Petition — Air Transport Lodge 1894 v. Turner

Supreme Court brief1979

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

RECEIVED...

APR21 1979 °

Supreme Court of the United tate weiaetr

LEB OF HE CLERK Pe

Ocroser Term, 1978 SUPREME COURT, U.S, $=

No --F®B=1E78

IN THE

Air Transport Lopce 1894 of INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION

oF MacHINIsts AND AEROSPACE Workers, AFL-CIO, and

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AERO-

spacE Workers, AFL-CIO,

Petitioners,

—against—

Wiruiam TvuRNER,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Prato E. Papps

Machinists Building

1300 Connecticut Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

Kevin P. -Quiiu

Chase Manhattan Bank Building

29-27 41st Avenue

Long Island City, New York 11101

Attorneys for Petitioners

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Opinions Below | 1

Jurisdiction 2

Questions Presented 2

Statutes Involved 3

Statement of Case 3

Reasons for Granting the Writ

1. UNIONS SHOULD BE ABLE TO ASCERT-

AIN WHAT PROHIBITIONS CAN BE

PLACED ON MEMBERS WHO OPENLY

ESPOUSE AND ARE ACTIVE IN

COMMUNIST ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN

THE STANDARDS OF LMRDA &411(a)(2) 8-12

2. THE EXTENT OF ACTIVITY WHICH A

UNION MEMBER ENGAGES IN BEFORE

HE LOSES THE PROTECTION OF LMRDA

&411(a)(2) IS AN IMPORTANT

FEDERAL ISSUE WHICH SHOULD BE

CLEARLY DELINEATED. 8-12

Conclusion 14

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases:

American Communications Ass'n v. Douds, :

339 U.S. 382 (1949) 11, i

Dunne v. United States, 138 F2d 137 (8th

Cir.) 1943, cert. denied, 320 U.S. 790 “

(1943) 11,

Hurowitz v. Directors Guild of America,

Inc., 364 F2a 67 (2nd Cit. 1965) cert.

denied, 385 U.S. 971 (1966) 10

International Association of Machinists v.

Friedman, 102 U.S. App. D.C., 282 F2d 846

(D.C. Cir. 1958)

Rosen v. District Council No.9, 198 F. Supp ,

46 (S.D.N.Y. 1961) 1

Weinstock v. Ladisky, 197 Misc. 859 (N.Y. .

Sup Ct. 1950) i

Other Sources

Legislative History of the Labor-Management

Reporting & Disclosure Act of 1959 - Vol II,

N.L.R.B. ed. 1959 10

Atleson, A Union Member's Right of Free

Speech & Assembly, 51 Minn. L. Rev. 403, :

433-34 (1967) 1

Statutes:

Labor-Management Reporting & Disclosure Act,

29 U.S.C. &411(a) (2) passim

INDEX TO APPENDICES

Appendix A. Opinion of the United States

Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, dated

December 4, 1978

Appendix B. Opinion of the United States

District Court, Eastern District of New

York, dated October 1, 1978

Page

App. p.la-l3a .

App. p.1l4a-18a

Appendix C. Opinion of the United States Court

of Appeals, Second Circuit, dated

October 20, 1978

Appendix D. Opinion of the United Statés

District Court, Eastern District of New

York, dated March 31, 1978

Appendix E. Order of United States Court

of Appeals, Second Circuit, dated

January 22, 1979

Appendix F. Minutes of Trial of Turner

Trial (Excerpts)

Appendix G. Exhibits in the Trial of

William Turner

Appendix H. Trial Committee Report of

William Turner

Appendix I. Air Transport Lodge 189)

Report of Trial Hearing

Appendix J. Letter Dated November Te

1977 from Turner's Attorney to District

Court

iii

App. p.19a-22a

App. p.23a-h2s

App. p.43a

App. p.44a-78a

App. p.79a-87a

App. p.89a-9ha

App. p.95a-98a

App. p.99a

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1978

No. 8 8268 869 6

AIR TRANSPORT LODGE 1894 of INTERNATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS and AEROSPACE WORKERS ,

AFL-CIO, and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

MACHINISTS and AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO,

Petitioners,

- against -

WILLIAM TURNER,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

Petitioners pray for a writ of certiorari to

review the judgment of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Second Circuit in this case.

OPINIONS BELOW.

The opinion of The Court of Appeals for the

Second Circuit dated January 22, 1979 denying En

Banc Review is unreported and appears at page 43a.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals for the

Second Circuit dated December 4, 1978 is reported

at 590 F2da 409.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals for the A

Second Circuit dated October 20, 1978 is reported

at 585° F2d 1180.

The opinions of the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of New York

(Constantino, J.) dated March 31, 1978 and

October 31, 1978 are unreported and appear at lha

and 23a.

JURISDICTION

The judgment of the Court of Appeals was |

entered on December 4, 1978. A timely petition for

En Banc Review by the Petitioners was denied on

January 22, 1979, and this petition for certiorari

was filed within ninety days of the latter date. This

Court's jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. &1254

(1) and in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 19.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. What type of conduct constitutes activity inimical

‘to a union so as to be reasonably pronibited under

LMRDA &411(a)(2)?

2. Does membership and active participation in a

communist organization fall within the exemption

to LMRDA &411(a)(2) coverage pertaining to

Communist Party membership for which a union can

expel a member?

3. Is a provision in a Union's constitution too

broad and vague under LMRDA &411(a)(2) when it pro-

hibits advocating and activity in support of certain

philosophies by its members?

a a —

STATUTE INVOLVED

Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of

1959, 29 U.S.C. &411 (a)(2) provides as follows:

"FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY - Every member

of any labor organization shall have the right to meet

and assemble freely with other members; and to express

any views, arguments, or opinions; and to express at

meetings of the labor organization his views, upon

candidates in an election of the labor organization or

upon any business properly before the meeting, subject

to the organization's established and reasonable rules

pertaining to the conduct of meetings; Provided, That

nothing herein shall be construed to impair the right

of a labor organization to adopt and enforce reason-

able rules as to the responsibility of every member

toward the organization as an institution and to his

refraining from conduct that would interfere with its

performance of its legal or contractual obligations."

