Appendix — Walker v. Hayes
Supreme Court brief1977
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
APPENDIX |! JUN12 197g
In THE
Supreme Court of the United States
October Term, 1977
No. 77-961
New York TELEPHONE Company, WESTERN Exectric Com-
PANY, AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY,
Lone Lives Department, and Emprme City Supway
Company (Limrrep),
Petitioners,
—_vV —_—
New York State DepartMent or Lasor, Lovis L. Levine,
Industrial Commissioner of the New York State De-
partment of Labor, New York State DeparTMENT oF
Taxation & Fryance, and James H. Tuy, Jr., State
Commissioner of Taxation & Finance,
Respondents.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED JANUARY 4, 1978
CERTIORARI GRANTED MARCH 27, 1978
In THE
Supreme Court of the United States
Ocroser Term, 1977
No. 77-961
a
New York TeterHone Company, WesTERN Eecrric Com-
pany, AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CoMPANY,
Lone Lines Department, and Empre Crry Susway
Company (Limrrep),
Petitioners,
—Y,—
New York Strate Department or Lazor, Louis L. Levine,
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER OF THE New York State
DepaRTMENT OF Laspor, New York State DEPARTMENT
or Taxation & Finance, and James H. Tutty, Jr., Strate
CoMMISSIONER OF TaxaTION & Finance,
Respondents.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
<p
INDEX*
PAGE
Relevant Docket Entries 2. ..........2......-cccssc-scsceee-o-e 1
CONE sicnncriisienstndsincsehnicsctailiph tiie taeltiaiaiihiainiaaitilala ala nsada te 8
*The opinion of the court of appeals is reprinted at pages
la-18a of the Appendix to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.
The ae ere and order for permanent injunction
issued by the district court is reprinted at pages 19a-22a of the
Appendix to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and the opin-
ion of the district court is reprinted there at 23a-54a. The
a and order of the district — ying defendants’
motion for ju t, is reprinted at pages 55a-56a of
the Aeuentla © @ ~ oy for a Writ of Certiorari.
PAGE
ETE 34
Excerpt from Pre-Trial Order .02.....0.......-..:c-ceceeeeeeeeeeeoes 48
PLarxtiFFs’ ExHisits
Exhibit Number
3 Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
13
20
24
26
38
41
August 26, 1971, CWA Local 1101 .................... 68
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
September 27, 1971, CWA Local 1101 ............ 69
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
July 22, 1971, CWA Local 1102 ........................ 70
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
December 7, 1971, CWA Local 1102 ................ 71
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
September 12, 1971, CWA Local 1108 ............ 71
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
December 29, 1971, CWA Local 1108 ............ 72
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
April 1, 1973, CWA Local 1108 ..................... 73
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
August 25, 1971, CWA Local 11064 ................... 74
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
September 17, 1971, CWA Local 1104 ............ 75
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
September 1, 1971, CWA Local 1106 ............ 76
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
August 15, 1971, CWA Local 1107 .................... 77
PuarntiFrs’ Exnuisits
ili
Exhibit Number
65 Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
69
71
79
80
82
86
87
93
97
104
112
114
September 25, 1971, CWA Local 1108 _.....
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
October 25, 1971, CWA Local 1108 ......0.......
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
September 3, 1971, CWA Local 1114 _........
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
August 25, 1971, CWA Local 1120
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
August 25, 1971, CWA Local 1120 —..........
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
September 1, 1971, CWA Local 1120 _.....
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
June 29, 1971, CWA Local 1123 -. a...
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
July 30, 1971, CWA Local 1123
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
September 1, 1971, CWA Local 1124
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
August 24, 1971, CWA Local 1125 _00..
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
September 13, 1971, CWA Local 1127 _..........
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
October 25, 1971, CWA Local 1128
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
July 15, 1971, CWA Local 1150 _
PAGE
78
90
91
iv
PuarntiFrFrs’ Exnrsits PAGE
Exhibit Number
122
128
142
143
144
146
147
148
(excerpts)
149
(excerpts)
150
(excerpts)
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
September 29, 1971, CWA Local 1190 ............ 92
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
July 2, 1971, CWA Local 1191 93
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
October 22, 1971, CWA Tri-Local Council .... 94
Letter from CWA Vice President Morton
Bahr to Local Presidents, April 8, 1971 ........ 95
Memorandum from E.J. Mays, Assistant to
CWA Vice President Bahr, to Local Presi-
dents, June 21, 1971 a 97
Letter from CWA Defense Fund Director
Glenn E. Watts to Local Presidents, July
14, 1971 98
Memorandum from E.J. Mays, CWA Defense
Fund Agent, to All Locals Involved in New
York Telephone Strike, September 7, 1971.... 100
Letter from CWA Vice President Morton
Bahr to the Members of the New York Plant
Unit, September 7, 1971 ......cccceccceecceceeeeees 101
New York Plant Strike Bulletin #3, from
CWA Vice President Morton Bahr, Septem-
2g |. Feeeonn oli 104
New York Strike Bulletin #5, from CWA
Vice President Morton Bahr, October 14,
IRE ie a Se be
Piarntirrs’ Exursits PAGE
Exhibit Number
151 New York Plant Strike Bulletin #6, from
152
153
156
158
(excerpts)
159
161
(excerpts)
164
165
(excerpts)
CWA Vice President Morton Bahr, October
ey eee 108
Letter from CWA Vice President Morton
Bahr to All Local Presidents, District One,
ED Te, TG cccnntictctenseennann 111
New York Plant Strike Bulletin #9, from
CWA Vice President Morton Bahr, Novem-
ber 11, 1971 ...... . >
Letter from CWA President Joseph A.
Beirne to Members in New York, December
14, 1971 115
Letter from CWA Vice President Morton
Bahr to All Members, New York Plant & Em-
pire City Subway Bargaining Unit, Febru-
ary 4, 1972 117
Letter from CWA Vice President Morton
Bahr to All CWA Members, New York Plant,
March 7, 1972 oe 119
Minutes, Collective Bargaining Meeting, Con-
tract Negotiations with CWA, September 9,
1971 . 125
Strike and Defense Fund Chapter, CWA Ex-
ecutive Board Report, 1972 Annual Conven-
rece SENN Es BEG SERENE Te eee aOn TOT Oe Oe 127
New York Generator, Official Publication of
CWA Local 1101, December 1973 .................... 130
me TTT, Eta
PuarntiFFs’ ExHIsITs PAGE
Exhibit Number
172
184
238
(excerpts)
239
241
242
246
(excerpt )
Transcript of Today Show, NBC News
Broadcast of February 4, 1970 ........................ 131
Report of the Defense Fund Committee for
Presentation to the Sixth Annual CWA Con-
CI, TE ‘dechetcincissiittnbitiiiabtaiatieisaditbbahiacniicsn 133
CWA Defense Fund Rules and Local Defense
Fund Ground Rules, 1970 20..............ccceeceeceeees 136
“Strikers on Welfare”, Wall Street Journal,
SE TEI: UTED scoseisiisnctecsiinisstrinegecssicagessitanincaimgsitsnianis 137
USWA Advertisement, Syracuse Post Stand-
Se Sis. SEE dssicincineeccninnnecmecdinmeenitn 147
“116 Days on Strike—45 Million in Public
Aid”, U.S. News & World Report, Octoher
i | SUE -sineiheeiceeeniceteeiiiepiincepentidasashiabietansiniaieaniaceaanadaianian 149
USWA Strike and Defense Fund Rules and
Planning Check List, 1969 22... sseeeseeees 154
Letter from USWA International Secretary-
Treasurer Walter J. Burke to All District Di-
rectors, Staff Representatives, Local Union
Presidents and Recording Secretaries, May
RT EN RYE oe TO 158
“Workers Forego Strike Benefits”, Buffalo
Courier Express, December 16, 1969 ................ 161
Transcript, Labor News Conference, “Family
Assistance to GE Strikers”, Mutual Broad-
casting System, December 16, 1969 ................ 162
“Welfare and Strikes; The Use of Public
Funds to Support Strikers”, A. Thieblot, Jr.,
PuaIntiFFs’ ExuHrsits PAGE
Exhibit Number :
251
and R. Cowin (Industrial Research Unit, The
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania,
BD ticitieinatinireetiieiesentamniienteleninbaiesimnitaiitiielanin 165
An Open Letter to All Members of IBEW
1357 and Employees of Hawaiian Telephone
Company from the Workers Committee to
Defend the Right to Strike, September 1974 .. 166
A Petition in Defense of the Right to Strike,
September 1974 000.0... wit 168
“Beyond the Picket Line: How to Organize
a Strike Assistance Program”, AFL-CIO,
I naideicnillannsctiiincistitiliaanaseat
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
October 24, 1973, CWA Local 1101 0.000000. 178
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
October 25, 1973, CWA Local 1102 .. 178
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
December 10, 1971, CWA Local 1108 ............ 179
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
January 4, 1972, CWA Local 1103 ................ 180
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
March 24, 1972, CWA Local 1106 182
“Community Services Advance Strike Re-
lease: What to Do When the Strike Is On,”
CWA Local 1101, 1971 183
The Payment of Unemployment Compensa-
tion Benefits in Labor Disputes—Impect on
Industrial Development in Rhode Island,
Puarntirrs’ ExHisits PAGE
Exhibit Number
321
(excerpts)
322
325
331
(excerpts)
Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council,
Project Rhode Island, July 1972 186
Strike Preparation Manual, American So-
ciety for Personnel Administration, 1974 .... 193
Letter from IBEW Local 77 Assistant Busi-
ness Manager Robert P. Taylor to All Mem-
bers Employed at Puget Sound Power &
Light Co., Seattle, Washington, May 31, 1974 201
Statement of Joseph Molony, on Behalf of the
United Steel Workers of America, Decem-
ber 1, 1959, in Report of the New York State
Joint Legislative Committee on Industrial
and Labor Conditions, 1959-1960 .................... 203
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
December 16, 1974, CWA Local 1170 ............ 208
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
December 30, 1974, CWA Local 1170 -........... 209
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
January 6, 1975, CWA Local 1170 -.............. 209
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
January 13, 1975, CWA Local 1170 ~............... 210
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
January 15, 1975, CWA Local 1170 ........... 211
Strike News Bulletin from IBEW Local 1357
Business Manager-Financial Secretary John
F’. Guzman, Honolulu, Hawaii, May 11, 1974 .. 212
An Open Letter to Our Brothers and Sisters
at Hawaiian Tel, from Gwen Pascua, Chair-
Piarmtirrs’ Exuisits PAGE
Exhibit Number
342
(excerpts)
(excerpts)
person, Workers Committee to Defend ine
Right to Strike, September 16, 1974 _......... 214
Inter-Office Memorandum from W. Lakey to
Mr. M. Rourke, New York State Department
of Labor, Unemployment Insurance District
Superintendent, Concerning Outside Speak-
8 re nee 217
The Industrial Controversy Provision of the
New York State Unemployment Insurance
Law 1935-1973, Labor Research Report 1973
—No. 19, New York State Department of
Labor, Division of Research and Statistics,
December 1973 , 218
“Indusirial Unions Adapt to The Age of
Automation,” UAW Ammunition, Official
Publication of UAW’s Education Depart-
ment, June 1957 223
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
December 19, 1974, CWA Local 1170 ........... 226
Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
May 12, 1975, CWA Local 1170 227
“The Changing Nature of Strikes,” Address
by Federal Mediation and Conciliation Ser-
vice Director J. Curtis Counts to NAM In-
‘stitute on Industrial Relations, June 14, 1971 228
Letter from CWA Local 1107 President
Charles Black to the Members of Local 1107,
September 5, 1971 ... 230
Puarntirrs’ ExHIBITs PAGE
Exhibit Number
369 Mean Length of Strikes by Location for All
370
Strikes, Strikes of Eight Weeks or Less and
More Than Eight Weeks (1968-1973 BLS
IIIS kilosaekicniciinciap leet insite iaiiatathiactautiaiaiatiiliianiciniaiiis 231
Mean Length and Number of Strikes for
Strikes of More Than Eight Weeks (1968-
1973 BLS data) ......... 232
Attitudinal Survey, Table 1.0.02... 235
Attitudinal Survey, Table 2 ..... w- 236
Attitudinal Survey, Table 3 ............................. 237
Attitudinal Survey, Table 4 ..... 238
Attitudinal Survey, Table 5 ..02...........ceeseee 239
Attitudinal Survey, Table 6 .2.................ccsesssee 240
Attitudinal Survey, Table 7 ..20.........ccccceeeeeee 241
Attitudinal Survey, Table 8.20.02... eee 242
Attitudinal Survey, Table 9.00.0... 243
Attitudinal Survey, Table 10 ...... ie 244
Attitudinal Survey, Table 11 satsthaibibiiien 245
Mean Length of Strikes by Location for All
Strikes, Strikes of Eight Weeks or Less and
More Than Eight Weeks (1965-1974 BLS
Le NU SE OT a eT 246
Mean Length and Number of Strikes for
Strikes of More Than Eight Weeks (1965-
BOO ND cstiiniicentaielitisibesiatiaa 247
DerenDANTS’ EXHIBITS PAGE
Exhibit Number
1 Table 405, Disqualification for Unemployment
Caused by Labor Dispute, in Comparison of
State Unemployment Insurance Laws, United
States Department of Labor, January 1972 .. 248
11 Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
November 3, 1971, CWA Local 1101 ............ 252
23 Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
July 26, 1971, CWA Local 1108 ... .. 253
27 Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
December 28, 1971, CWA Local 1106 ............ 254
28 Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
December 4, 1971, CWA Local 1106 ............ 254
32 Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
September 5, 1971, CWA Local 1106 ............ 255
33 Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
August 17, 1971, CWA Local 1106 ................ 256
34 Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
August 9, 1971, CWA Local 1106 ................ 257
35 Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
August 5, 1971, CWA Local 1106 .................... 258
36 Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
August 5, 1971, CWA Local] 1106 ................ 260
37 Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
August 2, 1971, CWA Local 1106 ................... 261
38 Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
July 29, 1971, CWA Local 1106 .. 262
DeFENDANTS’ EXHIBITS PAGE
Exhibit Number
39 Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
July 27, 1971, CWA Local 1106 . 264
40 Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
July 26, 1971, CWA Local 1106 ........................ 265
77 Statement of New York Telephone Company,
SS ae 265
86 Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
December 24, 1974, CWA Local 1170 ............ 271
89 Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
February 5, 1975, CWA Local 1170 ................ 271
90 Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
February 6, 1975, CWA Local 1170 ................ 272
96 Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
March 27, 1975, CWA Local 1170 .................... 273
97 Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
April 10, 1975, CWA Local 1170 .................... 274
99 Transcript of Recorded Telephone Message,
May 9, 1975, CWA Local 1170 ..........2........-..00-+ 275
100 Answer and Objections to Defendants’ First
Interrogatories ... ‘iinemiens 276
113A Mean Length of Work Stoppages by Loca-
tion for All Stoppages, Stoppages of Eight
Weeks or Less and More Than Eight Weeks
(1965-1974) 291
113B Comparison by State of Mean Length of Work
Stoppage for Stoppages Lasting Over Eight
aa ae 292
no ee
Derenpants’ Exursits Pag
Exhibit Number
122A Analysis of Strikes Lasting More Than Eight
Weeks in New York and Rhode Island Com-
pared to the Rest of the Nation 294
Testimony of Raymond E. Williams, Witness on Be-
half of Plaintiffs 298
Direct Examination 298
Cross Examination 318
Excerpts from Deposition Testimony of Communica-
tions Workers of America, by and through its Vice
President, Morton Bahr, on Direct Examination by
Mr. Schair; read into the trial transcript by Mr.
Schair 318
Testimony of Jules Backman, Witness on Behalf of
Plaintiffs 326
Direct Examination 326
Cross Examination ' 346
Redirect Examination.............-..-------cccecccceceeee 354
Testimony of Gerald J. Glasser, Witness on Behalf of
Plaintiffs 356
Cross Examination 356
Testimony of Herman A. Gray, Witness on Behalf of
Defendants 361
Direct Examination 361
Cross Examination 366
Redirect Examination 371
Testimony of Mason Haire, Witness on Behalf of
Defendants 373
Direct Examination 373
Cross Examination 380
xiv
PAGE
Testimony of William H. Melody, Witness on Behalf
I titan id ccc 391
Direct Examination ae ; . 391
RIT OS OR 396
Testimony of Harold Kasper, Witness on Behalf of
Defendants ........ 396
Direct Examination 396
Cross Eimamimations .......1.-ccc.cc.ccccccesecsescesese 401
Testimony of Morton Bahr, Witness on Behalf of De-
fendants ............... 407
Direct Examination ... = .... 407
I I i 414
Recross Examination ................... 421
Testimony of James Wesley Kuhn, Witness on Behalf
© EE ei, 421
Direct Examination ......................... 421
I I i i 433
Redirect Examination .......... ‘ 469
Testimony of Lewis J. Perl, Witness on Behalf of
RTE SR ae eh Oe We a ee es BM 470
ne NS Soe 470
I I iii 471
Testimony of Samuel B. Richmond, Witness on Behalf
8 EN OT Cie Tae eae 475
en Te sii 475
Order Allowing Certiorari, March 27, 1978 .................... 483
Docket Entries
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SovutHern District or New York
73 Cry 4557
DATE PROCEEDINGS
Oct. 24-73 Filed complaint & issued summons.
