Appendix — Farmer v. Carpenters

APPENDIX

IN ‘THE

SUPREME COURT

OF ‘THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1975

No, 75-804

JOY A, FARMER, Special

Administrator of the Estate

of Richard T, Hill,

Plaintiff-Petitioner,

vs,

UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF

CARPENTERS AND JOINERS

OF AMERICA, LOCAL 25,

et al.,

Defendants -Respondents,

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT,

DIVISION TIVE

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

Filed December 5, 1975

CERTIORARI GRANTED

January 26, 1976

Vol, Il of TV

Pages 396 - 590

Q For their own personal

they may have been going out to the track the

following day ?

A Or they might have been dodging

alimony,

te ate ae ae ae aie

MR, GEFFNER: May we approach the

bench, your Honor ?

(RT 1200]

THE COURT: Allright. Do you want

the reporter ?

MR, GEFFNER: Yes.

(The following proceedings were held

at the bench, )

MR, GEFFNER: Your Honor, what Mr.

Hobart has done is selected one month at random

out of over a two-year period, of which we have

hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of work

orders, and the testimony we have to date is that

on the dispatch slip that a man is dispatched

either by request, either by a man coming in him-

self, or by the company calling in, or by the

company writing in, or by the business agent

finding the man a job on a transfer froma

company to a jobsite, and sending him down for

a request; various ways where a request may be

written,

396,

Now, in the absence of any other evidence,

for Mr. Hobart simply to put in at random, what-

ever they are, 22 work referrals, without any

showing, any evidence that these men were not

requested -- which is his burden to show that they

were, then, illegally dispatched, as he puts it,

and they were not requested under one of the

various systems the witness has testified to, and

just simply putting in 22 odd names of carpenters

and encumbering the record, confuses the jury,

and has absolutely no relevancy to any of the

issues in this case,

There is no showing of the illegality of the

dispatch procedures in general, or more import-

antly, and specifically to Mr. Hill, All he's done

is pick out names -- that is, a work referral,

(RT 1201)%

where there is no written request, * which is only

one of the systerns.

I'm not even sure that all of the requests

are available, There's other systems of re-

quests, and there's no tie-in with these individuals.

Why confuse the jury and encumber the record?

THE COURT: Well, I think it goes to the

weight and not the admissibility, so I will receive

these particular referral slips.

MR, GEFFNER: Well, your Honor, does

that mean that | have to then go in on defense and

contact all 15 -- all 22 men and 22 companies and

397,

find out whether they were requested? Because

I have to do that to answer this.

THE COURT: I don't think you have to

do that. You have the testimony of your dis-

patchers, such as this gentleman that's on the

stand, and we have others as to what the practice

was in February of 1968,

MR, GEFFNER: Yes, but, your Honor,

without a tie-in, leaving the record the way it is,

with the dispatch records in evidence, the only

way outside of the testimony of the dispatcher to

completely rebut any inference that might be

drawn, which I think could be damaging, is to

show on each one of those jobs, by either the

carpenter or by the superintendent, that he was

requested in one form -- which I could do, but

that means bringing in 22 different instances as

to the fact they were requested,

You know, I can doit, It's just a question

of mechanics, and rounding up these carpenters,

Il assume most of them are available, except the

(RT 1202]*

ones that are dead, The* companies are in

business. Ican contact all the superintendents

and find out if they requested all these men, 1

feel absolutely certain I can, but it means I have

to prolong the trial and bring all these other wit-

nesses, which | feel I would have to do, by

bringjng in the irrelevant --

398,

THE COURT: Well, I think it is admiss-

ible, and we will just have to be confronted with

the possibility.

MR, GEFFNER: You are putting me to

a tremendous job, and the court, as well,

I can represent to the court these carpen-

ters are available, their superintendents are

available, and these were requests, and this

means I have to go out through the logistics to

satisfactorily answer 22 slips.

THE COURT: Well, these are problems

of trial tactics. It doesn't solve my problem on

admissibility.

MR, GEFFNER: Okay. Just don't get

mad at me, your Honor, when | bring in 22 wit-

nesses and prolong the case for days.

THE COURT: We will have to face it,

We He He he He he

(RT 1237]

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF EARL GEORGE

DALEY (Resumed)

BY MR, HOB ?T;

Q Mr. Daley, I believe that in our

last session we were beginning to draw your

attention to the sheets of March 13, 1967,

399,

Can you tell me what page Mr. Hill is on,

and what line?

A He's on page 3, and one, two,

thre, four -- line 5,

Q And for the preceding week he was

[RT 1238]*

on page 3 at* line what?

A Line 7.

Q Now, inasmuch as we don't have

any records for that period of time, Mr. Daley,

could you give us an explanation how a man could

spend a week on the sheets, and actually gain but

two positions; only two men in front of him get

dispatched ?

A Sometimes we have a slack period.

Q Well, taking a look at the period

of 6-13, we see that that period shows not too

much slackness. We see one, two, three, four,

five, six, seven, eight, nine -- at least nine

dispatches that are shown on these sheets, and

you have already told us that a high number of

dispatches are not shown on the sheets.

Do you recall in particular whether that

period of time was what you call a slow period,

or is that just a guess?

400.

A No, I wouldn't recall that particu-

lar period.

Q That would be a pretty short move

up the list, wouldn't it?

A Not necessarily, not unusual.

Q It is not unusual just to move up

two places in a whole week ?

A Not unusual.

Q Well, I'll tell you, unfortunately,

we don't have records for those periods of time,

but we have records for all of 1968.

Can you suggest one time in 1968 when

[RT 1239]*

the same phenomenon occurred ?

A I wouldn't --

Q Just one. Just think about it.

A No, sir; no, sir.

Q Well, before you say no, think

about it. Maybe you can.

A No, sir, I ca..'t, really.

Q You have never even heard of it

before, have you?

401.

A I didn't say I hadn't heard of it,

you asked me if I recalled it.

Q Well, then, I'm going to ask you

to do it this way. You think for a second, and

see if you can try to remember one for all the

time in 1968, or the last half of 1967 -- we've

got those records, too -- or any part of 1969,

where the workingmen on these sheets only moved

up two places, a man on the second or third page.

Just take a second and s#e if you can think

of any such period, aside from the strike, we'll

Say.

A Well, in the back of my mind I

know that this has happened, but to specifically

point out a certain period, no, sir, Mr. Hobart,

I can't do it.

Q Mr. Daley, isn't it true that one

of the explanations for that is that dispatches

were going out of that office that were not being

recorded, that were not being stricken out, and

that were not being taken out of order, and that's

one of the reasons for the lack of a man moving

up in his rightful position ?

A I'd like to hear that again,

(RT 1240] .

Q Yes, sir. Isaid, isn't it true

that one of the reasons that Mr. Hill and others

on that particular occasion, these books of

402.

March 6th, March 13th, Mr. Hill moved up from

line 5 to -- or line what? 7, I guess it is, to

line 5 -- in a whole week, isn't it because a good

number of those dispatches that did go out went

out under the table, so to speak ?

A To my knowledge, I never knew

of one dispatch that went out under the table.

Q Did you ever dispatch a man out

in the evening? Did you ever give one mana

dispatch in the evening, rather than in the

morning ?

A Yes, I have.

Q Now, can you tell me if you give

as many as 10 men dispatches in the evening?

A Very possible.

Q Now, pursuant to what authority,

Mr. Daley, would you give these men these dis-

patches ?

A I wouldn't quote it as authority,

but if you have 10 men come in in the evening with

requests from a contractor to go to work the

proceeding morning, I didn't feel it my duty to

penalize them a day's pay by making them wait

until in the morning, because they weren't on the

books, anyway. They were requests by the

company, and transferees, or steady employees

of a particular project.

403.

Q Do you recall where you made your

notations for those dispatches, so that we would

know ?

A My notations ?

[RT 1241]

Q Yes, where would you make a

notation so somebody could check to see if indeed

that was a valid dispatch, or whether it was just

you playing favoritism ?

A Well, there wasn't no set rule for

such a procedure, but I felt at the time that if

there was a question of it I could fully satisfy

anybody that was in doubt, or wanted to find out

about it.

Q Mr. Daley, I see our employer

requests that we have retained somehow start in

July of 1968. Now, that's when you left,

isn't if?

A Yes.

Q Would you happen to have any

personal knowledge as to where any of the re-

quests for prior to July 1968 are, the ones when

you were in office?

A Would I have any knowledge of that ?

Q Yes.

404,

A Not after I left the office, sir.

Q You left the office, you didn't

make any notes or compilations in order so that

you could go out of office knowing what records

were there and what records were not there,

so that you would know what you could be held

accountable for, and so forth?

A I'm afraid I didn't.

Q You wouldn't have copies, or know

where copies of any of the work referral slips

for, we will say, a period in -- oh, wait a second,

maybe we do have them -- yes, we do have some

for February 1968.

Mr. Daley, neither you nor I have had a

[RT 1242]*

chance* to do this before, so one of us is going

to be surprised,

You indicated to us yesterday there's a

whole bunch of these oral requests that somehow

don't get the word "Request" written doen on

them. Now, I've got here in front of me photo-

copies that I took of the written requests out at

Local 25, back in early 1970, late 1969, when-

ever it was I was out there.

Let's see if you forgot to write down the

word "Request" on any of these. Can you tell me

who the men requested is on this one up here

405.

you're looking at ?

A You asked me if I know the man?

Q You can just read the name, is

what I'm asking.

A Oh, yes. Yes,

Q What name can you read?

A Walter Noll,

Q And the date of that dispatch

appears to be, at least the date of the request

appears to be? What's the date of the request?

A Oh, 2-21-68,

Q Okay. Now here's one that comes

as a surprise to me. That one doesn't say re-

quest on it, does it, but he was a request, wasn't

he?

A Well, as you say, there's no re-

quest on that.

Q That's what I say, that's a surprise

tome. Let's keep going.

How about Mr. Payne on the 21st ?

A Delmar Lloyd Payne on the 21st,

406.

« Well, Delmar Payne -- well, the

(RT 1243]*

word ''Request''* shows up on his, doesn't it ?

A Yes, sir.

Q All right, let's separate the ones

where the word ''Request'' shows, and the ones

where it doesn't.

What does this look like? Does this look

like a Mr. Ole Jacobsen? Is that what that looks

like to you, the William Simpson Company on the

20th ?

A That would appear to be Ole

Jacobsen, yes.

Q Let's see if we can find Ole

Jacobsen,

Okay, here's Ole Jacobsen, request for

the Simpson Company; and does the form say

request, or not?

A Request foreman,

Q Okay. At any rate, at least that's

not a surprise to me. Let's go on,

I can't read that one, so we'll -- that's a

kind of light. Maybe you can see who that's for,

If not, we have others we can skip to,

407.

A This is an employer, sir, and this

is where the man's name is. There's nothing

there,

Q Well, it just didn't come out, so

we'll just take the next one,

This looks like Gary -- is that Lohman?

-- being requested by somebody or other on the

19th,

A That's what I would make it out

as, Gary Lohman; but I don't know who -- what

the request is. Ican't read the company.

Q Okay. Well, let's just see if we

can find that request for Gary Lohman,

(RT, 1244]

What date was that?

A The 19th, Go back to the multiple

list, could be on that.

A) To what ?

“A To the multiple list.

) Of course, these aren't 100 percent

in order, either.

A There it is.

408,

Q There we are; and he does have

the word request written on him ?

A Yes, sir.

Q Okay, that's another nonsurprise

for me, isn't it?

Let's try to Mr, Gilbert on the 19th being

requested by the William Simpson Company,

Harold Gilbert, is that his name?

A Yes,

Q There we go; is that him?

A Yes.

Q Does the word request appear

written on that work referral?

A Yes, sir.

Q All right, let's put it over here,

then,

And we have a Robert Bailey being re-

quested to Steelform on, it looks like, the 20th,

doesn't it?

A Yes, it seems to be the 20th,

Q Robert Bailey. We'll look for

him around that date, anyway.

Ah, here we go, Steelform, right, on

[RT 1245]*

the 20th, * and sure enough, it says, ‘Request, "

right on there, doesn't it?

A Yes.

Q And the last one on this one page

seems to be a Daniel Martinez Guerrero, Is

that how it looks to you?

A Which one, this one here?

Q Yes. I realize that it's hard to

read, and if you can't read it, we will skip it.

It's on the 19th,

I will take a quick look to see if I see

anything,

A It's Guerrero, that's the way I

make it out. I'm not sure, it's very faint.

Q All right.

Oh, is this him? Daniel M, Guerrero?

A Seems to me.

Q Again, you dispatched him, and

you wrote the word "'Request"' right on there,

didn't you?

410,

A Yes.

Q By the way, you just pick any other

date in here, if you want to, Mr. Daley. I assure

you, I have just picked them at random, If you'd

like to --

A Heve's the 19th,

Q Welk, I know, but we haven't got to

that one yet, have we? I'm talking about going off

the request list here.

A This is a request list.

Q All right.

A This has to be a request list.

Q Does it have to be?

A Yes, it is, it's multiply done that

[RT 1246]*

way. It's* a sample of what [ told you could

happen in the evening.

Q All right. Well, let's hang on to

it, maybe we will find it.

This is one of those evening ones, huh?

A Wel'l, it could be, 1 didn't -- I

didn't say that.

411.

Q Okay, let's try January 1 -- I mean,

January 5th, Andy Yuhas to Ruane Corporation,

Okay, here's Andy Yuhas requested by the

Ruane Corporation, and the word "Request" is on

there,

How about a Clarence Kane on February

16th. We'll jump to February the 16th, see if

we can find one for him,

There we go, there's his. The word

"Request" is written on it for him, too,

Hiroshi ~-- quite a few fellows on that one,

What date is that? -- 29th, Steelform, Let's

see if we can find something for 2-29, Kiriu,

Rodriguez, Guerrero, Steelform, huh?

Did we miss it? Don't let me

jump past anything. You just keep an eye on me,

Here we go, that's this one right here,

isn't it?

A Yes, sir.

Q And again you have the word

"Request" on there,

Have we got ten yet? I didn't want to do

this forever, but I would like to get -- yes, we

have ten, and we have ten where you have written

the word request, that we have taken just at ran-

dom out of here, and we've got one where you

412,

haven't written the word request on these sheets,

Mr. Daley,

(RT 1247]

Okay, is this the next one? I thought

that's the one we just had,

A No, there ain't no request on that

one,

Q These are different people. You

will agree with that, that's not the same?

A No, but it's the same man. He's

a foreman,

Q Well, we don't have the request

form in front of us, and for the moment, to keep

us from going through all of them, we've got one,

and I will certainly agree with you that there could

have been more than one in the history of your

dispatching procedure, Mr. Daley.

But the point I'm making is this, when you

have a written request, that is, a request where

you've got physical evidence that the man was re-

quested in case anybody would ever be critical of

you, you write the word ''Request" on here.

Based on the 10 we took at random, you

wrote that word request 90 percent of the time,

9 to 1, and yet yesterday you went through stacks

for one period in the month of February in 1968,

and when the work request didn't appear there,

413.

you said, well, that's probably a telephone request.

Mr. Daley, would you tell me what it is;

what is the significance, or what is the difference,

giving yourself any latitude to come up with any-

thing you like, as to why you would write the word

request when you have physical evidence of the

request, and yet when you claim to have some

sort of a telephone request for a man, you don't

bother to write that down on his work dispatch

sheet ?

[RT 1248]

A You emphasized telephone requests.

If I remember right, I said it could be telephone

requests, could be one of a number of reasons,

Q That wasn't my question, Mr.

Daley. My question was, why do you write the

word request down when you have written evidence

of a request in front of you, proof of it, and why

do you not write the word request down when you

claim it is an oral request?

MR, GEFFNER: Your I[lonor, I'd

object. This question has been asked and

answered, to my recollection, at least four

times last week, and Mr. Daley has testified as

to his practice in terms of writing down request,

or not writing down request, depending on whether

he happened to write it down or not, and Mr,

Hobart is simply arguing with the witness at this

point.

414,

MR. HOBART: Your Honor, I'm not

trying to argue. _ I think it is a very crucial point,

THE COURT: Yes, we will see if we can

produce an answer, and if not, well, go on to

another subject.

BY MR, HOBART: Do you have

any more of an answer than you have already

given?

A I'm afraid you will have to start

again, sir.

Q Mr. Daley, as we have shown,

approximately 90 percent of the time when you

have a written request you physically write the

word "Request" or the initials "req" or at least

on 90 percent of the work referrals that went out

of that office.

Now, yesterday you tell us that when you

[RT 1249]*

get an* oral request, or something over the

telephone, or when a man comes in and says,

"Hey, I worked there before, '' you don't write

the word "'Request"' down on that dispatch, and

I'd like to know why, on the one hand when you

have proof of the request, you do write it down,

and when you have an oral request in which there

is no proof, you don't write it down.

415,

MR. GEFFNER: Your Honor, that was

not Mr. Daley's testimony. I object on the

grounds he is stating answers in his question,

that it is not Mr. Daley's answers.

THE COURT: Well, I think Mr. Daley

can answer the question, and point out any

discrepancies between the question and what his

testimony has been.

Go ahead. ;

THE WITNESS: As I've stated before,

there's any number of reasons, to particularly

enumerate it now; but one of them is what I just

brought out this morning, that eight or ten men,

or one man with eight or ten cards, could come

to the hall in the evening and request a job clear-

ance where they had to go to work someplace far

away in the morning at 7:30, before we open the

hall; so I felt it my duty to see that these men

had their request to go to work, so I would write

them out either singly, or if I was in a hurry,

with a multiple list.

So It's entirely possibile that I wouldn't

put the word "Request" down on this particular

thing. It could have been a job clearance.

Q BY MR, HOBART: What do you

mean, it could have been a job clearance ?

od

416,

[RT 1250]

A In other words, it could be a new

job starting up, and the man came in under the

rules of his union to clear himself for this particu-

lar job.

Q Men can't come in just because a

job is starting up and say, ''Hey, Mr. Daley,

there's a job starting up. I want clearance to

go on that job"?

A He doesn't say it that way, sir.

He comes in and requests a clearance, and

proves himself an employee of the job address

that he has pointed out, and then it is my business

to know that this job is there, and it has or will

be started.

MR. HOBART: May I have that answer

read back, your Honor ?