STATEMENT OF CASE

The issues in this case arose out of the expulsion

of William Turner, a member of the IAM who was charged

with violating the IAM constitution by his actions on

behalf of and espousal of communist doctrine. Turner

was charged and tried at the local union in compliance

with due process and his expulsion was ‘upheld by the

IAM. Turner commenced an action in the Federal District

Court to declare the article in the IAM Constitution

under which he was charged to be in violation of the

Freedom of Speech section of the LMRDA, &411(a)(2).

The District Court found that the IAM Constitution

was vague, overbroad and violated the Freedom of Speech

provision of the LMRDA. On appeal the Court of Appeals

remanded the case to the District Court for entry of a

final judgment and clarification of the District Court's

holding while the Court of Appeals retained jurisdiction

of the case. The District Court rendered a second

decision again holding that the section of the IAM

Constitution in question, Article L&3, was in vio-

lation of the IMRDA &411(a)(2) and was vague and

overbroad. The Court of Appeals affirmed the

District Court holding in a decision that included

a concurring opinion. The Court of Appeals denied

a petition for en banc review.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

William Turner, an employee at Varig Airlines

In December 18, 1975, issue of "Challenge" the article

below the mast heading states:

Unless we can organize communist Led groupings

in every shop layoffs will continue. Unless

we have these groupings more and more abuses

will be heaped upon workers and we will just

have to take it. Communist led groupings

(fractions) can turn every shop into a battle-

field. This will let the bosses know that they

can't rely on their union goons to betray and

at Kennedy International Airport, was a member of

Lodge 1894, IAM from 1971 until 1976. In Decembér,

1975, Turner was a candidate for shop steward.

During the election campaign Turner issued bulletins

as to his revolutionary communist philosophy and

membership in the Progressive Labor Party. During

the same time Turner was constantly advocating the

violent overthrow of the United States government by

force and killing of capitalists, with special

emphasis on the Rockerfeller brothers.* Turner was

distributing and selling the newspaper of the Pro-

gressive Labor Party "Challenge" to his co-workers.

Turner identified an ad in the newspaper "Challenge"

which offered to supply further information about Racist texts must be scrapped along with the

the Progregsive Labor Party as being his ad to a racist teachers. Pro-boss ideas must be re-

co-worker. futed and the schools become centers for

communist organizing. On every campus we must

force the administrators to bow to the just wishes

of the students and honest faculty. Strikes must

be organized to enforce our will.

lull workers every time they attack. Strikes

and marches will become common-place. Today's

sporadic strike will become tomorrows' rule.

Workers will march to war against those who

oppress them. It will be the ruling class who

will have to retreat and give ground to the

working class.

Every campus must also be turned into a fortress

against the bosses' cut backs and tuition hikes.

Administration buildings must be seized and held

until the cut-backs are reversed. Classes must

be converted into centers of struggles against

bossess' racist and anti-working class courses.

According to an article in the December 4,

1975 issue of "Challenge" Turner had led a strike

at Varig Airlines in 1973 and had organized support

for strikes of other airline wusxers over the years.

The standard of the Progressive Labor Party as

set forth immediately above the preceding paragraphs

state the tenants of the Progressive Labor Party as

follows:

THE PROGRESSIVE LABOR PARTY FIGHTS FOR SOCIALISM.

1. All of the documents referred to herein are Ex-

hibits 1-6 of Exhibits of Turner Trial

2. All the time Nelson A. Rockerfeller was Vice-

President of the United States.

3. Transcript of Turner Trial

Socialism means liberation for the entire working

class - the destruction of the bosses - a society 5

of abundance and full employment - an end to

exploitation - a secure and creative future for

all workers - and an end to the racism, facism

and wars that are all products of capitalism.

In order to achieve socialism, the capitalist

system, the bosses and their dictatorial

government must be crushed. This cannot be

accomplished peacefully through elections.

It can only happen when the majority of the

exploited unite behind communist leadership,

violently overthrow the bosses, and install a

new government of revolutionary workers - the

dictatorship of the proletariat.

Members of the PROGRESSIVE LABOR PARTY are

devoted to this goal. They dedicate their

"We the members of IAM Local 1894 and employees

of Varig Brazillian Airlines do hereby wish to

bring to the attention of the Union that one of

our fellow members (William Turner) is openly

and in contempt violating the IAM Constitution

Article L which deals with improper conduct of

@ member by advocating Communist ideas and in-

corporating these ideas with his campaign for

Shop Steward."

Article L &3 of the IAM Constitution states:

"The following actions or omissions shall con-

stitute misconduct by a member which shall

warrant a reprimand, fine, suspension and/

or expulsion from membership or any lesser

penalty or any combination of these penalties

as the evidence may warrant after written and

specific charges and a full hearing as herein-

after provided:

lives to actively building, promoting and

organizing for the cause of revolutionary

communism.

Tn one of the bulletins distributed by Turner Attempting, inaugurating, or encouraging session

he stated: from the IAM or advocating or encouraging or

attempting to inaugurate any dual labor move-

ment, or advocating or encouraging communism,

fascism, nazism or any other totalitarian

philosophy or by other actions giving support

to these "philosop*ies" of "isms" or to movements

or organizations inimical to the IAM or its

extablished policies and laws."

