then I went to Stran Steel and I found out there were nine dif- ferent times when his work schedule conflicted with him coming to a meeting, and this gave him a credit of twenty-five meetings. Therefore, Mr. LaRue was certainly an eligible officer under the eligibility rule, sir, by coincidence. 87 It is my understanding from Mr. Baker that they do not check work cre 3. Sir, they only check work credits when requested. THE COURT: All right. WITNESS SHADRACH: And no one ever requested them to check. THE COURT: What was the office that Mr. LaRue was elect- ed to? What office did he fill? WITNESS SHADRACH: Not offhand. MR. SERWER: That is in the stipulation, Your Honor. THE COURT: What does the stipulation say about that? MR. SERWER: Exhibit E. THE COURT: Where is that? MR. SERWER: Here, Your Honor. (Whereupon Mr. Serwer tendered a document to the Court.) THE COURT: The Court recognizes the objection of counsel, the objection by counsel for the defendant. It may have been very proper under the circumstances, but in view of the attempt to pro- ceed with this cause, the Court will permit counsel for the defend- ant to offer into evidence anything, at a subsequent date, you may file any records or any exhibits to contest Mr. LaRue’s qualifica- tions if you so desire. MR. LAWSON: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: It would seem to me that the defendants may have waived any objections to Mr. LaRue since he was elected and he did serve. Under that light of the Court’s ruling, you may continue, Mr. Serwer. MR. SERWER: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. LAWSON: Just one point, your Honor, Your Honor, i luave never seen the records of Stran Steel, and I have no idea, if any, what the correlation is between the meeting times of the Local, and whether Mr. LaRue did or did not work on 88 those days. Your Honor, without those records I am unable to ef- fectively cross-examine this witness. THE COURT: It may be irrelevant. MR. LAWSON: Of course, that has been raised by me. I hope, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Let the record so show. Continue, Mr. Serwer. MR. SERWER: Your Honor, I have no further questions of this witness. THE COURT: Mr. Lawson, you may cross-examine. MR. LAWSON: Your Honor, may I have a moment, please? THE COURT: You may. (Whereupon a conference was had among co-counsel. ) CROSS-EXAMINATION, QUESTIONS BY MR. LAWSON: 20 Q. Mr. Shadrach, Mr. LaRue ran unopposed; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. 21 ©. That being the case — A. I think there is a story behind this. 22 Q. I did not ask for a story. He had meeting attendance in the appropriate eighteen — in the eighteen meetings: Sir, this would not effect his running for office; is that correct? A. I am not in a position to interpret the constitution and by- laws. M~ understanding was that during the investigation that Mr. LaRue was ineligible, and he was so posted on the board, and stated that he would be ineligible for nomination—and he attended below eighteen meetings, so he would not be eligible. 23 Q. But at some subsequent time a determination was made that he was eligible? A. There was ro determination made. It was my understanding that no one wanted to run for that of- fice, and therefore, sir, they nominated or picked LaRue to run unopposed for that office. There was no one left to run. 24 Q. All right. A. And on this list he was listed as ineligible. 25 Q. That was the only discrepancy that you found in compar- ing that list of twenty-five; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. 26 Q. There are approximately six hundred, sixty members of the Local, roughly? A. Yes, sir. 27 Q. Thank you. MR. LAWSON: That is all, Your Honor. THE COURT: Anything further, Mr. Serwer? MR. SERWER: One or two questions, Your Honor. REDIRECT EXAMINATION, QUESTIONS BY MR. SERWER: 28 Q. I believe that this has been asked. However, to be sure: Based on your investigation of the attendance register and the work credits at Stran Steel, sir, were there any other members of the De- fendant Local, other than Mr, LaRue, eligible by virtue of a com- bination of attendance credits and work credits? A. No. MR. SERWER: Nothing further. THE COURT: Anything further, Mr. Lawson? MR. LAWSON: Let me check my notes with counsel. (Whereupon a conference was had among co-counsel. ) MR. LAWSON: No questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: You may step down. (Witness Shadrach excused. ) MR. SERWER: Your Honor, I would like to request a two minute recess, please? I would like to review my notes that I have [162] * * * * [170] MR. LAWSON: Thank you, Your Honor. (DEFENDANT’S CASE) MR. LAWSON: Your Honor, at this time I would call Mr. Clay Jet. 90 CLAY JET, a witness called by the Defendants, being first duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION, QUESTIONS BY MR. REESE: 1 Q. State your name, please. A. Clay Jet. 2 Q. Where are you employed, Mr. Jet? A. Stran Steel Corporation. 