THE COURT: Very well.

(Answer read. )

Q BY MR, HOBART: How does he

prove himself an employee of that job, Mr. Daley?

A By showing a check stub of a reason-

able length, like a couple of days before, a week

before.

Q What happens if the job is just

starting, and he hasn't had a chance to?

417.

A As I say, he's a regular employee,

and therefore, he's entitled to come in and demand

a request clearance,

Q Say that again.

A He's a regular employee, and

therefore, he's entitled to come in for a job

clearance to another project.

Q If he is a regular employee, he

doesn't have to come back to you for anything --

[RT 1251]

A Yes, sir.

Q Once he's been out to that job,

signed out there validly, he's got to keep coming

back to the hall?

A Again, you twisted my words.

I said he's a regular employee of the

company, and therefore, entitled to a job

clearance to start a new project.

Q All right. Mr. Daley, I know

that a man who is a regular employee of the

company, as well as a man who is not in the

regular employ of a company, has a right to

be requested; is that right?

A Yes, sir.

418.

Q Now, Once a job is started up, no

man has a right to come to you and say, ‘Hey,

Simpson's got a building going over there, I

worked for Simpson before. Iam a request.

Please send me out a request slip, or a dis-

patch slip''?

A I'm afraid you're putting it absolutely

wrong, sir.

Q You mean to say they can do that?

A Not the way you Say it.

Q Well, I put it in the negative,

Mr. Daley.

A Well, I'm afraid it creates -- I

can't answer it the way you say it, because it's a

wrong impression in my mind,

If a man is a regular employee he's

entitled to be transferred from one job to the

other.

Q If he's a regular employee for |

Mr. Simpson?

A Yes, sir.

[RT 1252]

Q And if Mr. Simpson asks him to be

transferred; right?

419,

A Yes.

Q All right. Now, let's look at that

man, Let's forget all about anybody who's got

any present connection with the Simpson Company

all right? Let's just get down to Joe Blow,

who's sitting on these books hoping he's going to

get afair shake. Let's talk about him.

Now, the man who is on page 11 of these

sheets, does he have any right to come to you and

say, "Well, Mr. Daley, Simpson Company is out

here starting a building. Ihave worked for them

before. They want me again. Here's my check

stub to show I worked for them a year and a half

ago. Please send me out with a dispatch slip"?

A I'm afraid the way you put it, it

couldn't be done that way.

Q First off, if you did it that way,

it would be a violation, wouldn't it?

A Wouldn't be no violation, because

it wouldn't be honored,

Q I take it, then, if it had been

honored, it would be a violation?

A It wouldn't have been honored,

Q Well, Mr. Daley, we have gone

through numerous people in February of 1968 who

were dispatched from the bottom of the list, and

from elsewhere, not even on the list, so when you

420.

say it never happens, I assume that is a bit

argumentative.

(RT 1253]

A I didn't say it never happened, I

said we wouldn't honor such a thing if it came to

our attention,

Q My last question to you on this

area, Mr. Daley, is simply, do you have any

explanation for writing the word "Request" on

these work referrals that we have gone through

this morning about 90 percent of the time, and

yet on those dispatches of people who were taken

off the back of the list, and people who weren't

even on the list that we went through last

Thursday, for during the month of February

1968, you don't write the word "Request" at all,

or -- well, stop right there -- rmany on which

you didn't write the word "Request" at all, yet

you Claim a request,

Is there some reason that you can think

of that you didn't write some explanatory note

on those people's sheets, as you do on the sheets

of the people who get these legitimate requests ?

A There's no law, or no written law,

or no rule that requires the word "Request" to be

written on a work referral. It's not that

important,

MR. HOBART: Your Honor, I'd ask

that these 10 work referrals that I just went

421,

through the list with to show that the word

"Request" is written on approximately 90 percent

of the time, be admitted collectively as plaintiff's

next in order.

THE COURT: All right, that will be 55,

Q BY MR. HOBART: Mr. Daley,

directing your attention to the out-of-work sheets

of 3-20-1967, page 2, Mr. Hill is on line 14; is

that right?

[RT 1254]

A I would --

THE COURT: What page?

MR. HOBART: Page 2, line 14,

THE COURT: Without counting them, I

will take your word for it.

Q BY MR. HOBART: Now, the

following week, Mr. Hill, that's on the sheets

of 3-27, Mr. Hill is on page 2, line 15,

Would you agree with me that it is counter

not only to the flow of water, but to the nature

of that out-of-work list, for a man to go back-

wards on that list?

A I would not agree with you,

Q Skipping where it's not contrary to

nature for water to go backwards --

A I didn't say that.

Q I say skipping that part, tell us

why it would be a natural phenomenon for a man

to wait a week and slide back a notch on those

out-of-work lists if all of the dispatches are

being properly registered and done according to

the rules of the dispatch procedures,

A It's possible that a man was put

back on the list because of reasons -- legitimate

reasons,

Q Isee. like a pickup?

A Possibly. That's one of the

reasons,

Q Do you see anybody marked

"Pickup" on there anywhere ?

A No, sir, I didn't check for that.

Q Well, take a second and check it.

A Well, it wouldn't be no use in

[RT 1255]*

checking it, * because it wasn't always written

there in the first place.

423.

Q I see. Anything other than that;

any other reasons besides a possible pickup ?

A Well, he could legitimately be

somewhere on a court appearance, or he could

have been -- anything that would keep him from

coming there at the hall and having his name on

the week before,

Q Then he'd come in and slip his

name back in?

A Not slip his name back in,

Q No, I didn't mean slip it -- well --

A He's legitimately entitled to his

position,

Q If a guy goes to the courthouse,

subpoenaed into court here, he shouldn't have to

lose his position, is what you're saying?

A No, this is true.

Q Yes, but who -- okay, let's

assume a man is subpoenaed into court here

today, you know, one of the carpenters as a

witness in our case, and he's not there on

Monday morning, this morning, to sign that

book in. Why wouldn't it be a violation of all

the rules to have one of the business agents

write his name in for him when he had to be here

in court ?

424,

A I don't think any business agent

would write his name in. _ I don't recall ever

doing it.

Q What would happen to the man?

He'd have to lose his place, wouldn't he?

A No, I don't think that doing his

duty to appear in court would entitle him to be

punished,

[RT 1256]

Q How would he get his name in his

place, then?

A He would come up and legitimately

explain what happened to him.

Now, are we going to dispute the law of

the land, say, 'You be here, the hell with the

court''?

Q I think you've got a real good point

there.

Mr. Daley, I'm showing you a copy of one

of the white slips for the month of -- from the

month of February, dated February 6, 1968,

apparently taken at 11:00 a.m., someone whose

initials are E, F., That would be Evelyn Folick,

wouldn't it ?

A I would assume so, yes, Sir.

425.

Q All right. Then can you tell me

basically what that white slip is asking for ?

A Well, this is a request for several

men by the City.

Q A telephone work order from a

contractor, the City, saying ''Send us out some

carpenters, '' and they have requested over the

telephone that a certain three or four of them be

sent out; is that the idea?

A I would have to screen them,

Q Yes, but that's basically what they

have asked for?

A I would still have to screen them,

Q You have to answer "Yes"' to the

question, or "'No" to the question, and then say

that.

A Okay, repeat your question,

Q Basically, they are asking you to

[RT 1257]*

send out certain* designated men?

A They stipulate what they want,

Q Well, in law it takes two to stipu-

late, like to tango, Mr. Daley.

426,

A I have to do what the City says.

They tell me, they stipulate what they want.

Q That's right, they give you the

names of the men they want?

A No, sir.

Q What names appear there ?

A These names, James Payne,

Austin Solis, George Solis, if available, which

I assume that they had worked for the City before.

I would assume that,

Q Right. Wouldn't you also assume

that somebody from the City got on the telephone

and talked to Mrs. Folick and said, ‘Mrs. Folick,

we need four men, and if these four are available,

would you send them out to us on the job, and

today's the day, and send out these four people, "'

and named the men?

A This could be possible if they had

worked for them before,

Q And you say now you'd have to

screen these men?

A Would have to screen anybody

going for this particular job, if they hadn't been

requested by name,

Q But in this case they had been

requested by name,

427.

A So I would assume they had worked

for the City before,

Q All right. So, in other words,

[RT 1258]*

it's just on the* telephone requests, is what this

is?

A No, not really.

Q This is not a telephone request ?

A This is, in all probability, a

telephone request. :

Q Is an improbability ?

A It is, in all probability, a

telephone request.

) I'm sorry, I thought that's what

you said,

I'm going to tear off my little handwritten

note at the bottom, Mr. Daley. You will be the

witness to that's all I am tearing off there; all

right ?

A I'm afraid my word wouldn't be

good. You have to talk to the jury.

Q It would be good for that, Mr.

Daley.

428.

Your Honor, may I offer that that be

accepted ag plaintiff's next in order -- I'll tell

you what I will do, I will let you even hang on to

that.

THE COURT: That will be 56,

Q BY MR. HOBART: Mr. Daley,

there's nothing like getting egg caught on your

face by not checking out anything before, but

I'm going to gamble,

Mr. Daley, I'd like to direct your atten-

tion to the out-of-work sheets of February 19,

1968, and let's locate the name of Richard T.

Hill.

Here we go. We see him on page 4,

line 2; is that right ?

A That's right -- page 4 -- I mean,

page 4, line 2, that's right.

Q Now look on that page and the next

[RT 1259]*

page as well, * and tell me if you see the name of

Marion Chavez, the fellow we referred to yester-

day as being one of your constant stewards.

A I don't even recall the name

Marion Chavez, let alone a constant steward.

Q You don't remember Mr. Marion

Chavez ?

A Not that I recall, no. No, I don't

recall the man at this point, at this moment.

Q Well, maybe he's a stranger to you.

A I wouldn't say that, I just say I don't

recall him.

Q Have you been having any memory

problems in the last few years?

A I would -- possibly.

Q Okay.

Let me show you what his health and

welfare record looks like. See, it says ''Mario"’

here, but his name is Marion. I think that could

be just a mistake, but you may know him as Mario.

A I may know the gentleman if I see

him by sight, but the name means nothing to me

right now.

Q As you can see here, he worked a

fair number of hours, didn't he, right along,

during your administration?

A Well, I'm not familiar with these

sheets, so I can't --

Q Okay. Well, I won't argue with that.

430.

At any rate, you saw Richard Hill here on

page 4, line 2, and did you see Marion Chavez

anywhere on pages 4 and 5?

[RT 1260]

A Couldn't find such a name,

Q Okay, let's see if you can see him

on page 3 anywhere.

A No, sir.

Q How about page 2?

You don't see him there?

A No.

Q Then page 1. I don't suspect we

will see him there, either, but we will just look,

nevertheless.

I don't see him there, do you?

A No, sir.

Q All right. Now, let's take a look

at the next week's sheets. That would be

February 26th,

Now, let's find Richard T. Hill again,

and if we find Richard T. Hill, we can find him

on page 3, now, at line 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,

9, 10, 11, 12 -- 13; right ?

431.

A Yes, sir.

Q Now, who do you think we see up

here at line 4 on that page ?

A We see a Chavez; a M. Chavez.

Q That's right. Do you know of any

other M. Chavez besides this fellow ?

A I don't know this Chavez.

MR. HOBART: Your Honor, I'm just

curious if I can find those other sheets to see

how this man's name is written. I think we

looked at the two other sheets before, but I

can't remember what dates they were in. I

wonder if your Honor would have that information,

by any chance ?

(RT 1261]

Remember, we passed it to the jury,

where I asked them to compare two signatures

to see if M. Chavez had the same signature.

Now, dad-gummit, if I can remember which two

pages it was.

THE COURT: Well, maybe we'd better

take our morning recess for 10 minutes and see

what you can find,

MR. HOBART: Thank you, your Honor.

432.

THE COURT: The jury is given the

customary instruction,

(Recess, )

Q BY MR. HOBART: Well, Mr.

Daley, back to the books, as they say.

As I recall, we had just discovered that

Dick Hill was on page 4, line 2 of the 2-19-68

sheets, and then we went to the 2-26 sheets --

and by the way, on the 2-19 sheets we didn't find

the name of Mr. Chavez anywhere, to the best

of our collective ability; is that correct?

A That's right.

Q All right.

Then on the next week's sheets, February

26, 1968, we have Mr. Hill down here on page 3,

I think I said around line 11, 12, or 13 --

THE COURT: You said line 13 last time.

MR. HOBART: Thank you, your Honor.

Q Now, if you count down 1, 2, 3,

4, 5, 6, 7, 8 -- eight lines above Mr. Hill's

name, now who do we find mysteriously appearing ?

A Looks like M. Chavez.

Q. Indeed it does.

433.

[RT 1262]

Now, these sheets are made every morning,

and then they are left open during the week for

people to sign as they may terminate another

employment during the week, or otherwise become

available for registering for work; is that right?

A _ They are left available for every-

oody.

Q Right.

Wouldn't it be a fair presumption to say,

at least as to page 3, the first three, four, or

five pages, as a rule, they are always completed

on Monday morning?

A Usually.

Q Now, isn't it also true it is the

responsibility -- I know this is redundant, and I

know you already said ''Yes"' to this once -- but

isn't it the responsibility of the business agent

to insure that the sheets are signed in the same

order from week to week ?

A Now, it's the business agent's

responsibility, of course, to see that these work --

out-of-work lists are presented, or written in

order; but as far as to insure, there's no way a

business agent can insure it.

Q Isee. He can make mistakes;

that's what you are saying ?

434,

A Well, of course.

Q Of course, all right.

At any rate, it is clearly an error for

Mr. Chavez to be there, isn't it?

A Apparently, it looks as though it's

an error.

Q Now, I show you a photocopy of my

[RT 1263]*

notation, just* to save the time of going through

the files there; but you see on February 29th,

1968, Mr. Marion Chavez was dispatched by you

to the William Simpson job on 800 West 2nd Street;

isn't that right? Ican get the original one out --

A No, it shows this is a work referral,

and it shows that I evidently dispatched him.

Q Okay. He wasn't a request, was

he ?

A I have no way of knowing.

Q Well, you didn't write ''Request”"

anyway, did you?

A Certainly didn't.

MR. HOBART: And, your Honor, I do

have Mr. Chavez's health and welfare record

here, which indicates that he worked for the

435.

William Simpson Company in February 1968,

working for them for a total of 16 hours, and ask

that that be plaintiff's next in order.

Q Now, Mr. --

THE COURT: Justa minute. That

Health and Welfare Trust record for Marion

Chavez will be received as exhibit 57.

You say it shows --

MR. HOBART: Yes, your Honor, for

February of 1968 it shows 16 hours at Simpson

& Compan,

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HOBART: If I may have that back,

I may ask another question on it, your Honor,

THE COURT: Yes, that would be No. 57,

MR, HOBART: Thank you, sir.

Q Mr. Daley, aside from just trying

to help a friend out and keeping him employed,

(RT 1264]*

can you think of any* reason why a man who had

been working regularly -- by regularly I mean

the following -- I'll just pick it up, say, October

of '67, 154 hours; November, 152 hours;

December, 56 hours; January, 99 hours; and

436.

then some other part in February, probably be-

fore the 29th, he had worked 72 hours for the

Vinnell Company -- is there any reason why

you can think of, sir, that a man who has been

working this regularly cvery month would be

given a dispatch to the William Simpson job,

when apparently others are ready, willing, and

able to work?

A I have no explanation at this

particular time for what you are saying, any

more than I have for his name being on the list.

Q By the way, just so that we know,

the dispatch sheet showed that he was dispatched

on the 29th of February; is that correct, sir?

A Yes, sir.

Q The health and welfare record

indicates that he also worked in March another

24 hours, then sometime in March he transferred

over to the R. J. Daum job.

You have no explanation as to why he kept

working here and there, and appeared on the list

at this time ?

A No, sir, I have no explanation

whatsoever for that.

Q All right.

Now, we indicated that Mr. Chavez had

not been on the February 19th list, but he was

437.

on the February 26th list.

[RT 1265]

Just for fairness, let's just see if he was

on the February 12th list, and again, we can use

Dick Hill's signature, I suppose, as a starting

point, inasmuch as he appeared slightly above

Mr. Hill on February 26th.

So here's the February 12th list, and Mr.

Hill is on page 4, and going up from there, do you

see his name anywhere -- Mr. Chavez's name

anywhere ?

A No,

Q How about on page 3?

A No, sir.

Q By the way, did you ever knowingly

allow any of the Mexican or Mexican-American

fellows, such as I see this Robert Lopez, to sign

any other person's name, with your permission?

A I wouldn't allow it, no, because

to us it was a -- well, it just wasn't done. We

didn't allow it whatever, no more than we'd sign

the name of a person ourself.

Q All right. Now, I had passed

around a document the other day showing Mr.

Chavez's name on it, and I thought possibly it

was spelled in two different ways, recognizing

438,

it's a close question; but do you see Mr. Chavez's

signature on the sheets of 3-18-68?

A Yes, sir.

Q And you see the signature of Mr.

Chavez on the sheets of 3-25-68 ?

A Yes, sir.

Q All right. You can see that there's

some difference, but I suppose neither you nor I

(RT 1266]*

are really qualified to give* an expert opinion on

it. Would that be fair ?

A I would say I'm not qualified, no.

THE COURT: Is that 3-25 or 2-25?

MR. HOBART: 3-25-68, your Honor.

Q And now let's take the sheets that

we have just been referring to, the 2-26-68 sheets

and let's add that one to it, and now you see Mr.

Chavez's signature here?

THE COURT: Page 3, line 4.

MR. HOBART: Yes, your Honor, on page

3, line 4,

Q Do you see his signature there ?

439,

A Yes, sir.

Q Wouldn't you agree that there is a

gross discrepancy between the last one, the one

on 2-26-68 --

A I'm sorry, I can't answer that,

either, no more than for this one than I could

for that one.

MR. HOBART: Your Honor, I wonder if I

could pass these three sheets, just in this order.

{can put a red dot on them, I'd like the nature

of the signatures to be brought to the jury's

attention,

THE COURT: All right, put a red dot on

it.

MR. HOBART: Thank you,

THE COURT: Do those exhibits have

numbers ?