Dec. 6-73 Filed summons & ent. marshal’s return served
on:
NY State Dept of Labor by Bertha Diggs on
10-30-73,
Norman Gallman unexecuted on 10-30-73,
Mario A. Procaccino by J. Fichera on 11-20-73,
N.Y. State Dept of Taxation & Finance by
I. Nieves on 11-20-73,
Louis J. Lefkowitz by Mr. Sattler on 11-19-73,
& Louis L. Levine by Bertha Diggs on 10-30-73.
Dec. 10-73 Filed Answer of defts to the complaint.
5/22/74 Pre-Triat Hetp, Owen, J.
9/12/74 P.T.C. Het
Sep. 16-74 Filed stip & order—All proceedings with re-
spect to the determination of the amount of
damages in this case shall be deferred until
such time as the constitutional issues are fully
resolved by this Court.—Owen, J.
Sep. 27-74 Filed Defts. Notice of Motion & Supporting
affidavit. Re: Judgment. ret. 11/1/74.
Sep. 27-74 Filed Defts. Memorandum of Law.
Oct. 25-74 Filed pltff’s affdvt in opposition to deft’s mo-
tion for summary judgment.
DATE
2
Docket Entries
Oct. 25-74 Filed pltffs’ memorandum of law in opposition
Nov. 6-74
Jan. 20-75
Mar. 31-75
6-18-75
1-12-75
12- 9-75
01-14-76
02-26-76
02-27-76
03-11-76
03-12-76
03-15-76
03-16-76
03-17-76
04-02-76
04-16-76
to motion for summary judgment.
Filed Reply Memorandum of Law in support
of State Defts. Motion for summary judgment.
Filed Affidavit by Raymond E. Williams in
support of pltffs. opposition to defts motion
for summary judgment.
Filed MeMornanpum Oprwion #42,125—Defts’
motion for summary judgment is denied. So
Ordered—Owen, J.—Mailed notices.
Pre-Triat Conrerence Hetp sy Hartenstine
Pre-Triat Conrerence Hetp sy HarTenstrive,
U.S. Mage.
PTC Held Owen, J.
Filed revision to Consented Pre-Trial Order
Owen, J.
Before Owen J., non-jury trial begun.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Trial continued.
Trial continued & concluded. Decision re-
served,
3
Docket Entries
PROCEEDINGS
Filed transcript of record of proceedings
dated Feb. 26, 27, March 11, 12, 15, 1976.
Filed transcript of record of proceedings
dated March 16, 17, April 2, 16, 1976.
Filed Pltffs’. post-trial memorandum of law.
Filed Pitffs’. appendices A & B to post-trial
memorandum of law.
Filed Appendices A and B to Pitifs’. post-trial
memorandum of law.
Filed Ptlffs’. proposed findings of fact & con-
clusions of law.
Filed Appendix to Dfts. Post Trial Memoran-
dum of Law.
Filed Dfts. Post Trial Memorandum of Law.
Filed Dfts. Proposed findings of Fact & Con-
clusions of law.
Filed Pltffs’. post-trial reply memorandum
of law.
Filed Opinion #45939. On the basis of the
New York Labor Law, on the basis it provides
for the payment of unemployment compensa-
tion to strikers, is state intervention, causes
an employer to finance it’s own strikers. It is
in conflict with federal labor law policy and is
therefore unconstitutional and void under the
supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution........
So ordered.......Owen, J. m/n.
DATE
6-22-77
6/27/77
6/27/77
6/28/77
7- 8-77
7- 8-77
7-22-77
8-31-77
+
Docket Entries
PROCEEDINGS
Filed deft notice of appeal to the USCA from
order of J. Owen dated 5-24-77. m/n
Filed amended notice of appeal to the USCA
form the order of J. Owen dated 5/24/77 by
State Defts. m/n
Filed declaratory judgment and order for per-
manient injunction declaring Article 18 of the
N.Y. Labor Law to the extent it provides for
the payment of unemployment compensation
to strikers is unconstitutional and void; defts
within 8 weeks of entry of this order shall
recredit pltff respective unemployment insur-
ance accounts retroactive to 1971 ete. Owen J.
Judgment ent. Clerk 6/27/77 m/n
Filed memo and order . . . I decline to grant
a stay pending appeal, I do grant a stay until
2PM on 6’27'77 for purpose of allowing State
to apply to Court of Appeals to determine if
that Court wihes to grant a stay. So ordered
Owen J. m/n
Filed Stiputation Desionatine Certars Docw-
MENTs & Exuisits to Become Part or Recorp
on APPEAL.
Filed notice of transmission of record to
USCA.
Filed supplemental record on appeal with
USCA
Filed transcript of record of proceedings
dated 6-9-77
DATE
12-16-77
5
Docket Entries
PROCEEDINGS
Filed True Copy of U.S.C.A. Mandate with
opinion attached. Ordered that judgment of
district court is reversed & the action is re-
manded with instruction to dismiss the com-
plaint in accordance with the opinion of this
court with costs to be taxed against the ap-
pellees. Docketed as a Judgment #78,376 on
12-19-77 sent to Aponte.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
6-28-77
6-30-77
For tHE Seconp Circuit
77-7337
PROCEEDINGS
Filed copies of docket entries and notice of
appeal (Defendants)
Filed motion for stay, appellant, p/s
Filed order granting appellants’ motion for
a stay to the extent that that the judgment and
order of the district court are stayed until
6-30-77 at which time the motion for a stay
will be heard at 10:30 A.M. in Room 1705
Filed copies of docket entries and amended
notice of appeal
Filed order granting motion for stay. Appel-
lant’s brief by 7-8-77; reply brief, if any, by
7-18-77; appellees’ brief by 7-14-77; joint ap-
pendix by 7-14-77; argument of appeal shall
DATE
7- 8-77
7-11-77
7-13-77
7-15-77
7-15-77
7-15-77
7-18-77
7-18-77
7-18-77
7-19-77
7-19-77
7-19-77
7-20-77
7-22-77
6
Docket Entries
PROCEEDINGS
be set for the week of 7-18-77; all papers may
be in tw form
Filed record (Original papers of district
court)
Filed briefs, appellant, p/s
Filed briefs, amicus curiae, p/s (N.Y.S., AFL-
CIO)
Filed briefs, amicus curiae, p/s (Rochester
Telephone Corp., et al.)
Filed briefs, amicus curiae, p/s (Dow Chem-
ical Co.)
Filed supplemental record (Original papers
of district court)
Filed briefs, appellee, p/s
Filed appendix, appellee, p/s
Filed four volumes of joint appendix, appel-
lant, p/s (Vol. I. —10 copies, Vol. II, It, IV—
four copies)
Filed reply briefs, appellant, p/s
Filed briefs, amicus curiae, p/s (Local 1, ete.)
Filed final briefs, appellee, p/s
— briefs, amicus curiae, p/s (District 65,
et al.)
Argument heard (By: Meskill, C.J., Van Pelt
Bryan, Stewart, DJJ)
DATE
7-22-77
7-22-77
11- 9-77
1l- 9-77
12- 9-77
12- 9-77
12- 9-77
12-12-77
12-20-77
1- 9-78
3-31-78
7
Docket Entries
PROCEEDINGS
Filed second supplemental record (Original
papers of district court)
Filed order granting motion to continue stay
now in effect pending determination of the
appeal
Judgment reversed and remanded with in-
structions to dismiss the complaint, Meskill,
C.J.
Filed judgment.
Filed order denying motion for clarification
of stay granted by this court pending determi-
nation of the appeal
Filed order denying motion to stay issuance
of the mandate pending application to the
Supreme Court of the U.S. for a writ of cer-
tiorari pursuant to Rule 41(b) of FRAP
Filed order denying motion for a stay
Issued mandate (opinion, judgment and state-
ment of costs)
Original, supplemental and second supplemen-
tal record returned to district court
Filed notice of filing of petition for writ of
certiorari (77-961)
Filed certified copy of order from Supreme
Court granting petition for writ of certiorari
8
Summons
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
For tHe Sovtnern District or New York
Civil Action File No. 73 Civ. 4557
<>.
New York TeLepnone Company, Western Exectric Com-
PANY, AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH ComPaNy,
Lone Lives Department, and Empire City Susway
Company (Limrtep),
Plaintiffs,
—Y,<=
New York State Department or Lasor, Lovrs L. LEVINE,
Industrial Commissioner of the New York State De-
partment of Labor, New Yorx State DeparTMENT oF
Taxation & Finance, and Norman Gaiman, State
Commissioner of Taxation & Finance, }
Defendants.
>—
To the above named Defendants:
You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon
Aranow, Brodsky, Bohlinger, Benetar, Einhorn & Dann,
plaintiffs’ attorney, whose address 469 Fifth Avenue, New
York, New York 10017, an answer to the complaint which
is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service
of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service.
If you fail to do so, judgment’ by default will be taken
against vou for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Raymonp F. Buresarpr
Clerk of Court.
E. A. Becker
Deputy Clerk.
Date: October 24, 1973
Complaint
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Sovrnern District or New York
73 Civ. 4557
<>
New York TeterHone Company, WesTerN Execrric Com-
pany, AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY,
Lone Lives Department, and Empime Crry Supway
Company (LimITeED),
Plaintiffs,
—against—
New York Srate DeparTMENT oF Lasor, Louis L. Levine,
Industrial Commissioner of the New York State De-
partment of Labor, New York State DEPaRTMENT OF
Taxation & Frxance, and Norman Gatiman, State
Commissioner of Taxation & Finance,
Defendants.
<i >—
The plaintiffs, by their attorneys, Aranow, Brodsky,
Bohlinger, Benetar, Einhorn & Dann, complaining of de-
fendants, respectfully allege:
1. This action arises under the Supremacy Clause of
the Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Clause 2,
under the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, and under the Labor Management Relations
Act of 1947, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §151 et seq. (““LMRA”),
an act of Congress regulating commerce. It seeks, among
10
Complaint
other relief, to declare invalid and enjoin the application
of Article 18 of the New York Labor Law insofar es
unemployment insurance benefits thereunder are provided
to striking employees. This court has jurisdiction of the
action under 28 U.S.C. $1331, 28 U.S.C. $1387, and 28
U.S.C. $§ 2201 nnd 2202; and the matter in controversy
exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of ten
thousand dollars ($10,000.00) in respect to each of the
plaintiffs.
As a First Cavse or Action:
2. Plaintiff New York Telephone Company (“TELCO”)
is a domestic corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of New York with its principal place
of business in the Southern District of New York.
3. The Bell System is a descriptive term commonly un-
derstood in the telephone industry, both by employers and
unions, as encompassing telephone operating and other
companies, including among others TELCO, Western Elec-
tric Company (“WECO”), the Long Lines Department
of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company
(“AT&T”) and the Empire City Subway Company (Lim-
ited) (“Empire”).
4. Defendant Lonis L. Levine is the Industrial Commis-
sioner of the New York State Department of Labor (“the
Industrial Commissioner”). The Industrial Commissioner
has an office in the Southern District of New York for the
conduct of official business.
11
Complaint
5. The Industrial Commissioner is charged under the
laws of the State of New York with the administration
of Article 18 of the New York Labor Law (“the Unem-
ployment Insurance Law”). Included among his duties is
directing disbursements from the Unemployment Insur-
ance Fund for the payment of benefits to certain striking
employees among other claimants.
6. Defendant Norman Gallman is the State Commis-
sioner of Taxation and Finance and, as such, heads the
New York State Department of Taxation and Finance.
The State Commissioner of Taxation and Finance has
an office in the Southern District of New York for the
conduct of officie] business.
7. The State Commissioner of Taxation and Finance
is designated under the Unemployment Insurance Law as
custodian of the funds requisitioned by the Industrial
Commissioner for use in the payment of unemployment
insurance benefits to certain striking employees among
other claimants.
8. TELCO is an employer subject to the Unemployment
Insurance Law and is required thereunder to pay unem-
ployment insurance taxes on compensation paid to its em-
ployees.
9. TELCO is also subject to the LMRA and is obligated
to bargain collectively, among others, in a New York state-
wide unit wherein the Communications Workers of Amer-
12
Complaint
ica (“CWA” or “International Union”) is the certified
bargaining representative of certain non-supervisory em-
ployees of TELCO and of Empire, its wholly owned sub-
sidiary, including all those employed in TELCO’s plant
and engineering departments.
10. The collective bargaining agreement entered into in
1968 between CWA and TELCO and Empire was sched-
uled to expire on July 28, 1971, upon the giving of prior
notice. Such notice was given by CWA on or about May 24,
1971 and negotiations for a new contract commenced on
July 6, 1971.
11. CWA has labor contracts with various companies
in the Bell Svstem throughout the United States in addi-
tion to TELCO and Empire. In 1971, as in previous nego-
tiations, the CWA International and the Bell System
companies bargained on a pattern basis, with the WECO
negotiations selected as one of the two patternmaking
negotiations in that year. In such negotiations, once
agreement is reached between the CWA International and
the patternmaker, settlement usually follows in all CWA
bargaining units at all Bell System companies.
12. In the spring of 1971 the various collective bargain-
ing agreements between CWA and the several companies
of the Bell System were due to expire on different dates:
the earliest was the contract covering WECO installers
which expired on April 30, 1971. The agreements which
expired prior to July 14, 1971 had been extended on a
day-by-day basis to July 14, 1971. As of July 14, 1971,
18
Complaint
collective bargaining in connection with new contracts had
been in process between CWA and several of the Bell
System companies.
13. On July 14, 1971 a nationwide strike by all 500,000
CWaA-represented employees was commenced by the Inter-
national Union against all Bell System companies including
TELCO and Empire whose joint contract with CWA had
not yet expired.
14. On July 18, 1971 agreements were reached subject
to ratification between CWA and the various Bell System
companies, including TELCO and Empire, and the CWA
ordered all striking employees back to work on or about
July 21, 1971.
15. Substantially all of the striking employees of the
various Bell System companies throughout the country
returned to work on or about July 21, 1971.
16. On and after July 21, 1971 CWA-represented em-
ployees of the various Bell System companies in New York
continued to stay away from their jobs at the direction
of their local unions notwithstanding the order of the
International Union that they return to work.
17. On August 14, 1971, the respective agreements be-
tween CWA and the various Bell System companies, with
the exception of TELCO and Empire, were ratified by
the covered employees. The TELCO and Empire em-
ployees rejected the contract negotiated on their behalf
14
Complaint
notwithstanding the recommendation of the International
Union to ratify it.
18. TELCO and Empire employees thereafter continued
to strike.
19. On February 16, 1972, CWA-represented employees
at TELCO and Empire voted to ratify a contract between
CWA and their respective employers. On February 17,
1972, a strike settlement agreement covering both Empire
and TELCO was reached providing that all CWA-repre-
sented employees would return to work on February 18,
1972.
20. The New York State phase of the aforementioned
CWA strike against the Bell System was illegal and was
so declared by the respective Administrative Law Judges
in two separate cases now pending before the National
Labor Relations Board (Case #2-CB-5172 and Case #3-
CB-1851-11).
21. Section 592.1 of the Unemployment Insurance Law
is entitled “Suspension of Accumulation of Benefit Rights”
and provides:
“Industrial controversy. The accumulation of benefit
rights by a claimant shall be suspended during a
period of seven consecutive weeks beginning with the
day after he lost his employment because of a strike,
lockout, or other industrial controversy in the estab-
lishment in which he was employed, except that benefit
rights may be accumulated before the expiration of
15
Complaint
such seven weeks beginning with the day after such
strike, lockout, or other industrial controversy was
terminated.”
22. During the period of the strike TELCO strikers
applied for unemployment insurance benefits and such ben-
efits were granted after the seven-week suspension period
provided in Section 592.1 of the Unemployment Insurance
Law over the objections of TELCO.
23. Upon information and belief payments of these ben-
efits were made to upwards of 30,000 TELCO employees.
24. The aforementioned payments were made in viola-
tion of the United States Constitution under a state statute
which conflicts with the federal labor policy established
by Congress in the LMRA.
25. The said payment of benefits to the strikers con-
stituted state subsidization of the strike and, upon infor-
mation and belief, prolonged the strike against TELCO.
The strikers were thereby supplied with financial support
for their insistence upon and holding out for a settlement
which was larger than and different from the one originally
negotiated on their behalf by CWA, recommended by that
union for adoption and accepted by all of the CWA-repre-
sented Bell System employees throughout the United
States outside of New York.
26. This unlawful state subsidy amounted to a maxi-
mum of $75.00 per week net to each benefited employee.
16
Complaint
27. During the 1971-72 strike of TELCO employees
about $43,000,000 in benefits were paid to TELCO strikers
and charged against TELCO’s individual account in the
Unemployment Insurance Fund.
28. The balance in TELCO”’s individual account in Sep-
tember, 1971 prior to the payment of benefits to the strikers
was approximately $40,800,000 whereas the account bal-
ance as computed in March, 1972 after the strike ended
showed a negative balance of about $1,600,000.