3 Q. How long have you been employed there? A. Since 1952. 4 Q. Continuously since 1952? A. I have been laid off several times, sir, but it has been con- tinuous service. 5 Q. Where do you live? A. Route 1, Carlisle, Indiana. 6 Q. Are you an officer of that Local? A. The president. 7 Q. When were you elected president? A. I was not elected as president. I filled an office [170] * * * * [181] THE COURT: Well, maybe that is right. Mr. Reese, you may develop that information. The objection is sustained. MR. REESE: Thank you, Your Honor. 58 Q. If you know, sir, how many Union meetings have you at- tended since the June 1970 election? A. I would guess it would be somewhere between twenty and twenty-five. 59 Q. Before the June election of 1970, could you give us an esti- mate as to the number of Union meetings that you attended, or those that you missed? A. According to the records that Mr, Shadrach checked out, sir, I attended all thirty-six meetings. 60 Q. Do you have an opinion if there have been more members attending the Union meetings since June of 1970, sir, than there had before? MR. SERWER: Your Honor, I would object. This seems to be irrelevant. Veen 91 3 THE COURT: Overruled. 61 Q. What was your answer? A. I think there has been. Sir, I could not say. 62 Q. To your knowledge, has there been any other complaints filed about the elections in that Local? A. Yes. There was a complaint filed against our last Interna- tional election. 63 Q. Who was that filed with? A. Who was it filed with? 64 Q. Yes. A. It was filed with the International. 65 Q. Are you talking about an International election? A. The International. It was the nominations and election. 66 Q. I was directing my question to any Local Union elections. A. Yes. 67 Q. Is this the only one that you know of in twenty years? A. Yes, sir. 68 Q. How many Union meetings do you have in that Local, sir, during this period of time—let’s say how many meetings do you have per month, or per week? A. We have one split Union meeting per month. 69 Q. Just briefly, sir, what do you mean by that? A. At the present time we have a meeting on the second Wednesday of each month, sir, we have a 1:00 P.M. meeting and a 4:30 meeting. Sir, this is set up to accommodate all three shifts. 70 Q. How long has this split meeting been in effect? A. I cannot give the exact day, but it has been quite a while. 71 Q. Three or four years? A. Yes. It has heen in effect for approximately three years. We had. one section there where we went to a Sunday meeting for a short while, to try and pick up attendance. 72 Q. The purpose of this split Union meeting is to permit every member to attend the Union meeting if they want to; is that cor- rect? A. Right. 73 Q. Right after the election in June of 1970: Is that when you went back to the split meetings? 92 A. No. Sir, I cannot be exactly sure, but I believe that it was some time before. 74 Q. Before the June election in 1970? A. Yes. 75 Q. Thank you. MR. REESE: No further questions, Your Honor. [183] . * _ _ [185] MR. REESE: Your Honor, we would call Mr. Baker. THE COURT: Mr. Bailiff, would you get the witness. (Whereupon a conference was had among co-counsel. ) THE COURT: Have you been sworn as a witness? WITNESS BAKER: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: You are still under oath. C. D. BAKER, a witness called by the Defendants, being first duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION, QUESTIONS BY MR. REESE: 1 Q. State your name, please. A. C. D. Baker. 2 Q. Where do you live, Mr. Baker? A. Route 1, Box 194, West Terre Haute, Indiana. 3 Q. Are you employed? A. Yes, sir. 4 Q. Where? A. Stran Steel Corporation. 5 Q. How long? A. Twenty-five years in July. 6 Q. Are you a member of the Local Union? A. Member? 7 Q. Yes, are you a member of the Local? A. Yes. 8 Q. How long have you been a member? A. All of that time. 9 Q. Are you now an officer in the Local Union? A. A trustee, 10 Q. Have you held any other offices in the Local Union? 