MR. HOBART: Ido not believe they are

[RT 1267]*

yet, your Honor,* but I intend to offer them as

soon as they are through,

THE COURT: Ali right.

Q BY MR. HOBART: Mr. Daley,

if indeed Mr. Chavez was not entitled to be on

440.

page 2 of those sheets, and got dispatched from

those sheets from being that high up, he'd be

called a sneak-in, and that would be an illegal

dispatch, wouldn't it?

A I would -- I would agree with you

that he might be a sneak-in, yes, sir; but not as

an illegal dispatch.

Q Isee. The sneak-ins can sneak-

in, but once they are dispatched, they are not

illegal ?

A They might be dispatched wrong-

fully, but not illegally, because if we knew it,

we would correct it.

Q Mr. Daley, I'm going to show you

a document, and ask you to be kind enought to --

actually, it's a photocopy of two different docu-

ments. You can probably tell, can't you?

THE COURT: What is it you want Mr,

Daley to identify ?

MR. HOBART: Yes.

Q Just tell us what the documents

are. Can you identify that document, Mr. Daley ?

A Well, I don't recall seeing this

particular type of document, but to my mind, it

seems like a work request from the company,

441,

2 NR OES ~

|

Q Okay. Now, that would be a work

request from what company ?

A R. J. Daum Construction Company.

Q And would you agree with me that

[RT 1268]*

that it looks like it* was two different documents,

and they have just been photocopied together ?

A They would appear to be, except

for the names Whiteneck and Buettner -- Butler.

There's two different names, sir; Gary Whiteneck

and George Butler.

Q What I'm talking about, is that

when I photocopied these I took this memorandum,

and I took this memorandum, and I put it on one;

put it together and photocopied it so i. came out

one.

In other words, you can tell by looking at

it -- you can even see the line across here--

that one time it was two different documents ?

A This is what I would say, that it

is two different documents, although the same

date.

Q Of course.

Let's just label the top one, A, the bottom

one, B.

442,

Okay. Now, for document A, document

A requests what information; what kind of

assistance on what date?

A February 22nd of 1968:

"Please issue a clearance to Gary

Whiteneck 2nd per. apprentice to

work on Belmont High School,

1575 W. 2nd St."

Signed, "Thank you" -- I believe it's

R. W. Alexander,

Q Okay. What did the second docu-

ment request ?

A That is February 26, 1968:

"Subject: Please issue a clearance

to George Butler for Belmont High

$chool, 1575 W. 2nd St."

[RT 1269]

Q Those are just two typical requests

for the Belmont High School ?

A No, sir. This is a completely

different document. The first one read for an

apprentice,

Q Okay, but it was a request for an

apprentice ?

443,

gent Teer om

A That's right, a second period

apprentice.

Q The second document was a request

for a carpenter ?

A For a carpenter -- I would imagine

it's for a carpenter, because it is addressed to

Local 25.

Q Okay. I would imagine it is one,

too. All right, we will go on from there.

That's Mr. Butler, the second one?

A That's what it appears to be.

Q George Butler, now, on the 26th,

did you find there a dispatch for Mr. Butler?

A Yes, sir.

Q And it's indicated on it as a request,

is it?

A It is.

Q And here's the request you made

out for Mr. Whiteneck; is that correct?

A Yes, sir.

Q So when you got these two requests,

these two written requests in, you sent out these

two men pursuant to the requests; isn't that fair?

444,

A Yes, that's true; but, again, the

word "Request" is something for our personal

records, not necessary.

Q I know, but even though it's not

necessary, you wrote it down on both of them?

[RT 1270]

A That's right.

W Mr. Wilk did on one and you did

on the other?

A Yes.

Q And, again, you had both been

dispatching the same morning?

A Right, but the apprentice is not

governed by the same rule.

Q I realize that he get a different

amount of money --

A No, he's dispatched differently.

Q In other words, there is a written

request for him, and you sent him out and wrote

the word ''Request"' on the sheet, and there is a

written request for Mr. Butler, and you sent

him out and wrote "Request" on the sheet ?

A Yes.

445.

Q Now, here in these documents --

remember the documents that we admitted yester-

day, the ones that I testified that I had photocopied,

and we went through them, and then identified all

the requests, and everything ?

A Yes.

Q You recall those. Let's see if

these two requests show up there.

THE COURT: Is this exhibit 50 you are

looking at?

MR. HOBART: Yes, your Honor, I believe

it is.

Yes, your Honor, plaintiff's exhibit 50.

These would be the employer requests and the

white slips, the photocopies taken by me.

Q Now, directing your attention to

[RT 1271] *

the third page* of these requests, you notice that

under the employer request forms, the request

for the R. J, Daum Company that we have just

been referring to are not commented on, because

they are not on the standard request form, are

they? That's a kind of a makeshift?

A The company has either run out of

them, or else they used this method to carry on

their business.

446.

Q Right. Could even be a "widda"

block ?

A A widda block ?

Q A block of wood. All right, we

will get it.

Now, going down the list, we do see that

for 2-26, Daum requests two people, Gary

Whiteneck and George Butler; right ?

A Is this from the company, again?

Q Yes.

A Or did you type this ?

Q No, I typed this up, but I typed it

after reviewing all of these documents.

A Yes.

Q Okay. You can see this is re-

flected on here ?

A Yes, sir.

Q All right.

Now, I'm going to show you another dis-

patch made on the same day, in which you

dispatched a man by the name of W. O. -- what's

his name? Do you recognize that ?

447,

A My writing must have been very

bad that day. I can't read it.

Q All right. Well, it's W, O., We'll

[RT 1272]*

say Yosthon or* Yosthom. Isee ano-s._ It looks

like a h-o-n, or h-o-m; but at any rate, his initials

are W, O.,; right?

Is that right ?

A Oh, yes, yes.

Q Now, Mr. Daley, you indicated on

that same day that we have these two written re-

quests, that this man was a request. It says,

"Request, CL"; request clearance.

Now, can you tell me, where did you get

that request ?

A I'm a little bit confused, but his

could be -- this could be a telephone request, or

a follow-through request by telephone. But I'm

a little bit confused here. Are these the same

job?

Q I don't know, you will just have

to tell me.

I see there are no written requests.

448,

A I don't know whether these are the A Which indicates an employee of

same job or not, although they are the same date. steady nature.

One is 1575 West 2nd Street, and this one is

Beverly and Loma Linda Drive -- Loma Drive. Q Well, how does it indicate that,

Mr. Daley? On many of your requests you have

THE COURT: Well, I can take judicial written "Request clearance. "'

notice that they are adjacent.

A Well, that's true.

THE WITNESS: They are very close

together. Q You wrote "Request" in many cases.

THE COURT: Yes. A It was my little practice, whenever

I thought about it, to clear a man for a job because

THE WITNESS: Then it would appear he was a steady employee; but on a request, there's

they are from the -- oh, well, there's not a different problems involved.

request form here, as far as that goes. This

is not a request form, this is a job clearance, Q Mr. Daley, if this man was being

again. requested for this job, to have himself cleared,

why wouldn't he just have been included on one

Mr. Hobart, this is not a request, this of these ?

[RT 1273)* A As I said, he's possibly a steady

employee.

is a job* clearance, and therefore, it indicates

a steady employee. Q You raise that as a possibility, but

’ beyond that as a possibility --

Q BY MR. HOBART: It says

"Request" there ? A I'm quite sure that that would be

. the reason,

A No, it doesn't, it says job clear-

ance; request clearance, Q What do you mean, if he was a

steady employee ?

Q All right.

A In other words, he worked for the

company steadily, and that rather than the super-

intendent or foreman requesting him, he was

449,

450.

really asked to clear for the job, which automatic-

ally gave him a work referral.

Q Who asked to have him cleared for

the job?

A I wouldn't have any idea who

[RT 1274]*

requested him, but* generally it would be a person

in authority.

Q And that person in authority, who

writes requests for some of his men, you say

doesn't write requests for this one particular

person?

A No, I didn't say that, sir. I said

if he wrote this here as two requests, which they

are, this one here is a clearance request for the

employee who is steadily on their payroll, and

therefore, he's entitled to a job clearance. In

other words, he was transferred from this job to

this particular job.

Q Why doesn't it say job transfer or

rehire ?

A I'm sorry, Mr. Hobart, but, see,

it doesn't require you to spend your entire day

keeping notes on requests, and all that sort of

thing, because I wouldn't be able to get out in the

field.

451.

Q A rehire is one of the most common

words you have used.

A Yes, but I wouldn't write it.

You have written it before.

Not rehire.

Not that I know of.

J

Q

A

Q Not?

A

Q What about transfer ?

A Never wrote it. That's too long.

That's much longer than rehire,

Q Well, okay.

Aside, then, from the one possibility that

he was being -- that this was an oral request,

[RT 1275]*

this fellow, you* don't know what the dispatch

situation with him was?

A Well, being a clearance, about all

that was required of this gentleman to get a work

order was a check stub.

Q I gather from what you say these

men go around with these check stubs bulging out

of their pockets so thev can have them handy for

452.

you whenever they get around?

A I wouldn't say bulging, but most

of them have a knowledge of what they are re-

quired to do, so they have at least a recent

check stub in their pocket.

Q Do you recall if he had a recent

check stub in his pocket?

A No, sir. No, I wouldn't. 1

wouldn't recall.

MR. HOBART: Your Honor, I would ask

that the two requests of R. J. Daum, and the

three dispatches to the R. J. Daum of 2-26-68

be admitted as plaintiff's next in order.

THE COURT: All right, 58.

Do you want to staple them ?

MR. HOBART: Yes, I have clipped them,

but they probably should be stapled, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HOBART: Next I'd like to introduce

your Honor, the out-of-work sheets for April 18,

1968.

THE COURT: April 18th?

MR. HOBART: I'm sorry, we can do this

in better order than that. February 26, 1968 --

453.

THE COURT: The first one was February

18th, wasn't it?

MR. HOBART: No.

[RT 1276]

THE COURT: That's the one that doesn't

show Mr. Chavez onit. All right.

MR. HOBART: Well, I'm not sure --

yes, Chavez is shown on all three of these.

THE COURT: All right. Which was the

first one chronologically ?

MR. HOBART: I'll give it to you in

chronological order. February 26, 1968;

March 18, 1968; and March 25, 1968. I would

ask that they collectively, along with that dis-

patch of Marion Chavez on March 29, 1968,

which is appended thereto, be admitted as

plaintiff's next in order,

THE COURT: All right, you staple

them and --

MR. HOBART: I have a clip on there,

your Honor,

THE COURT: Isee. All right, this

will be 59.

Q BY MR, HOBART: Mr. Daley,

when you receive a request, we'll say an oral

454.

request for a man, and that man is not available

for one reason or another, is not in the hall when

the dispatch goes out in the morning, or he

doesn't want the job, or he's ill, or whatever,

then if you have to dispatch somebody else -- in

other words, if the guy says to you, if the order

giver says, "Mr. Daley, tomorrow we need one

forms man, Send me Joe Smith, if he's avail-

able. "' Now, if Joe Smith isn't available, then

is it within your prerogative to just send him

anybody else you want to, or would you have to

then revert to the unemployment list ?

A Well, it depends upon how the re-

quest was worded. In other words, if he wanted

a particular man, and this man was not available,

(RT 1277]*

and he didn't request a man in his place* if he

was not available, then I had no right to send

anybody.

Q Okay. But suppose he gave you

a request and said, "Send us Joe Smith if he's

available, '' but leads you to believe if he's not

available, then you've got to send somebody, be-

cause they've got to hammer in some nails, or

something.

A What do you mean by "leads me to

believe''?

Q Tells you.

455.

A In other words, a request, and if

there is one available, and if he's not, then send

him aman, anyway?

Q Right. That's right.

A Under those circumstances I would

have to go by the book,

Q All right.

Now, according to the white slips that I

copied down at the union hall, you will notice

that I made a notation -- which I will find for

you in a moment -- June 4, 1968, Austin

Company requests a man by the name of Arvin

Mayfair. Do you see that?

A I read it, yes, sir.

Q All right. Now, you did send

somebody to the Austin Company on 6-4-68, but

as you see, you sent Mr. Ed Burge; is that

right ?

A Right.

Q All Right. Now, my first question

is, if you will assume, and I will represent to you,

and I am under oath, that I copied down everything

that was on the pink slip, if you will assume that

(CT 1278]*

I wrote down everything there on the* white slip,

456.

have everything that appeared on that white slip,

wouldn't you say if Mr. Arvin Mayfair had not

been available for work it would have been your

responsibility to go to the books, the out-of-work

sheets, to get the man, or do you feel that you

had some other authority to get that man?

A I have to state right now that the

job request for this Arvin Mayfair, who I do not

know -- you evidently copied it off of the

records --

Q That's correct.

A -- and the request for Ed Burge

could have been a later development by telephone,

or even coming in and -- and with a little busi-

ness card, stating, "Please clear the bearer for

this job,"

Q Well, at any rate, among the

possibilities, Mr. Daley, one thing is for sure,

that you put down there Mr. Burge was a request,

and what does the name Anthony DeRoes mean

on it?

A It could have been that that was

the foreman that requested him.

Q Do you know if it was the same

foreman that requested Arvin Mayfair ?

A I wouldn't even know if it was the

same foreman, or anything; but the only name

I'm familiar with in a slight way is Ed Burge,

457.

and Arvin Mayfair I have no knowledge of what-

soever’.

[remember Ed Burge, because I think

he's a long-time member there, and

on the outside of my political fence.

[RT 1279]

Q Would your position be that he

had necessarily come from the top of the list, or

he may have come from anywhere ?

A He didn't necessarily have to be

on the list at all.

Q If he was a request ?

A Right; or clearance, either one,

Q All right. Now, with respect to

the same day you had a request from a Mr, --

or from a company by the name of E, A. Dotter

-- and some of my spelling may be wrong,

because I couldn't read it sometimes -- but he

requested one forms, and then in parens, a man

by the name of Carroll Rei. Do you remember

Mr. Rei, R-e-i?

A As far as I'm concerned, neither

one of these belong to my local. They belong

to another local out of there somewhere, so I

would have no knowledge of it.

Q Well, he certainly replaced Mr.

Mayfair with somebody out of your local ?

458.

A No, sir, I said I didn't recall Mr.

Mayfair at all. I didn't recall Mr. Rei. Ihave

a slight knowledge of this man Mr. Burge, and

that's all.

Q You say Mr. Mayfair is not in

your local?

A I wouldn't say that. Not to my

knowledge, he's not in my local.

Q And I said you replaced him on

that job by someone who was in your local,

A I didn't replace anybody here,

Mr. Hobart. In all fairness to everybody, this

[RT 1280]*

man could have been dispatched* or not dispatched,

he could have been dispatched and not showed up

for the job, or he could have been dispatched and

showed up for the job, or he could have been a

clearance by Mr. Anthony DeRoes. To go back

five years to pinpoint a certain source of informa-

tion, no; but the only thing I say is if Mr. Arvin

wasn't dispatched, he wasn't available. If he

was available, he was dispatched.

Q All right.

Now, with respect to this request by

Dotter, requesting one forms man, Carroll Rei,

now, I couldn't find any dispatch slip for Carroll

Rei.

459.

Let me just give it one more look. That

was for 6-04?

A Yes.

Q Well, I can't find a dispatch for

Mr. Carroll Rei to the Dotter Company, but I

can find a dispatch for a Mr. Milton Taylor of

Local 25. That's your local, isn't it?

A I believe it is, yes.

Q You sent him out to Dotter as a

request.

Now, Mr. Dotter requested Carroll Rei.

What gave you the authority to say that this

Milton Taylor was a request ?

A Well, we're going to have to go

back to one of your questions just a few minutes

ago, that if this man was requested by name,

then if he wasn't available, this particular man,

then there could have been a request for Milton

Taylor verbally.

Q Don't you think that would have

been noted at the same time the original white

[RT 1281]*

slip is made, "Send us Carroll* Rei, or if not

available, send us Milton Taylor"? Isn't that

the most likely possibility ?

460.

A Not really, Mr. Hobart, because

as I say, the bookkeeping -- we're just carpenters,

we're not bookkeepers, so we would refrain from

as much writing as we could.

So this Milton Taylor and Carroll Rei in-

cident, it could have been an oral request, and

that Carroll Rei, not being available, the next

man, or whoever he is, Taylor, was dispatched

by request, as an oral request.

Q Do you have any indication that

Mr. Taylor was requested by anybody besides

yourself ?

A | Besides myself ?

Q Yes.

A I haven't any indication that any

of these gentlemen you've got written down here

were requested.

Q You have only my word for it,

under oath ?

A I have your word for it.

Q And you also have the fact that I

have introduced into evidence photocopies of

some of the documents ?

A True. When I see these, I

recognize their legitimacy, yes.

461.

7

patie eed

we

Q They are all from the same source,

Mr. Daley.

My point is, Mr. Daley, when you indicate

that a man is a request, isn't it true that you have

just sent out to work a man that you wanted to send

out to work, and since there had been an original

request, just mark the next one a request, and

that way nobody gets any heat on your back for

sending out an illegal dispatch?

[RT 1282]

A That wasn't my procedure,

Q Mr. Daley, you told us that time

after time you don't keep this record, and you

don't keep that record, because there's no rule,

no law requires it, you're carpenters, you're

not businessmen, it is unimportant, you don't

have to keep records, you throw them away,

all this sort of thing, all that sort of thing.

Is that basically an accurate statement ?

A Inaccurate or accurate?

Q Accurate.

A Well, no, I don't say basically

accurate. It's a little bit slanted there, Mr.

Hobart. You're playing us out like a villain.

I did whatever my job required to be done,

Q Does your job require you to

write "request" on any of your request dispatches ?

462.

A No, it doesn't require it.

? °

Q You say you do sometimes, and

not sometimes ?

A Sometimes yes and no,

Q If you don't have to do it at all,

why do you do it in some cases?

A It's sort of a little historical date

that we keep. If we have to go back a day or

two, then it's in the records. Beyond that, no.

Q Isn't the same true if you have an

oral request, you should write that down so you

can go back?

A In all fairness, I would write down

request in all cases, but sometimes I didn't be-

cause I didn't think it was necessary, or I forgot

it completely.

Q All right.

[RT 1283]

Now, Mr. Daley, from January of 1967

up until the day you stepped out of office, at

least one person, and probably more, but at

least one person was charging you with constant

illegal dispatches, wasn't there ?