-....-eMy membership in the Progressive Labor

Party, working-class, revolutionary party,

has taught me many valuable lessons about

fighting for workers'rights. We learn from one

another. Progressive Labor Party (PLP members

and friends are active shop stewards and local

union officers, in many unions, throughout the

country. A copy of the charges were sent to Turner on December

2, 1975 by the local President and on December 3, 1975

the local President sent him a letter as to the time

and place of the trial to take place eight days later. 7

In November 1975 charges were brought against

Turner by fellow employees at Varig Airlines who were

members of Local 1894 stating: 6

Turner was present at the trial before a Trial

Committee appointed by the local President and

presented evidence, called witnesses on his

behalf and cross-examined witnesses testifying

against him. Turner openly admits to his

communist views in his articles and does not

deny being a communist. On January 28, 1976 the

recommendation of the Trial Committee to expel

Turner was approved by the membership of Local

Lodge 1894, IAM. Turner appealed to the President

of the IAM and from his denial, to the Executive

Council of the IAM. Turner did-not appeal to the

Grand Lodge convention or by referendum under IAM

Constitution Article L &16 but rather commenced

this action based on the LMRDA.

REASONS WRIT SHOULD BE GRANTED

1. UNIONS SHOULD BE ABLE TO ASCERTAIN WHAT

PROHIBITIONS CAN BE PLACED ON MEMBERS WHO

OPENLY ESPOUSE AND ARE ACTIVE IN COMMUNIST

ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN THE STANDARDS OF

LMRDA &411(a)(2).

The Labor-Management Reporting & Disclosure

Act of 1959 (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. &411(a)(2) which

guarantees the right of freedom of speech to union

members also gives the union the right to adopt and

enforce reasonable rules as to the responsibility of

every member toward the union as an institution and

to his refraining from conduct that would interfere

with the union's performance of its legal or contract-

ual obligations. Article L&3 of the IAM Constitution

prohibits

"advocating or encouraging communism, fascisism,

nazism, or any other totalitarian philosophy or

by other actions giving support to these

"shilosophies" or "isms" or to movements or

organizations inimical to the IAM or its

established policies and laws."

The reasonableness of the IAM prohibitions can

be seen in light of the activity of Turner as a

member of the Progressive Labor Party (PLP). The

tenants of the PLP are set forth in the PLP's

official newspaper Challenge which was Exhibit B(a)

at the trial which led to Turner's expulsion from

the IAM. The PLP plan of achieving communist con-

trol is by infiltrating unions, by electing local

shop stewards who will turn every shop into a

battlefield, and by violence and illegal strikes.

Turner openly expoused these views as a party a¢tiv-

ist. Obviously such philosophy is an undermining of

the IAM as an institution in that it seeks to

destroy the union for the sake of communist domination.

Such tactics also constitute conduct which would

interfere with the IAM performing its legal and con-

tractual obligations. The IAM has to guarantee its

members will abide by the terms of the contracts under

which they work. The tactics of the PLP would be an

unequivocal violation of all the IAM contracts and

legal obligations. The tactics and philosophy of the

PLP: violate both areas set forth in LMRDA &411i(a)(2)

wherein unions are permitted to enforce reasonable

rules as to members responsibility to the unions as

institutions and to prevent interference with the

unions performance of legal and contractual obligations.

The majority opinion did not examine the issue

of whether Article L&3 was reasonable but rather just

stated that it was not. There was no rationale offered

or any reasoning set forth other than the conclusion.

Judge Mulligan, in his concurring opinion, stated that

Article L&3 was not reasonable because it was to broad,

but he stated that the communist philosophy is clearly

inimical to the labor movement. In analysing the

philosophy of the PLP there can be no question that

such philosophy and the tactics espoused by the PLP

are a threat to the IAM as an institution when ad-

vanced by any IAM member and would interfere with

the legal and contractual obligations of the IAM.

The Court of App-2ls erred in stating that Article

L&3 of the IAM constitution was not reasonable

within the provisions of LMRDA &101(a)(2). The

majority opinion erroneously states that the LMRDA

&101 freedom of speech right is almost absolute

subject to the proviso of reasonable rules regarding

the union as an institution and its legal and con-

tractual obligations. The legislative history of

the LMRDA, as Judge Mulligan correctly states, was

drafted specifically to allow for the exclusion of

Communists from union membership. Vol. II

Legislative History of the Labor Management Reporting

& Disclosure Act of 1959, 1231 (3), 1233 (3), 1234 (1)

(comments of Senators Aiken, Clark, Kennedy and

McClellan); Atleson, A Union Member's Right of Free

Speech and Assembly: Institutional Interests and

Individual Rights, 51 Minn. L. Rev 403 (1967). The

Second Circuit clearly affirmed the right of a union

to exclude Communists or those who have engaged in

subversive activity. Hurwitz v. Directors Guild of

America, Inc., 364 F2d 67,73 (2nd Cir. 1966), cert.

denied, 385 U.S. 971 (1966)

Both the majority opinion and the concurring

opinion hold that the rule applicable to the

Communist Party is not applicable to the PLP despite

their identical viewpoints, tactics and philosophy.

The majority opinion makes a fine distinction between

the Communist Party and those who believe in the

communist philosophy, the majority holding that the

latter are not subject to the expulsion provisions

applicable to the Communist Party. The majority cite

the Hurwitz case for the proposition that the Communist

Party is a threat to the American labor movement and

do not consider that the PLP is likewise. .In the

Hurwitz case, the Second Circuit did not restrict its

holding to the Communist Party but also related it to

those engaged in subversive activity thus including .

groups other than the Communist Party. The Court also

stated at p. 76

"An exception is made in the case of Communist

beliefs because it has been established that

those who harbor such beliefs have an

overriding loyalty to an idealogy at odds with

that of the American Labor movement and because

of the great liklihood that Communists will use

their influence in unions to foster illegal

and undesirable activity such as the political

strike..-s"

The reasoning used in Hurwitz is directly applicable

to the PLP which states it will use the political strike

to foster illegal ends. It should follow that the PLP

would be subject to the same criterion as the Communist

Party. The applicability of the same legal principles

to groups similiar to the Communist Party was upheld in

American Communications Ass'n. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 380

(1950) as to Socialist Labor Party and likewise in

Dunne v. United States, 138 F2d 137(8th Cir. 1943),

cert, denied, 320 U.S. 790 (1943). Judge Mulligan

recognized the appropriateness of applying the same

standards to the PLP as the Communist Party. Judge

Mulligan states at p.420 "We assume that this congress-

ional concern was prompted by the demonstrated ability

of the Communist Party to subvert unions for revolution-

ary purposes which are sharply divergent from the legit-

imate goals of trade unionism." Judge Mulligan in

determining whether the same measure applies to both

the PLP and the Communist Party, cites the critical

issue to be the potential to carry out the threats

of the communist philosophy. The Second Circuit ia

the Hurwitz case, as above cited, used the criterion

of whether tactics such as the political strike were

a threat to labor relations. In this case the PLP

tactics are the same as those of the Communist Party,

the only difference being in the name of the group

involved.

