# Appendix — Farmer v. Carpenters

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_2150%3A04

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1977
- **Citation:** 430 U.S. 290

## Text

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
l

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_2150%3A04. Public record. Not legal advice.