A There was one person at least,

yes, guess so,

463.

Q That person was Richard Hill,

wasn't it?

A Constantly.

Q All the time charging you with

that ?

A Constantly.

Q Did he threaten --

A Socially, constantly. Every time

we met, he constantly -- while we were drinking,

he constantly accused me of doing things.

Q He would tell you that that dispatch

procedure had just become a shambles, a joke,

and that it wasn't worthwhile, things of that sort?

A According to Mr. Hill that was

his theory and that was his opinion,

Q And he told you he was going to

the District Council of Carpenters, and he was

going to file charges against you, didn't he?

A I think, if I recall, he was going

all over the country to file charges against me.

Q And to your knowledge, he did go

to the District Council of Carpenters, and did

file charges ?

464,

A You say to my knowledge. No,

sir, I don't recall it.

Q You don't recall him ever filing

[RT 1284]*

charges against* you?

A No, sir. I was never called into

the District Council to answer any charges.

Q Did any member of. the District

Council of Carpenters ever come over and

investigate the dispatch procedures ?

A I have had the District Council

come over and go over them, but as far as --

they'd stand there and watch the dispatch

procedure.

Q But as far as an investigation,

did they ever do that ?

A Not to my knowledge, no.

Q But, in other words, during all of

this time, Hill told you he was even going to

take you to the NLRB, didn't he?

A I've heard so many things in that

vein from Mr. Hill that it's quite possible.

Q And Mr. Hill did, in fact, file

charges, and did take you to the NLRB, didn't he?

465.

A That's right.

Q And before the NLRB they went

and took a batch of these records, and you had

to explain somewhat similarly as you are doing

here; isn't that true?

A Somewhat, yes.

Q Now, with all of these charges

going on, your reputation at stake, reputation

of the union at stake, possibly money of yours

and of the union, International Brotherhood at

stake, didn't you think, sir, that that was

sufficient reason for you to again start making

some legible notations and records with respect

to your dispatch procedures ?

[RT 1285]

A I didn't think so, because there

was no base of foundation whatever in any of

these charges,

Q The NLRB disagreed with that,

didn't it ?

A That was the opinion of the NLRB,

Q But you didn't feel that the fact

that he had made these charges, and the fact that

these charges were going to be reviewed by men

of authority, people in authority, you didn't feel

that it meant you were going to have to establish

certain consistent practice, such as always

466.

writing a request, if it is a request, or never

writing it? You didn't change any of your

practices ?

A My basic practice was always

honest, and to change it because of a fallacy

and accusations that had no basis of fact in

them, that would be against, almost -- against

nature.

I trusted my honesty, and I felt that the

accusations of Mr. Hill were completely

erroneous, and so I felt no alarm about this --

not too much alarm, anyway.

Q Mr. Daley, not to actually subject

ourselves to it, because it would be time-con-

suming, but let me just ask you to pick out a

month, just any month -- what's the month of

your birthday, or wife's birthday, or something.

A Let me check, I think it's July.

Q All right, let's just take the month

of July.

Mr. Daley, I have in front of me the

carpenter requests Sor July of 1968.

Do you remember yesterday we went

through carpenter requests for the month of

February 1968, and we found so many of the

dispatches that said "request'’ on them were

467.

[RT 1286]*

not, in* fact, verified by written requests, and

you said, well, possibly they were oral requests.

Do you recall that ?

A Oral or phone call, and that's

what you claim was the same thing,

Q All right.

A They could have been in-person

oral requests.

Q Yes, okay.

Now, Mr. Daley, if we took the dispatches

-- just to make things easy, would it embarrass

your wife too much if I took the next month?

A Embarrass me -- what did you say?

Q Could I take the next month, August,

without having you think I'm running a ringer on

you?

A I'm sure you wouldn't do any harm

to me that way, intentionally.

Q I'm sure not; but I do have the

August dispatches which I couldn't find for July.

They are around somewhere, and I have the

August '68 requests.

468.

Now, do you think the figures, if we went

through these one by one, do you think the per-

centages would be just about the same as they

were in February, when we found there are a

good number of people marked requests here,

but the requests don't show up here? Would

you think that would be just about the same

percentages ?

A The circumstances that you're

revealing here are not the same, so the question

can't be answered that way.

Q All right, you tell me how the

answer can be -- the question can be answered.

[RT 1287]

A Well, there's so many possibili-

ties. When you say requests, you're not talking

in terms of one or two or three or a hundred.

There are some times when we have as high as

seven or eight hundred a month.

Q I don't quite understand what that

means with respect to the question.

A I mean we clear men through the

local in various manners and various ways, and

to come out and say -- well, I say we dispatch

through the hall, through the -- in the ordinary

routine of business, some months as high as

six or seven hundred men,

469.

Q All right. Well, for the month

of August, apparently you dispatched -- August

of '68, you dispatched about this many.

I'm showing you the work referral slips,

and they are about an inch high altogether when

they are pressed.

A All right.

Q That's probably two, three hundred,

somewhere around there, wouldn't you say? A

couple of hundred, anyway.

A I'll take your word for it.

Q All right. My question is, if we

took the time to go through these to see whether

all of the requests that are here in the request

lists have been marked "request" here, do you

agree that we would find a number of people

marked requests in this list whose name does

not appear over here in the written request

forms ?

A These written request forms may

[RT 1288]*

come into play and* they may not. The company

has them on file.

Sometimes they run out of them, and

therefore, it's not very serious, so they write

a request on anyting; but sixty percent of our

470.

people are working, and they are steadily em-

ployed by contractors throughout the country.

Q When you say they run out of

request forms and they write it on anything,

they write it on such documents as those as we

have here, just little scraps of paper, momentos,

anything ?

A Business cards, blocks of wood.

Q I can only represent to you that

this is what your union officials have brought in

to us. I didn't bring them in, so I would

assume they are as much as they've got.

Wouldn't you agree with that ?

A Yes, sir.

Q All right. My question is, again

-- maybe you can answer this yes, or maybe you

can answer it no -- if we went through the re-

quests and we found a corresponding work

referral, wouldn't you agree that at least 95

percent of the work referrals would have the

word "request" on it? That's point one.

A I never went -- I never got the

question put to me before. Ican't say. No,

I wouldn't be able to say that, no.

MR. HOBART: Your Honor, I wonder if

it would be possible to break at this point, and I

will do this during the lunch hour,

471.

THE COURT: Iwas just going to suggest

[RT 1289]*

that probably it* would relieve the tedium of the

jury if you do that.

MR. HOBART: I wish I could relieve

the tedium myself, but I'll do it during the

lunch hour.

THE COURT: All right.

Well, we will recess now until 1:30 this

afternoon, and the jury is given the customary

admonition.

MR, GEFFNER: Your Honor, can we

go into chambers for a minute?

THE COURT: Yes. Do you want the

reporter ?

MR, GEFFNER: Yes.

(The following proceedings were had

in chambers:)

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR, GEFFNER: Well, your Honor, I

wanted to go on record at this time, because I

didn't want to constantly pop up and interrupt

Mr. Hobart's cross-examination of Mr. Daley,

but I do want to state that I have-a continuing

472,

objection, with your Honor's permission, to the

constant referral by Mr. Hobart in his, I'd put it,

wanderings around the dispatch records over the

period of over two years; that selecting names

at random, trying to compare signatures, ques-

tions as to what type of requests, and so forth,

that none of the items, with possibly one or two

exceptions, is there any tie-in with Mr. Hill in

any way.

And my objection is, one, on the grounds

of relevancy; but secondly, on the grounds that

what Mr. Hobart's attempting to do is, in effect,

try the dispatch procedures before this jury and

court of Local 25, without any tie-in to Mr. Hill,

and that this is exactly the type of procedure

[RT 1290]

that is the basis for the pre-emption doctrine,

that the matter belongs within the expertise of

the National Labor Relations Board.

The state court and the jury is not ina

position of evaluating the accuracy or the

businesslike efficiency or the fairness of the

hiring hall of a construction union that is involved

in interstate commerce; and again, rather than

objecting constantly, I would like the record to

show I did have a continuing objection to this

type of questioning, as well as the introduction

of exhibits which are picked out of names at

random, which have been picked out for any

month during the two and a half year period.

473.

THE COURT: Well, your objection is --

of course, the court appreciates your helping

expedite this matter, as you have, by not con-

stantly objecting, and I think Mr. Hobart

probably is about through, aren't you?

MR. HOBART: Yes, your Honor, I am.

I'm just about done with Mr. Daley, except for

some specific conduct between him and Hill.

You see, the problem I've had is Mr.

Daley denies that he's ever done any wrongdoing

in the dispatching. Mr. Geffner asks Mr. Hill

if he can name even one illegal dispatch, and

I'm just -- I'm limited as to showing when there

were some illegal dispatches, inasmuch as

inconveniently for us, some of the records of

the time period most desirable are omitted;

so I have to show by inference if it was done

here, then inferentially it was done there, and

that's the reason I had to do that in 1968, because

[RT 1291]*

we don't have the records* for 1967,

THE COURT: Well, I suggest you go out

and work on the matter that you selected so that

we can either have it tabulated or summarized to

the jury.

MR, HOBART: That's what I will do.

THE COURT: Then let's get on to your

specific contacts with Mr. Hill; between Mr. Hill

474,

and Mr. Daley.

MR. HOBART: Because I don't have

* much more as far as records are concerned,

THE COURT: So I will continue over-

ruling the objection.

MR, GEFFNER: Well, I --

THE COURT: Iwill allow it. Itis

agreed that it continues as a running objection

to this line of testimony.

MR, GEFFNER: Yes, I just wanted to

emphasize, your Honor, that I understand

your Honor's ruling, but that to merely throw

in a series of names as to whether their slip

was marked request or not request is absolutely

no proof that they were in any way dispatched

out of order.

THE COURT: Well, it may be, but that's

a matter, I think, for argument, and we will see.

We will see how Mr. Hobart hooks it up

in his summation, and if it gets to the jury, how

the jury treats it.

So let's go to work on these things and

try to button it up this afternoon,

(Whereupon, the noon recess was taken

until 1:30 P.M, of the same day. )

475.

[RT 1292]

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HOBART: Thank you, your Honor,

Your Honor, I had reference to these two

documents, a work dispatch for Mr. Ed Burge,

which had originally been a white slip request for

Arvin Mayfair, and I ask that that be admitted

as plaintiff's next in order,

THE COURT: All right, that will be 60,

and that's June --

MR. HOBART: 4.

THE COURT: All right, that is 60.

MR, HOBART: And as 61 I would request

the work referral slip to Milton Taylor, who

came in on a white slip request for a Mr. Carroll

Rei, dispatched on 6-4-68,

THE COURT: That's that Dotter ?

MR. HOBART: Yes, your Honor, I think

so.

THE COURT: All right.

476.

MR, HOBART: We will see if we have MR. HOBART: That's right.

some more 1967 --

Q I know of no work referral slips

Q. Mr. Daley, let's see how many themselves. I know of no white slips, and I know

of these we have in order for the first three of no orange or employer requests.

months of 1967.

Do you know of any for that period of

We've got January 9, January 16, time, those first three months of '67?

January 23, January 30; February 6, February

13, February 20, February 27; March 6, A I wouldn't have the least idea that

March 13, March 20, and March 27; so that far back.

should give us the first three months pretty

complete, shouldn't it? ; Q All right. So to determine whether

there had been any improper dispatches, we're

A Yes. somewhat limited, wouldn't you say, without these

additional records ?

Q Now, Mr. Geffner asked whether ,

Mr. Hill could point out one illegal dispatch in A I didn't hear you.

those three months of 1967. Let's see if you

and I can't find some. Q I said, in order to make it an

accurate determination as to whether there were

[RT 1293] any improper dispatches in those first three

| months of 1967, we are somehwat limited in that

Now, keep in mind what records we have we don't have much in the way of records.

to work from, and if you know of some others, .

tell me. As far as I know, all we have to work A I don't know how to answer you

from are the out-of-work sheets themselves. I there. That's your supposition,

know of no work referral -- °

Q Okay. You'd say we are some-

THE COURT: This is the first three what limited in our records? Would you say

months of '68 ? that ?

MR. HOBART: '7, your Honor. A You say that,

THE COURT: '67?

477. : 478.

Q You'd say that, too, when you can't

[RT 1294]*

see anything* more than that in front of you,

wouldn't you?

THE COURT: Well, I don't thinkg we

are getting anywhere here.

MR. HOBART: All right, your Honor,

Q Mr. Daley, if you would take a

look at the sheets of 2-6-67 --

THE COURT: These are the out-of-work

sheets ?

MR, HOBART: Yes, your Honor,

Q Have you got those sheets? All

right.

Now, to begin with, Mr. Daley, taking a

look at those sheets of 2-6-67, tell me if you find

the name of Mr. A. Walker.

A In a particular sheet -- I mean,

page ?

Q Yes -- well, I'm going to have to

help you with that. We're going to have to run

through it together, because unfortunately, time

didn't permit me all the details that we wanted.

479,

Mr. Hill is on page -- well, I'll show

you where Mr. Hill is when we find Mr. Hill.

Let's just go down looking for A. Walker and

Richard Hill, how's that?

Okay, here's Richard T. Hill on page 6.

See him ?

A Uh-huh,

Q He's down about line 16.

A 17.

Q 17? There's 21 lines. '

A Yes. Got five below him,

Q If that's 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,

so he's on line 16, Okay?

[RT 1295]

A Uh-huh,

Q So Hill is on page 6, line 16,

Now, Mr. A. Walker, just keep looking

for him over here, see if he doesn't show up

sooner or later.

A Well, you're going pretty fast.

I'm not as fast as you are,

Q Okay.

480.

THE COURT: Haste makes waste.

MR. HOBART: Indeed it does.

Q Well, by George, here we go,

Albert Walker. See him there?

A Yes, sir.

Q He's on page 15, isn't he?

A Uh-huh,

Q He's at line 18?

A 18.

Q Line 18,

Now, there's no dispatch listed after his

name, is there, on that?

A No,

Q We know that Mr. Walker got

dispatched, Mr. Daley, because I happen to have

a copy of the Carpenters Health and Trust, and

you will see that in February of 1967 he was dis-

patched to Swinerton & Walberg, and he worked

67 hours at 420 South Grand Avenue. Do you

see that?

A Yes.

481,

Q All right. Inasmuch as these

records do not indicate the date of the dispatch,

[RT 1296]*

we just know that it's* 2-67, Walker, A. Walker,

dispatched to Swinerton & Walberg, and he got

67 hours,

And we also know that Hill, above him

on the lists -- i

A Is this supposed to be this request ?

Q Well, you're going to be able to get

an opportunity to say which of these were and

which ones weren't at the appropriate time. We

will just go through them right now and see what

we have.

Your Honor, I'd offer Mr. Walker's health

' and welfare record into evidence, indicating that

he was dispatched on that occasion,

MR, GEFFNER: Your Honor, I object to

the reference of dispatch. There's no evidence

of him being dispatched.

THE COURT: It's evident that he did --

or there was a quarter for him, 67 hours of

earnings at Swinerton & Walberg in the month

of February, 1967.

And that's the document you want me to

mark into evidence ?

482,

————EEVe eS

MR. HOBART: Yes, your Honor,

THE COURT: It will be received as 62,

MR. HOBART: I will need it back, your

Honor. There's also one other one off of that.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HOBART: Thank you.

Q Now, turning our attention to the

sheets ° March 6, 1967, I will again have to.

start lou. ag for Mr. Walker.

But to begin with, we know that Mr. Hill

is on page 3 at line 7. Do you observe that?

[RT 1297]

A You mean you're looking -- still

looking for Walker ?

Q Right now I'm looking on March 6,

1967; correct?

A And you're looking for Albert

Walker ?

Q Yes, but before we do, I just want

you to take notice that Mr. Hill is on page 3 at

line 7. Is that fair enough?

A Fair enough, but I'm confused,

here. Are we still looking for Mr. Walker ?

483.

PAGINATION ERROR

TEXT IN SEQUENCE

Q Yes.

A One week -- or one month after he

was dispatched, supposedly ?

Q Sometimes these people show up

just all the time, Mr. Daley.

A Well, I just want it clear, you

see, because I was a little confused here.

Q All right. Well, I'm going to

show you the health and welfare record. lam

going to give you the inside information just a

little ahead of time.

You see that he was dispatched to

Swinerton & Walberg, and the, sure enough,

one month later he was sent off to a four month

job to Pozzo Construction Company, wasn't he,

so let's --

A Well, can I ask you a question,

sir?

Q You certainly may.

A Do you have the dispatch orders

for them two jobs?

Q Mr. Daley, I never had them,

ever, and I only wish that Ihad, The answer

is no, sir.

485.

[RT 1298]

A Well, can I ask you another

question ?

Q Surely.

A It's assumed that he was dispatched

from Local 25?

Q That's an assumption that I'm

making, but you and your counsel have all the

vast facilities of the carpenters' records, and

you can rebut that presumption when it's your

turn. Fair enough?

A Well -- fair enough, but I'ma

little confused at the way you're going about it.

I just wanted to clear my head about it.

Q Anytime you want to get your

head cleared, just let me know and we'll try to

clear it.

Now, we know Mr. Hill is on page 3,

line 7. Now, let's look on down and see if we

can find Mr. Albert Walker someplace on these

lists again.

I realize I'm going faster than you, but

believe me, I've done this so many times that

I'm almost the world's greatest expert at it.

A I'll give you a job in the Local 25's

dispatch office.

486.

Q If I lose this case, I may need it.

Okay, Albert Walker, page 8, line 2; is

that right ?

A Yes.

Q So Walker's at page 8, line 2.

You'd concede that certainly is well behind Mr.

Hill; isn't that right ?

A Sure.

Q All right. Now, on that date, or

at some date around that date, because we don't

[RT 1299]*

have the exact day off of* here, but some date

in March of '67, Mr. A. Walker was dispatched

to Pozzo Construction Company.

He worked on that job for 4 total of, let's

see, one, two -- 705 hours; and, again, Hill is

above him on the lists.

That's all we have on Mr. Walker today.