The PLP should be subject to the same principles

of law as the Communist Party. The Court erred in

not doing so. If the same principles applied then

the expulsion of Turner would not be a violation of

the LMRDA and would be valid. This Court should at

least send the case back to the District Court for

a hearing on the potential threat of the PLP to

carry out its philosophy. The language of Article

fajeat Not Overbroad So As to Violate LMRDA &101

a ‘

Article L&3 of the IAM Constitution was up-

held by the Court of Appeals *or the District of

Columbia in International Association of Machinists

v. Friedman, 102 U.S. App. D.C. 181 F2a 846 (D.C. Cir.

1958). Similiar language was upheld in American

Communications Ass'n v. Douds, supra; Dunne v.

United States, supra; Weinstock v. Ladisky,

197 Mise, 859 (N.Y. Supt. Ct. 1950); Rosen v. District

Council No. 9, 198 F.Supp. 46 (S.D.N.Y¥. 1961). The

meaning is understandable to the average member and

should not be voided mere on a i i

re ay ly possibility of being

It is important for Unions to know how far they 12

can regulate their members in protecting their legimate

interests.

2, THE EXTENT OF ACTIVITY WHICH A UNION MEMBER ENGAGES

IN BEFORE HE LOSES THE PROTECTION OF LMRDA &411(a)

(2) IS AN IMPORTANT FEDERAL ISSUE WHICH SHOULD

BE CLEARLY DELINEATED.

Turner's activities in this case far exceeded the

mere expression of ideas of the PLP. As Judge Mulligan

found, "Turner is an avowed and activist member of the

PLP." Turner never contradicted the statements made

at his trial regarding his wanting Vice President /

Rockerfeller and his brothers killed in the violent

overthrow of the government ( 64a), his approaching

co-workers advocating the PLP causes both at work

and riding to work (57a), his selling and distributing

the PLP newspaper (61a), his maintaining an ad in the

newspaper to supply PLP information (58a), his con-

sulting with the PLP news staff on his case, his be-

ing active in leading strikes and work stoppages, most

noteworthy at his employer, Varig Airlines, in

1974 (83a). All of these activities were in further-

ance of the revolutionary communist philosophy of the

PLP according to its blueprint for infiltration and

unrest.

The charge at Local 1894 did accuse Turner of

“advocating Communist ideas and incorporating those

ideas with his campaign for Shop Stewar ." The charge

was drawn up by co-workers who are not legal drafts-

men familiar with the subtleties of law. When they

testified at Turner's trial, several of these same

individuals testified as to Turner's activity as out-

lined above. It was not just Turner's advocacy of

PLP ideas that the other IAM members were complaining 33

of but rather his overt activity. The majority opinion

ignored Turner's activity and restricted its decision to

the freedom of speech issue while ignoring the uncon-

troverted record. The majority decision was based on

form over substance by looking only to the charge and not

the evidence adduced. The majority held that there

is almost an absolute right of free speech for union

members under LMRDA &411(a)(2) whereas Judge Mulligan's

position is that speech or activity by a member of the

Communist Party can be prosibited by a "properly phrased

union regulation." This divergence of opinion in the Court

of Appeals should be resolved by a decision of the Supreme

Court so that Unions will be in a position to act properly

under LMRDA &411(a)(2).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this petition should be

granted and a writ of certiorari issued to review the

decision and judgment of the Court of Appeals for the

Second Circuit in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

PLATO E. PAPPS, ESQ.

Machinists Building

1300 Connecticut Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

KEVIN P. QUILL, ESQ.

Chase Manhattan BAnk Building

29-27 4ist Avenue

Long Island City, New York 11101

Attorneys for the Petitioner

April 17, 1979

Appendices

Appendix A

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For tHe Seconp Circuit

No. 89—August Term, 1978.

(Argued September 25, 1978 Decided December 4, 1978.)

Docket No. 78-7212

Wituiam TURNER,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

—

Air Transport Lopce 1894 or INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION

or MacuInists aND Agrospace Workers, AF'L-CIO, anp

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AERO-

space Workers, AFL-CIO,

Defendants-A ppellants.

—-

Before:

WarterMan and Mutuican, Circuit Judges, and

Wyatt, District Judge.°®

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of New York (Mark A.

Costantino, J.) finding the expulsion of plaintiff from his

union a violation of the free speech provision of the Labor-

Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (29

U.S.C, § 411(a)(2)).

Affirmed.

—

” Inzer B. Wyatt, of the Southern District of New York, sitting

hy designation.

Kevin P. Qui, sq., Long Island City, New

York, Attorney for Defendants-A ppellants.

Burton H. Hatt, Esq., New York, New York,

Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee.

a>.

Per Curiam:

This appeal by defendant labor unions calls for a deci-

sion under the “freedom of speech” provision of the Labor-

Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (29

U.S.C. §§ 401 and following; the “LMRDA”). The “free-

dom of speech” provision is found in 29 U.S.C. § 411(a) (2),

part of a subchapter entitled “Bill of Rights of Members of

Labor Organizations.” The free speech provision gives

every union member “the right . . . to express any views,

arguments, or opinions.” This free speech right of mem-

bers is almost absolute. The only limitation is that the

union is given “the right... to adopt and enforce reason-

able rules as to the responsibility of every member toward

the organization as an institution and to his refraining

from conduct that would interfere with its performance of

its legal or contractual obligations.” 29 U.S.C. § 411(a) (2).