29. As a result of the unemployment insurance pay-
ments to strikers TELCO’S unemployment insurance nor-
mal tax rate increased from 0.9% in 1971, one of the
lowest possible tax rates, to 2.3% in 1972, the highest tax
rate possible in 1972 for a positive account employer, and
to 2.8% in 1973. Upon information and belief, had the
aforementioned benefits to strikers not been paid, TELCO’s
unemployment insurance normal tax rate would have been
0.8% in 1972.
30. The aforesaid increase in its unemployment insur-
ance norma! tax rate has caused TELCO to suffer damages
in the amount of approximately $6,300,000 through in-
creased unemployment insurance tax payments in 1972.
TELCO, unless granted the relief herein prayed for, will
be damaged by the additional amount of approximately
$9,300,000 in 1973 and thereafter will continue to be dam-
aged by higher unemployment insurance tax payments for
many years.
17
Complaint
31. Upon information and belief, the payment of benefits
pursuant to Section 592.1 of the Unemployment Insurance
Law prolonged the strike and severely burdened certain
aspects of telephone service, including the repair, mainte-
nance and installation of telephone equipment.
32. The LMRA guarantees to parties covered thereby
the right to engage in free collective bargaining without
state interference or state subsidization of any party as
against another.
33. The payment by defendants of unemployment in-
surance benefits pursuant to Section 592.1 of the Unem-
ployment Insurance Law deprived TELCO of said right,
frustrated substantially the federal policy of free collec-
tive bargaining, constituted an unlawful intrusion by the
State of New York into an area preempted by the LMRA,
and forced TELCO into financing a strike against itself—
all in violation of the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause
2, of the United States Constitution. Consequently, TELCO
has suffered irreparable injury for which there is no
adequate remedy at law.
As a Seconp Cause or Action:
34. Plaintiff WECO is a domestic corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of New York
with its principal place of business in the Southern Dis-
trict of New York.
18
Complaint
35. Plaintiff WECO repeats and realleges each and
every allegation in paragraphs “3”, “4”, “5”, “6”, and “7”
of this complaint; and further alleges:
36. WECO is an employer subject to the Unemployment
Insurance Law and is required thereunder to pay unem-
ployment insurance taxes on compensation paid to its
employees.
37. WECO is subject to the LMRA and is obligated to
bargain collectively with CWA, the certified bargaining
representative of certain of its employees.
38. WECO installers, job clerks and service center em-
ployees are represented exclusively by CWA in separate
nationwide bargaining units. Collective bargaining be-
tween WECO and its employees is conducted on a nation-
wide basis by CWA.
39. The agreement between the installers and WECO
due to expire on April 30, 1971, was extended on a day-by-
day basis subject to termination by giving 24-hours written
notice. Such notice was given by CWA on June 12, 1971
and collective bargaining negotiations ensued.
40. Plaintiff WECO repeats and realleges each and
every allegation in paragraphs “11” and “12” of this com-
plaint.
i. On July 14, 1971 CWA commenced a nationwide
strike against all Bell System companies including WECO.
19
Complaint
42. On July 18, .971 CWA and WECO entered into a
collective bargaining agreement subject to ratification.
CWA’s Executive Board voted to terminate the strike
pending such ratification and ordered all striking em-
ployees back to work on or about July 21, 1971.
43. Substantially all of the striking employees at WECO
throughont the country returned to work on or about July
21, 1971, except those in New York State.
44. On and after July 21, 1971 substantially all CWA-
represented employees at WECO in New York State, ex-
cept manufacturing employees, continued to stay away
from their jobs, notwithstanding the order of the Inter-
national Union that they return to work.
45. On August 14, 1971 CWA-represented employees at
WECO in New York and elsewhere in the nation ratified
new collective bargaining agreements which were not due
to expire until 1974.
46. Each such agreement contained a no-strike clause
which provided:
“No officer, representative or member of the Union shall
authorize, instigate, condone or engage in a strike,
work stoppage or interruption of work operations, in-
cluding absences to attend Union meetings that would
have the same effect as a strike or work stoppage,
during the period of this contract.”
20
Complaint
47. After August 14, 1971, notwithstanding the ratifica-
tion of said agreements, the termination of the strike by
CWA and the return to work of all of its members em-
ployed by WECO elsewhere, substantially all WECO
employees in New York State, except those in manufac-
turing, continued to stay away from their jobs.
48. Such striking employees returned to work after ter-
mination of the TELCO strike on or about February 17,
1972.
49. Plaintiff WECO repeats and realleges each and
every allegation in paragraph “21” of this complaint.
50. During the period of the strike WECO strikers ap-
plied for unemployment insurance benefits and such bene-
fits were granted after the seven-week suspension period
provided in Section 592.1 of the Unemployment Insurance
Law over the objections of WECO.
51. Upon information and belief, payments of these ben-
efits were made to upwards of 4,500 WECO employees.
52. The aforementioned payments were made in viola-
tion of the United States Constitution under a state statute
which conflicts with the federal labor policy established by
Congress in the LMRA.
53. The said payment of benefits to the strikers con-
stituted state subsidization of the strike and, upon infor-
mation and belief, prolonged the strike against WECO.
21
Complaint
The strikers were thereby supplied with financial support
for their-insistence upon and holding out for a settlement
which was larger than and different from the one originally
negotiated on their behalf by CWA, recommended by that
union for adoption and accepted by all of the CWA-repre-
sented Bell System employees throughout the United States
outside of New York.
54. Plaintiff WECO repeats and realleges each and
every allegation in paragraph “26” of this complaint.
55. During the 1971-72 strike of WECO employees,
about $5,000,000 in benefits were paid to WECO strikers
and charged against WECO’s individual account in the
Unemployment Insurance Fund.
56. The balance in WECO’s individual account in Sep-
tember, 1971 prior to the payment of benefits to the strikers
was approximately $6,400,000, whereas the account balance
as computed in March, 1972 after the strike ended showed
a balance of about $1,700,000.
57. As a result of the unemployment insurance pay-
ments to strikers, WECO’s unemployment insurance nor-
mal tax rate increased from 0.7% in 1971, the lowest
possible norma] tax rate in that year, to 2.1% in 1972, one
of the highest tax rates possible in 1972 for a positive
account employer, and to 2.5% in 1973. Upon information
and belief, had the aforementioned benefits to strikers not
been paid, WECO’s unemployment insurance normal tax
rate would have been 0.7% in 1972.
22
Complaint
58. The aforesaid increase in its unemployment insur-
ance normal tax rate has caused WECO to suffer damages
in the amount of approximately $900,000 through in-
creased unemployment insurance tax payments in 1972.
WECO, unless granted the relief herein prayed for, will
be damaged by the additional amount of approximately
$1,200,000 in 1973 and thereafter will continue to be dam-
aged by higher unemployment insurance tax payments for
many years.
59. Plaintiff WECO repeats and realleges each and
every allegation in paragraph “31” of this complaint.
60. The LMRA guarantees to parties covered thereby
the right to engage in free collective bargaining without
state interference or state subsidization of any party as
against another.
61. The payment by defendants of unemployment in-
surance benefits pursuant to Section 592.1 of the Unem-
ployment Insurance Law deprived WECO of said right,
frustrated substantially the federal policy of free collective
bargaining, constituted an unlawful intrusion by the State
of New York into an area preempted by the LMRA, and
forced WECO into financing a strike against itself—all in
violation of the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2,
of the United States Constitution. Consequently, WECO
has suffered irreparable injury for which there is no ade-
quate remedy at law.
23
Complaint
As a Turep Cause or Action:
62. Plaintiff AT&T is a domestic corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of New York with
its principal place of business in the Southern District of
New York.
63. Plaintiff AT&T repeats and realleges each and
every allegation in paragraphs “3”, “4”, “5”, “6”, and “7”
of this complaint; and further alleges:
64. AT&T is an employer subject to the Unemployment
Insurance Law and is required thereunder to pay unem-
ployment insurances taxes on compensation paid to its
employees.
65. AT&T is subject to the LMRA and is obligated there-
under to bargain collectively with CWA, the certified bar-
gaining representative of certain of its employees.
66. The collective bargaining agreement between AT&T
and CWA was due to expire on July 16, 1971. CWA noti-
fied AT&T of its desire to terminate that agreement and
negotiations began on a new agreement on or about June 4,
1971.
67. Plaintiff AT&T repeats and realleges each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs “11” and “12” of
this complaint.
68. On July 14, 1971 CWA-represented employees struck
AT&T as authorized by a nationwide strike vote of all
24
Complaint
CWaA-represented employees employed by Bell System
companies.
69. On July 18, 1971 CWA reached an agreement with
AT&T and the CWA Executive Board voted to terminate
the strike pending ratification thereof and ordered the
employees back to work on or about July 21, 1971.
70. Substantially all of the CWA-represented employees
at AT&T throughout the country returned to work on or
about July 21, 1971.
71. Certain AT&T employees in New York State refused
to return to work.
72. On August 14, 1971 CWA-represented employees at
AT&T ratified the new agreement negotiated on their be-
half.
73. After August 14, 1971, notwithstanding the ratifi-
cation of said agreement, the termination of the strike
by CWA and the return to work of substantially all of
its members emploved at AT&T, certain CWA-represented
employees at AT&T in New York continued to remain
away from their jobs.
74, Many of such striking employees remained away
from work until the termination of the TELCO strike on
or about February 17, 1972.
75. Plaintiff AT&T repeats and realleges each and
every allegation in paragraph “21” of this complaint.
25
Complaint
76. During the period of the strike AT&T strikers ap-
plied for unemployment insurance benefits and such bene-
fits were granted after the seven-week suspension period
provided in Section 592.1 of the Unemployment Insurance
Law over the objections of AT&T.
77. Upon information and belief, payments of these ben-
efits were made to approximately 300 AT&T employees.
78. The aforementioned payments were made in viola-
tion of the United States Constitution under a state statute
which conflicts with the federal labor policy established by
Congress in the LMRA.
79. The said payment of benefits to the strikers consti-
tuted state subsidization of the strike and, upon informa-
tion and belief, prolonged the strike against AT&T. The
strikers were thereby supplied with financial support for
their insistence upon and holding out for a settlement
which was larger than and different from the one originally
negotiated on their behalf by CWA, recommended by that
union for adoption and accepted by all of the CWA-repre-
sented Bell System employees throughout the United
States outside of New York.
80. Plaintiff AT&T repeats anu realleges each and
every allegation in paragraph “26” of this complaint.
81. During the 1971-72 strike of AT&T employees about
$470,000 in benefits were paid to AT&T strikers and
charged against AT&T’s individual acconnt in the Unem-
ployment Insurance Fund.
Complaint
82. The balance in AT&T’s individual account in Sep-
tember, 1971 prior to the payment of benefits to the strikers
was approximately $5,600,000, whereas the account balance
as computed in March, 1972 after the strike ended showed
a balance of about $5,000,000.
83. As a result of the unemployment insurance pay-
ments to strikers, AT&T’s unemployment insurance normal
tax rate increased from 0.8% in 1971, one of the lowest
possible normal tax rates, to 1.0% in 1972 and to 0.9% in
1973. Upon information and belief, had the aforementioned
benefits to strikers not been paid, AT&T’s unemployment
insurance normal tax rate would have been 0.9% in 1972.
84. The aforesaid increase in its unemployment insur-
ance normal tax rate has caused AT&T to suffer damages
in the amount of approximately $60,000 through increased
unemployment insurance tax payments in 1972. AT&T, un-
less granted the relief herein prayed for, will be damaged
by the additional amount of approximately $130,000 in
1973 and thereafter will continue to be damaged by higher
unemployment insurance tax payments for many years.
85. Plaintiff AT&T repeats and realleges each and
every allegation in paragraph “31” of this complaint.
86. The LMRA guarantees to parties covered thereby
the right to engage in free collective bargaining without
state interference or state subsidization of any party as
against another.
27
Complaint
87. The payment by defendants of unemployment in-
surance benefits pursuant to Section 592.1 of the Unem-
ployment Insurance Law deprived AT&T of said right,
frustrated substantially the federal policy of free collec-
tive bargaining, constituted an unlawful intrusion by the
State of New York into an area preempted by the LMRA,
and forced AT&T into financing a strike against itself—
all in violation of the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause
2, of the United States Constitution. Consequently, AT&T
has suffered irreparable injury for which there is no ade-
quate remedy at law.
As a Fovrrn Cause or Action:
88. Plaintiff Empire is a domestic corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of New York with
its principal place of business in the Southern District of
New York.
89. Plaintiff Empire repeats and realleges each and
every allegation in paragraphs “3”, “4”, “5”, “6” and “7”
of this complaint; and further alleges:
90. Empire is an employer subject to the Unemployment
Insurance Law and is required thereunder to pay unem-
ployment insurance taxes on compensation paid to its em-
ployees.
91. Empire is subject to the LMRA and is obligated to
bargain collectively with CWA, the certified bargaining
representative of its non-supervisory employees.
28
Complaint
92. Collective bargaining for represented Empire em-
ployees is conducted with CWA in multi-employer nego-
tiations involving TELCO and Empire, resulting in a single
collective bargaining agreement covering the CWA-repre-
sented employees of both employers.
93. Plaintiff Empire repeats and realleges each and
every allegation in paragraphs “10”, “11”, “12”, “13”, “14”,
“15” “16” “17” “18” “19”, and “21” of this complaint.
94. During the period of the strike Empire strikers ap-
plied for unemployment insurance benefits and such bene-
fits were granted after the seven-week suspension period
provided in Section 592.1 of the Unemployment Insurance
Law over the objections of Empire.
95. Upon information and belief payments of these ben-
efits were made to upwards of approximately 150 Empire
employees.
96. The aforementioned payments were made in viola-
tion of the United States Constitution under a state statute
which conflicts with the federa! labor policy established
by Congress in the LMRA.
97. The said payment of benefits to the strikers consti-
tuted state subsidization of the strike and, upon informa-
tion and belief, prolonged the strike against Empire. The
strikers were thereby supplied with financial support for
their insistence upon and holding out for a settlement
which was larger than and different from the one originally
eae ee
29
Complaint
negotiated on their behalf by CWA, recommended by that
union for adoption and accepted by all of the CWA-repre-
sented Bell System employees throughout the United
States ouside of New York.
98. Plaintiff Empire repeats and realleges each and
every allegation in paragraph “26” of this complaint.
99. During the 1971-72 strike of Empire employees ap-
proximately $103,000 in benefits were paid to Empire
strikers and charged against Empire’s individual account
in the Unemployment Insurance Fund.
100. The balance in Empire’s individual account in Sep-
tember, 1971 prior to the payment of benefits to the
strikers was approximately $119,000 whereas the account
balance as computed in March, 1972 after the strike ended
showed a balance of about $27,000.
101. As a result of the unemployment insurance pay-
ments to strikers, Empire’s unemployment insurance nor-
mal tax rate increased from 1.7% in 1971 to 2.38% in 1972,
the highest tax rate possible in 1972, and 2.7% in 1973.
Upon information and belief, had the aforementioned bene-
fits to strikers not been paid, Empire’s unemployment
insurance normal tax rate would have been 1.5% in 1972.
102. The aforesaid increase in its unemployment insur-
ance tax rate has caused Empire to suffer damages in the
amount of upwards of $13,000 through increased unem-
ployment insurance tax payments in 1972. Empire, unless
30
Complaint
granted the relief herein prayed for, will be damaged by
the additional amount of upwards of $23,000 in 1973 and
thereafter will continue to be damaged by higher unem-
ployment insurance tax payments for many years.
103. Plaintiff Empire repeats and realleges each and
every allegation in paragraph “31” of this complaint.
104. The LMRA guarantees to parties covered thereby
the right to engage in free collective bargaining without
state interference or state subsidization of any party as
against another.
105. The payment by defendants of unemployment in-
surance benefits pursuant to Section 592.1 of the Unem-
ployment Insurance Law deprived Empire of said right,
frustrated substantially the federal policy of free collective
bargaining, constituted an unlawful intrusion by the State
of New York into an area preempted by the LMRA, and
foreed Empire into financing a strike against itself—all
in violation of the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2,
of the United States Constitution. Consequently, Empire
has suffered irreparable injury for which there is no ade-
quate remedy at law.
As a Firtnm Cavse or Action:
106. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every alle-
gation in paragraphs “2” through “105” of this complaint;
and further allege:
107. Plaintiffs, by virtue of the payment of unemploy-
ment insurance benefits to strikers, have suffered the im-
31
Complaint
position of large debits to their respective unemployment
insurance accounts as well as the levying against each of
them of vastly increased unemployment insurance taxes.
Thereby each of the plaintiffs has been and is being
deprived of their property without due process of law in
violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
As a Srxtn Cause or Action:
3
108. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every alle-
gation in paragraphs “2” through “105” of this complaint;
and further allege:
109. The payment of unemployment insurance benefits
to strikers pursuant to Section 592.1 of the Unemployment
Insurance Law is an unreasonable and arbitrary classifi-
cation of strikers as distinguished from other claimants
voluntarily unemployed in violation of the Equal Protec-
tion Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution.
Wuenerore, plaintiffs demand judgment:
1. That Section 592.1 of the Unemployment Insurance
Law, providing for payment of benefits to strikers after
the seventh week of a strike, be declared unconstitutional
on the grounds that it violates the Supremacy Clause of
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution and
the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Consti-
tution.