I'll hand that back to your Honor,

Now, to move forward on Mr. Geffner's

question if we can show any other questionable

dispatches, let's go to a dispatch of a man by

the name of Alex Blancarte. Now, you will

notice that on some date in February of 1967,

according to the Carpenters Health and Welfare

487.

Trust records, Mr. Alex Blancarte --

THE COURT: Alex Blancarte ?

MR. HOBART: Yes, your Honor. It is

spelled B-l-a-n-c-a-r-t-e.

Q -- was dispatched to Pozzo

Construction Company, and we don't know the

date that dispatch occurred, whether it occurred

before or after he was dispatched to Shirley &

Associates; but the Pozzo Construction Company

job lasted until December of 1967.

A Could I ask you one question?

Q You surely can,

A Where was the jobsite ?

Q Gee, if you'd only kept the records

we could have answered you, but I just can't tell

you, Mr. Daley.

A Well, Mr. Hobart, Pozzo is a

pretty big construction company, and so is

Swinerton & Walberg. If I can't know the

[RT 1300]

address of the job, how do I know he was dis-

patched in my area?

Q Well, you can be sure of one thing,

he was on your sheets, because I will show you

488.

the name on the sheets.

A You're allowed to go to any local

and have your name on two or three local sheets.

Q Well, as I indicate, your counsel

has all the vast powers available to him. You

can go out and check all the other sheets of the

other locals, and if we are trying to infer some-

thing else --

MR. GEFFNER: Your Honor, you can

be sure we are not going to check 34 other locals

out-of-work sheets.

THE COURT: This is from the health

and welfare records. What month did you say

Blancarte was sent to Pozzo?

MR. HOBART: February, your Honor,

Your Honor will notice I'm only sticking

to the three months where counsel asked Mr.

Hill if he could name one single illegal dispatch,

so we are just going to stick -- during those

first three months, so we are just going to stick

to that first three month period.

THE COURT: Well, have you got

Blancarte's relative position?

MR, HOBART: Yes, your Honor, I'm

going to get that right now.

489.

On the sheets of -- well, if Ihave my own

here I can do it quicker.

Mr. Hill suggested to me that maybe a

Catholic church over on Hill and Main, that

[RT 1301]*

Pozzo job. Does that ring* any bells with you?

A I seem to remember several

buildings with Pozzo. One was in Hollywood,

one was in West Hollywood.

Q I'm just trying to be helpful.

A Well, I don't think that's being

helpful, because that's a leading question, be-

cause you suppose it's a church, I don't know,

Q I don't suppose. it, I didn't know

Pozzo built that church,

A Well, they did.

Q That's good to know.

Now let's take a look at the sheets of

February 13th. We see that Mr. Hill was on

page 5 on those sheets, I believe. He is indeed,

he's the last name.

Now, let's see if we can find Mr,

Blancarte on here anywhere.

490.

A I didn't see this other individual. A Well, of course it would, Suppose

You don't want to check on me, or anything ? he was being sent to -- if he was dispatched to

Like the judge said, haste makes waste, Pozzo Construction by his own local, the health

and welfare records would show it.

Q You go ahead, I may be as

wrong as rain, I'm just trying to save time. Q Well, I'm suggesting that he was

sent from here, because he shows up on your

My mistake, my notes are that Mr. sheets over the years time and time again,

Blancarte does not even appear on these sheets,

so naturally, we are not going to find him. A No, he doesn't, sir.

A I don't think Mr. Blancarte belongs Q I don't have time to debate you

to Local 25. now, but I can tell you I have seen the name,

Q You don't ? A You have, certainly. Ihave

seen them, too,

A , he d 't,

I'm pretty sure he doesn't Q ee

ov h

" oh et ree On Local 25 sheets, but ordinarily he

[RT 1302] signs somewnere else,

going to correct* that at the moment, Iam Q All right.

under the impression he does, but let's just

take a look at when he does appear on some of e

the sheets, We'll see what local he signs.

Now, if the records show Mr. Blancarte

received an appointment in 2 67 to Pozzo, and I

won't add up the hours, but altogether the

Does anybody know offhand? Do you ° months that that lasted, it was a 12-month job --

know if he was a member of this?

THE COURT: Twelve months ?

MR, SCOTT: I don't know if he was

there. We have several Blancartes. [RT 1303)

Q BY MR. HOBART: It wouldn't MR, HOBART: Twelve months, your

matter, anyway, even if he wasn't there, Honor.

492.

491,

Hill on sheets, Blancarte not,

Q If you just, for purposes of making

a point, if Mr. Hill is on those receipts above

him, and Mr. Blancarte js not on those sheets,

under the rules, and if there was no request,

Mr. Hill should have been offered that job before

Mr. Blancarte, if there was no request, shouldn't

he have ?

A I don't admit that -- I can't see

where the man was on the books at all, where

he was dispatched, You haven't shown me

where he was dispatched,

Q Well, I've shown you numerous

occasions where men aren't on these books, and

they were dispatched, Mr. Daley.

A You had the dispatch, too,

Q So you know it's something that

happens, and it happens frequently.

A Not in this instance,

Q Mr. Daley, because we don't have

the records, is not our fault.

A Well, then, I don't think it is --

Q The point I'm making is, you have

seen it time and time again where men have been

dispatched to jobs that aren't even on the sheets.

493,

A You are trying to put words in my

mouth that I cannot possibly accept. This man

was not even on the list,

Q Which man?

A Blancarte, according to you, and

I say he didn't even belong to the local, and

therefore, it is very -- more than probable that

[RT 1304]*

the man was dispatched from his own* local,

Q Would you have suggestion as to

how we could check, at this date, as to whether

Mr. Blancarte was a member of Local 25?

A One definite good suggestion,

Q What is that?

A Subpoena the records of 34 locals,

Q Why not just have Mr, Scott call

his own local? He could do that, couldn't he ?

A You mean you want him for a

witness, too?

THE COURT: He's already been a

witness.

THE WITNESS: Well --

MR, GEFFNER: Mr, Hobart, if you tell

us what you want, we will try to check it out for

you,

494,

MR. HOBART: Yes. If somebody would

just telephone Local 25 and ask how long Mr,

Alex Blancarte has been a member of that local,

MR, GEFFNER: We will find out.

MR. HOBART: Thank you very much,

Your Honor, I would offer the health and

welfare record of Mr. Blancarte as plaintiff's

next in order,

THE COURT: All right, that will be 63,

Q BY MR, HOBART: Would it re-

fresh your memory at all, Mr. Daley, if I said

Mr. Hill said Mr. Blancarte has been a member

of that local for at least ten years ?

A I'm sure you are able to judge for

yourself whether he is or not. Ican't testify to

that.

Q It doesn't refresh your memory

one way or the other?

[RT 1305]

A I say he wasn't,

Q All right.

If you would direct your attention to the

sheets of January 9, 1967, you will note Richard

T. Hill‘is on page 10 at line 6,

495.

Tell me when you have found that,

.

A 6, that's right.

Q Am I correct so far?

A Right.

Q Now, if you will review any part

or all of those sheets that you want, and tell me

whether you see the name D, Vandenberg on those

same sheets.

A You want 1-9-67?

Q Yes.

A On any page?

Q On any page -- well, wait. Let's

do this even more accurately.

Yes, Okay, 1-9-67. Do you see him any-

where on the pages ?

A What is the name again?

Q Vandenberg. You know that name,

don't you, Dennis Vandenberg ?

A No, sir.

Q Okay. Do you see him anywhere?

496,

A I haven't finished yet, Mr. Hobart,

No, sir, I don't see him,

Q Okay. We don't see him on the

January 9th sheets,

The health and welfare records indicate

[RT 1306]*

that he* was dispatched in January to a Carlsen &

Herold Company, and he stayed there two months,

through January and through part of February of

'67, earning a total of 80 hours,

A Again, what job address ?

Q Again, I'm sorry, I have unavail-

able sufficient records to give you that informa-

tion, Mr. Daley.

THE COURT: What was the company that

he was sent to?

MR. HOBART: Yes, your Honor,

Carlsen, C-a-r-l-s-e-n --

MR, GEFFNER: Your Honor, I want |

object to Mr. Hobart's words ''dispatched, ‘'

based on the health and welfare records, The

health and welfare records indicate the name of

the employer and the hours worked, It does not

indicate ''dispatch" or regular employee, or

from one -- all it states is the name of the

497,

company and the hours.

THE COURT: I think that's right.

MR, HOb. T: I will be glad to call it

whatever he wants to.

Q Now, sticking with Mr. Vandenberg

again, on the sheets of 2-6-67 you will find that

Hill is at page 6. See if you can't find him on

page 6. ad

See him there ?

A Yes, sir, 16.

Q Line 16. Now take a look at

page 14, tell me if you don't see Mr. Vandenberg's

name over there,

A Yes, I see one written in, or

printed in, I mean, by hand,

Q D. A. Vandenberg; right?

A Yes.

[RT 1307]

Q : And he's on page 14, line 20,

A Page 14, line 20, yes.

Q All right.

498,

Now, the records of the health and welfare

indicate that he was -- what's the word you wish

us to use?

MR, GEFFNER: Well, if you're going to

be accurate, the health and welfare records only

show the hours and the name of the employer.

MR, HOBART: All right.

Q The health and welfare records

indicate that he worked for Conant & Lieberman

-- I'll just write Conant, if you don't mind, just

for the sake of -- I'll put Conant and L -- and

that that job garnered for him 16 hours,

You said Hill was on page 6. _ Is that

what we said on that?»

THE COURT: Page 6, line 16, yes.

MR. HOBART: And Vandenberg was on

page 14, line 20, was it, your Honor?

THE WITNESS: That's right.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR, HOBART: Al right.

Q Then to Mr. Vandenberg's addi-

tional good fortune on -- let's see, Mr. Vandenberg

does not appear, according to my notes, on the

2-13 sheets, so let's go to the sheets after the

2-13 sheets, which would be the 2-20 sheets.

499,

Okay. Well, I didn't notice where he was,

but if he's not on the 2-13 sheets, and Mr. Hill,

on the 2-13 sheets js getting up there now. There

he is, on page 5.

[RT 1308}

Okay, first let's just satisfy ourselves

that Mr. Vandenberg hasn't gotten ahead of Mr.

Hill.

I don't see him in front of him here, nor

here, there. It would be pretty impossible for

him to be ahead of him, anyway, since he's been

working.

Let's just see if we can find Vandenberg

now. No, I don't see him on the 2-13 sheets,

and maybe we can just give it one last shot for

the 2-20 sheets,

Oh, here they are. Let's just see if we

can find him on here, starting at the back of the

book, since that's probably where he would be,

Well, Dick Hill is still on page 5, isn't

he ?

A Page 5, second line,

Q All right. And Mr. Vandenberg

doesn't show up on the 2-20 sheets ?

A No, sir,

500.

Q Now, the record will show, health

and welfare records will show -- can we do just

one more?

Let's take the 2-27 sheets. Let's just

exhaust all possibilities, shall we, for the kick

of it? As long as your eyes and my eyes can

take it one more time, let's just do it.

You see Mr. Hill's got to page 3 now,

anyway.

A Is that page 3?

Q Oh, I'm sorry, I was reading that.

He hadn't quite got to page 3.

A You are upside down, weren't you?

Q That's right. Mr. Hill has been

[RT 1309]*

plodding along, * and he has only got to page 4.

He was a long time on page 5, wasn't he?

A Yes, he spent a little time there.

Q Where is Mr. Vandenberg?

Well, all the rest of the way Mr. Vanden-

berg had the pleasure of sitting on the sheets.

THE COURT: What date was that?

501.

MR. HOBART: February 27th.

Q But the record will show, will it

not, Mr. Daley, that on February 27th -- strike

that -- that in February 1967 D. Vandenberg

worked for the Dinwiddie-Simpson Company,

starting in February, and he worked for a total

of one, two, three, four, five, six, seven --

total of seven months, earning, we'll say, an

average of better than 150 hours a month,

Unlike Mr. Hill, he did't have to sit

there on page 5 for so long.

Your Honor, I would offer into evidence

the health and welfare record of Mr. Vandenberg.

Your Honor, I think there would be a

stipulation by counsel. They have just kindly

obtained the information that Mr. Blancarte

transferred to Local 25 in January of 1965.

MR, GEFFNER: January 12th,

Q BY MR. HOBART: That's news

to you, isn't it, Mr. Daley?

A Definitely is, because he was

always a member of another local, that I knew

of.

[RT 1310]

Q All right, let's go on to another

fellow by the name of Joseph Kulcheski, You

remember Joseph Kulcheski, don't you?

502,

A Sounds familiar.

THE COURT: Justa moment. The

Vandenberg health and welfare records will be

64,

MR, HOBART: Thank you, your Honor,

Mr. Kulcheski -- take a look at the 2-20

sheets. Hill is on page 5. Now we are going to

have to find out where Kulcheskiis. He's in

here somewhere, but I'm just not sure --

THE COURT: What date is this on the

sheets ?

MR. HOBART: These are the 2-20-67

sheets. Hill is at page 5, line 2, and I think

Mr. Kulcheski may appear ahead of him. Let

me just check,

Q Now, the records will reveal,

will they not, that Mr. Kulcheski is on page 2;

is that right?

A Yes, sir.

Q He's down around line 11, or so?

A Somewhere around there,

Q All right. Now let's just see

whether he's legitimately there. He should be

the same place on the 2-13 sheets, shouldn't he,

in the relative position?

503.

See if Mr. Kulcheski is on page 2, Take

a look at the names around there,

The name immediatly above him is

Howard Wolfe, and the name immediately below

him is Reid Smith. Do you see Mr. Wolfe and

Mr. Smith anywhere?

Lay them flat out so we can both take a

[RT 1311]*

look at it* easier,

I see a Reid Smith over here. Now,

Reid Smith is the name that on 2-20 is immedi-

ately below Kulcheski, and looking at Mr. Smith

on 2-13, I do not see the name of Kulcheski

either above him or below him, do you?

A No, but he could have been re-

dispatched, of course,

Q Could be what you call a pickup;

later put back because he was --

A Well, yes, it could be -- whatever

it needed, or whatever was necessary for him to

be. He could have been --

Q Well, let's be entirely fair to both

sides. Let's take a look and see whether on the

13th Mr. Kulcheski shows up at all,

504,

If you want to take my word for it, you

can, but if you want to kind of keep an eye on it,

you'd better do it.

A Go ahead,

Can I save a little bit of problem here?

You'll find Kulcheski on page 3 on 2-6,

Q Okay, let's see where he is in the

meantime.

A And Reid Smith is directly below

him again,

Q Now, the health and welfare record

indicates that in January 1967 -- let's go back to

where he was now,

A Here he is, right here, 2-6.

Q The health and welfare record

indicates that he worked 36 hours in January;

is that right?

THE COURT: How many?

MR, HOBART: 36 hours,

THE WITNESS: I wouldn't have any

[RT 1312]*

knowledge of that, and* I don't know the contractor.

505.

Q BY MR, HOBART: Well, these

records have been compiled by the Carpenters

Health and Welfare Trust for Southern California

Eligibility Department --

A But not with addresses or dispatches,

Q No, but this doesn't matter, you

see, Mr. Daley. You have already told us that

once a man works 16 hours he's supposed to be

dropped from the list.

A If he was dispatched from another

local, and he was dropped from the list, maybe --

I don't know where he was dispatched from,

Q Mr. Daley, for the first time now

in two days, now you've been talking about being

dispatched from another local,

What reason do you have to think this man,

or any of these men have been dispatched from

some different local all of a sudden? Why has

that popped into your thinking ?

A Well, the only reason is, you are

bringing in these incomplete records from the

health and welfare,

Q We have asked the health and

welfare people to compile the names of the

contractor, the months they worked for them,

and the number of hours they worked during that

month,

506,

A Well, Mr. Hobart, you are

assuming this job was in the area, or under

where I dispatch from, and I can't say it was

because I don't know the contractor. I don't

remember him,

Q Well, as you have indicated,

[RT 1313]*

sometimes your memory”* isn't what you'd like

it to be.

But is it not a fair statement, Mr. Daley,

that when a man works over 16 hours in the

month of January, and here he worked 36 hours,

Mr. Kulcheski did, the man should go to the

bottom of the list?

A What list ?

Q The out-of-work list.

A Whereabouts, Local 25, or where

he was dispatched from ?

Q You mean to say that it's permiss-

ible for a man to be working, and still be on

some other books at the same time ?

A How can you check it?

Q Will you first tell me whether

that's permissible,

A No, it isn't.

507.

Q All right. Let's presume, unless

you know something different, let's presume the

men are following the law.

So, Mr. Daley, the point I'm making is,

that once a man works 36 hours, he belongs at

the bottom of the list when that's over. That's

the rule, isn't it?

A Usually that's the rule,

Q All right. And in our case, on

the February 6th records, Mr. Kulcheski, who

has just finished working at least 36 hours,

finds himself, fortunately, to be located on page

3, which is some distance from the bottom, and

there are 16 pages of out of work people.

A I don't know where he got his 36

hours from, and I wouldn't have no availability

(RT 1314]*

to the health and welfare;* so if he registered on

my books, I would have no way of knowing that

he worked some other job for 36 hours, or three

minutes. I would have no way of knowing this.

I would have to accept the man's eligibility as he

stood there before me,

I have Joe Kulcheski on 1-6-67 on page 3.

Reid Smith is above him.

Q There is just nothing that gets in

at the bottom of that list, is there?

508.

A It seems like Mr. Reid Smith

jumped up five or six men ahead of him here,

so we are not infallible on that roll call.

Look here, and he was below Joe

Kulcheski two weeks, three weeks, that I know

of, according to these records,

Q Mr. Daley, there's one thing I

will agree with you, and that is that you are not

infallible on that roll call.

A I agree with you there, Ihad no

secretary to keep the books for me,

MR, HOBART: Your Honor, I have the

health and welfare record for Mr. Kulcheski,

and ask that it be marked plaintiff's next in order,

THE COURT: All right, that will be 65,

Q BY MR. HOBART: How about a

man named L, J, Spencer, are you familiar with

him ?

A Yes, lam,

Q Did he ever work as a steward for

you?

A Yes, sir.

509,

Q Directing your attention to the

[RT 1315]*

sheets of 2-13* and 2-20-67, again, on both of

them Hill's on page 5, and I have gone through

both of those sheets, and I've gone through the

rest of the sheets for February, which I invite

you to do if you wish, but I could not find the

name of L, J, Spencer on any of those sheets,

A For what ?