The local union expelled plaintiff Turner because of his

expression of certain views and opinions. This action was

then commenced under the LMRDA, in substance to com-.

pel the reinstatement of Turner to membership in the union

and for related relief.

The District Court, deciding motions by both sides and

writing an explanatory opinion, granted Turner relief.

This appeal by defendant unions followed.

After the appeal was argued and the record studied, we

remanded (while retaining jurisdiction of the appeal) for

the District Court to make more explicit its decision in a

‘2a

SD LN alk le lad rt SEEN Ae ne cin SN Tieatine ne

separate judgment (Fed. R. Civ. P. 58). Turner v. Air

Transport Lodge 1894, No. 78-7212, —— F.2d —— (2d

Cir. October 20, 1978). Such a separate and final judg-

ment was filed in the District Court on November 1, 1978.

A motion for summary judgment in favor of Turner was

granted; a motion by defendant unions for summary judg-

ment was denied. The local union was directed to reinstate

Turner to membership; related declaratory relief was

granted.

-The matter is now before us for disposition on the

merits. We affirm the decision below.

Turner had heen for some time a member of the defen-

dant local union. A charge was mad¢ against him that he

violated Article L of the union constitution in that he was

“advocating Communist ideas and incorporating those

ideas with his campaign for Shop Steward.”

The part of the union constitution Turner was charged

with violating was Article L, Section 3, which specifies

certain activities by members as misconduct warranting

expulsion. The following is the specified activity in the

constitution on which the charge against Turner was based:

“... advocating or encouraging communism, fascism,

nazism, or any other totalitarian philosophy or by

other actions giving support to these ‘philosophies’ or

‘isms’ or to movements or organizations inimical to

the I.A.M. or its established policies and laws.”

There was a hearing before a Trial Committee of the

union. Both sides presented evidence. There were no real

issues of fact at the union hearing. The evidence indicated

that the charge against Turner arose from statements by

him in the course of an election of shop stewards, he being

a candidate who, among other things, asked for the sup-

port of the “rank and file” as opposed to the “union leader-

ship”.

The Trial Committee found Turner guilty of “improper

conduct” within the meaning of the union constitution and

recommended his expulsion. The Committee’s report makes

clear that its finding was based on advocacy of communism

by Turner. The union membership voted him guilty and

that he be expelled. The notification to Turner by the union

was explicit that his “misconduct” was “advocating Com-

munist ideas.” .

The free speech right guaranteed by LMRDA may not

be infringed by expelling a member for advocating com-

munist ideas. In this context, it is of no significance

whether the word “Communist” be spelled with a capital

“C” or with a small “ce”. The word, in either case, refers

to the philosophy of communism.

The defendant international union in its constitution

could not lawfully make it “misconduct”, as it did, for a

member to advocate “communism .. . or any other totali-

tarian philosophy, ...”. The plain words of the LMRDA

forbid such a constitutional provision. The statute pro-

nounces a right of union members to express “any” opin-

ions (emphasis supplied). This Court has ruled that the

statutory right includes the making of false and libellous

statements. “The Congress has decided that it is iz ihe

public interest that unions be democratically governed and

toward that end that discussion should be free and untram-

meled and that reprisals within the union for the expres-

sion of views should be prohibited.” Salzhandler v. Caputo,

316 F.2d 445, 451 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 946

(1963).

The case at bar does not in any way involve the Com-

munist Party of the United States. There was no evidence

that Turner was, or ever had been, a member of the Com-

—> oe nani

munist Party, nor that he associated with or encouraged

the Communist Party. He was never accused of any such

things. The only accusation was that he had been “advo-

cating Communist ideas”, that is, the philosophy of com-

munism. There was evidence that Turner had explained

his “communist views” as “a la Karl Marx, not Breshnev,

Mao or Castro.” The situation is thus entirely different

from that in Rosen v. District Council No. 9 of the Brother-

hood of Painters, 198 F. Supp. 46 (S.D.N.Y. 1961) (Levet,

J.), appeal dismissed, 326 F.2d 400 (2d Cir. 1964), 57

L.R.R.M. 2401 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) (Tenney, J.). In those deci-

sions, on which appellants rely, Judge Levet and Judge

Tenney upheld the action of a union in disciplining a mem-

ber for associating with and giving support to the Com-

munist Party. Judge Tenney stated that “the Communist

Party is not merely a political party but is a foreign con-

spiracy and ... therefore, participation in, or association

with, it is not within the protected area of political action.”

(57 L.R.R.M. at 2405). The Rosen decisions have never

been reviewed by this Court and we need not now either

approve or disapprove them. An appeal from Judge Levet’s

denial of a temporary injunction was dismissed because

of delay in prosecuting the appeal. In so doing, this Court

noted that the Rosen case was one “involving important

questions of law” and noted that, after Judge Levet’s deci-

sion, our opinion in Salzhandler v. Caputo, above cited,

had been handed down (326 F.2d at 401).

There is the same distinction between the case at bar

and Hurwitz v. Directors Guild, 364 F.2d 67 (2d Cir.),

cert. denied, 385 U.S. 971 (1966). Hurwitz was decided as

a diversity action under New York law; this Court declined

to discuss the LMRDA, free speech provision or otherwise

(364 F.2d at 71 n.2). Hurwitz did, however, deal with a

non-communist oath requirement in a union constitution ;

the decision was that the oath requirement was unreason-

able because the form of oath was too vague. The Court

in Hurwitz did not have occasion to distinguish, as we are

doing, between the Communist party and ‘its members on

the one hand and on the other those who, like Turner,

advocate the communist philosophy of Karl Marx but who

are not members of the Communist party. It does appear,

however, that this Court in Hurwitz was in fact concen-

trating its attention on the Communist party and on the

dangers that party posed to labor unions in this country.