32
Complaint
2. That the court issue a permanent injunction enjoin-
ing defendants, their successors in office, agents, employees,
and all other persons attempting or purporting to do so,
from interfering with the parties’ collective bargaining
relationships and their right to engage in free ccllective
bargeining without unlawful state subsidization of either
party.
3. That the court issue a permanent injunction enjoin-
ing the defendants, their successors in office, agents, em-
ployees, and all other persons attempting or purporting to
do so, from (a) enforcing Section 592.1 of the Unemploy-
ment Insurance Law, (b) authorizing the payment of un-
employment insurance benefits to strikers and (c) drawing
vouchers on the accounts maintained to effectuate the pay-
ment of such benefits.
4. That the court issue a permanent injunction requir-
ing the defendants, their successors in office, agents, em-
ployees, and all other persons empowered to do so, to
recredit plaintiffs’ respective unemployment insurance ac-
counts, retroactive to the commencement of benefit pay-
ments to strikers in 1971, for the amounts paid out in
unemployment insurance benefits as a result of the 1971-
1972 strike and requiring them to readjust plaintiffs’ un-
employment insurance normal tax rates for each and every
year since 1971 in light of such credits.
5. That the court award plaintiffs recoupment of the
monies which have and will have been paid as increased
unemployment insurance tax payments under the increased
33
Complaint
normal tax rates which became effective on and after Jan-
uary 1, 1972.
6. That the plaintiffs may recover interest according to
law and the costs of this action.
7. That the plaintiffs be granted such other and further
relief as the court may deem just and proper.
Aranow, Bropsky, BoHLINGER
Benetar, Erxporn & Dann
By Davin L. Benetar
A Member of the Firm
Attorneys jor Flaiutiffs
Office & P.O. Address
469 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10017
(212) 889-1470
34
Answer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SovrHern District or New York
73 Civ. 4557
Judge Griese
<>
New York TeLtepHoxe Company, Western Exectric Com-
PANY, AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY,
Lone Lives Department, and Empire City Supway
Company (LiMiTED),
Plaintiffs,
—against—
New York State Department or Lasor, Lovis L. Leviye,
Industrial Commissioner of the New York State De-
partment of Labor, New Yorx State DeparRTMENT OF
Taxation & Fiyance, and Norman Gauimay, State
Commissioner of Taxation & Finance,
Defendants.
>
The defendants for their answer to the complaint:
1. Deny so much of paragraph “1” as alleges that any
provision of Article 18 of the New York Labor Law is for
any reason invalid and deny further so much of that para-
graph as alleges that this Court has jurisdiction of the
action.
35
Answer
2-3. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the allegations of paragraphs “2” and “3”.
4. Admit the allegations of paragraph “4”.
5. Admit the allegations of the first sentence of para-
graph “5” and admit the allegations of the second sentence
of that paragraph insofar as it alleges that the Industrial
Commissioner directs the distribution of unemployment in-
surance benefits to eligible claimants.
6. Deny the allegation of the first sentence of paragraph
“6” and allege that Mario Procaccino is the State Commis-
sioner of Taxation and Finance. Admit the allegations of
the second sentence of paragraph “6”.
7. Admit the allegations of paragraph “7” insofar as
they state that the State Commissioner of Taxation and
Finance is designated under the Unemployment Insurance
Law as custodian of the funds requisitioned by the Indus-
trial Commissioner for payment to eligible claimants.
8. Admit the allegations of paragraph “8” insofar as
they state that TELCO is an employer subject to the Un-
employment Insurance Law and is required thereunder to
pay unemployment insurance taxes and allege that these
taxes are paid on certain wages pursuant to New York
Labor Law, § 570.
9. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as te the allegations of paragraph “9”.
36
Answer
10-12. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the allegations of paragraphs “10”, “11” and
“12”.
13. Admit, upon information and belief, the allegations
of paragraph “13” except deny knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the number of employees
involved.
14. Admit, upon information and belief, the allegations
of paragraph “14” except deny knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to whether the CWA ordered
all striking employees back to work on or about July 21,
1971.
15-16. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the allegations of paragraphs “15” and “16”.
17. Admit, upon information and belief, the allegations
of paragraph “17”.
18. Admit, upon information and belief, the allegations
of paragraph “18” except deny knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the number of employees
who continued the strike.
19. Admit, upon information and belief, the allegations
of paragraph “19”,
20. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the allegations of paragraph “20”,
37
Answer
21. With respect to the allegations of paragraph “21”
respectfully refer the Court to the appropriate published
statute.
22. Admit the allegations of paragraph “22” except deny
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the percentage of TELCO employees who applied for
and who received unernployment insurance.
23. Deny the allegations of paragraph “23” and allege
that approximately 28,000 TELCO employees were paid
unemployment insurance.
24-26. Deny the allegations of paragraphs “24” to “26”.
27. Admit the allegations of paragraph “27” insofar as
they state that during the 1971-72 strike of TELCO em-
ployees, about $43,000,000 in benefits were paid to TELCO
strikers and otherwise respectfully refer the Court to New
York Labor Law, § 581.
28. Admit the allegations of paragraph “29” except al-
lege that the balance shown in the TELCO account in Sep-
tember, 1971 was $41,210,497.61 and that the balance shown
in March, 1972 was a negative balance of $1,351,194.75 and
further allege that balances in an employer’s account estab-
lished pursuant to New York Labor Law, § 581.1(d) do not
reflect cash available but reflect a balance for the computa-
tion of tax rates.
29. Deny the allegations of paragraph “29” except admit
that the tax rates set forth in the first sentence thereof
are accurate.
iWin eee
Answer
30-31. Deny the allegations of paragraphs “30” and “31”.
32. Deny the allegations of paragraph “32” and respect-
fully refer the Court to the applicable statute.
33. Deny the allegations of paragraph “33”.
34. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the allegations of paragraph “34”.
35. With respect to paragraph “35” repeat and realleges
each and every response in paragraphs “3”, “4”, “5”, “6”,
and “7” of this answer to paragraphs “3”, “4”, “5”, “6” and
“7” of the complaint.
36. Admit the allegations of paragraph “36” insofar as
they state that WECO is an employer subject to the Unem-
ployment Insurance Law and is required thereunder to pay
unemployment insurance taxes and allege that these taxes
are paid on certain wages pursuant to New York Labor
Law, § 570.
37. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the allegations of paragraph “37”.
38-39. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the allegations of paragraphs “38” and “39”.
40. With respect to paragraph “40” repeat and reallege
each and every response in paragraphs “11” and “12” of
this answer to paragraphs “11” and “12” of the complaint.
41. Admit, upon information and belief, the allegations
of paragraph “41”.
89
Answer
42. Admit, upon information and belief, the allegations
of paragraph “42” except deny knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to whether the CWA ordered
all striking employees back to work on or about July 21,
1971.
43-44. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the allegations of paragraphs “43” and “44”.
45-46. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the allegations of paragraphs “45” and “46”.
47. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the allegations of paragraph “47” except
admit that after August 14, 1971 many WECO employees
stayed away from work.
48. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the allegations of paragraph “48”.
49. With respect to paragraph “49” repeat and reallege
each and every response in paragraph “21” of this answer
to paragraph “21” of the complaint.
50. Admit the allegations of paragraph “50” insofar as
they assert that many WECO employees applied for and
were granted unemployment insurance benefits over
WECO’s objection.
51. Admit the allegations of paragraph “51” except al-
lege that benefits were paid to 3,800 WECO employees.
52-53. Deny the allegations of paragraphs “52” and “53”.
40
Answer
54. With respect to paragraph “54” repeat and reallege
each and every response in paragraph “26” of this answer
to paragraph “26” of the complaint.
55. Deny the allegations of paragraph “55” except admit
that during the period in question about $5 million was
paid to WECO employees and charged in accordance with
the provisions of New York Labor Law, § 581.
56. Deny the allegations of paragraph “56” except admit
that during the period in question there was a reduction
of about $5 million in the account balance of WECO.
57. Deny the allegations of paragraph “57” except admit
that the tax rates set forth in the first sentence thereof
are accurate.
58. Deny the allegations of paragraph “58”.
59. With respect to paragraph “59” repeat and reallege
each and every response in paragraph “31” of this answer
to paragraph “31” of the complaint.
60. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the allegations of paragraph “60”.
61. Deny the allegations of paragraph “61”.
62. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the allegations of paragraph “62”.
63. With respect to paragraph “63” repeat and reallege
each and every response in paragraph 3”, “4”, “5”, “6”
41
Answer
and “7” of this answer to paragraphs “3”, “4”, “5”, “6”
and “7” of the complaint.
64. Admit the allegations of paragraph “64” insofar as
they state that A T & T is an employer subject to the
Unemployment Insurance Law and is required thereander
to pay unemployment insurance taxes and allege that these
taxes are paid on certain wages pursuant to New York
Labor Law, § 570.
65-66. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the allegations of paragraphs “65” and “66”.
67. With respect to paragraph “67” repeat and reallege
each and every response in paragraphs “11” and “12” of
this answer to paragraphs “11” and “12” of the complaint.
68-69. Admit, upon information and belief, the allega-
tions of paragraphs “68” and “69”.
70. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the allegations of paragraph “70”.
71-72. Admit, upon information and belief, the allega-
tions of paragraphs “71” and “72”.
73. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the allegations of paragraph “73” except admit
that after August 14, 1971 certain A T & T employees in
New York remained away from their jobs.
74. Deny the allegations of paragraph “74” except admit
that some A T & T employees remained away from their
jobs until on or about February 17, 1972.
42
Answer
75. With respect to paragraph “75” repeat and reallege
each and every response in paragraph “21” of this answer
to paragraph “2i” of the complaint.
76. Admit the allegations of paragraph “76” insofar as
they assert that some A T & T employees applied for and
were granted unemployment insurance benefits over A T &
T’s objection.
77. Admit the allegations of paragraph “77” except al-
lege that benefits were paid to approximately 400 A T & T
employees.
78-79. Deny the allegations of paragraphs “78” and “79”.
80. With respect to paragraph “80” repeat and reallege
each and every response in paragraph “26” of this answer
to paragraph “26” of the complaint.
81. Deny the allegations of paragraph “81” except admit
that during the period September 12, 1971 to February 27,
1972 unemployment insurance benefits were paid to A T & T
employees and allege that the total amount paid during
this period was $524,295.65.
82. Deny the allegations of paragraph “82” except admit
that during the period in question there was a reduction
of about $500,000 in the account balance of A T & T.
83. Deny the allegations of paragraph “83” except admit
that the tax rates set forth in the first sentence thereof
are accurate.
43
Answer
84. Deny the allegations of paragraph “84”,
85. With respect to paragraph “85” repeat and reallege
each and every response in paragraph “31” of this anawer
to paragraph “31” of the complaint.
86. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the allegations of paragraph “86”.
87. Deny the allegations of paragraph oy".
88. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the allegations of paragraph “88”.
89. With respect to paragraph “89” repeat and reallege
each and every response in paragraphs “3”, ne, o, “”
and “7” of this answer to paragraphs “3”, “4”, “5”, “6”
and “7” of the complaint.
90. Admit the allegations of paragraph “90” insofar as
they state that Empire is an employer subject to the Unem-
ployment Insurance Law and is required thereunder to
pay unemployment insurance taxes and allege that these
taxes are paid on certain wages pursuant to New York
Labor Law, § 570.
91-92. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the allegations of paragraphs “91” and “92”.
93. With respect to paragraph “93” repeat and reallege
each and every response in paragraphs “10”, “11”, “12”,
“19”, “14”, “15”, “16”, “17”, #18”, “19” and “91” of this an-
swer to paragraphs “10”, “11”, “12”, “13”, “14”, “15”, “16”,
“17”, “18”, “19” and “21” of the complaint.
44
Answer
94. Admit the allegations of paragraph “94” insofar as
they assert that there was Empire employees who applied
for and were granted unemployment insurance benefits
over Empire’s objection.
95. Admit the allegations of paragraph “95” except al-
lege that benefits were paid to approximately 100 Empire
employees.
96-97. Deny the allegations of paragraphs “96” and “97”.
98. With respect to paragraph “98” repeat and reallege
each and every response in paragraph “26” of this answer
to paragraph “26” of the complaint.
99. Deny the allegations of paragraph “99” except admit
that during the period in question an estimated $98,786.58
was paid to Empire employees and charged in accordance
with the provisions of New York Labor Law, § 581.
100. Deny the allegations of paragraph “100” except
admit that during the period in question there was a reduc-
tion from an estimated $108,777.66 to $22,130.48 in the ac-
count balance of Empire.
101. Deny the allegations of paragraph “101” except
admit that the tax rates set forth in the first sentence
thereof are accurate except that the 1971 tax rate for Em-
pire was 1.5%.
102. Deny the allegations of paragraph “102”.
45
Answer
103. With respect to paragraph “103”, repeat and real-
lege each and every response in paragraph “31” of the
answer to paragraph “31” of the complaint.
104. Deny knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the allegations of paragraph “104”.
105. Deny the allegations of paragraph “105”.
106. With respect to paragraph “106”, repeat and real-
lege each and every response in paragraphs “2” through
“105” of this answer to paragraphs “2” through “105” of
the complaint.
107. Deny the allegations of paragraph “107”.
108. With respect to paragraph “108” repeat and real-
lege each and every response in paragraphs “2” through
“105” of this answer to paragraphs “2” through “105” of
the complaint.
109. Deny the allegations of paragraph “109”.
First AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
110. The Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter
of this action.
Seconp ArFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
111. The complaint fails to state a claim on which relief
can be granted.
46
Answer
Tump AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
112. Defendants have violated no constitutional right of
plaintiffs.
Fourth AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
113. Defendants have violated no statutory right of
plaintiffs.
Fiera ArrmMative DEerense
114. The complaint fails to set forth a justiciable con-
troversy.
Srxta AFrimeMaTIve DEFENSE
115. Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administra-
tive and judicial remedies.
SEvENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
116. Plaintiffs have suffered no damage by virtue of any
action of defendants.
EicHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
117. New York Labor Law, § 592.1 embodies the princi-
ple of governmental neutrality in industrial controversies
and is consonant with the Constitution and laws of the
United States.
47
Answer
Norra ArrimMative DEFENSE
118. The instant action is res judicata as against plain-
tiffs.
TentH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
119. The instant action is barred by collateral estoppel.
Wuererore, defendants demand judgment dismissing the
complaint together with the costs of this action.
Dated: New York, New York
December 10, 1973
Louis J. LerKow!tz
Attorney General of the
State of New York
Attorney for Defendants
Office & P.O. Address
Two World Trade Center
New York, New York 10047
By Brenxpa SoLorr
Assistant Attorney General
Tel. No. (212) 488-7402
48
Pre-Trial Order
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SovutHern District or New York
73 Civ. 4557 (R.0.)
—~-
New York TetepHone Company, WesterN Exectric Com-
PANY, AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CoMPANY,
Lone Liyes DeparTMENT, and Emprre City Susway
Company (Liurtep),
Plaintiffs,
—against—
New York State DepartMENT oF Lasor, Louis L. Levrye,
Industrial Commissioner of the New York State De-
partment of Labor, New York State DeparRTMENT OF
Taxation & Fiance, and James H. Tutty, Jr., State
Commissioner of Taxation & Finance,
Defendants.
——
On November 12, 1975, the parties in this action, by their
attorneys, appeared before the Court at a pre-trial confer-
ence pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-
cedure, and the following was agreed:
I. JvurispicrionaL StTaTEMENT
It is alleged that this Court has jurisdiction of the action
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. $1337 and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1343; and that the matter in controversy exceeds, exclu-
49
Pre-Trial Order
sive of interest and costs, the sum of ten thousand dollars
($10,000) in respect to each of the plaintiffs.
Il. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS
1. The pleadings were agreed to be deemed amended in
accordance with the framing of the issues in Part IX of
this pre-trial order.
2. The parties agreed that the trial of this action should
be based upon this order and upon the pleadings as
amended.
ITI. Unoprspvrep Facts
The parties stipulated that the following facts are not
in dispute in this action (each party reserving the right to
object to the materiality of any such stipulated fact and
its relevancy to the issues) :
1. Plaintiffs New York Telephone Company
(“TELCO”), Western Electric Company (“WECO”),
and Empire City Subway Company (Limited) (“Em-
pire”) are domestic corporations organized and exist-
ing under the laws of the State of New York, each with
its principal place of business in the Southern District
of New York. American Telephone & Telegraph Com-
pany is a domestic corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of New York. Plaintiff
American Telephone & Telegraph Company, Long
Lines Department (“AT&T”)® is a department of
* All references to “AT&T” herein refer to American Telephone
& Telegraph Company, Long Lines Department, unless otherwise
noted.
50
Pre-Trial Order
American Telephone & Telegraph Company having its
principal place of business in the Southern District of
New York.
2. For the purposes of this lawsuit, the term “Bell
System” shall be understood to encompass the Amer-
ican Telephone and Telegraph Company, the twenty-
one principal telephone operating companies owned, in
whole or in major part by American Telephone and
Telegraph Company and such other companies as
WECO and Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. (“Bell
Labs”). The term as so understood includes all plain-
tiffs.
8. TELCO is an ope.ating company within the Bell
System providing teiephone communications services
within the State of New York.
4. WECO is a manufacturing and supply unit of
the Bell System.