Q For February 13 or February 20th

or February 27th, if you's like to take a moment

and go through one of them at random just to

satisfy yourself.

A Well, it just happens that this

young -- this man was a steward,

Q Okay. Well, we'll get around to

that steward business in a moment.

Do you want to just concede that he's not

there, or do you want to take a look?

A Of course, we don't want to take

up this time,

Q All right.

He doesn't appear on the books, and the

out-of-work records indicate that in February

1967 he received a dispatch to Western-Alta

510,

Construction Company, where he worked for 112

hours, and then he received another dispatch

in February 1967, again without ever going back

and having to sign the books, to the Samuelson

Bros. Construction Company, where he worked

in February apparently the balance of the month,

20 hours, and then worked in the same company

in March, April, May, June, July, August,

September, October, November, December,

totalling hundreds and hundreds of hours, prob-

ably averaging a hundred and fifty, a hundred

(RT 1316]* °

sixty hours* a week. Would that be about a fair

statement ?

A Well, it would prove one thing,

that he had no business being on this book here,

or on this dispatch list.

Q Why shouldn't he have been on

this book.

A You've got his work record there,

supposedly.

Q I thought you told me you always

started a job from the work list ?

A I never started any job from the

work list, it was the contractor that started the

job, and then took his own men in there to start

the job.

511.

Q Oh, well, was L, J, Spencer one

of their men?

A I wouldn't have any idea, but

evidently, working for Samuelson as long as he

did, and as a steward, he must have been well

thought of to keep him that long,

You don't keep a man that long and pay

him $250 a week unless he's quite qualified to

earn it.

Q That may very well be the case.

With reference to his dispatch to Alta

Construction in February of 1967, can you tell

me why he did not appear on the sheets prior

to getting that dispatch ?

A I have no way of knowing, Mr.

Hobart, that that man was dispatched from

Local 25,

Q That's right, he also may have

come from some other local.

A He's a member of Local 25. This

I know.

Q How many other locals did you

know that he was working out of ?

A I wouldn't be able to say.

512.

[RT 1317]

Q You didn't know of any, did you?

A No, I didn't.

Q Well, then, why raise the issue

that he may have been working for someone else ?

A Because it's allowed. It is per-

missible to go to other locals and register on

their out of work sheets,

Q Do you think a man that's going

to be getting these kind of hours out of Local 25

is going to be fiddling around with some other

local ?

A If he's a union man, he would.

Q He can only work for one, and

have his name on one, can't he?

A Yes, sir, he could, if he wished

to.

MR. HOBART: Your Honor, I have the

health and welfare records for Mr. L, J. Spencer,

which I offer as plaintiff's next in order.

THE COURT: All right, 66,

Q BY MR, HOBART: Now, to get

these back in order again, Mr. Daley; and believe

me, Mr. Daley, I hate taking up your time, our

513.

time, and the court's time for this --

A I'm perfectly happy.

Q -- but the question was asked if we

can name one. We certainly must try.

You may recall this period of time, Mr.

Daley -- or do you recall January, February,

March 1967, how Richard Hill, constantly at the

window, constantly charging that you were

making illegal dispatches.

A I'll never forget it.

[RT 1318]

Did you ever admit to him that you were

making any illegal dispatches ?

A The conversation between him and

I during the day and the night while we were

drinking was continuous, one accusation after

another.

Q Did you ever admit to him that

you were making illegal dispatches, and "What

are you going to do about it, Dick, " anything

like that ?

A I couldn't possibly make such an

admission to an antagonistic fellow like him,

even if I was doing it illegally, which I wasn't.

Q Okay. If you will start with the

sheets of January 23 --

514,

THE COURT: '67?

MR, HOBART: '67, yes, your Honor,

Q Now, if you will look on page 2,

line 8, you will see the name of David Fonseca,

I think. This page is 1 here, and I think

somehow it got reversed.

A Quite a few things are reversed

around here,

7) I couldn't agree with you more;

but if you will allow me to straighten the matter

out, that's page 1, and if the numbers mean

anything, that's page 2,

A I guess we are supposed to take it

that way. That's what it is numbered there.

Q All right. Just make that mental

note on that one the pages are reversed, page 1

and 2,

A Page 1 is page 2.

Q Right. Now, at least that's the

way it is marked.

[RT 1319]

A Yes.

Q. And you see David Fonseca is on

page 2, line 8; is that right?

515.

A Yes, sir.

Q All right. Now, let us see if

David Fonseca is on the week before at anywhere

near the same place. That would be the week

of the 9th.

David Fonseca on the 23rd is between the

names of Ebbe and Collins. Just see if we can

find either of those gentlemen,

Okay. We find Fonseca, so he's okay;

right ?

A Supposedly.

Q He's about where he should be ?

MR. GEFFNER: What date is that, again?

MR, HOBART: Beg pardon?

MR, GEFFNER: What date is that?

THE WITNESS: 1-9, which would be

1-9-67, Monday.

Q BY MR, HOBART: We won't go

any further peyond that, so we'll just get that

one,

Looking again on 1-23, page 5 --

A You jumped a week.

Q 1-23 --

516.

This is 1-9,

A

Q Yes, I'm just moving on to 1-23 here,

A

You don't want the 16th then ?

Q I will want it in a second, but I

don't want it right now,

Okay. We see the name of David Bolton,

[RT 1320]*

page 5,* down at about line 12 or so; right ?

A

ai Yes.

Q Okay, let's just see if he's on

1-16, at roughly the same place. He would be

after Milton French,

Okay, I see Milton French on page 5.

Let's see if we can find Bolton anywhere,

Well, we certainly don't see Bolton up

high like he appears, do we?

A No, sir.

Q Okay, so maybe he's in front.

Let's doublecheck it that way. We don't want

to make any mistake to your disadvantage.

All right, we do have where Mr. French

is, which is exactly where Mr. Bolton should be,

517.

On the list of 1-23-67 we have the names French,

Bolton Whyt; on 1-16, the preceding week, we've

got French and Whyt, or Whybo, and some guy

named Dyroy.

So Mr. Bolton would appear to be a sneak-

in on 1-23, wouldn't he, or a pickup ?

A I don't know how he would appear

that -- have you checked -- see, these are typed

records, now, and of course, the signature

records are the authentic ones,

Q That's all that have been provided

for us.

A Well, my dear sir, you just don't

type a man's name in there without having his

signature to a list that -- we have a signature,

list.

Q And wasn't it your policy to start

typing these lists up?

[RT 1321]

A Not my policy. We used to have

to hire the girl in the financial secretary's office

to do these day by day.

Q And you told her to type them up

exactly the way they appeared in the handwritten

list ?

A In the signature list.

518,

Q So we'll assume she followed

your orders, and somehow Bolton's name shows

miraculously on this sheet?

A Or it disappeared miraculously

on the other one.

Q We don't have the notes here, but

Mr. Bolton, on April 3 was dispatched. We

won't worry about that right now,

But Mr. Bolton's presence on 1-23 con-

stitutes a sneak-in?

A It wouldn't constitute a sneak-in

there, because the circurnstances are somewhat

hazy the way you represent it.

Q I'm only reading what is on the

record, I'm not representing anything.

When I say sneak-in, all I'm saying is he

wasn't there the week before,

A Without my cooperation, you

mean ?

Q He wasn't there the week before

without your cooperation,

A That's what you are saying ?

Q Well, I don't know where he was

or whether you and he were fishing.

519.

A I sure don't know where he was,

either, I'm pretty sure of that. I don't know,

[RT 1322]

Q We know one thing, if he's not 7

there one week, he's not entitled to be there the

next week,

A Probably working.

Q If he's working, that's another

reason he is not entitled to be higher up on the

list ?

A Did it ever occur to you we took

him off the list because he was in an illegal

position ?

Q It would have occurred to me if

that was --

A This is one other thing. I didn't

have time for all of this book work, _I notice

here you don't do the complete writing, and

you're only here for weeks. You don't do all

the writing up there,

THE COURT: Well, I think we are all

getting a little tired. We'll take a ten-minute

recess, and the jury is given the usual admonition.

(Recess. )

520.

THE COURT: All right,

MR, HOBART: Thank you, your Honor,

Q Mr. Daley, I'm going to just limit

this for us to the amount which I have on the

board, both to save all of us from falling asleep

and from the rigors of monotony,

We left off with -- let's see, which one of

these gentlemen -- Mr. Bolton, I guess we have

done Mr, Bolton already, and we are now onto

Mr. Dawes,

If you will take a look on the sheets of

1-23-67, keeping in mind that page 2 is page 1,

and vice-versa,

A What page do you want me to look

at ?

Q Page 2, line 14, See this fellow,

Mr. Dawes, there ?

[RT 1323]

A X. J. Dawes,

Q All right. Would you be so kind

as to tell me whether Mr. Dawes appears the

week before, whether he's moved up to his high

level, or whether he, by virtue of sneaking in,

got there ?

521,

Keep in mind this is page 2, so you don't

want to make a mistake. You are looking on

page 1, on the next one.

A Oh, yes, I'm confused for sure,

Q I wouldn't want you to do that.

I want you to have every opportunity for fairness.

A That would be this here?

Q That would be page 2, and maybe

on page 3 would be a better place to look,

Do you see him on page 3, by any chance?

Let me give you some other names around him.

Maybe we can spot some of the names around him,

How about Deckelmann and Baxter and

Coleman below him. Do you see Deckelmann,

Baxter, or Coleman on page 20r 3? Do you

see a Baxter ?

A I don't see Deckelmann, I don't

see Coleman, I don't see any of those. No,

I don't see any of those behind him,

Q All right. How about some of

the people in front of him; Valles, Waldner,

anything like that ?

There's Coleman. Here's Coleman over

here,

A Page 3?

522.

Q Yes.

[RT 1324]

A Yes, I see -- but I don't see Dawes.

Q You don't see Dawes anywhere,

do you?

A No, sir.

Q Which makes it look like a sneak

in? In other words, he wasn't there the previous

week, now he's high up on this week?

A This is the way it could be. Could

we go back to probably 1-9?

Q Yes, by all means,

A I mean, there is a potential there,

Q There is that potential, and I could

always be wrong.

A I find no Dawes up to page 4,

Q All right.

Now, we don't have the date he was dis-

patched, so we'll move on to the next one,

After Dawes, let's go to Mr. Maurovich,

and --

523.

A Which one ?

-_ yo No, take a look at the sheets of --

A Page ?

Q Page 4, line 10,

A Rudolph Maurovich,

Q Okay. He's just below a man by

the name of Williams, and just above a name by

the name of Plai.

Let's take a look at the preceding week

and see if we can find him.

A 16?

Q Yes,

[RT 1325]

A Page 10, was that?

Q No, that was page 4, Keep that

out.

It probably would have been on page 4or

page 5 on this one,

A What names are we looking for,

Williams and Maurovich and Plai?

524,

Q Yes. I see Burrell, Kulcheski,

Maurovich, any of those names -- here's a

Burrell, Robert,

A There's Brown Burell, and then

Robert Burrell,

Q We're looking at Brown Burrell.

A There's a Williams, here's a

Brown Burell,

Q All right. Now let us see if we

see our friend Mr. Robert Maurovich,

A No, I don't,

Q Okay, Again, though, like you

say, to be fair, let's go back one more week to

the 9th, just in case he was a pickup.

He would be about page 4 or 5, wouldn't

he ?

A According to some of these things

he could be anywhere,

Maurovich,

Q All right. Mr. Maurovich got a

job, did he?

A That seems to be so,

Q Seems to be dispatched to where ?

525,

A - Weitzul Construction Company at

21st and Norwood,

Q All right. Now, that dispatch

was in the week of --

A The 9th.

Q -- the 9th. Now, the only way he

[RT 1326]*

would legitimately* be back up on this week would

be is if he had 15 hours or less; isn't that right ?

A I would imagine that's it.

Q So since we don't have that informa-

tion, we'll have to make a note and see if we can

get it.

Now give me the week he was dispatched.

A That was the week of 1-9,

Q And to what company ?

A Seems to be Weitzul Construction

Company.

Q Spell that.

A Spelling it the way I think I see

it is W-e-i-t-z-u-l.

526.

Q Construction ?

A Construction Company.

THE COURT: 21st and Norwood ?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Where I went to kindergarten,

THE WITNESS: You're pretty familiar

down in there,

THE COURT: Yes.

Q BY MR, HOBART: All right, you

will notice that he also was dispatched February

13th, 1967. You've got --

A No, I haven't looked at that.

Q Let's find the sheets for early

February.

A But are we going to skip over

where he was on the thing here? Where was

it? You had the 23rd. Are we going to skip

over there? Perhaps he was back in position

because of 15 hours,

Q Well, that's what I said. I made

[RT 1327]*

the notation over* here,

527.

The only way we're ever going to do that

is by checking it out by the health and welfare,

to see how many hours he worked, I have no

way of doing it now.

A Right.

Q All right.

Then the next one was J, Plai on the

sheets of 1-23, taking a look at page 4.

A He's down about the middle of the

page, about tenor eleven. Let's see -- eleven.

Q All right, now take a look at the

following -- or the preceding week's notations,

and let's see if he was there for the week of the

16th,

A What page did we say that was,

5, 4?

Q Page 4, line 11.

A Page 4. I don't find him.

Q Okay. Let's try the week before,

then -- oh, that is the week before.

A No, I tried this one first. Now

we are supposed to try the 16th.

Q He's not in there on the 9th, so do

you want to give it a shot for the 16th?

528,

A That would be back about --

Q He was on page 4,

Okay, he doesn't show up; isn't that right ?

A Let me cumplete this, Mr. Hobart.

Q I'm sorry.

A It appears he's not on this list.

[RT 1328]

Q All right.

Moving right along, let's try Mr. Toney

for the week of 1-23, page 3, line 15.

See his name there?

A Yes, sir.

Q Okay, page 3, line 15 for the week

of 1-23,

Now let's see if he's on the week of 1-16,

and I'll look at the week of 1-9,

A I can't find him,

Q You can't find him there, but I

found him on the week of the 9th on page 5, line

6.

529,

We will go one back further, and we'll

see why he's not there that week.

We will have to check his name out and

see what happened to him.

A We have two more, _I don't see

Levy or Frederick, and neither one of them are

here. Iwas trying to use them as markers.

Q So we can't call either one of

these, until we have answered these questions,

sneak-ins, until we really know they weren't

moved forward for some reason legitimately.

Now, going to the sheets of January 30th,

Mr. Hogan -- do you have January 30th there?

Mr. Hogan, line 4 -- I mean page 4,

line 20.

A Who?

Q Hogan,

A Oh, yes.

[RT 1329]

Q See him there ?

A Yes.

Q Okay. See if you can find him

back the week before,

530.

A I don't seem to find him.

Q Now, will you agree with me that

on the week of February 13th, 1967, when Mr.

W. Hogan was dispatched to Swinerton & Walberg --

A Where did you get these? I'm not

familiar with this here.

Q These are the out-of-work sheets,

aren't they ?

A I don't know. They are peculiar

shape and size, and all that.

Q They are photocopies. They are

reductions.

A Oh, I see. Isee. No wonder

you had me confused,

Yes, What's the date on it?

Q The date is the 23rd -- I mean 13th,

A So we went from the 23rd of —

January to the 13th of February ?

Q Right. I'm just pointing out that

Mr. Hogan, who didn't show up prior to January

30th, ended up getting dispatched on 2-13-67

to Swinerton & Walberg,

A Why did you use that? This is

here, see? .

531.

Q Okay, same difference.

That's correct, at any rate, isn't it?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Now, our next one is Mr.

King.

Mr. King, on 1-30, page 5, line 7.

[RT 1330]

A On 1-30?

Q Yes,

A 1-30, and what page ?

Q Page 5, line 7.

A You are talking of Marion King ?

Q I suspect so, M. King.

All right, now let's take a look and see

if Mr. King appears on the sheets preceding that.

. Take a look for the names below him, Compton,

Carter, Olvera, Sapp, Williams.

A What did you say there ?

Q What page is that?

A I've got page 8. I go back aways.

532,

Q That's probably too far back,

Move forward a little bit.

A Ganier --

Q Okay, there's Ganier and here's

Sapp.

A Valencia. These are ail on page

5.

Q All right. Now, Ganier is

immediately below King; right? Over here.

A Yes,

Q And Jacquinet is immediately above

him ?

A Yes, but this -- yes.

Q Mr. King does not appear on that

prior sheet, does he?

A I don't see him anywhere.

Q All right.

A That's the 23rd. We'd have to

go to the 13th.

Q Let's go to the 13th and doublecheck.

533.

[RT 1331]

A That would be on page 5. This

one here is 5, too.

Q Somewhere around 5; 5, 6, some-

where around there.

A I don't see any of those names.

None of them.

Q Well, for right now, we'll stick

to our friend King.

A I don't see Jacquinet, I don't see

Angel, I don't see Ganier. Idon't see Joh

Compton.

Q Well, maybe they got dispatched

and just don't show up.

A See, it's very obvious that some-

thing happened to them, so they might have went

back to an old job.

Q Anything could have happened, I

agree. They could have all ended up in the

hospital for a week; but beyond that, King doesn't

show up on this one, does he?

A No.

Q All right.

Now take a look at your sheets for the 20th.

534.

A

Q

A

over here.

Q

King.

A

Q

have to look.

A

OH - 6

A

(RT 1332]*

we are looking* for.

Q

for.

A

right one.

Right here is where it was.

February 20th.

February 20th, we have to go back

Now let's see if you can find Mr.

On what page, 6, 7, 8?

Well, I'm not sure. We will just

Marion King.

Do you see him?

por oH Ss

Yes.

On what page ?

But I'm not sure it's Marion King

That's who we have been looking

Well, I'm not sure you've got the

535.

Q You've got Marion King, Sr.

there ?

A Yes. There's nothing there --

it's a whole family of Kings, I'll tell you that.

Q All right.

Well, let me show you on 3-20-67 --

A 3-20?

Q I mean 2-20-67, and I will show

you Marion King is not indicated as a senior,

junior or anything else.

A No, he's not indicated as a senior

or anything, and it seems to be a copy of this

sheet here.