93 A. Yes, sir. 11 Q. What offices have you held? A. Recording secretary two different times, financial secre- tary and trustee once—the first time. 12 Q. Directing your attention to June of 1970— A. Yes. 13. Q. Were you an officer at the time of the election in June of 1970? A. No. That was the change of officers, and I did not run for office. 14 Q. Did you have anything to do with the conduct of the election? A. Yes, sir. 15 Q. Tell His Honor what? A. I was the teller for the election. [186] * * * * [193] 60 Q. Have you had an occasion to examine the minutes of the Local Union meetings? A. Recently? 61 Q. Yes. A. No, sir. 62 Q. What are these books (indicating) ? A. Those are minute books, 63 Q. Minute books of what? A. Of the regular and special meetings. 64 Q. But you have not examined those? A. Not since I was the recording secretary. 65 Q. We have a stipulation here, sir, that there was an aver- age number of members present at a Local Union meeting: Would these minute books show exactly how many members attended? A. No, sir. Sir, the attendance records would show that in- formation. 66 Q. Who would have that information? A. The recording secretary. 67 Q. Did you have it when you were the recording secretary? A. Yes, sir. 68 Q. Again, when were you the recording secretary? A. Up to the election in 1970. 94 69 Q. Up until that time you would have kept the attendance records? A. Yes, sir. 70 Q. Tell me about that book: How was it used at the meet- ings? A. Do you mean the attendance book? 71 Q. Yes. Sir, I do mean the attendance book. A. At first we had the members to sign the sheet, a yellow— you know like the legal size paper. This has the signature of the men and their clock numbers. Then later after the meeting, I transferred this information, the signature and clock numbers into a bound book. This was the second recording. The original minutes were kept in a file. 72 Q. By you? A. Yes, sir. Then a motion was made to use a ledger book, rather than using the yellow sheets. 73. Q. Was that approved? A. Yes, sir. 74 Q. Approximately when did you go from the yellow sheets to the ledger book? A. I imagine that it was two years ago, sir, or better. 75 Q. Continue. A. It would tell this in the minute books. 76 Q. Now, sir, when a member attended a Union meeting, whether they were using a pad or the register: Would the member sign that pad, or the register? A. They would sign it when they attended the meetings, yes. 77 Q. Where would this pad or register have been kept? A. Generally it was kept at the front door as they came in. 78 Q. Would it be there during the whole meeting? A. Yes. Sir, in most cases it was. 79 Q. Then when the meeting was over you would take it— A. Either me or the guard would bring it up to the recording secretary. 80 Q. Would either the pad or the register be accessible to any member of that Local if they wanted to look at it? A. Not readily, no. 81 Q. What do you mean by that? 95 A. It was kept in the file. 82 Q. I understand that. Sir, if I am a member of the Local, and sme that I made a request to see that, Mr. Witness, would you have shown that to me? A. You could have seen it in my presence. 83 Q. That is what I mean. A. Yes, sir. 84 Q. Did you ever have any requests from any people, or mem- bers, during the time that you were the secretary, did anyone ever request to look at it? A. Yes, sir. 85 Q. —the registration or pad? A. Yes. It was possibly one or two times. 86 Q. Would you cooperate and let them see the book? A. It is their book, sir, as well as mine. 87 Q. I understand that. My question is: You would, I take it? A. Yes, sir. 88 Q. While you were the recording secretary, Mr. Witness, did you ever receive any complaints about the way that the books and the register was kept? Sir, I am speaking of the method that you used. A. Any complaints? 89 Q. Yes. A. There was a discussion on it at the time that we changed to the ledger. 90 Q. Why was that change made, sir, if you know? A. The reason for it, I do not know. They just wanted it all in a bound book. 91 Q. There has been some testimony here, I think, by a Gov- ernment witness that he saw on one occasion a member sign two names— A. Yes. 92 Q. —his own name and apparently some other name. A. Yes. 93 Q. Did you ever have any complaints during your three years, as recording secretary, about any instances of that occurring? A. No, sir. 94 Q. Nota single one? 96 A. I would not say that it was a complaint. This was men- tioned to me one time as a father and son. In other words, one of the gentlemen had signed for both. 95 Q. Okay. A. This is the only occasion that I can recall. 