5. AT&T is engaged in interstate and international
communications services.
6. Empire, a wholly owned subsidiary of TELCO,
constructs and maintains conduits and manholes in the
New York City boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx
through which telephone cable is laid.
7. Defendant Louis L. Levine is the Industrial Com-
missioner of the New York State Department of Labor
(the “Industrial Commissioner”). The Industrial Com-
missioner has an office in the Southern District of
New York for the conduct of official business.
51
Pre-Trial Order
8. The Industrial Commissioner is charged under
the laws of the State of New York with the adminis-
tration of Article 18 of the New York Labor Law (the
“Unemployment Insurance Law”). Included among his
duties is directing disbursements from the Unemploy-
ment Insurance Fund for the payment of benefits to
eligible claimants, which may include individuals who
are on strike.
9. James H. Tully, Jr., is the State Commissioner
of Taxation and Finance and, as such, heads the New
York State Department of Taxation and Finance. Mr.
Tully should be and, with the Court’s approval, hereby
is substituted as a defendant in this action in place
of his predecessors, Messrs. Galman and Procaccino.
The State Commissioner of Taxation and Finance has
an office in the Southern District of New York for the
conduct of official business.
10. The State Commissioner of Taxation and Fi-
nance is designated under the Unemployment Insur-
ance Law as custodian of the funds requisitioned by the
Industrial Commissioner for use in the payment of
unemployment insurance benefits to eligible claimants,
which may include individuals who are on strike.
11. There is no source, other than employer contri-
butions mandated by the Unemployment Insurance Law
and federal funds of the funds in New York State from
which:
(a) Unemployment insurance benefits are paid; or
52
Pre-Trial Order
(b) Refunds of overpayments of employer contribu-
tions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund are
made.
12. At all times material herein, TELCO, WECO,
AT&T, and Empire were and are employers subject to
the Unemployment Insurance Law and were and are
required thereunder to pay unemployment insurance
contributions on wages paid to their employees.
13. At all times material herein, TELCO and Em-
pire were subject to the Labor Management Relations
Act of 1947, as amended, 29 U.S.C. $151 et seg.
(“LMRA”) and were obligated to bargain collectively
with the Communications Workers of America
(“CWA” or “International Union”) concerning certain
non-supervisory employees of TELCO and Empire in
a single statewide bargaining unit, resulting in a single
statewide collective bargaining agreement. In March
of 1971, more than 38,000 TELCO employees were
represented by CWA.
14. In March 1971, the Telephone Traffic Union
Downstate represented approximately 20,337 TELCO
non-supervisory employec:: the Telephone Traffic
Union Upstate represented approximately 5,646
TELCO nonsupervisory employees; the Union of Tele-
phone Workers (Commercial Department Downstate)
represented approximately 8,629 TELCO non-super-
visory employees; the Telephone Employees Organiza-
tion (Accounting Department Downstate) represented
approximately 4,071 TELCO non-supervisory em-
53
Pre-Trial Order
ployees; the Telephone Commercial Union (Upstate)
represented approximately 1,804 TELCO non-super-
visory employees; and the Upstate Telephone Em-
ployees Association (Accounting Department) repre-
sented approximately 1,142 TELCO non-supervisory
employees. The unions named in this paragraph repre-
sented a total of approximately 41,629 TELCO em-
ployees.
15. At all times material herein, WECO was subject
to the LMRA and was obligated to bargain collectively
with CWA concerning WECO installers, job clerks and
service center employees, respectively, in separate na-
tionwide collective bargaining units. Collective bar-
gaining between WECO and such employees resulted
in separate companywide collective bargaining agree-
ments for each such bargaining unit.
16. At all times material herein, AT&T was subject
to the LMRA and was obligated to bargain collectively
with CWA concerning all AT&T non-supervisory em-
ployees. Bargaining for such AT&T employees is con-
ducted in a nationwide collective bargaining unit
resulting in a single nationwide collective bargaining
agreement.
17. The collective bargaining agreement entered
into in 1968 between CWA and TELCO and Empire
was scheduled to expire on July 28, 1971, upon the
giving of prior notice. Such notice was given by CWA
on or about May 24, 1971, and negotiations for a new
contract commenced on July 6, 1971.
54
Pre-Trial Order
18. The collective bargaining agreement between the
installers and WECO due to expire on April 30, 1971,
was extended on a day-by-day basis subject to termi-
nation by giving 24 hours written notice. Such notice
was given by CWA on or about July 12, 1971. Collec-
tive bargaining negotiations had commenced on April
1, 1971.
19. The collective bargaining agreement between
AT&T and CWA was due to expire on July 16, 1971.
On or about May 10, 1971, CWA notified AT&T of its
desire to terminate that agreement and negotiations
began on a new agreement on or about June 4, 1971.
20. CWA has labor contracts with twenty-three com-
panies in the Bell System throughout the United States,
including, among others, each of the plaintiffs, Chesa-
peake & Potomac Telephone Company—Washington
(“C&P”), The Mountain States Telephone and Tele-
graph Company (“Mountain States”) and Bell Labs.
21. In the spring of 1971 the various collective bar-
gaining agreements between CWA and the several com-
panies of the Bell System were due to expire on dif-
ferent dates; the earliest was the contract covering
WECO installers. The agreements which expired prior
to July 14, 1971, had been extended on a day-by-day
basis to July 14, 1971. As of July 14, 1971, collective
bargaining in connection with new contracts had been
in process between CWA and all of the Bell System
companies having collective bargaining agreements
with CWA.
55
Pre-Trial Order
22. On July 14, 1971, a nationwide strike by CWA,
which then represented approximately 500,000 Bell
System employees, was commenced against all Bell
System companies, including TELCO, WECO, AT&T
and Empire.
23. On July 18, 1971, agreements were reached, sub-
ject to ratification by the covered employees. between
CWA and the various Bell System companies, includ-
ing TELCO, WECO, AT&T and Empire. CWA’s Exec-
utive Board voted to terminate the strike pending such
ratification and ordered all striking employees back
to work effective on or about July 21, 1971.
24. Between approximately 96 and 98 per cent of
the striking employees of the various Bell System com-
panies throughout the country, including substantially
all of the striking employees of WECO and AT&T,
nationwide, returned to work on or about July 21.
1971.
95. On and after July 21, 1971, and until the termi-
nation of the strike on February 18, 1972, CWA-rep-
resented employees employed by plaintiffs in New
York, including between approximately 85 and 90 per-
cent of employees scheduled to work at TELCO, sub-
stantially all such employees at WECO (except manu-
facturing employees), and certain of such employees
at AT&T continued to stay away from their jobs at the
direction of their local unions. Between July 21, 1971.
and August 14, 1971, more than 90% of the CWA-
represented TELCO employees continued to stay away
from work.
56
Pre-Trial Order
26. On August 14, 1971, the respective agreements
between CWA and the various Bell System companies
including WECO and AT&T, but with the exception of
TELCO and Empire, were ratified by the covered
employees. The TELCO and Empire employees re-
jected the contract negotiated on their behalf. The
International Union had recommended ratification of
said contract.
27. In a letter dated August 27, 1971, CWA Presi-
dent Joseph A. Beirne advised all members of CWA’s
Executive Board and all CWA National Directors that
he had set August 26, 1971, as the strike date for the
New York Plant unit. This was pursuant to the Execu-
tive Board’s authorization to set a strike date for anv
bargaining unit which rejected their CWA-negotiated
contract on August 14, 1971.
28. Approximately 38,000 employees represented by
CWA participated in CWA’s strike against TELCO
for varying periods of time between July 14, 1971, and
February 18, 1972.
29. Approximately 41,000 TELCO employees rep-
resented by unions other than CWA did not participate
in CWA’s strike against TELCO.
30. About 90% of the approximately 5,500 AT&T
employees in Manhattan and Westchester, Nassau and
Suffolk Counties (represented by CWA Local 1150)
and about 95% of the approximately 600 employees at
WECO’s Service Division’s facility located on West
Houston Street in Manhattan (represented by CWA
57
Pre-Trial Order
Local 1196), one of three such facilities located in New
York State, had returned to work before the eighth
week of the CWA strike.
31. On February 16, 1972, CWA-represented em-
ployees at TELCO and Empire voted to ratify a con-
tract between CWA and their respective employers.
On February 17, 1972, a strike settlement agreement
covering both Empire and TELCO was reached provid-
ing that all CWA-represented employees would return
to work on February 18, 1972.
32. The TELCO phase of the aforementioned CWA
strike against Bell System was declared by the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), in two sep-
arate cases (Case #2-CB-5172, et al., 208 NLRB No.
32, 85 LRRM 1122, and Case #3-CB-1851-11, et al.,
208 NLRB No. 31, 85 LRRM 1104), to be illegal be-
cause the union had failed to give 60 days notice of
proposed modification or termination of the contract
in violation of §8(d) of the LMRA. The NLRB also
held therein that, because of the illegality of the strike,
fines imposed by CWA locals on their members who
returned to work during the strike also had been
illegal.
33. Section 592.1 of the Unemployment Insurance
Law is entitled “Suspension of Accumulation of Bene-
fit Rights” and provides:
“Industrial controversy. The accumulation of ben-
efit rights by a claimant shall be suspended dur-
ing a period of seven consecutive weeks beginning
53
Pre-Trial Order
with the day after he lost his employment because
of a strike, lockout, or other industrial controversy
in the establishment in which he was employed,
except that benefit rights may be accumulated be-
fore the expiration of such seven weeks beginning
with the day after such strike, lockout, or other
industrial controversy was terminated.”
34. Pursuant to the New York State Unemployment
Insurance Law, unemployment benefits are paid to
strikers and others unemployed due to an industrial
controversy after a seven week suspension period, sub-
ject to eligibility requirements applicable to all claim-
ants.
35. Pursuant to a stipulation dated June 24, 1974.
the parties have agreed, and it has been so ordered by
the Court, that the constitutional issues in this case
be first and separately tried. On this trial, to the
extent that the statistical data contained in the plead-
ings become pertinent to the constitutional issues, the
parties have agreed to use the following data set
forth in said stipulation and elsewhere. Defendants
have reserved the right to demonstrate that the dam-
ages sought are constitutionally or otherwise barred.
a. During the period of the 1971-1972 strike by
CWA against plaintiffs and other Bell System com-
panies, which period commenced on July 14, 1971,
and terminated on or about February 18-21, 1972,
substantial numbers of strikers applied for unem-
ployment benefits and such benefits were paid (after
59
Pre-Trial Order
the 49 day suspension period provided in § 592.1 of
the Unemployment Insurance Law and the addi-
tional waiting period prescribed in §590 thereof)
to claimants determined to be eligible therefor by
the Industrial Commissioner of the State of New
York, over the objections of plaintiffs as to their
respective employees.
b. Approximately 38,000 employees represented
by CWA participated in CWA’s strike against
TELCO for varying periods of time between July
14, 1971, and February 18, 1972.
ce. Approximately 29,000 TELCO employees, 4,150
WECO employees, 350 AT&T employees and 125
Empire employees received unemployment insur-
ance benefits between the week ending September
12, 1971, and the week ending February 27, 1972.
Other striking employees did not apply for benefits
or were ineligible for unemployment insurance ben-
efits for various reasons such as temporary employ-
ment elsewhere, inability to demonstrate a sufficient
recent attachment to the labor market by showing
employment in at least 20 of the last 52 weeks, sick-
ness or disability, etc.
d. During the 1971-1972 CWA strike about $43,-
000,000 in unemployment insurance benefits were
paid to TELCO strikers and about $100,000 in such
benefits were paid to Empire strikers and charged
against these plaintiffs’ respective accounts in the
Unemployment Insurance Fund.
60
Pre-Trial Order
e. Between the week ending September 12, 1971,
and the week ending February 27, 1972, unemploy-
ment insurance benefits totalling approximately
$5,000,000 were paid to WECO claimants and about
$500,000 to AT&T claimants and charged against
these plaintiffs’ respective accounts in the Unem-
ployment Insurance Fund.
f. TELCO’s unemployment insurance normal tax
rate increased from 0.9% in 1971, one of the lowest
possible rates, to 2.3% in 1972, the highest tax rate
possible in 1972, and to 2.8% in 1973. Had the
aforementioned benefits to strikers not been paid,
TELCO’s unemployment insurance normal tax rate
would have been about 0.8% (or no higher than
).9%) in 1972 and about 0.5% in 1973. These in-
creased tax rates have resulted in tax payments in
1972 and 1973, respectively, of approximately $6,-
150,000 and $9,300,000 in excess of taxes which would
have been due and payable if benefits had not been
paid to strikers during the 1971-1972 CWA strike.
g. Empire’s unemployment insurance normal tax
rate increased from 1.5% in 1971 to 2.3% in 1972,
the highest tax rate possible in 1972, and to 2.7%
in 1973. Had the aforementioned benefits to Empire
strikers not been paid, Empire’s unemployment in-
surance normal tax rate would have been about
2.1% in 1972 and 1.1% in 1973. These increased tax
rates have resulted in tax payments in 1972 and
1973, respectively, of approximately $3,500 and $24,-
000 in excess of the taxes which would have been
61
Pre-Trial Order
due and payable if benefits had not been paid to
strikers during the 1971-1972 CWA strike.
h. WECO’s unemployment insurance normal tax
rate increased from 0.7% in 1971, the lowest pos-
sible normal tax rate in that year, to 21% in 1972
(2.3% being the highest tax rate possible in 1972
for a positive account employer) and to 2.5% in
1973. Had benefits not been paid to WECO claim-
ants between the week ending September 12, 1971,
end the week ending February 27, 1972, its tax rate
would have been 2bout 0.7% in 1972 and about 0.3%
in 1973. These increased tax rates have resulted in
tax payments in 1972 and 1973, respectively, of ap-
proximately $880,000 and $1,150,000 in excess of the
taxes which would have been due and payable if such
benefits had not been paid.
i. AT&T’s unemployment insurance normal tax
rate increased from 0.8% in 1971, one of the lowest
possible normal tax rates, to 1.0% in 1972 and to 0.9%
in 1973. Had benefits not been paid to AT&T claim-
ants between the week ending September 12, 1971,
and the week ending February 27, 1972, AT&T’s
normal tax rate would have been about 0.9% in
1972 and about 0.7% in 1973. These increased tax
rates have resulted in tax payments in 1972 and
1973, respectively, of approximately $60,000 and
$127,500 in excess of taxes which would have been
due and payable if such benefits had not been paid.
j. In addition to the excess taxes paid in 1972 and
1973, as described above in paragraphs “f” through
“i”, plaintiffs may continue to be subject to higher
62
Pre-Trial Order
unemployment insurance tax assessments in sub-
sequent years than they would have been if the
unemployment insurance benefits described in para-
graphs “d” and “e” above, had not been paid to the
employees.
36. Payments made pursuant to the Unemployment
Insurance Law amounted to a maximum of $75.00 per
week net to each benefited employee during the afore-
mentioned CWA strike against plaintiffs.
37. TELCO’s petition to the Public Service Commis-
sion (“PSC”) for a rate increase in Case No. 26370
included TELCO’s unemployment insurance tax (both
normal and subsidiary taxes) as an increase in op-
erating expenses. TELCO’s brief to the PSC stated:
“C. New York State Unemployment Tazes
On 1/1/73 the tax rate increased from 2.9% to
3.7%. Since the 4/72-12/72 taxes were booked at
the old rate, an adjustment was made to reflect the
increase, The increase in other operating taxes is
$2,141,000 ($1,593,000 intrastate) and the decrease
in earnings available is $839,000 ($610,000 intra-
state).”
(TELCO brief to PSC, July 6, 1973, Appendix A,
p. 8, Item C.]
38. PSC Examiner Boschowitz’ August 29, 1973,
Recommended Decision ( Appendix G, p. 3, Item I(3) (c)
recognized, as an allowable operating expense, the in-
crease in TELCO’s unemployment insurance tax rate,
stating:
63
Pre-Trial Order
“(¢) New York unemployment taxes increased
from 2.9% to 3.7% on 1-1-73, taxes booked at old
rate, hence adjustment.”
The aforementioned increase was similarly recognized
by the PSC in its Opinion No. 73-79 (November 16,
1973, Appendix A, p. 1), which granted a rate increase.
This recognition is reflected in the following table, re-
lating to “Other Operating Taxes”, which taxes include
unemployment insurance and several other taxes.
Examiner As Commission As
Adjusted Adjustments Adjusted
Other Operat-
ing Taxes $326,445 $9,802(8) $336,247
39. From the year 1941 to June 1973, there has
been one strike by employees against TELCO which
lasted seven weeks and one strike against TELCO
which lasted more than seven weeks,
40. Approximately 50,000 CWaA-represented em-
ployees of Southern Bell Telephone struck for 72 days
in 1955.
41. During the strike referred to in “40”, above,
CWA gave financial assistance to some of its members
who participated in said strike.
42. In 1956, approximately 800 employees partici-
pated in a strike by CWA against the Ohio Consolli-
dated Telephone Company commencing on or about
July 15, 1956, and ending on or about February 27,
1957.
64
Pre-Trial Order
43. Approximately 7,700 CWA-represented employ-
ees of the General Telephone Co. of California com-
menced a strike on or about October 19, 1963.