Q Well, not exactly.

A Well, I mean, it seems to be.

Q Well, partially the same, except

in these copies that have some dispatches on

them, it indicates Mr. King was dispatched to

the Eckler Company on Thursday of the week

of 2-20-67.

A Yes, but this is page 3 of 2-20,

and we're looking at page 9 of 2-20.

Q Well, let's look at page 3, then,

by George, and there it is.

536.

A Okay. Now, see, there's a little

| : ke a look at the

nf . Q Okay. Let's ta

ree preceding two weeks and see if you see him

Q Now we are happy, then? showing up there.

A Right A I don't.

Q He did get dispatched, then, to Q Okay, let's go to 1-30, Mr.

the Eckler Company? How do you spell that Washington, W. Washington, page 2, line 11.

Eckler Company ?

A Yes.

wikes » Q All right. Take a look and see if

A Well, it looks likes Eckler, he was on the preceding week.

E-c-k-l-e-r. It's 2060 East 49th Street. I

: : A I'd be amazed if he'd be on the

might be wrong. I probably was poaching on list at all .

somebody else's territory there. :

, , Well, you are certainly not

Q They will forgive you now. en. a he is on .

° beats A I'm amazed, because the man

'

Q Okay. Moving on, now, to Mr, doesn't work.

a oe oe Q Well, there's two of us amazed,

A 1 _ 30 ? ‘ then.

! : D)

Q -- page 4, line 19. A That's on page what did you say?

A Line 19 -- Oh, page 4. Q 2.

— ,

Q Page 4, line 19. A Page 2. I don't find him.

A Sunkin. Q Okay. Then how about on the

sheets of 2-6-67, Mr.J. Campbell, page 3.

537. 538.

[RT 1334]

A I have to realign these things a

little bit every once in a while.

Here we are. What page?

Q Campbell is on page 3, line 5,

A I see him, Jim Campbell,

Q All right.

A Here's that Herbert Sunkin again.

Q Okay. Well, we'll go back through

him again, if you want to, but I don't recall where

he was. He wasn't on the next week's list.

A What do you want with Campbell ?

Q All right, see if Campbell is on

the preceding week, February 6th.

A You mean January 30th? What

page ?

Q Page 3, line 5 on that one.

A Connie Campbell, does that re-

semble it, or what?

Q Well, if you tell me Connie

Campbell and J. Campbell are the same --

539.

A I sure can't do that.

Sunkin. No, I can't find him.

Q Okay. If you look on the sheets

for 2-20-67, see if you don't see Mr. Campbell

on here.

A Page what ?

Q I'm not sure.

A Shall we start from the back?

Q No, from the front. He should

have a dispatch after his name.

A Do you want to turn the pages ?

[RT 1335}

Q All righty.

Jim Campbell is listed as a pickup, for

some reason, and you've got him assigned out,

sent out to -- what Lane is that, that job?

A It's not my handwriting, but I'll

try to just -- this seems to be 2551 --

Q Beverly --

A -- West Beverly. I'm sure

something's wrong there, because the fellow out

there would come in and chop my head off if I

540.

sent a man out that way in his area,

I can't get the address here.

Q Well, I see another dispatch here

to the same place. It looks like Lanie.

A Well, it could be William Lane,

Q Well, that might be it.

A Or R. N, Lane, I don't know. I

can't read the initials, but this is definitely a Lane,

and this is, too; but the W -- this would be more

accurate here, because there's no West Beverly,

or anything like that.

Q Isee. Just plain Beverly?

A So the W would be a mistake.

Q Okay. But, in any event, Mr.

Campbell did get dispatched that week out to,

we'll say, Lane Company ?

A Right.

Q All right. We're down to the last

three, now.

Mr. Duplantier, on 2-6 -- where are we

-- page 3, line 12.

A Page what ?

541.

[RT 1336]

Q 3, line 12. See him here?

A What are we looking at, Duplantier ?

Q Yes.

A All right.

Q See if he's on the 1-30 sheets.

A Disappeared again.

Q So he shows up here for the first

time.

Now, let's take a look at him on the sheets

for 2-13, that would be just the next week, and see

if we don't find him over here.

A Can I get organized here ?

We've got the man on this page here,

right.

Q That's the 2-6.

A And he wasn't here.

Q He did not precede it.

Now let's see if we can find him here --

is that this him here, now ?

542.

A Dispatched.

Q He was dispatched to the Dinwiddie-

Simpson job off the sheets of 2-13; right?

A True,

Q All right. Then we've got some-

body by the name of J. St. Amant, something

like that. Look on the sheets for 2-6.

A I'm just checking that Duplantier

for a moment, may I?

Q Surely.

A We would have to assume that he

[RT 1337]*

went to work on* request, or something like that.

Okay, now what page do you want ?

Q Now I want you to check the week

of 2-6 again, page 1, line 21. Was the name

Joseph St. Amant?

aN Yes.

Q Page 1, line 21; is that right?

A That's right.

Q Let's see if he was on the pre-

ceding week. That would be on the 1-30 list.

543.

A You'd have to assume he went to

work,

Q Okay. Either that, or he's a

sneak-in. We could assume that, too, couldn't

we?

A I'm always trustful.

Q I don't blame you.

Now, with respect to Mr. St.Amant, I

turn your attention to the week of March 13th,

and tell me -- I'll show you my copy here.

Joseph St.Amant, top of the page, dis-

patched to C & I Construction on March 13, 1967.

A What page is that?

Q This is page 1.

A Page 1. This is a copy of this ?

Q I don't know if it's a copy of that

one, but it's a copy of one that was handed to

me, at any rate.

A Here it is right here,

Q That's right. But on this one you

can see -- on the one you've got no dispatch is

shown, but on the one I'm holding it shows the

544,

(RT 1338]*

name's been lined out, and dispatched* to Soto

Street.

A This is very easy. That can

happen mighty --

Q How's that? You mean sometimes

you work off of more than one sheet ?

A No, I told you before, I thought

you understood. I told you that this roll call

was a signature type of roll call. Each man

signed the list, and the list can be stolen, dis-

figured, and marred, and everything, and

marked by people out there, which was always --

we had to take this list page by page and type it

up, and keep this list within the house.

Now, this here list, and this list could

have been typed, oh, maybe Wednesday or

Thursday, and we wouldn't show a dispatch

here. She wouldn't show it here because he'd

been already dispatched, and she was typing

out -- in other words, the girl in the financial

secretary's office didn't always type them up

exactly the same day it should have been done,

If we dispatched on a Tuesday, which we

always did, this was something again. She

might have typed the page up on Friday, or

later, to catch up with our work.

Q Well, all right.

545.

Just to get ourselves back on the point,

however, you'd agree that Mr. St. Amant was

sent out to work on the C & I Construction job?

A In other words, what I'm saying,

this was a first copy, and this one here could

have been a later copy.

Q Okay.

A Because this is a photostat, isn't

it ?

[RT 1339]

Q Yes. Yes, it is.

So the C & I Construction is where he

went on the 13th, and the last one, to our ever-

lasting relief, is Mr. Sunkin again.

A Well, here's the same one again.

What are we looking for now ?

Q Well, Mr. Sunkin, on 2-6,

A Right here.

Q He seems to pop back and forth,

A We saw him several places,

didn't we ?

Q Yes, we did. Well, why don't

we skip him, because he's popped in and out,

546,

and it will be too much trouble to check out,

and I'm getting tired of it, and I'm sure

you are, and I'm sure the jury is.

A Thank you.

Q Now, Mr. Daley, to make -- Mr.

Daley, unless every one of these men on these

two pages had been requested by the employer,

bonafide employer requests, Mr. Hill's, to use

your words, constant complaints of illegal dis-

patches would be accurate, if those were not

employer requests; isn't that true.

A I can't say whether that would

come in, because we have no substantiating thing

here, under any of this stuff. Nothing is sub-

stantiated, whatever.

Q Didn't it occur to you that some

man was charging you with official malfeasance

of office ?

A Official ?

Q Official, yes. Did you know he

[RT 1340]*

was the* vice-president of your union ?

A Yes, I seem to remember that.

Q Fine. And that is an official

position, isn't it?

547.

A Yes, it is.

Q All right. Now I'll go back to my

question,

When a man is charging you, officially

charging you, and going to the District Council,

going to your leadership and charging you with

malfeasance in office, that is, failing to dispatch

according to the dispatch rules, charging you

with illegal dispatches of various types and

various natures, when faced with those sorts of

charges, don't you think that you would have

saved all evidence of these requests, had there

been bonafide requests ?

A Are you trying to say that I was --

if I was guilty, that I would begin to reform my-

self ?

I've never heard of an official accusation

of myself whatsoever. I don't know what you

mean by official. I've never been charged, as

far as I know, myself, personally.

Q You know Mr. Hill charged you?

A No, I don't know any such thing,

sir.

Q You didn't know ?

A If I had been charged I would have

been officially notified by the District Council.

548,

Q Did you know that Mr. Hill was

charging you -- that be, personally, was charging

you with violating your duties in the dispatch pro-

cedure ?

A Mr. Hobart, Mr. Hill was charging

everybody under anything, and under all circum-

[RT 1341]*

stances of everything; not* officially, but on the

sidewalk, in the hall, everywhere, in the bars.

He'd be calling me a drunken bum while I am

buying him a drink.

Q Mr. Daley, I don't know if it's

impossible for you to give me a yes or no answer

to this, but I can wait as long as you can,

Did you know that Mr. Hill was charging

you with violating the rules of dispatch by sending

out people and calling them requests when they

weren't; by sending out people under the table;

giving them dispatches when their names weren't

on the list, and when they were not requested;

things of that nature ?

A You're asking me did I know this ?

Q Did you know he was accusing you

of that ?

A He was accusing me of that to my

face, but not officially, or down there with the

charges.

549,

Q I see, Okay. But he was accusing

you in that manner to your face?

A Socially, to my face, at the

window, yes, always.

Q All right. To your face he was

making those charges ?

A Yes.

Q My question is this. [If all of

these people that we've gone through, and the

hundreds more we could go through if time and

patience allowed it, are you telling me that all

of these people were probably requests, but you

just never saved the request forms ?

A I can answer you this way, that

if all of these requests, or all of these people

[RT 1342]*

were as illegal, whatever* you want to say, as

you intend to imply, I wouldn't have lived through

the day with all my membership.

KKK KKK KK OK

[RT 1936]

MR. HOBART: I'd like to read, your

Honor, interrogatory No. 8, of the interrogatories

propounded on May 16th, 1972, and the answer

thereto.

5950.

: Ya

— Local 25 have not been able to locate

THE COURT: Who is answering : such records at the offices of Local 25

— a "hte wes or any other office of the United Brother-

. : im sorry. hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, "'

propounded to the Los Angeles District Council P ,

of Carpenters, and their attorneys of record. Then three questions, three interrogatories

posed on October 19th, 1972, to the defendants and

THE COURT: Very well. their attorneys. Interrogatory No. 1:

MR. HOBART: Interrogatory No. 8 "Please set forth, fully and completely,

reads: all EMPLOYMENT LISTS (also referred

_ Pa to as Out Of Work lists) presently in the

ease possession of any Defendant herein, which

all Local 25 official documents or other were signed or prepared during the period

records which in any wav involve of January 1, 1967, through January 1, 1969.

ee y _— ee Py! . (Please set forth the weekly date of each

procedures for the period from Janua such list. )"

1, 1967, to January 1, 1969, which you

contend are presently on file with the Inasmuch as the answers are all the same,

National Labor Relations Board. I will read aii three questions. Question No, 2:

The answer to interrogatory No. 8 is as "Please set forth, fully and completely,

follows: all EMPLOYER REQUESTS, whether

"Dispatching records of Carpenters we i en emer oe ie :

Pp g hal : possession of any Defendant herein, which

Local 25 for the period of January }, were prepared during the period of January

[RT 1937]* ; [RT 1938]*

1967 to*¥ January 1, 1969 would contain 1, 1967* through January 1, 1969."

work request registration 1orms some-

times referred to as out of work lists And question No. 3:

dispatching orders sometimes referred

to as work orders. Such records were "Please set forth, fully and completely,

given to the National Labor Relations all WORK REFERRAL SLIPS, which are

Board and to this day representatives of

552.

551.

in your present custody, which were used

to dispatch Local 25 carpenters to job-

sites during the period of January 1, 1967,

through January 1, 1969,"

The answer to each was that inasmuch as

plaintiff has already inspected and photocopied

all of the aforementioned records at the defend-

ants' offices, and is or should be fully aware and

knowledgeable of the contents thereof -- and the

same answer for all three. Those answers to

those interrogatories were dated November 14th,

1972,

And interrogatories propounded by the

defendants to Mr. Hill on July 6th, 1972.

Question No, 9:

"Have you seen any doctors other than

those mentioned in Questions 1, 3, and 8

above within the last ten years.

"A. If so, please state the name of

each doctor.

"B. If so, please state the dates on

which you saw each of said doctors.

"C. If so, please state the nature

malady for which you were treated by

each of said doctors, "'

The answer to No. 9 was:

"Yes,

553.

[RT 1939]

"(a) Dr. Collin E. Cooper; May 1967.

Dr. James Sheehy; June 1967. Dr. Stuart

and Dr. Morris, 108 South Brand, Glendale;

December 1967. Dr. John Warburton;

July 1970. Dr. Berie Barth; October

1970. Dr. A. J. Nuefeldt; June through

December 1971. It is difficult to remem-

ber doctors. If I can recall more I will

tell my attorney. "

Plaintiff rests, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HOBART: Oh, your Honor, with

one exception. We have made a couple of lists

over here which I would like to have marked and

introduced.

I'd like to have the two sheets which have

been indicated as early 1967 questionable dis-

patches, would ask this sheet be marked as

plaintiff's next in order, these two sheets be

marked as plaintiff's next in order and received

into evidence.

THE COURT: We will mark them as 76.

MR. HOBART: I will give these to Mrs.

Chappelle.

THE COURT: Yes.

554,

MR. HOBART: I'm not sure there is any-

thing else over here, but let me just examine the

board.

I won't introduce these out-of-work com-

putations, your Honor. With what records we

have, I think we have it all in the record orally.

KKK KK KK OK KK

[RT 2067]

KURT GILLIE,

called as a witness by the defendants, being first

duly sworn was examined and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: Be seated, please, and

state your full name, sir.

THE WITNESS: Kurt Gillie, G-i-1-l-i-e.

THE CLERK: C-u-r-t?

THE WITNESS: K-u-r-t.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. GEFFNER:

Q Mr. Gillis, what is your occupation?

A I am a carpenter foreman,

555.

Q And how long have you been engaged

as a carpenter, either as a foreman or otherwise ?

A Since 1939.

Q And are you a member of the United

Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners ?

A Yes.

Q How long have you been a member ?

A Since 1951.

Q And what local are you a member

of ?

A Carpenters Local 25,

Q Have you been a member of Local

25 since 1951?

A No, I came to California in 1959,

Q Is that when you joined Local 25?

A Yes.

Q Prior to that time what local did

you belong to?

[RT 2068]

A It was a carpenters local in Canada.

556.

Q You were a member of the Canadian

local ?

A Yes, sir, but it was the United

Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.

Q Same brotherhood ?

A Yes.

Q Then you moved to California and

transferred membership to Local 25?

A That's correct.

Q Now, have you worked continuously

as a member of Local 25 since 1967?

A That's correct.

Q Now, you say you have been em-

ployed as aforeman. Can you tell us what your

responsibilities are as a carpenter foreman?

A As a carpenter foreman, I have to

place the men in a respective field, and translate

the plans to them, whatever is called for, whether

it is class A work, framing, or finishing.

Q Now, were you employed by the

Dinwiddie-Simpson Company in 1967?

A Yes, I was.

Q Am I spelling this right, Mr.

Gillie (indicating) ?

557.

A I think it's double '"'d",, instead of

doublt "'t"; D-i-n-w-i-d-d-i-e,

Q Dinwiddie Construction Company ?

A Dinwiddie-Simpson, yes, asa

joint venture,

Q Can you tell us what building they

[RT 2069]*

were constructing* when you were employed ?

A This was known as the Crocker-

Citizens Building.

Q What was your position on that

project ?

A I was the carpenter foreman,

Q That was the Crocker Building ?

A Crocker-Citizens Building.

Q Who was the general foreman on

that project, or was there more than one ?

A We have a superintendent, we had

an assistant superintendent, we had a general

foreman.

Q All right.

558,

Now, the general foreman was who?

Was it Larry Buetner ?

A No.

Q What was Larry Buetner's position ?

A Also a foreman,

Q Mr. Buetner was a foreman, and

you were a foreman?

A Yes.

Q And do you recall who the superin-

tendent was ?

A Superintendent was Charlie Simpson,

Q And do you recall who was the

assistant superintendent ?

A Fred Coukos,

THE COURT: What is that, Coukos ?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q BY MR, GEFFNER: Mr. Buetner

was a foreman, and you were a foreman; is that

right ?

A That's correct.

559.

[RT 2070]

Q And Mr. Simpson was superintendent.

How do you spell Coukos ?

A I don't recall the exact spelling.

Q Well, let's say C-o-u-k-a-s,

That's the assistant superintendent; right ?

A Yes.

Q Now, sometime in -- incidentally,

do you know Mr. Richard Hill?

A Yes,

Q And do you see him here in the

courtroom ?

A Yes.

Q Now, sometime in May of 1967 do

you recall having a conversation with Mr. Hill?

A Yes.

Q And can you tell us where that

conversation took place ?

A Mr. Hill came to the jobsite, and

we were on the fifth floor, and he asked me

whether I would hire him on the job, or I would

give him a job.

560.

Q Was there anyone else present at

this conversation ?

A No.

Q Just you and Mr. Hill, okay.

Now, will you tell us your best recollec-

tion what you recall Mr. Hill saying to you at

that conversation ?

A It went like this: "Is there a chance

that you can give me a job," or "Can you help me

to get on this job?" and I told him that all the

hiring was done by the top supervision only, which

[RT 2071]:

in this case was Charlie Simpson cr* his assistant,

and I told him --

Q His assistant would be Fred Coukos ?

A Yes.

-- and I told him to see Charlie or Fred

Coukos, either one of those two, who could tell

him whether there was a need or a chance for him

to get employment.