96 Q. Who would have called that to your attention, do you recall? A. No, I do not. 97 Q. Did you verify if that was the truth? A. As far as verifying, sir, I do not suppose— 98 Q. So you do not know whether that occurred or not? A. No. 99 Q. Okay. A. Both of the men generally attended the meetings at the same time. MR. SERWER: Objection, Your Honor. There has been no showing that this witness has actual knowledge of that occurring. Your Honor, this is mere speculation and conjecture on his part. THE COURT: The objection is overruled. That goes to the weight of the evidence. 100 Q. Do you know of your own knowledge, Mr. Witness, how many presidents that Local Union has had in the last ten or twelve years? A. How many what? 101 Q. Presidents. A. By “presidents”, Mr. Reese, what are you referring to? 102 Q. Presidents of the Local. A. Oh, presidents of the Local. It would take a little bit of thinking. I would have to go back— 103 Q. Would these minute books help you? A. Yes. Sir, they should. (Whereupon Mr. Reese tendered a document to the witness. ) [198 ] * * - (202) MR. SERWER: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Witness, you may look through those and see if you think those are the Union’s records for the last several years. 97 Mr. Baker, approximately how long do those records cover; how many years? WITNESS BAKER: Your Honor, the first book goes back t> 1963. The first minutes were in May. THE COURT: Does that look like the same set of books that you have had custody of at one period of time or another? WITNESS BAKER: Yes, sir. Your Honor, I can tell because this is my own handwriting (in- dicating ). THE COURT: As quickly as possible, Mr. Baker, go through those records— WITNESS BAKER: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: I believe those are the records that Mr. Jet testified to— WITNESS BAKER: Five or six, Your Honor. 104 Q. Five or six. MR. REESE: Your Honor, it was five or six. THE COURT: Mr. Jet testified that there were five or six presidents. THE COURT: I believe that Mr. Jet testified that there were five or six presidents according to his memory. How is that? MR. SERWER: Your Honor, we would agree to that. THE COURT: All right. That is what the records show up to this time. MR. LAWSON: Your Honor, in the interest of time might I ask counsel for the Government if the investigation made by Mr. Shadrach, during the investigation by Mr. Shadrach, if he has any records showing the number of presidents, Your Honor, then we might be able to stipulate to that. MR. SERWER: Your Honor, I would ask Mr. Shadrach. Just a moment, Your Honor. (Whereupon a conference was had among counsel. ) 98 THE COURT: Let the record show that counsel is conferring with Mr, Shadrach. (Whereupon a conference was had. ) WITNESS BAKER: Your Honor, I think that it is four. MR. SERWER: Your Honor, I think it is obvious that this wit- ness has absolutely no independent recollection as to how many presidents there have been, or does he have any familiarity with any of the substantial portions of the book that he is leafing through now. THE COURT: He has been a member of the Local and he has worked for Stran Steel for twenty-five years, and it takes a while to refresh your recollection. WITNESS BAKER: Your Honor, I show five. There was a brief period when one of the vice-presidents took over. THE COURT: Mr. Jet said five or six. WITNESS BAKER: Yes, five. THE COURT: Proceed with your questioning, Mr. Reese. 105 Q. So that I understand it, Mr. Witness, that was in the period of the last ten years? A. Yes, sir. 106 Q. Do you have any recollection as to the number, or how many other officers that they may have had in that Local during the last ten years? A. No. Sir, this is because they changed at every election. Every office does not change at the same time. In most elections there were certain officers that did not change. 107. Q. How many officers at each election? A. You have five top officers, and the Grievance Committee. 108 Q. How many years? A. Three years. 