44. Approximately 5,900 employees were partici-
pating in the strike referred to in “43”, above, in
February, 1964. Said strike ended on or about March
7, 1964.
45. Before and during the strike referred to in “43”,
above, CWA had a fund, one of the purposes of which
was to provide financial assistance to striking CWA
members (“strike fund”).
46. On or about October 19, 1963, CWA had ap-
proximately $10,000,000 in its strike fund.
47. During the strike referred to in “43”, above,
approximately $7,000,000 in financis] assistance was
provided to some CWA strikers f.om the fund re-
ferred to in “45”, above.
48. Some CWA members participating in the strike
referred to in “43”, above, received CWA assistance
in paying utility, mortgage, and certain other current
expenses.
49. Approximately 11,870 employees in the Plant
Department of the Illinois Bell Telephone Co. (“Illi-
nois Bell”), which employees were represented by the
International Brotherhood’ of Electrical Workers
(“IBEW”), commenced a strike on or about April 18,
1968, which strike ended on or about September 21,
1968.
65
Pre-Trial Order
50. Approximately 1,657 IBEW-represented em-
ployees in the Accounting Department of Illinois Bell
did not work during the strike referred to in “49”,
above, from on or about April 18, 1968, until on or
about May 5, 1968.
51. During the strike referred to in “49”, above,
IBEW gave financial assistance to some of its members
who participated in said strike.
52. In order to be eligible for financial assistance
during the strike referred to in “4”, above, members
were required to participate in pickcting when asked
to do so.
53. Approximately 10,020 CWA-represented em-
ployees in the Traffic Department of Illinois Bell com-
menced a strike on or about April 18, 1968, which strike
ended on or about May 5, 1968.
54. During the strike referred to in “53”, above,
CWA gave financial assistance to some of its members
who participated in said strike.
55. Approximately 142 employres in the Commer-
cial Department of Illinois Bell, which employees were
represented by the Commercial Telephone Workers
Union, did not work during the strike referred to in
“53”, above, from on or about April 18, 1968, until
on or about May 5, 1968.
56. Approximately 35 employees of [Illinois Bell,
which employees were represented by the Telephone
Commercial Employees’ Union, did not work during
66
Pre-Trial Order
the strike referred to in “53”, above, from on or about
April 18, 1968, until on or about May 5, 1968.
57. Approximately 20,000 employees in the Plant
Department of the New England Bell Telephone Co.
struck for approximately 13 weeks during 1968,
58. During the strike referred to in “57”, above,
some employees participating in said strike received
public welfare benefits.
59. Approximately 2,450 CWA-represented employ-
ees of the General Telephone Co. of Ohio commenced
a strike on or about July 16, 1973, which strike ended
on or about October 4, 1973.
60. During the strike referred to in “59”, above,
CWA gave financial assistance to some of its members
who participated in said strike.
61. During the strike referred to in “59”, above,
some employees participating in said strike received
Food Stamps.
62. Approximately 2,000 CWaA-represented em-
ployees of the General Telephone Co. of Indiana com-
menced a strike on or about July 23, 1973, which strike
ended on or about September 30, 1973.
63. During the strike referred to in “62”, above,
CWA gave financial assistance to some of its members
who participated in said strike.
64. Approximately 1,000 CWaA-represented em-
ployees of the General Telephone Co. of Kentucky com-
67
Pre-Trial Order
menced a strike on or about July 23, 1973, which strike
ended on or about December 28, 1973.
65. During the strike referred to in “64”, above,
CWA gave financial assistance to some of its members
who participated in said strike.
66. Approximately 400 employees of the General
Telephone Co. of Southeast (Alabama) commenced a
strike on or about August 12, 1974, which strike ended
on or about December 29, 1974.
67. During the strike referred to in “66”, above,
some employees participating in said strike received
union financial assistance.
68. During the strike referred to in “66”, above,
some employees participating in said strike received
Food Stamps.
68
Exhibits
(Piarntirrs’ Exuzsir 3; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message; New York City]
This is Ricky Carnivale, president of Local 1101, CWA.
Thursday, August 26th. 5 p.m.
I have just returned from the presidents’ meeting. We
have won the second battle. There is full International
recognition of our strike against New York Tel as of today.
Our bargaining committee stayed in session to outline
our demands. Additional assistance by research people to
back up our bargaining committee’s demands has already
been established by the International.
President Beirne and the CWA executive board have
favored the majority vote of the New York plant presidents
and the men and women they represent. The pressure is
this strike, and the picket lines are 90 per cent of that pres-
sure.
To the few people who have seen fit to return to work
. Get out of those damn buildings and support your
brothers and sisters who have fought your battles and sacri-
ficed to get more.
The bargaining will resume as soon as the outline is estab-
lished. The place and time will be established by notifica-
tion to each bargaining unit.
Remember that food stamps, welfare, unemployment is
not, I repeat, not based on the legalities of a strike, but on
the need and lost time wages of people.
We are having difficulties in various departments be-
cause of the interpretation by different commissioners and
erroneous news reports. Our Community Service Com-
mittee has brought the entire problem to Sid Lou, who is the
69
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 13
representative of the New York Staie Labor Council. These
problems will be resolved shortly.
All members are eligible for unemployment starting Sep-
tember Ist.
Keep calling this tape till you get through.
Thanks for calling.
[Piarstirrs’ Exursit 13; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message; New York City]
This is Ricky Carnivale, president of Local 1101, CWA,
Monday, September 27th. 6:30 p.m.
Bargaining was recessed today at approximately 3:30
this afternoon. The union bargaining committee chairman,
Don Sanchez, was sick and asked to be excused. Although
his International alternate, Jack O’Brien, was there com-
pany chairman, Ray Williams, claimed that they could not
negotiate without Sanchez effectively. Negotiations were
rescheduled for 10:00 a.m. tomorrow, September 28th.
Contrary to all the rumors and opinions floating around
this local, our Community Service Committee reports that
food assistance will still be paid to those members not yet
receiving unemployment, or other sources of income. The
committee recommends that any problems you have in re-
gards to food assistance, come to the local with your unem-
ployment records and have them straightened out.
Also, legal evictions, foreclosures and termination of
service notifications such as gas, electric, oil etc. are being
paid by the defense fund.
Your diligence on these picket lines has brought our scab
list way down. Members who scab will be prosecuted to the
70
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 20
fullest extent of our bylaws and constitution. As presi-
dent of this local, this I promise you.
The Community Service Committee also reflects a slight
backiog of food assistance checks. Tremendous volume
alone has caused this and they request that you be patient.
The volume of calls to this local and these tapes are also
iremendous. Keep calling until you get through. Again
bargaining is rescheduled for tomorrow at 10:00 a.m.
Keep in touch with this tape. Thank you for calling.
[Piarntirrs’ Exutsit 20; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message; Staten Island]
CWA, Local 1102, 467 Seaside Boulevard. This is Artie
Schulh speaking. Thursday, July 22nd. 1 p.m.
The continued arrogance of the New York Telephone
Company management in their refusal to reenter negotia-
tions with our bargaining committee will prolong our strike
action and inconvenience the public. There has been never
a major contract negotiated in New York that did not in-
clude improvements in fringe benefits.
This type of archaic thinking forces us to continue to re-
main off the job until a suitable offer is made. To return to
work now and then possibly go out again would only tend
to prolong our eligibility for benefits, such as unemploy-
ment insurance, food stamps, etc.
Be sure to continue your picket assignments. Picketing
is everyones responsibility. If you have any doubts of what
your assignment is, call the local office on 447-4201.
Thank you for calling.
71
[Piaintirrs’ Exutsit 24; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message; Staten Island]
CWA, Local 1102. This is Jim Curran. Tuesday, Decem-
ber 7th.
Bargaining will resume Wednesday, December 8th. The
union is considering the company’s request for federal
mediation at future negotiations.
According to the Staten Island Advance on Friday, De-
cember 3rd, our councilman Frank Deondelulo introduced a
resolution which asks the State Legislature to repeal the
law enabling strikers to obtain unemployment insurance.
This ex-dentist now finds he has all the qualifications for
public office is certainly alienating labor and will find this
out when he tries for re-election.
Don’t forget the Christmas party on Sunday, December
19th, 1:00 p.m., at Labetti Post. All members and their
families are invited free. Santa Claus will be there with
presents for all the children.
Thank you for calling.
[Puantirrs’ Exursrt 26; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message; Westchester County]
Sunday, September 12th. This is Leilani Moyers.
Bargaining will resume on Monday. At Saturday’s morn-
ing and afternoon sessions the union’s demands on town
reclassifications, union shop and clerical improvements
were discussed.
72
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 34
We remind you that members are eligible for emergency
food assistance under the CWA defense fund until such
time as they receive unemployment checks. Call 472-1103
for an appointment.
Members of Local 1198, Western Electric sales, are also
eligible. They should call Local 1198 president, Tim Scarry,
on 472-6070.
This is CWA, Local 1103, Scarsdale, New York.
Thank you for calling.
[Piarntirrs’ Exner 34; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message; Westchester County]
December 29th. This is Dan Keenan.
We have been on strike 169 days. It could just be pos-
sible that it has dragged out this long because the com-
pany still doesn’t have the sense enough to realize that we’re
serious about the things we want, need and demand.
There have been management inspired rumors originat-
ing in Upstate New York that as of certain dates in Janu-
ary certain striking employees will be replaced. These
rumors are totally erroneous. No part of this state has
been affected and no part of the state will be affected.
This typically underhanded company tactic will fail just as
their other gutter style strikebreaking tactics have failed.
But we are putting this membership on notice—this strike
must be won on the picket lines. We expect to see every
single member of Local 1103 walking those picket lines. And
their presence or the lack of it, will be verified by execu-
tive board members, chief stewards and picket captains.
73
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 36
Absolutely no benefits, including defense fund assist-
ance, will be granted to any member who does not fulfill his
or her picket obligations. I emphasize—there will be no
benefits granted to those members who do not walk a picket
ine assigned.
“ae sichet line is where this strike will be won. Get out
there and let New York State management and AT&T know
where you stand. This strike is being won. It will be over
the day you hit that picket line.
This is CWA, 1103, AFL-CIO, Scarsdale, New York.
Thank you for calling.
[Pramtrrrs’ Exnsit 36; Transcript of 1973 Recorded
Telephone Message; Westchester County]
Sunday, April 1st. 1 p.m. This is Bob Brannigan, craft
rep installation and repair.
I would like to thank the members who took the time and
trouble to vote in the convention delegate election this past
week. I would also like to thank the election committee
and the volunteers who helped chairman Pat Braggio with
this arduous task of counting ballots. No
In last night’s Gannet chain newspaper, they editori-
alized again, about aid to strikers and referred to a survey
recently taken by New York State Senator Bernard Gordon.
The response in his area, the 36th Peekskill area, was that
76 per cent responded against aid to strikers. They also
mentioned that there are many union people in the Peekskill
area who are against aid to strikers. I would like to see
our members write to Senator Gordon and give their views
aw Cee SSSR re ON a, ee aE “ee ws Mad An Mash ee oe
74
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 38
about aid to strikers. If we didn’t get aid during the big
strike of ’71 and ’72, I don’t know where we would be right
now. They keep harping on the point that it is unfair for
an employer to subsidize a strike against themselves. But
what about an employer who wants to prolong a strike and
gain public animosity against the strikers? If anyone is
interested in writing to Senator Gordon, call this office for
his address.
Remember our mention of the Smith-Walker Bill in Al-
bany last year which was a bill to deny aid to strikers?
Well that is back again, only this time the sponsors are
New York State Senator Present, Assemblyman Calogero
from the Utica area, and our own Assemblyman Richard
Ross from the Mount Vernon area.
This is CWA, Loca] 1103, AFL-CIO, 791 Central Avenue,
Searsdale, New York.
Thank you for calling.
[Piarstirrs’ Exuisit 38; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message; Nassau County]
CWA, Local 1104. This is Jim O’Connor speaking.
There was a meeting held with president Beirne and the
23 plant presidents on Monday, August 23rd. There were
numerous suggestions put forth both by president Beirne
and the local presidents. And after six hours of discussion
and taking our suggestions, under advisement, president
Beirne adjourned the meeting. We will meet again with
the presidents on Thursday and give us his decision as to
75
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 41
the course we will follow. In the meantime the strike will
continue.
Our members are entitled to unemployment insurance.
We have contacted the local employment insurance office
and beginning Monday, August 30th, they will accept ap-
plications.
Those members whose Social Security numbers end with
0000 to 2499 need apply Monday; from 2500 to 4999, apply
Tuesday; from 5000 to 7499, apply WVednesday; from 7500
to 9999, apply Thursday.
Please look up the address for the closest office in the tele-
phone book.
Thanks for calling.
[Pramtirrs’ Exuisit 41; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message; Nassau County]
This is CWA, Local 1104, West Hempstead, New York.
Friday, September 17th. This is Pat Meyers.
Bargaining is continuing today between the union and
the company. Yesterday’s session pertained to discussions
about overtime for all Saturdays and some company de-
mands. The union bargaining team is not issuing daily
reports. They will only notify us when they have something
concrete to report.
There will be a meeting Monday, September 20th at 10:00
a.m. for all the chief stewards and shop stewards at the
Plumbers Hall, Willis Avenue, Mineola. It is important
that the stewards attend so that they can get the informa-
tion to pass on to the members.
4 oar sil
ee
a. ayl-
7 * 4. > Paes
76
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 46
In as much as vou will not be receiving a full unemploy-
ment check next week, the union will continue to give out
food assistance. You will receive the difference between
your unemployment check and your normal food assistance.
An example: If you receive $30 in food assistance and
you get a check for $18.75 from the unemployment, you
will receive $11.25 from the union. Anyone not eligible for
unemployment insurance will continue to receive their nor-
mal food assistance.
The local will also be able to give out some mortgage
and rent help starting next week. Anyone who is in need
of this help, please contact the local office by telephone
first.
Thank vou for calling.
[Prarntirrs’ Exursit 46; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message; Queens County]
Wednesday, September 1st. 6:00 p.m.
At a membership meeting held this morning at Antun’s
Restaurant, president John Renck gave a detailed report
on the status of the strike in bargaining.
There has been no counteroffer from the company on any
of our demands as of this time.
Over 1,000 members gave a standing vote of confidence to
John Renck and his position not to return to work without a
contract.
A formal request is being made to the CWA, that the
International Union pay for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield
premiums during the strike period.
77
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 56
All members are entitled to unemployment benefits as of
today and should file at the office nearest your home.
Our strike is as strong, if not stronger, than it’s ever
been.
This is Ed Creegan for Local 1106, CWA, Queens, New
York.
Thank you for calling.
[Piaintirrs’ Exuisit 56; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message ; Rockland County]
CWA, Local] 1107
Sunday, Augusi 15th. CWA, Local 1107.
On behalf of the officers and executive board of the local
and all the local officers of New York State, I want to con-
gratulate the members for rejecting the company offer.
The vote was 11,405 reject; 9,734 accept. Your bargaining
committee will be going back into bargaining Monday, Au-
gust 16th. I can assure you that we, the committee, will
be extending ourselves to the fullest to come away from
the table with a contract acceptable to everyone and we will
stay out on strike until this is attained.
Through your actions over the last four weeks and the
results of your vote, you have demonstrated to the company
despite their propaganda and underhanded methods, that
you are not second-rate citizens and will not be treated as
such. That you are equal at least to a painter whose hourly
rate in three years will be $7.45 compared to $5.90 for you.
Your bargaining committee needs your support now
more than we’ve ever needed it before. Just continue the
78
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 65
good fizht. Remember, in another week and a half you will
be entitled to unemployment benefits and there are certain
benefits you are entitled to now. If anyone has any ques-
tions regarding this please call the union office.
And you clerical people . . . If you haven’t heard, a
grocery clerk for A&P in three years will be making $190.00
per week.
Thank you again. Keep up the fight and keep in touch
with vour stewards.
There will be a steward’s meeting Monday, August 16th
at 7:00 p.m.
Charlie Blaek.
[PLarntirrs’ Exuisit 65; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message; Suffolk County]
CWA, Local 1108, Bay Shore, New York. Saturday, Sep-
tember 25th. 2:00 p.m. Norman Henschel speaking.
Negotiations have been recessed until Monday, Septem-
ber 27th. The company is still insisting that the original
July 18th offer be resubmitted to the membership. They
must be nuts. They keep b...s... ing about the effect of
the Nixon wage freeze on bargaining instead of all the
b.s. all they have to do is to loosen up the purse strings,
bargain on the non-money items and let us worry about the
Nixon wage freeze and the Cost of Living Council. Just
give us something that we can present, not a lot of b.s.
It is the advice of this local and the International that
members do not pay telephone company bills for BME and
EME. Claims should be processed as usual. Claims not
honored due to the strike will be paid by the defense fund.
79
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 69
Next week most members should receive a full check from
New York State Unemployment. Food assistance will be
only paid to those members who show an unemployment
check in a lesser amount than their normal food assistance
entitlement. Absolute proof will be required for an assist-
ance.
Next week, each day the Community Service’s Committee
will meet at the local offices, 1265 Sunrise Highway in Bay
Shore. The office space is limited. Please make a telephone
appointment before applying for any assistance. Most
problems regarding utility and mortgage payments can be
resolved by a telephone call rather than office visit. The
office number is 665-2680.