Q An other conversation that occurred,

that you haven't told us about ?

A I only mentioned to him that I was

not capable of hiring anyone.

561.

Q Did Mr. Hili then leave, at least

your presence ?

A Yes, he left with saying, "Well,

I'll go and see him," or in that respect.

Q Was that the sum total of your

conversation with Mr. Hill at that time?

A That's my recollection.

Q Did you, in that conversation,

at any time offer to hire him as a carpenter

on that project ?

A I had no powers to hire anyone.

It was only supervision that could make decisions

of that nature,

Q Well, I want to know, Mr, Gillie,

specifically, in that conversation did you ever

tell Mr. Hill that you could hire him, or you

would hire him, or offer him a job.

A I could not.

Q Your answer is no?

A My answer is no,

* KK KK HK KK KK

562,

[RT 2084]

JOHN KABAT,

called as a witness by the defendants, being first

duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Ke KK KK KKK K

[RT 2085]

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR, GEFFNER:

*k KK OK K OK HK K K KK

[RT 2086]

Now, Mr. Kabat, do you recall being dis-

patched to a job in May of 1968 -- I know it's a

long time -- for the Speer Corporation? It was

a home for unwed mothers.

A Yes.

Q And do you recall who dispatched

you to that job?

A Well, I get -- I was dispatched

from the union, Local --

Q Local 25?

A --25. Same with Dick, Dick Hill.

— 563.

Q You and Mr. Hill went out to a job

together ?

A Well, we came at the same time

over there.

Q Did you leave the hall together, or

did you meet him at the job?

A Together we left, because I didn't

know where the job place is, and he drove ahead,

and I followed him with my car.

Q And do you recall where the job

was located?

A The job was located about -- it

was north of Los Angeles, close to Pasadena;

between Pasadena and Los Angeles.

[RT 2087]

Q When you arrived on the jobsite

where there any carpenters working, or did you

see any carpenters working?

A About three carpenters work at

this time. at the job.

Q And was there a foreman?

A Foreman was there,

Q Do you recall the foreman's name?

564.

A Well, I didn't direct to foreman.

Mr. Dick Hill, he went to the forman. He talked

to him.

Q Wait a minute.

Do you know his name, Mr. Kabat?

A No, I don't know name of foreman.

Q What kind of job was it, do you

remember ?

A I don't know exactly, but I know

it was one long wall, and this three carpenters

that I mentioned before were working on it.

Q Now, did you and Mr. Hill talk

to the foreman?

A I didn't talk to foreman, Mr. Dick

Hill talked to him.

[RT 2088]

Q Okay. Now, tell us to your best

recollection, now, your best memory -- we know

you can't give us the exact words -- but what did

you hear Mr. Hill say, and what did you hear the

foreman say? In your own words, what did you

hear them say, would you tell us, Mr. Kabat?

565.

A Yes. Well, I heard everything

that Mr. Hill talked to the foreman. The job

is --he talked to him, how about job this long,

you know, and the foreman said not too long a

job, you know. Well, job will not last long.

And Mr. Dick told him that the small job,

and it will not last long, so he said, "We shall

not take it."

Q Mr. Hill said that?

A Yes.

So he told me, ''Let's go back to the hall, "’

you know, so we drove to the hall back,

* KK K KK KK K KK

[RT 2096]

EVERETT TRIMBLE,

called as a witness by the defendants, being first

duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

J

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. GEFFNER:

KK KK KK KK ok OK

Q BY MR. GEFFNER: Mr. Trimble,

you said you were then on the Dinwiddie job,

which started approximately when, 1967 ?

566.

A I believe it was '67, yes.

Q And you were steward on that job?

A That's right.

kK Ke KK K KK KK

[RT 2108]

FRED HARRY COUKOS,

called as a witness by the defendants, being first

duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. GEFFNER:

Ke K KK KK K K

[RT 2110]

And in your position as superintendent,

were you employed by the Dinwiddie-Simpson job

regarding the Crocker-Citizens Building?

A Yes, sir. This was a joint

venture between William Simpson Construction

Company and Dinwiddie, and I was employed as

a superintendent -- assistant superintendent.

Q Can you tell us approximately

when you started or were assigned to that job

project?

567.

A '67 to '68.

Q Do you recall when in '67 you

started? |

A I believe it was around October.

Q '66 or '67?

A October of '66.

Q And how long were you on that

project?

[RT 2111]

A About two and a half years.

Q Now, as assistant superintendent,

did you have any responsibility in requesting

carpenters to be employed?

A Yes, sir.

Q And in what capacity did you have

that responsibility? -- that's not a clear question.

Tell us, what was your responsibility in

terms of hiring carpenters?

A When it was necessary to hire

more help I would call the union hall and request

the amount of people that I needed at the time.

568.

MR. GEFFNER: Your Honor, we are

missing exhibit R, so I will pass that question.

THE COURT: What exhibit?

MR. GEFFNER: Exhibit R -- oh, here

they are, save me a lot of time.

MR. HOBART: All you had to do is say

it, and it would be in your hand, Mr. Geffner.

Q BY MR, GEFFNER: Mr. Coukos,

we have defendants' exhibit R here, which are

job requests by name from the Dinwiddie

Construction Company, William Simpson

Construction Company, joint venture, and there's

a whole series of requests by name, and your

name appears on a large number of them; is that

correct, is that your signa ure?

A Yes, sir.

Q Do you recall the arrangement, if

there was one, regarding the method that

supervision was to hire carpenters by name under

the 25-percent rule?

[RT 2112]

A Mr. Charles Simpson, who was

the general superintendent at the time, wanted

us to write the requests -- to make out the re-

quests in writing to send to the hall.

569.

Q Would that be the 25-percent

group?

A The 25-percent group, yes.

Q What was your understanding as

to the 25-percent rule on that job, as well as

other jobs?

A Well, we were allowed to hire

25-percent, or request by name carpenters,

Q Under the contract?

A Sir ?

Q Under the Collective Bargaining

Agreement ?

A Yes, sir.

Q Now, Mr. Coukos, in your position

as assistant superintendent, did you have the

responsibility over all craftsmen, or just

carpenters ?

A Well, all craftsmen.

Q And that would include approximately

how many workmen at any one given time on that

project?

570.

A Well, we had as many as two [RT 2115]

hundred men there at one time.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Q That would be various crafts ? BY MR, HOBART:

A Yes, sir. Ke kK KK KK OK OK OK

Q And what was the top number of [RT 2122]

carpenters that you had employed on that job?

Mr. Simpson testified that on that job you

A I believe it was somewhere in had both oral and written requests, and that had

the seventies. been a common occurrence on that Simpson-

Dinwiddie job. Do you have a recollection of

Q Now, do you know Mr. Everett that, sir?

Trimble ?

A Yes.

A Yes, sir.

[RT 2123]

[RT 2113]

Q Sometimes they would be in writing,

Q And did Mr. Trimble ever work sometimes they would be over the telephone

for you? '

A Well, normally they were in writing.

A Yes, sir. That was the rule that was made, and --

; Q I think that is what Mr. Simpson

Ke KKK KK KK K said, that that was normally the case, but that

. there were exceptions to that rule, telephone

requests.

In other words, you'd call, when you'd

call into the union, say, the night before, say,

"Give us X number of carpenters tomorrow, and

make one or two of them so and so and so and so,"

that that was not an uncommon thing; isn't that

true ?

571. 572.

A It's true until we reached that

25 percent. After that we would just call the

hall and they'd send out the men off their list,

or whatever.

Q Right, we're talking about two

things. In other words, you could make the

requests up until the time the company had re-

quested 25 percent of the people, then after that

you couldn't make individual requests any more?

A That's correct, yes, sir.

Q All right. But up to the 25 percent,

the fact of the matter is that you made requests on

that job of both oral and written nature?

A Yes.

* KK K K HK KK K KH

[RT 2124]

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. GEFFNER:

Q Mr. Coukos, Mr. Daley testified

that he had an agreement with Mr. Simpson that

within the 25 percent requests -- not on rehires,

or not on transfers -- but on the 25 percent, that

the requests would be by name. Does that re-

fresh your recollection in any way of any arrange-

ment on that particular job?

A Yes, sir, that was the ruling that

was set up.

573.

Q Is that your recollection?

A Yes, sir.

Q Would you agree with Mr. Daley

that's what it was ?

A Yes.

KK KK K KK KK

[RT 2125]

RECROSS -EXAMINATION

BY Mr. HOBART:

Q There were oral requests that

were honored on that job, and there were written

requests that were honored on that job, irrespec-

tive of whatever the agreement had been; isn't

that so?

A There may have been a few verbal

requests.

KKK KKK KOK KK

EVERETT TRIMBLE,

called as a witness by the defendants, being pre-

viously sworn, resumed the stand and testified

further as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)

BY MR, GEFFNER: .

* KK KK KK K K K

574.

[RT 2130]

Q Now, Mr. Trimble, when you |

were working on the Dinwiddie-Simpson job

around May ist, 1967, do you recall a conver-

sation involving Mr. Coukos and Mr. Hill?

A Yes, I do.

Q And would you tell us, were you

present ?

A Yes, I was.

Q Can you tell us the circumstances

of how you happened to be present?

A Well, I had came down from the

6th floor, and they had the saw shop down on the

ground floor, so I went down there to pick up the

saws to take up to the men, and I was starting

back up. I stopped to say a word to Fred Coukos

about the assignments and jobs.

Q Did you talk to Mr. Coukos fre-

quently in that job?

A Yes, I did.

Q How many times a day would you

say you spoke to him ?

& Oh, probably four or five times

a day.

575.

And as I was going back I stopped to talk

[RT 2131]*

to him, * and Mr. Hill came in about that time,

and I introduced him to Fred Coukos, and he --

Q You knew Mr. Hill, of course.

He was vice-president at that time ?

A Yes.

So he asked Fred Coukos for a request to”

go to work, and Fred told him he wouldn't give

him any, he didn't want him on the job.

Q Do you recall anything else about

that conversation ?

A That's about all they said there at

that time. I went on upstairs.

kok Kk Kok Kk Ok ok OK

[RT 2132]

Q At the stewards' meeting did you

ever hear any conversation between Mr. Daley

and Mr. Hill?

A Oh, yes.

Q And in terms of the two of them,

I assume there were a number of men present ?

576.

A Yes.

Q But in terms of the conversation

between the two of them, can you give us some

[RT 2133]*

of your recollections of ? what you heard?

MR. HOBART: Can we have the time

this occurred, your Honor?

THE COURT: '65, I think.

MR. GEFFNER: And '66, your Honor.

THE COURT: And '66.

THE WITNESS: Well, they would --

they would have this meeting. Whoever was on

the floor, if it was one of the agents or some of

the attorneys, or Mr. Hill would jump up and go to

to interfering with the speech, and Daley would

ask him to sit down, and if he didn't sit down,

why, Daley would tell him in a pretty rough way

to sit down, That was his nature of talking.

He talked that way. He was rough talking.

Q BY MR, GEFFNER: And did

Mr. Hill answer back?

A Well, yes. Lots of time he would,

but then I don't remember what he would say.

He talked so fast that I couldn't keep up with him.

577.

Q Now, did you attend the member-

ship meetings during '67?

A Yes, I did.

Q And '68 ?

A Yes. Yes, I did.

Q Of course, you were president

from June of '68 on, were you not ?

A Yes.

Q During the period of '67 when you

were not president, up to June of '68 did you

[RT 2134]*

attend any of those meetings * during that time ?

A I attended all the meetings.

Q And Mr. Nelson was present, was

he not?

A Yes.

Q Do you recall any conversation at

the membership meetings between Mr. Hill and

Mr. Daley?

A Well, I don't -- yes, I recall the

conversations, but then I don't remember --

578.

Q Well, in general terms.

A General terms, yes.

Q Any discussions, or what was it,

is what I'm trying fo find out.

A Well, really, I don't know what

was said, but Hill would interfere if any of them

got up on the floor.

Q And Mr. Daley would say what to

him, usually ?

A Pardon?

Q What would Mr. Daley say to Mr.

Hill?

A He would tell him to sit down or

he'd throw him out of the building -- put him out

of the hall, rather.

Q Is that what he said ?

A Yes.

Q Did Mr. Hill keep talking ?

A Talking too much, interfering .

with the men,

Q Now, when you were president,

that was in June of '68, was it not?

579.

A Yes.

Q In June of '68 until April of '69

did Mr. Hill attend any of the meetings ?

[RT 2135]

A Yes.

Q And in terms of conducting the

meetings, would you tell us, what would Mr. Hill

say or do, if anything.

A Well, when I was president, yes,

he would. When I was first president, why, he

didn't say anything for a short time, but then he

begantoi -%rfere with me and tie men that would

get up On tne floor to make speeches.

He'd interfere with all of us, but I don't

recall what was said, only he -- I threatened to

fine him one time, but I didn't assess a fine on

him.

KK KK KK KK K

[RT 2180]

LEO EARL POUNDSTONE,

called as a witness by the defendants, being first

duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

580.

KK KK KK KK K K

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR, GEFFNER:

Q Mr. Poundstone, what is your

occupation ?

A I am a construction superintendent.

Ke KK KK KK KF

[RT 2183]

Q And when was the first time you

saw or met Mr. Hill, approximately ?

A Well, during the middle of the

month of January of 1969.

Q Sometime in January or February?

A Yes, sir, one of those two. I'm

fairly sure it was in January, but could have

been in February. °

Q All right. So you say that was in

'69?

A Yes, sir.

Q Okay. Let's say January or

February; is that fair enough? ‘

A Yes, sir.

581.

Q And that was the Kidde job?

[RT 2184]

A Yes, sir. :

Q Now, during that time, Mr.

Poundstone, did you spend much of your time

during the day at the project ?

A All the time from 6:00 o'clock in

the morning until 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon,

Q All right.

Now, up to that time had you ever seen

or heard or known anything about Mr. Richard

Hill ?

A No.

Q Would you tell us, did you have a

conversation with Mr. Hill at that time ?

A I did.

Q And where was this conversation?

A On that property there, the

property which we had taken possession of by

virtue of a permit from the City of Los Angeles

for parking and traffic; on the project.

* kk KK KK RK XK

582.

[RT 2188]

Q Mr. Poundstone, I believe I was

asking you where you first saw Mr. Hill.

A That is true.

Q Will you tell us where you first

saw him ?

A Yes. Iwas eating breakfast in a

restaurant across the corner from the project

that I was working on in 1969, _ I don't recall

the name of the restaurant.

Q About what time of the morning

was it?

A 6:00 o'clock. I was sitting at the

counter, and a man came up, tapped me on the

shoulder and said, "When you get through there,

I want to see you across the street at the job. "

When I finished, I went over there.

[RT 2189]

Q Who was the man that said this ?

A Mr. Hill -- when I got over to the

job I met Mr. Hill.

Q He's the man that tapped you on

the shoulder ?

A Yes.

583.

When I got over to the job, there was Mr.

Hill parked with his car blocking the entrance

gates to my project, and he was standing outside

of his car, and he said to me, "Leo,'"'-he said,

"I'm Dick Hill from Local 25, and I came down

here to get you straightened out."

He said, "I've been listening to the bull-

shit stories down at the hall that you've been

pulling down here, and I want to get you

straightened out on just exactly what's coming

off, '' along those lines.

So I said to him, "Which business agent

are you?" and he said, "I'm no God-damned

business agent, I'm a member of Local 25, and

I'm down here to straighten you out."

So I said to him, ''Are you coming down

here to go to work?" "I wouldn't work on this

God-damned job if I never had a job."' So then

I informed him that he was parked on my

property, being the company representative, and

I would give him three minutes to remove him

self and his automobile from there, or I would

call the police and have him arrested.

To which he says to me, "How does a

son of a bitch like you live so long without being

shot?" So I turned around to him and said,

"Your three minutes are up, " and I started to go

over to get into my pickup, and he jumped in

584.

[RT 2190]

his car and drove off,

Now, that's the first, the last, and the

only time I've ever had anything to do with him,

*x KK K KK K Kk Ke

[RT 2522]

JAMES L. KEEN,

called as a witness by the defendants, being first

duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

* KK KK KK K kK

[RT 2523]

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. GEFFNER.

Q Mr. Keen, what is your occupation ?

A Financial secretary, Carpenters'

Local 25.

«.

* Ke KK KK K KK K

[RT 2542]

Q BY MR. GEFFNER: Yes, con-

cerning yourself with just the '67, '68 period,

tell us what you heard.

585.

A Well, Mr. Hill was standing at the

[RT 2543]*

window copying* notes and yelling through the

window at Mr. Daley, and naturally, it gets ona

person's nerves, and he'd yell back. He'd tell

him to get away from the window so he could

get the dispatching done.

Q What did you hear Mr. Hill say

during those incidents ?

A He'd call him drunken bum, and

all sorts of things like that.

Q What did you hear Mr. Daley say?

A He'd just tell him, ‘'Get the hell

away from the window so I can get my work done. "’

Q Was that sort of a normal routine,

as far as you could observe ?

~ MR. HOBART: Your Honor, I will object

to the question as being leading.

THE COURT: Yes, I will sustain the

objection.

MR, GEFFNER: All right.

Q How often would you say that type

of dialogue would take place ?

586.

with Mr. Daley?

A Practically every day.

kok kk kk OK OK Ok OK A Yes, I did.

[RT 2630] Q And Mr. Fenwick?

JOSEPH ‘ANDREW WILK, A Yes, I did.

Q How would that work, in terms of

called as a witness by the defendants, being first

duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

[RT 2637]*

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. GEFFNER: who would handle* the actual job of dispatching ?

A Well, any man that was there,

First man there, or one of the others were busy

on the telephone, taking care of other business, -

KK KK KK KK OK

as Seer or taking roll call, first man that was in the

Q Now, Mr. Wilk, during the year office took care of that.

1967 -- that's the last year you were in office

for the full year -- do you remember seeing Mr. @ How about requests from employers?

. . 2 9

Hill during that year socially‘ A Well, requests from employers

A I do, very much so came in either by letter, by note, or by their

| : ; . business card.

The same thing happened. We visited, ake

frequently drinking, very much so; drinking and 8 And what was the practice in

dining together. , honoring requests by name ?

A Well, as far as I was concerned,

KKK KK KK KOK XK :

and the o

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.