In Hurwitz, this Court said:

“

. we think it not unreasonable to believe that

the Communist party has in the past demonstrated

that it poses a significant threat to the American labor

movement. Perhaps in some unions this threat would

be sufficiently met by a provision prohibiting Com-

munists from holding union office.” (364 F.2d at 74;

emphasis supplied)

° a o

“We do not challenge the union’s right to exclude

or expel a person from membership if it is established

that he has engaged in subversive activity or if it is

established that he is a member of the Communist

party. See Rosen v. District Council No. 9, 198 F.

Supp. 46 (S.D.N.Y. 1961).” (364 F.2d at 76; emphasis

supplied)

The free speech mandate of the LMRDA does allow a

union “to adopt and enforce reasonable rules as to the

responsibility of every member toward the organization as

an institution and to his refraining from conduct that would

interfere with its performance of its legal or contractual

obligations.” There is no evidence that anything Turner

did or said caused any harm to the union or interfered in

any way with its contractual obligations. Presumably the

appellants would claim that the provision of the union con-

stitution under which Turner was accused was justified as

one of the “reasonable rules” permitted by the LMRDA.

Such a claim could not be accepted. The provision of the

union constitution is in flat violation of the right of free

speech in the LMRDA. It is so broad that it cannot pos-

sibly be found a reasonable means for preventing Com-

munist party infiltration of the appellant unions. The pro-

vision here is broader and more vague than the non-com-

munist oath proscribed in the Hurwitz case.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Mu.uican, Circuit Judge (concurring) :

This case presents the troublesome issue of the clash

between the right of a labor organization to purge itself

of those members whose activities are inimical to the legiti-

mate goals of trade unionism and the right of the union

member to express his opinions freely, without fear of re-

prisal. Congress grappled with the question in enacting

section 101(a)(2) of the Labor-Management Reporting and

Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. § 411(a) (2),

which provides as follows:

Every member of any labor organization shall have the

right to meet and assemble freely with other members;

and to express any views, arguments, or opinions; and

to express at meetings of the labor organization his

views, upon candidates in an election of the labor or-

ganization or upon any business properly before the

meeting, subject to the organization’s established and

reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of meetings:

Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to

impair the right of a labor organization to adopt and

enforce reasonable rules as to the responsibility of

every member toward the organization as an institu-

tion and to his refraining from conduct that would

interfere with its performance of its legal or con-

tractual obligations.

It is evident that Congress was anxious to protect the

right of union members “to express any views, arguments

or opinions,” but at the same time it recognized the right

of the union to adopt and enforce reasonable rules impos-

ing institutional responsibility upon its members and pro-

hibiting conduct which interfered with the union’s legal or

contractual obligations. See, e.g., Cox, Internal Affairs of

Labor Unions Under the Labor Reform Act of 1959, 58

Mich. L. Rev. 819, 834-35 (1960) (hereinafter “Cox”) ;

Atleson, A Union Member’s Right of Free Speech and As-

sembly: Institutional Interests and Individual Rights, 51

Minn. L. Rev. 403, 433-34 (1967) (hereinafter “Atleson”).

Unfortunately, the language employed in the statute to

strike the balance is not so pellucid as a mountain lake in

springtime. See Atleson, supra, at 432-35. On this appeal

Turner claims that he was improperly expelled for ex-

pressing communist views. The union urges that the ad-

vocacy of those-views was institutionally irresponsible and

therefore the union constitutional provision prohibiting

such advocacy was properly within the limiting proviso of

section 411(a)(2). Our problem is to interpret the lan-

guage of Congress which both giveth and taketh away the

rights of the parties to this appeal.

The initial question is whether a union rule broadly bar-

ring a member’s advocacy of totalitarian philosophies falls

within the protective language of section 411(a)(2). In

resolving this issue it is crucial to note the statutory re-

quirement that a labor organization’s rules pertaining to

members’ responsibility toward the union be reasonable.'

The rule at bar is Article L, section 3 of the union con-

stitution which prohibits a member from

. advocating or encouraging communism, fascism,

nazism, or any other totalitarian philosophy, or by

other actions giving support to these “philosophies”

or “isms” or to movements or organizations inimical

to the [union] or its established policies and laws.

This provision, in my view, should be construed as un-

reasonable within the meaning of section 411(a)(2). It

prohibits advocacy of undefined philosophies and “isms” as

well as unspecified actions supporting them. The provi-

sion is so broad, vague and indefinite that it provides com-

pletely inadequate guidance to union members as to just

what is proscribed. See Hurwitz v. Directors Guild of

America, 364 F.2d 67, 75-76 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 385

U.S. 971 (1966). Moreover, the provision clearly goes be-

yond the scope of section 411(a)(2) by barring, for ex-

ample, a member’s participation in movements or organiza-

tions inimical to the “established policies and laws” of the

union. This language can be construed to prohibit pre-

cisely what section 411(a)(2) is supposed to protect—the

right of the member to freely express his opposition to

union policies and laws. E.g., Newman v. Local 1011, Com-

munication Workers of America, 570 F.2d 439, 444 (2d

Cir. 1978); Salzhandler v. Caputo, 316 F.2d 445, 448-49

1 Of course, since union constitutions and rules are formulated and

enforced by the union, a private entity, no federal constitutional right

of free speech is here involved. E.g., Wirtz, Government by Private

Groups, 13 La. L. Rev. 440, 441, 446-49 (1953); see Rothman, Legis-

lative History of the “Bill of Rights” of Union Members, 45 Minn. L.

Rev. 199, 201-02 (1960) (hereinafter “Rothman’”’).