Our case against James Kirby, Commissioner of Social
Services was presented before Judge Orin G. Judd on Fri-
day, September 24th. As usual with most political appoint-
ees in Snffolk County, Mr. Kirby was not prepared. The
hearing will continue Tuesday, September 28th with a pos-
sible decision by Thursday, September 30th.
Thank you for calling.
[Piarntirrs’ Exnisit 69; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message; Suffolk County]
CWA, Local 1108, Bay Shore, New York. Monday, Octo-
ber 25th. Norman Henschel speaking.
Intensified bargaining sessions continue today in New
York City. The company has agreed to make every effort
to reach an agreement by November Ist. Any change in the
bargaining will be reported on this tape.
80
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 69
The union bargaining committee is working very dili-
gently in order to reach an equitable agreement by the No-
vember Ist deadline. Bargaining with the Bell System is
a very tough, tedious and thankless job. It is very hard to
bargain with a monopoly that doesn’t give a damn for its
employees.
The company attitude has now changed because of the
outside business pressures. Their unemployment rates have
skyrocketed and the strike now effects other related indus-
tries. For example, it has been reported that the Western
Electric Company in New Jersey has temporarily laid off
some 500 people due to being overstocked. The business
community has turned against the company due to the many
troubles and the tremendous backlog of customer orders
which now number well over 800,000.
The company must realize the importance of a decent
contract. Neither the company nor the employee can af-
ford a strike every three years. The only way to circum-
vent such a situation is to reach an agreement that is
equitable to both parties. A good contract is the only as-
surance of future labor peace and labor peace is the only
solution to improve service which the public rightfully
deserves.
Thank you for calling.
81
[Prarntirrs’ Exuisit 71; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message; Geneva]
Friday, September 3, 1971. CWA, Local 1114, Geneva,
New York.
Negotiations took place on Tuesday and Wednesday of
this week. The company broke off on Thursday and today
the meeting resumed.
To all of you stalwarts who saw your duty and are doing
it in the face of all the pressures, a ray of light has shown
through. All members and nonmembers who have had the
fortitude to stand their ground and who can hold their
head high are now eligible for unemployment insurance.
All in the bargaining unit can now sign up at your earliest
possible convenience.
For sure, in case anyone has any doubts, the strike is
still on and in full force. It is a full-fledged strike, legal
in all respects and with the full backing of the Interna-
tional. Good to see there are still some with guts enough
to stand for what is right even in the face of all the ugly
rumors and the unethical tactics of the employer. There
will be a day of reckoning and we can all go back to work
knowing we did a good job.
Thank you for calling. Keep calling for up-to-date news.
82
[Piarmtirrs’ Exnisit 79; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message; Kingston]
CWA, Local 1120 news with offices at 580 Broadway,
Kingston, New York. Wednesday, August 25, 1971.
The most current information we have at this time is
that all 23 local presidents will be meeting with president
Beirne tomorrow in New York City. This meeting was
called by president Beirne himself last Tuesday when we
met with him. Whereas, at that time, he took some of the
local president’s suggestions under advisement and will
report back to us. It is absolutely necessary that the mem-
bership of this local stand firm in their present position,
maintain picket lines and trust in the elective leadership of
this local. I strongly suggest, any and all information,
kindly rely on the leadership of this local to give you this
information. We all know the press media has occasions
to distort the facts. We wi!! do our best to keep you as in-
formed as we possibly can.
On the bargaining scene, negotiations have been recessed
at the present pending the meeting with president Beirne
tomorrow.
It is true, three locals in this state have chosen to return
to work at the direction of their local leadership without
the full knowledge of the rest of the state presidents. These
three locals are Elmira, Auburn and Binghamton. I am
sure we all know who they are. They have been in and out
so many times that I am very sure the membership them-
selves in those locals are confused.
On the local scene, I have been in touch with the people
from the New York State Unemployment Service and have
83
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 80
been reassured that as of September 2nd we will be eligible
for unemployment benefits. I have instructed all the area
representatives to contact in their respective areas, those
people in charge of the unemployment offices to establish
an orderly way of applying for unemployment benefits. We
are looking forward to a smooth operation in regards to
our members applying for these benefits.
On the food stamp problem in Ulster County . . . No deci-
sion has been rendered as yet from our hearing. We are
very hopeful that a decision will be rendered by the end of
this week.
For further information continue calling the tape of this
local.
I thank you for calling. President Robert Smith speak-
ing.
(Prarstirrs’ Exntsit 80; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message; Poughkeepsie]
August 25th. CWA, Local 1120, Poughkeepsie, New York.
Yes, there is an area in Upstate, New York that has re-
turned to work by order of their local president—Local 1118
of Binghamton, along with Geneva, Newark, Corning and
Ithaca areas.
This membership, 1120, must realize that there is a very
small membership and one completely surrounded by Gen-
eral Telephone Company, which is of a different union.
This membership should also realize that in past incidents
that they were in and out so many times that they them-
selves and their president, when he was at presidents’ meet-
ing did not know where they stood at one given moment.
’
-
y
4
ee a eae
84
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 82
Also, I feel they made a very foolish mistake in return-
ing to work prior to the upcoming 49th day which makes
us eligible for New York State unemployment insurance
which you have paid into most of your working life. You
are on the threshold of receiving New York State unemploy-
ment that no New York Telephone employee has ever re-
ceived before.
Along with the federal food stamp subsidy, which I re-
alize that some areas are having difficulties, I feel that
we’re over the hump. We’re just waiting now for tomor-
row’s results of meetings with the local presidents’ of New
York State and Joseph Beirne of the International. What-
ever results happen, I will relinquish to this membership
as soon as possible.
This is your area rep George Herman.
Keep smiling.
[Piarntirrs’ Exureit 82; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message; Poughkeepsie]
Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local
1120, Poughkeepsie, New York. September Ist.
The bargaining committee met today and yesterday. Yes-
terday they talked on substantial wage increase, elimina-
tion of “N” days, clerical and chauffeur upgrades. On va-
cations: If you worked five years you should get three
weeks. If you worked ten years you should get four weeks.
A better and improved hospitalization plan, which will prob-
ably include your dental and paid prescription.
85
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 86
The bargaining committee feels that today they should
be able to complete the rest of the demands and their pro-
posals.
A steward’s meeting is pending. Stewards will be called
by phone as to where and when and time. In regard to
members who do not show up for picket duty there are pos-
sibilities of being brought up on charges by the trial’s com-
mittee.
We also suggest that you check with your unemployment
office for unemployment insurance and your food stamp
program. For those of you that need information in re-
regard to those, we suggest that you call Ken Hornbeck,
the chairman of the committee services.
This is your area rep George Herman.
Thank you for calling.
(Puarntirrs’ Exuisit 86; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message; Syracuse]
Tuesday, June 29th.
Attention all members CWA, Local 1123... On Monday,
June 28, officers of the CWA locals in Onondaga County met
with the county welfare department and discussed aid for
strikers. It was a very favorable and informative meeting.
Complete details will come later.
Also w. met with the unemployment insurance. One
thing for sure . . . 49 day waiting period before collecting
the unemployment insurance but it will be there.
86
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 93
More strike information will come in the Loca] 1123 news
bulletin.
Thank yon for calling. This is CWA, Local 1123, Syra-
cuse, New York, 700 East Water Street, Midtown Plaza.
[PLarstirrs’ Exuisir 87; Transcript of July 30, 1971,
Recorded Telephone Message; Syracuse]
Local 1123, CWA, Syracuse, New York.
We have received definite word that we will receive un-
employment benefits after 49 days on strike. President
Poole is now negotiating for food stamps and welfare.
Keep calling this tape for further information.
Thanks for calling.
[Piarntirrs’ Exursit 93; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message; Watertown]
Local 1124, Watertown, New York. Wednesday, Sep-
tember Ist. 5:15 p.m.
Negotiations are taking place and the demands are be-
ing placed on the bargaining table. Today the rest of the
demands are being placed on the table. Discussions took
place yesterday on the elimination of the “N” day and the
upgrade of clerical and chauffeur. The committee expects
the company’s offer in the next few days. The money and
the big city allowance were discussed today. When we re-
ceive additional information we will place it on the tape.
87
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 93
Members are being called to apply for unemployment
insurance. All members should have applied by Friday,
September 3rd. More are to be called tomorrow. If you
have not been called by Thursday, September 2nd, call this
office because many of our members are unable to be reached
by phone. The last day worked was July 13th. This in-
formation is needed for your unemployment form. Also,
take vour Social Security card.
Members should sign up for food stamps for October by
September 10th. After you sign up for your unemployment
come up to the office and additional information on the
BME and the life insurance will be given to you in the
form of a handbill.
The picket schedu’ for Thursday, September 2nd at 170
Stone Street, from 7:00 to 10:00 is Glen Lehigh and Don
Smith; from 10:00 to 1:00 is Bill Carr and John Mullen;
and from 1:00 to 4:00 is Rudy Thourdeau and Bob Rose.
The officer on duty will be Warren Leffeur. The office will
be manned from 9:00 to 12:00 by Sue Miller and from 1:00
to 4:00 by April O’Shea.
Keep calling the tape for further information.
This is CWA, Local 1124, AFL-CIO, Watertown, New
York.
Thank you for calling.
s
Ea eee ee ee ee, FLY eee L | Oe on
ae ee ee > er
88
[Puamstirrs’ Exuisit 97; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message; Schenectady]
CWA, Local 1125. Tuesday, August 24th.
Yesterday a meeting was held in New York. In attend-
ance were the 23 local presidents and Joe Beirne. We had
a five hour meeting to discuss the complex situation of the
New York plant in light of Tricky-Dick Nixon’s wage
freeze. We will be meeting again with President Beirne
on Tuesday morning, August 26th.
To file your unemployment insurance the following
method will be used for your convenience. You may come
to the union office and make out a form before August 30th
between the hours of 7 a.m. to 2 p.m., Monday through Fri-
day. We would prefer that vou make out the form at the
union office to expedite matters.
Your reporting day will be based upon the last four num-
bers of your Social Security number:
001 through 1099: Monday, August 30th
2000 through 3099: Tuesday, August 31st
4000 through 5099: Wednesday, September Ist
6000 through 7099: Thursday, September 2nd
8000 through 9099: Friday, September 3rd
The time that you are to report is determined by the last
number of your Social Security number.
0 will be 8:30 to 9:00 a.m.
1 will be 9:00 to 9:30 a.m.
2 will be 9:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
3 will be 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
4 will be 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
89
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 104
5 will be 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
6 will be 1:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.
7 will be 1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
8 will be 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
9 will be 2:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Claims may be filed beginning Angust 30th or before at
the local office.
Thank you for calling.
[Puarmtirrs’ Exasir 104; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message; Glens Falls]
Monday morning. September 13, 1971. Glens Falls, New
York. This is Hart Rhodes, Local 1127 president speaking.
After sessions held Saturday negotiations were recessed
and are scheduled to resume this morning. President
Beirne has called a conference of New York plant bar-
gaining committee members and local presidents for 2 p.m.,
Wednesday, September 15 in New York City. I will be at-
tending that conference and will report to you via this
tape no later than Thursday, September 16th.
A local executive board meeting will follow the meeting
with president Beirne, followed by a general membership
meeting to be held no later than the middle of next week.
More details on these meetings will be placed on this tape
following Wednesday’s presidents’ conference with presi-
dent Beirne.
Warren and Washington County members should reapply
for food stamps on or before September 17th. Town of
}
i Fans a Vee 5 Ph all auch s Daa aes
OR ae clue «f seu ie “Tie om .
90
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 112
Monroe members may apply at the Town Hall in South
Glens Falls on September 16th.
All members are reminded to report at the specified time
and date at the New York State Unemployment Insurance
office on the day of this week assigned to you. You must
do this to get your unemployment insurance check.
If you wish to apply for CWA defense fund assistance
please do so any time Thursday, September 16, between
9 a.m., and 9 p.m. at the local union office, 71 Main Street,
South Glens Falls.
Thanks for calling.
[Puarntirrs’ Exursrr 112; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message; Potsdam]
This is Communication Workers of America, Loca] 1128.
October 25th. 12:00 p.m.
A number of dirty birds flew into this local Friday night
—dirty rotten scab birds. But then we are all aware of this
now. Action will be taken to counter this.
The business community, which heretofore has supported
the telephone company, is now beginning to crack.
The drain on unemployment compensation fund has been
so great, the fund is threatened with total collapse. Under
the law when such a condition exis‘s, the entire business
community is required to replenish the fund. They will be
hit in their pocketbook--where it hurts.
Thank you and good night.
91
(Puamrirrs’ Exursrt 114; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message]
Thursday, July 15, 1971
Time: 10 PM
Joe MeNiff, President CWA Local 1150
We are doing quite a bit of work trying to clarify the food
stamp program. In Manhattan, they claim they don’t want
us to file before the 27th. In Bergen County, they claim
not to file later than the 26th. In Mercer County in Jersey,
they say not to file other than on the 20th. In Long Island,
they claim file immediately. We are drawing up all these
instructions trying to get our people on board—we have
the introductory letters as members of this local ready to
mail out to those who need them. In the meantime, I want
to compliment the members of this local for their showing
up and picketing not only at “32” but at 811, White Plains,
Long Island and every other area in Jersey that we are
using them.
In White Plains yesterday, we had a man hit by a car
of a scab. Today in Mt. Kisco, another man was hit by a
car driven by a scab. In Newark it looks like the Police De-
partment which was held guilty for the riots in 1967 by a
commission which was chaired by a representative of the
New Jersey Bell, seems to forget, and is taking out what-
ever burn they have on the pickets. I understand three
women who were on a picket line were ruffed up today by
the police. There was a charge of police brutality pressed
against them. Bargaining did continue today. This eve-
ning I was called by a member of the bargaining unit who
tells me that all presidents of the Long Lines Unit will be
92
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 122
brought together to meet at starting noon on Sunday. What
this is all about I'll be able to tell you more about it on
Monday. In the meantime, maintain those picket lines; ac-
cept your responsibility to walk once in about every eleven
days.
Thank you for calling.
[Prarstirrs’ Exnrer 122; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message]
Wednesday, September 29, Local 1190, 260 West Broadway,
New York City. This is John Flanagan.
The CWA Bargaining Committee has charged the Company
with hiding behind the freeze to avoid responsible collective
bargaining. The Telephone Company can make any wage
proposal they choose to, subject to approval by the Presi-
dent’s Council. If any portion of the agreement is not ap-
proved by the Government, it could be given to the mem-
bers when the controls have terminated. So far the Com-
pany has refused to bargain not only on money but on non-
monetary items not covered by the freeze. In Michigan and
Ohio, the members have voted not to accept temporary
management assignments to replace supervisors being sent
to New York City. Complaints have been filed in 9 States
and the District of Columbia, with the Public Utilities Com-
mission. Each of these States has sent supervisors into
New York. The Federal Judge has granted a temporary
restraining order against the Suffolk County Commis-
sioner of Welfare, requiring him to process applications
from our members. George Meany has assigned a member
93
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 128
of his staff to handle all complaints about food stamps in
his County. As a result, the Department of Agriculture
investigators have visited trouble spots and cleared up
most problems. The Company has admitted to a backlog
of over 300,000 Installations and predicts monumental prob-
lems when the strike is terminated. The strike is more than
91% solid in New York Plant. Bargaining sessions are
scheduled for today.
New recordings will be made as information is received.
Thank you for calling.
[Puarntirrs’ Exuipit 128; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message; Albany]
Local 1191—Friday, July 2
As we near the strike date, bargaining is continuing in
an effort to avert a strike. If the Company will not come
across with a good substantial offer before July 14, they
will force us off our job and out into the street. We in
Western Electric have been working on a day-to-day basis
since May 1, that’s two months that we have been on the
old contract and that is more than ample time for the
Company to know our needs but they have offered us
very very little in order to support our families. Will they
come up with something in the next few days remaining?
94
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 142
Only in the future will we know if the Bell System will
force us out of work. We have prepared ourselves with
picket assignments and in fact have come up with a new
shorter schedule to benefit everyone. The new assign-
ments will be given out at the July 13 Union Meeting and
while you are there, if you have not received your Health
Service card, pick it up then—it will benefit you and your
dependents. Also, 49 days after July 14 you will be en-
titled to receive unemployment. Food stamp information
and other services available to you during the impend-
ing strike will be available through your Local Office.
We have had time to prepare so you should be ready if
the need arises.
This is Lee Hatfield, your Albany Area Representative,
wishing you and your loved ones a safe and happy Fourth
of July holiday. Thank you for calling.
[Piaintirrs’ Exutsrt 142; Transcript of 1971 Recorded
Telephone Message; Buffalo]
Tri-Local Council, CWA, 706 Beach Road, Buffalo, New
York. Friday, October 22nd. 5:00 p.m.
As of this time no word has been received from the bar-
gaining committee lifting the news blackout. If word is
received the tape will be changed tomorrow morning.
95
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 143
There is a chief steward’s meeting, Monday, October
25th, 2:00 p.m. at the Marigold Manor on Maryvale Drive.
