# Appendix — Walker v. Hayes > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_0858%3A04 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1977 - **Citation:** 434 U.S. 959 ## 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 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,— 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. — 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 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_0858%3A04. Public record. Not legal advice.