109 Q. Three on the Grievance Committee? A. No, three years of officers, 110 Q. No. How many Grievance Committee members did you elect? A. Five. ; a ~ iki sninienectbensioediaahasaasensensi ~ 99 MR. REESE: Your Honor, in order to save time, Your Honor, I wonder if we could not substitute a Labor Department's vertifica- tion to submit to His Honor the number of officers that this Local has elected in the last ten years? I wonder if the Government would verify it by any records that they have? THE COURT: Exhibit E indicates that in the particular elec- tion that is in question, that there were places to vote for fifteen different persons. There were three trustees, five on the Grievance Committee, and seven other officers, Mr. Reese, for a total of fif- teen There were fifteen persons elected at the June, 1970 election. Mr. Reese, that shows in the stipulation. MR. REESE: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: I think the record is clear that there has been a number of officers elected and there has been a number of changes in the officers, Mr. Witness, there have been four elections and could you state approximately how many changes there have been? WITNESS BAKER: Approximately forty. THE COURT: The Court will accept the estimate. MR. SERWER: Your Honor, what was the answer? THE COURT: He said there were approximately forty offi- cers. [206] oe * * * [210] 123 Q. Thank you. MR. REESE: Thank you, Your Honor. No further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Serwer, you may cross-examine. MR. SERWER: Thank you, Your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION, QUESTIONS BY MR. SERWER: 124 Q. Mr. Baker, you have testified that there was a certain number of presidents within the last ten years; is that-correct? 100 A. Yes, sir. 125 Q. Did all of those presidents fill out their terms or did they leave prior to the end of their terms? A. I think that some left before their terms were over. 126 Q. How many? A. Possibly two. 127 Q. President Uzzell left before his term was over, did he not? A. Yes, sir. 128 Q. Was he then impeached and then he resigned? A. There was a trial hearing— 129 Q. Then did he subsequently resign? A. Yes, sir. 130 Q. Subsequent to the resignation of any of these presidents within the last ten years: How is a new president put into office? A. Do you mean— 131 Q. Is he simply appointed into office? A. Do you mean before the expiration of his term? 132 Q. Yes. Before the expiration of his term as president— A. When a president resigns, sir, the vice-president steps up and takes over the office of president. 133. Q. How long does the vice-president remain as president? A. He serves out the term, or until the next election. 134 Q. How long might that be? A. I think the bylaws state—I am not quite sure. I think it has to be close to an election time— 135 Q. So some of the presidents within the past ten years, sir, in fact were men who were not elected to that office? A. They were elected to an office, but not president. 136 Q. Not elected to president? A. That is correct. 137 Q. Now, Mr. Baker, you were at the polling place on June 22, 1970; is that correct? A. If that is the date. [211] . * * * [214] Your Honor, can we have that repeated? THE COURT: He said that they were certainly visible. 154 Q. With regard to the attendance books that you prepared 101 and kept during the period of June, 1966 to June of 1970: You did keep those books during that time; is that correct? A. Yes. 155 Q. What appears on those books? A. The name of the member and the clock number. 156 Q. Are there signatures on that book? A. Are you referring to the originals? Sir, are you referring to the yellow copy or the book that I have transcribed? 157 Q. The yellow copy contains signatures; is that correct? A. They do. 158 Q. The transcript contains your handwriting? A. Correct. 159 Q. And you utilized both of these records in order to prepare the list which contained twenty-two people who had attended eighteen meetings? Sir, is that correct? A. Yes. 160 Q. What did you use to determine — A. The books and records that I had transcribed. MR. LAWSON: I am sorry. Mr. Baker, I cannot hear you. A. I used the books to transcribe. I used the book to tran- scribe the information, sir, because they were all clear and uniform. 161 Q. In those books was there any other indication, or any indication if that person had, in fact, attended a meeting? Sir, I am speaking other than the mere existence that his name was in the book. Was there anything else there that would prove to you that the man, in fact, had attended a meeting on a given date? A. Only the fact that I transcribed them from his own sig- nature. 162 Q. Did you verify his signature with a signature that was kept on file at the Union? A. No. 163 Q. It was simply a signature? A. True. 164 Q. Was there any indication in either of these two sets of records, sir, to show the period of time that a member would spend at a meeting? A. We do not keep the time that a man attends a Union meeting. 