Due to a misunderstanding at the unemployment report
location, anyone who was not on vacation, I repeat, not
on vacation the week of October 11th and still has a “P”
marked on their unemployment calendar for the holiday,
Monday, October 11th, it was in error. These members
should call the union office and give us your name and social]
security number so we can straighten out this error with
the unemployment department.
And also, remember October 25th will also have to have
an “N” marked on the calendar for next week.
Thanks for calling.
[Piarstirrs’ Exursit 143]
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA
AFL-CIO
85 Worth Street
New York, New York 10013
April 8, 1971
To Presidents of Bell System CWA Locals
Fraternal Greetings:
President Beirne has designated Western Electric In-
stallation and C & P of D. C. as the pattern setters in this
years’ contract negotiations.
Those of you who attended the Denver Convention and
workshops, heard President Beirne describe the serious
problems that confront us. The situation has not changed
since Denver.
96
Plaintiff's’ Exhibit 143
On April 9th, a meeting of all Defense Fund Agents
will be held in Washington. I have appointed my Assist-
ant, Gene Mays, as the District #1 Defense Fund Agent.
The primary purpose of the meeting will be to program
Defense Fund Training sessions for all Bell Locals.
Upon Gene’s return, we will be announcing the details
of the program. However, at this time we can advise you
that the classes will be held in each area of District One.
Each Local Union will be asked to designate an officer and
the Community Services Chairman to attend. These two
officers will then be responsible to train the Local Commit-
tee responsible for administration of the Defense Fund.
Thus, it would be helpful if each Local President deter-
mines now who will attend the classes and also activate
the CSC if it is now in a dormant stage.
Local Unions in District One that are now in bargaining
and in the first cluster are Western Electric Installation,
New Jersey Traffic, New England Directory Clerical and
Western Electric Manufacturing in Buffalo. These Local
Unions should begin to establish strike committees respon-
sible for, among other things, assignment of picket duty
times and locations for each and every member. The staff
will be available to assist any Local requesting assistance.
Now is the time to make the preparations.
We'll advise you of any significant developments.
Sincerely and fraternally,
/s/ M. Bane
Morton Bahr
Vice President
MB/pb
ec: G. Cramer
District One Staff
97
[Pianstirrs’ Exutsfr 144)
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA
AFL-CIO
District OnE
85 Worth Street
New York, New York 10013
June 21, 1971
File: 1.33
TO: Local Presidents, Locals 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1106,
1107, 1108, 1150, 1190, 1195, 1196, 1198
FROM: E. J. Mays, Assistant to Vice President
SUBJECT: Defense Fund School
Now that a strike date has been set for all Bell System
Units, we are scheduling a Defense Fund School to be held
at the District Office, 2= Worth Street, N. Y., N. Y. on July
7, 1971 beginning at 10:00 A.M.
We request that the financial officer and the chairman of
the Local’s Community Services Committee attend this
school.
The Union’s Constitution now mandates that each CWA
Local must have an established and functioning Community
Services Committee. Locals who do not have established
and functioning C.8.C. Committees, we urge you to estab-
lish such Committee AT ONCE, as NO “Defense Fund
Monies” will be advanced to any Local until it has been
certified that the Local has an established and functioning
Community Services Committee.
98
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 146
DATE: July 7, 1971
PLACE: District Office, 4th Floor
TIME: 10:00 A.M.
E. J. Mays
EJM: slm
ec: Staff Servicing Downstate
Bell Locals
[Puaintirrs’ Exuisit 146)
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA
99
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 146
through you, the Community Services Committees, that we
all have a real job ahead of us in trying to stretch this
money as far as it will possibly go.
Obviously, the need at this point is not near as great
or as critical as it will become later, which gives further
emphasis to the use of frugality and dollar stretching.
I know that I speak for the members of the CWA Execu-
tive Board and the CWA Staff who serve as Defense Fund
Agents and Field Representatives, in saying to you that
our entire Defense organization stands ready to assist you
in whatever way we can. We are all in this struggle to-
gether and will emerge not only triumphant but with
greater appreciation for such things as brotherhood and
solidarity.
1925 K Street, Northwest Sincerely and fraternally, :
Washington, D. C. 20006 N
/e/ Guewn E. Watts 4
To: CWA Local Presidents July 14, 1971 Glenn E. Watts cy
Sussect: 1971 Bell System Strike— File: 1.33 Defense Fund Director Hi
First Advance x 1.30
Fellow Officers: ;
Now that we are on strike, I felt that I should advise
you that the initial Defense Fund advances have been sent
to the Defense Fund Agents in each District and your Local
will, in the very near future, receive the first advance.
I know that the main objective at this point is the main-
tenance of picket lines and the morale of the members. As
this first money goes out, I wanted to remind you and
100
[Piamstirrs’ Exurerr 147]
Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO
85 Worth Street
New York, New York 10013
September 7, 1971
TO: All New York Tel Locals and Locals 1150, 1151
1152, 1190, 1191, 1195, 1196, 1197 & 1198
FROM: E. J. Mays, Defense Fund Agent
SUBJECT: New Guidelines for Food File: 1.33
Assistance New York Telephone x1.30
Strike
For the weeks of September 6th and September 13th,
those who qualify on absolute need will receive $2.00 per
family member per day—not to exceed 5 days per week and
$30.00 per family unit per week.
No food assistance is to be given after September 7,
1971, since the members will have other income—which will
average $75.00 per week from the New York State Unem-
ployment Compensation.
E.J.M.
EJM/pb
101
(Puawntirrs’ Exit 148]
Morton Baur, Vick PResiENT
District 1
Comn.unications Workers of America
85 Worth Street
New York, N. Y. 10013
Telephone: 431-5937
September 7, 1971
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE
NEW YORK PLANT UNIT
Fellow Members:
In President Beirne’s August 30th letter to you, he indi-
cated that we will, from time to time, report to you on the
status of negotiations, the problems that confront us and
what is being done to resolve these problems. This is the
first such report.
[4] I want to also report to you on some other matters of
the utmost importance.
Social Service Assistance (Welfare)—Some of our mem-
bers are experiencing difficulties in receiving welfare assist-
ance simply because they are strikers. The New York State
Social Service Department has ruled that strikers are eligi-
ble to receive welfare benefits as long as they meet the
102
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 148
other qualifications. However, certain counties are defying
the State. In Onondaga County (Syracuse) a Judge has
issued a preliminary injunction permitting payments to a
[5] striker’s family but not to the striker himself. This
matter will shortly go to trial. The International Union has
intervened in the case and has instructed our attorneys to
do whatever is necessary to protect our members.
Suffolk County Social Services Commissioner Kirby
has taken the position that neither strikers or their families
can receive public assistance. The International Union has
instructed our attorneys to take legal action against Com-
missioner Kirby and any other public official that takes
similar action against our members and their families.
Out-of-town Supervisors. On August 31, President
Beirne instructed the Union’s attorney’s to take legal action
against New York Telephone for the importation of out-
of-town supervisors into New York City. The International
Union’s lawyers obtained a summons in Manhattan Crimi-
nal Court charging New York Telephone with violating the
Administrative Code of the City of New York. The Com-
pany immediately transferred the supervisors to Long Is-
land, Westchester and Upstate and sent New York Tel
supervisors from these areas into the City. The Interna-
tional Union will charge this Company action ecotistitutes
a circumvention of the Law and is illegal. The Company
must appear in Criminal Court on Sept. 13.
Picketing. Fewer than one-third of the Telephone Com-
pany properties are being picketed. This is not in the best
interest of the membership. The Local Presidents urged a
rejection of the July 18th contract. A majority of voting
103
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 148
members rejected and a legal strike is now under way.
Every Local officer and every Local member, unless specifi-
eally excused, has an obligation to walk the picket lines. So
long as we cannot shut down the Company’s operation the
maintenance of picket lines around the clock is necessary
for an effective strike. Picket lines will keep some of the
weaker members from becoming strikebreakers. Picket
lines will keep members of other Unions, such as delivery
men and some construction trades, from going to work.
Most important, manning of picket lines will demonstrate
to the management that you intend to support your rejec-
tion of the proposed contract and the fight to obtain a more
favorable one. I am, therefore, instructing each Local Union
to immediately establish around the clock picket lines and
to make performance of picket duty, unless excused for
good and proper reason, a condition of receiving Defense
Fund assistance.
Sincerely and fraternally,
/s/ Mortoy Baur
Morton Bahr
Vice President
MB/pb
104
(Puarntirrs’ Exureit 149]
Morton Baur, Vice Present
District 1
Communications Workers of America
85 Worth Street
New York, N. Y. 10013
Telephone: 431-5937
September 27, 1971
NEW YORK PLANT STRIKE BULLETIN #3
This report covers the period of negotiations between
9/17 and 9/24/71.
[2] While the Bargaining Committee works hard to get a
contract, there has been much activity on other fronts.
On September 20, Federal Judge Orin Judd granted the
International Union a temporary restraining order against
the Suffolk County Commissioner of Welfare requiring him
to process applications from our members. On September
24, Commissioner Kirby appeared in court totally unpre-
pared. Judge Judd gave him until September 28 to submit
his position in writing. A decision is expected shortly
thereafter.
At the request of Secretary Treasurer Glenn Watts,
AFL-CIO President Meany assigned a member of his staff,
Ray Andress, to handle all complaints about inability to
105
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 149
get Food Stamps in some counties. As a result, US. De-
[3] partment of Agriculture investigators have visited sev-
eral trouble spots in New York and appeared to have now
worked out the problems. Anyone having trouble should
i e Union. |
i ae 24, affected Local Unions have been
advanced $1,441,000 for member assistance.
Telephone Company management is attempting to convey
that they can ride the strike out indefinitely. They have,
however, admitted to a backlog of some 300,000 installations
and predict monumental service problems when the strike
terminates. Management has enjoyed the support of. the
business community. Industry, in general, is not putting
the heat on Teleo—with some exceptions that telegraph the
seameenmenemettinne Inc., on September 24, asked
the U. S. District Court in New York City for temporary
and permanent injunctions against N. Y. Tel for ——~
to provide requested service. Arcata told the Court: ‘It
is a well-known fact that the demands for telephone service
in New York City have exceeded the expectations of N.Y.
Tel and its immediate capacity to render such service. A
prolonged strike by N.Y. Tel employees has further re-
duced its ability to furnish prompt and efficient telephone
service ”
The pressures are on. Management will do everything
possible to break your spirit. It won’t work. Morale is
high. The strike is more than 91% solid. It will be your
es
106
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 150
solidarity that will lead to a successful conclusion of the
strike.
Sincerely and fraternally,
/8/ Morton Banr
Morton Bahr
_ Vice President
—_—_—_——
(Puarmstirrs’ Exursit 150]
Communications Workers of America, AFL-CTO
85 Worth Street
New York, New York 10013
October 14, 1971
NEW YORK STRIKE BULLETIN #5
(2] Striking members who live in Suffolk County received
a big boost when U.S. District Court Judge Orin Judd ruled
that a person could not be denied welfare assistance be-
cause he is a striker. He ordered the County to immediate]
process applications retroactively. A copy of Justice J ndd’s
order has been sent to the State Su in Syracus
be preme Court in S
where a similar case is being heard. ‘
Telephone management is trying to play it “cool”: to
107
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 150
plea to the members to put the heat on their officers is one
of the give-aways. In addition, Western Electric has filed
a complaint with the New York State Department of Labor
asking for a denial of unemployment benefits to those In-
stallers and Sales members respecting picket lines. The
State is conducting hearings but is continuing to pay bene-
fits. Also, the Western Electric Company has filed a com-
plaint with the NLRB designed to force the Installers back
to work. Are these the actions of a Company that is not
hurting?
8 es s * e
Negotiations should move at a more rapid pace. It will
be difficult to report developments as they occur. Every
member should bear in mind that every action the manage-
ment takes is to discourage you and weaken the strike. On
the 92nd day of the strike, 91% of the employees are hold-
ing fast. This is a record that you can all be proud of.
President Beirne extends his congratulations and appreci-
ation for this true demonstration of trade Union spirit in
the fact of battling an automated giant. Just remember,
there are serious pressures building on the giant. More
than 400,000 people are waiting for telephones. Construc-
tion programs have ground to a halt.
Defense Fund assistance to Local Unions has now reached
the $1,750,000 mark. Significantly, this is more than New
York Plant members have paid into the Defense Fund since
they joined CWA.
give the impression things are normal. However, their ac-
_ tions betray their put on front. Mr. Ellinghaus’ personal
108
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 151
The total Union is behind our efforts here in New York.
Continue to keep the faith. Support your Committee in
every way possible.
Sincerely and fraternally,
/8/ Mortow Bane
Morton Bahr
V; ;
— ice President
P.S. We have just learned that N.Y. Tel is contesting the
right of strikers to collect unemployment benefits.
The State will continue to pay all strikers. This is
further evidence of management’s state of panic.
_l
(PLanstirrs’ Exurerr 151]
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
85 Worth Street
New York, New York 10013
October 22, 1971
NEW YORK PLANT STRIKE BULLETIN #6
We can report that as a result of the action taken by the
Local Presidents at the October 13 meeting, when Presi-
dent Beirne’s recommendation was unanimously agreed to
the bargaining tempo has been stepped up considerably.
The Bargaining Committee met with President Beirne
and me in Washington on October 15. The Committee had
109
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 151
done its homework cndiwes able to tell us just what, in their
judgment, it would take to get a contract. The meeting was
most fruitful.
Over the October 16th weekend, the Company agreed to
our proposal to make every effort to reach a full agree-
ment by November 1—or earlier. On October 18, the two
committees agreed to a temporary news blackout concern-
ing all aspects of bargaining.
Our Bargaining Committee has been turned loose. They
are free to use their judgment to drive for the best agree-
ment possible within the next week. President Beirne is
using all of his influence with top government, Industry
and public leaders in Washington and New York in sup-
port of the Committee’s goals. I have had meetings and
diseussions with high officials in our State.
The Business Community which heretofore has supported
the Telephone Company is now beginning to crack. The
drain on the Unemployment Compensation Fund has been
so great that the Fund is threatened with total collapse.
Under the Law, when such a condition exists, the entire
Business Community is required to replenish the Fund.
They will be hit in their pocket-books where it hurts.
The Company is also coming under fire from the New
York State and New York City Tax Commissions. I have
advised Governor Rockefeller and Mayor Lindsay that the
Company has violated the tax laws by not withholding
State and City income tax from the paychecks of out-of-
town supervisors.
As a result of my complaint to Governor Rockefeller and
agreement reached with the Building Trades by our Albany
110
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 151
Local, some 200 supervisors from Massachusetts were pro-
hibited from working on the South Mall, the Albany com-
plex that will house the State Legislature.
Management’s “business is normal” got shot down the
other day. Western Electric announced hundreds of layoffs
from manufacturing plants. The reason? Oversupply due
to lack of demand for equipment and parts from New York
Tel. The truth is apparent to all. Substantial pressures are
on both sides. The Union wants a settlement. We believe
the climate is right for a just and equitable agreement now.
You, the member, remain the key. Your solidarity is being
recognized by the entire labor movement. With your con-
tinued support your Bargaining Committee will be able to
recommend a contract to the Local Presidents and they in
turn will be able to recommend it to you. Your Committee
deeply appreciates your expression of support.
Sincerely and fraternally,
/8/ Mortow Bane
Morton Bahr
Vice President
MB/pb
111
[Piawstirrs’ Exursit 152)
Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO
85 Worth Street
New York, New York 10013
November 10, 1971
To All Local Presidents, District One
Fraternal Greetings:
The strike against the New York Telephone Company
enters the 18th week today. The stamina and spirit of ovr
members in New York Tel and those respecting picket
lines in Western Electric and Long Lines, is simply amaz-
ing. More than 89% of the New York Plant employees are
still on the bricks.
New York State Unemployment Compensation is a tre-
mendous assist to our members. In addition, the CWA
Defense Fund is taking care of the necessary payments for
shelter and installment payments for cars and appliances
where repossession is threatened.
Our Defense Fund, as you know, is being administered in
strick accordance with the Rules adopted by the delegates
to our Convention. These Rules do not have the kind of
flexibility that will enable us to do something “special” for
the Thanksgiving holiday. That something special is a sub-
stantial Thanksgiving dinner for the striker and his family.
I am, therefore, appealing through you to every single
member for a one shot donation of $5.00. Of course, Local
treasury donations would be most welcomed additions.
Checks should be made payable to “E. J. Mays—District
One” and sent to this office. The receipts will be prorated
among all the Local Unions. Since this is earmarked for
Thanksgiving, quick action is required.
it ¢
112
Plaintiff's’ Exhibit 153
Our members have the opportunity of demonstrating the
spirit of Thanksgiving to their brothers and sisters in need.
Sincerely and fraternally,
/8/ M. Bam
Morton Bahr
Vice President
MB/pb
ec: District One Staff
7V—__—_—_—__—-
(Puarntirrs’ Exnrerr 153]
Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO
85 Worth Street
New York, New York 10013
November 11, 1971
NEW YORK PLANT STRIKE BULLETIN #9
Negotiations took a new twist away from the bargaining
table. Last night (Wednesday), Mayor Del Bello of Yon-
kers met with our Bargaining Committee at his request.
The Mayor expressed his deep concern as to the effect
our strike has had in each community in the State as well
as to the long term effect it will have on telephone service.
He expressed his displeasure in the public image that was
develo
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.