(2d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 946 (1963) ; see Hurwitz

v. Directors Guild of America, supra, at 75. Therefore, I

believe the judgment below should be affirmed simply on

this basis—the rule relied upon to support Turner’s ouster

is not “reasonable” within the mandate of section 411

(a) (2).

At the same time I would not hold that the advocacy of

all views is immunized by section 411(a)(2). Salzhandler

v. Caputo, supra, at 450 n.8; see Hurwitz v. Directors Guild

of America, supra, at 76. That section, however infelic-

itous its language, permits the union to enforce rea-

sonable rules designed to protect the union as a labor

organization and to prevent interference with the per-

formance of the union’s legal or contractual obligations.

Thus, while criticism of union leadership or practices or

policies is fully protected, the encouragement of activities

or organizations which are fundamentally inimical to trade

unionism is beyond the pale. Atleson, supra, at 472; see

Cox, supra, at 834-35. The distinction can be elusive and,

assuming a reasonably drawn union rule, complying with

the statutory distinction requires some analysis of what

the member is actually advocating.

In the instant case, Turner is an avowed and activist

member of the Progressive Labor Party. The goals of that

party, which are presumably accurately reported in its news

organ, “Challenge—The Revolutionary Communist News-

paper”, include the violent overthrow of the capitalist sys-

tem, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the organiza-

tion of communist led groupings in every shop to encourage

“strikes and marches.” The familiar communist rhetoric

from the “Challenge” is set forth in the margin.’ Signifi-

2 The following are excerpts from the “Challenge”:

In order to achieve socialism, the capitalist system, the bosses and

their dictatorial government must be crushed. This cannot be accom-

plished peacefully through elections.

10a

cantly, Turner freely conceded his adherence to the aims

of the Progressive Labor Party and testimony at the hear-

ing established his support for and advocacy of these

means and objectives. Compare United States v. Brown,

381 U.S. 437, 455-56 (1965). This encouragement of the

use of union power for the primary objective of violent

revolution seems clearly to me to be fundamentally inimical

to the interests of the union as an institution and would

certainly jeopardize its legal obligations. See American

Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 388-89

(1950).

Several cases in this circuit have recognized that the

Communist Party, by espousing goals substantially equiva-

lent to those mentioned above, has demonstrated that it

poses a serious threat to the American labor movement.

It can only happen when the majority of the exploited unite behind

communist leadership, violently overthrow the bosses, and install a

new government of revolutionary workers—the dictatorship of the

proletariat.

Members of the Progressive Labor Party are devoted to this goal.

They dedicate their lives to actively building, promotiug and or-

ganizing for the cause. of revolutionary communism.

* o * * *

Unless we can organize communist-led groupings in every shop lay-

offs will continue. Unless we have these groupings more and more

abuses will be heaped upon workers, and we will have to take it.

Communist led groupings (fractions) [sic] can turn every shop into a

battlefield. This will let the bosses know that they can’t rely on their

union goons to betray and lull workers every time they attack. Strikes

and marches will be tomorrow’s rule. Workers will march to war

against those who oppress them. It will be the ruling class who will

have to retreat and give ground to the working class.

Every campus must also be turned into a fortress against the bosses’

cut backs and tuition hikes. Administration buildings must be seized

and held until the cut-backs are reversed. Classes must be converted

into centers of struggles against bosses’ racist and anti-working class

courses. Racist texts must be scrapped along with the racist teachers.

Pro-boss ideas must be refuted and the schools become centers for

communist organizing. On every campus we must force the adminis.

trators to bow to the just wishes of the students and honest faculty.

Strikes must be organized to enforce our will.

lla

Hurwitz v. Directors Guild of America, supra; Rosen v.

District Council No. 9 of the Brotherhvod of Painters

(Rosen I1), 57 L.R.R.M. 2401, 2405 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) (citing

several New York State court cases to the same effect) ;

Rosen v. District Council No. 9 of the Brotherhood of

Painters (Rosen I), 198 F.Supp. 46, 49-50 (S.D.N.Y. 1961),

appeal dismissed, 326 F.2d 400 (2d Cir. 1964). Moreover,

the legislative history of the LMRDA compels the conclu-

sion that an important reason for the addition of the pro-

viso to section 411(a)(2) was so that unions would not be

prevented from expelling Communists from membership.*

See II Legislative History of the Labor-Management Re-

porting & Disclosure Act of 1959, 1231(3), 1233(3), 1234(1)

(comments of Senators Aiken, Clark, Kennedy, and Mc-

Clellan) (N.L.R.B. ed. 1959); Hurwitz v. Directors Guild

of America, supra, at 74; Rosen II, supra, at 2405; Atleson,

supra, at 472.

We assume that this congressional concern was prompted

by the demonstrated ability of the Communist Party to

subvert unions for revolutionary purposes which are

sharply divergent from the legitimate goals of trade union-

ism. See American Communications Association v. Douds,

supra, at 388-89; Hurwitz v. Directors Guild of America,

supra, at 76; Rosen II, supra, at 2405, 2406 and cases there

cited; Rosen I, supra, at 49-50.

Thus, if Turner had been an active member of the Com-

munist Party and had been charged with such conduct as

distributing inflammatory Party literature it seems evident

that this would support his ouster under a properly phrased

union regulation. However, that is not the case before us.

Turner was merely charged with the expression of com-

3 For analyses of the congressional compromise that led to the in-

sertion of the proviso into section 411(a) (2), see Cox, supra; Rothman,

supra. ,

12a

munist views. Moreover, Turner is not a member of the

Communist Party, which has a demonstrated record of

suecessful infiltration and subversion of trade unions. He

is a member of the Progressive Labor Party and the record

is barren of any indication of its size, influence or poten-

tial to accomplish its revolutionary goals. No matter how

offensive Turner’s views may be, his mere expression of

them, as far as the record before us is concerned, presents

no real or serious threat to the integrity of the labor or-

ganization or to its ability to perform its legal and con-

tractual obligations. See Hurwitz v. Directors Guild of

America, supra, at 76; Atleson, supra, at 457.