102 165 Q. Might he have signed and left? A. It is possible. 166 Q. It is true, sir, is it not that men come in at all times — A. Well — 167 Q. — late for a Union meeting? A. That is true. 168 Q. And they cn sign at any time during the meeting? A. When they first come in. 169 Q. That is correct. If they come in after the beginning of a meeting, sir, then they sign the register? A. Yes, sir. 170 Q. And they do? A. Yes. 171 Q. It is a fact, is it not, that men came in at 2:00 and 2:30 for a meeting that began at 1:00 P.M.? A. Yes. Sir, this is possible. 172 Q. And they have signed the register? A. Yes. 173 Q. And there is no penalty for doing so? A. No. 174 Q. Is it similarly true that those records did not contain any indication as to whether a member had left early or not? A. That is true. 175 Q. In fact, you have done that on occasions, yourself? A. Yes, sir. 176 Q. Now during the period of time that you were a teller and you observed the conduct of an election at the Union Hall: Did you instruct voters to go to the back room to vote? A. No. 177 Q. Did you instruct voters to make themselves — strike that. Did you instruct voters to prevent their ballot from being seen by others? A. No, sir. 178 Q. There were simply no voter’s instructions as to where or how they should vote; is that correct? A. That is correct. 179 Q. Throughout the day there was conversation; is that cor- rect? 103 A. Very little. 180 Q. What about the period after 4:00 P.M. in the afternoon? A. At 4:00 P.M. the men were interested in getting in and voting and getting out to go home. 181 Q. How many men were in the room at that time? [217] * * * * [229] CLAY JETT, a witness called by the Defendants, being first duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION, QUESTIONS BY MR. LAWSON: 1 Q. Mr. Jett, are any officers of the Local — THE COURT: Mr. Witness, you are still under oath. 2 Q. Mr. Jett, are any of the officers of the Local paid for their services as officers? A. Yes. We do get a salary. 3 Q. Was this true in the 1967 through 1970 period? A. Yes, sir. 4 Q. Is it true today? A. Yes, sir. 5 Q. What officers are compensated? A. The president draws $75.00 a month. The finance officer draws $75.00 a month. 6 Q. Okay. © A. The vice-president draws $35.00 a month, and the shop stewards draw $15.00 a month. I am not quite sure of the figures, but that is close. | 7 Q. Is that payment made whether or not they attend the Lo- cal Union meetings? Is there any additional payment made for attending the Local Union meetings? A. There is no additional for attending the Local Union meetings. 8 Q. Am I correct that there is no payment made to the offi- cers, sir, if the treasury: of the Union falls below a certain set figure? A. There is no payment made if the treasury falls below $3000.00. 9 Q. Has this been true since 1967? A. No. Sir, this was put into effect a year or so ago. 104 10 Q. So from 1967 through 1970, sir, the payments were just as you have indicated? A. Not necessarily. Sometimes during this period the pay- ments were cut out, and at one time it was reduced by a certain amount. 11 Q. What caused that? A. The finances were getting down low. 12 Q. But there is no payment based upon whether one attends a meeti¢ or not? A. Right. 13 Q. Right. A. I am sorry. I believe that the shop foreman has to attend three meetings to be paid. 14 Q. They get $10.00 or $15.00 a month? A. It is either $10.00 or $15.00. Sir, I cannot [230 * * & + 105 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION No. TH 70-C-117 Peter J. BRENNAN, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor (Successor to James D. Hodgson, Resigned ) v. LocaL 3489, Unirep STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO AND UnitTep STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that Plaintiff, Peter J. Brennan, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor (Successor to James D. Hodgson, Resigned), hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from the order of the District Court dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint, entered in this action on the 30th day of April, 1974. Respectfully su) mitted, STANLEY B. MILLER United States Attorney by: WILLIAM F. THOMPSON Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Plaintiff 246 Federal Court House Indianapolis, IN. 46204 317/633-7581 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_2133%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.