For these reasons I vote to affirm.

l3a

Appendix B

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

WILLIAM TURNER,

Plaintiff,

-against- 77 C 1146

AIR TRANSPORT LODGE 1894 of

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FINAL

MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, . JUDGMENT

AFL-CIO, and INTERNATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND

AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO,

Defendants.

COSTANTINO, D.J.

This case comes before the court after it was

remanded by the Court of Appeals with the di-

rective that this court make and enter a final

judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. The

following constitutes the court's final judgment.

The court grants summary judgment to the plain-

tiff, finding that his expulsion from defendant

Air Transport Lodge 1894, unduly infringed upon

l4a

his right to free speech protected by §101(a)

(2) of the Labor Management Reporting and Dis-

closure Act of 1959 ("LMRDA"), 29 U.S.C. §411

(a) (2).

That portion of Article L, §3 of the consti-

tution of the defendant International Associa-

tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-

CIO ("IAM") that makes punishable

advocating or encouraging communism,

facism, nazism, or any other totali-

tarian philosophy, or by other actions

giving support to these "philosophies"

or "isms'' or to movements or organiza-

tions inimical to the I.A.M. or its

established policies and laws

is declared void pursuant to §101(b) of LMRDA,

29 U.S.C. §411(b), because it is vague and

overbroad and inconsistent with plaintiff's

right to free speech protected by §101(a) (2)

of LMRDA.

Because plaintiff was expelled from Air

Transport Lodge 1894 for advocating communist

l5a

ideas in violation of the above quoted lan-

guage from Article L, §3 of the IAM constitu-

tion, his expulsion was improper. Section

101(a) (2) of LMRDA prohibits the defendants

from expelling union members for merely ad-

vocating communist ideas absent a showing

that the expression of such beliefs posed a

threat to Air Transport Lodge 1894 or to IAM

as institutions.

Air Transport Lodge 1894 is directed to re-

instate plaintiff with all union benefits to

which he was entitled prior to his expulsion.

If the Trial Committee of Lodge 1894 should

attempt to retry plaintiff for advocating

communist ideas, it must show that such con-

duct was inimical to the union's interests.

No such evidence was proffered at the Decem-

ber ll, 1975 union disciplinary hearing.

To the.extent that plaintiff seeks a per-

manent injunction against enforcing his

l6a

expulsion, his request is denied. The court

cannot say that Air Transport Lodge 1894, in

a future proceeding, will not be able to es-

tablish that plaintiff's advocacy of communist

ideas posed a threat to the local or interna-

tional union.

Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees is

denied.

Defendant's motion for summary judgment is

denied.

The foregoing constitutes the court's final

judgment. The Clerk of the Court is directed

to enter the judgment accordingly.

So ordered.

/s/ MARK A. COSTANTINO

a a oe 2

l7a

FOOTNOTES

On the basis of the pleadings and the mat-

ters outside the pleadings submitted as part

of defendants' motion for summary judgment,

the court finds that there are no material

facts in dispute and that plaintiff is en-

titled to summary judgment.

The court notes that the question of legality

of that portion of Article L, §3 of the IAM

constitution that makes punishable

Attempting, inaugurating, or

encouraging secession from the

I.A.M., or advocating or encour-

aging secession from the I1.A.M.,

or advocating or encouraging or

attempting to inaugurate any dual

labor movement...

is not before the court at this time.

18a

Appendix C

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For THE SEeconp Circuit

—<-

No. 89—August Term, 1978.

(Argued September 25, 1978 Decided October 20, 1978.)

Docket No. 78-7212

WiiaM TURNER,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

—_—vV.—

Arr Transport Lopce 1894 or INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION

oF MacHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WorkeERS, AFL-CIO, anv

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AERO-

sPpACE WorKERS, AFL-CIO,

Defendants-Appellants.

Before:

Waterman and Mutuican, Circuit Judges

and Wyatt, District Judge.*

—

Appeal from an order of the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of New York (Mark A.

Costantino, J.).

Remand for making and entering a judgment.

—o-

? Inzer B. Wyatt, of the Southern District of New York, sitting by des-

ignation.

19a

Kevin P. Quitt, Esq., Long Island City, New

York, Attorney for Defendants-Appellant..

Burton H. Hatx, Esq., New York, New York,

Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee.

~>-

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal by defendant unions “from the memo-

randum order entered in this action on March 31, 1978.”

The quotation is from the notice of appeal, which describes

that order as having “directed reinstatement [of plaintiff]

to union membership and which declared Article L §3 of

the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace

Workers Constitution void.”

Plaintiff Turner was a member of defendant Air Trans-

port Lodge 1894 (the “Local union”) which was affiliated

with defendant International Association of Machinists and

Aerospace Workers (the “International union”). He was

expelled from the Local union on January 28, 1976.

This action was commenced in the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of New York. It was

brought under the Labor Management Reporting and Dis-

closure Act of 1959 (29 U.S.C. §¢401 and following;

“LMRDA”). The relief prayed for was: (a) a permanent

injunction against enforcing the expulsion of Turner, (b)

a declaratory judgment that the expulsion of Turner is

void, (c) a permanent injunction against infringement by

defendants of the rights of Turner under LMRDA, (d)

a declaratory judgment that Article L §3 of the consti-

tution of the International union is void to the extent

specified, and (e) for attorney’s fees, ete.

After answer, plaintiff moved for entry of judgment

for the relief demanded in the complaint. The motion was

20a

said to be under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(¢), “judgment on the

pleadings.”

Defendants then moved for summary judgment.

The two motions were heard by Judge Costantino, who

on March 31, 1978 filed the “memorandum and order” from

which this appeal is taken.

We have an initial difficulty with this appeal because

we cannot tell from the record precisely what was the

decision below. The terms of the decision have never been

spelled out in a judgment nor is there a “separate docu-

ment” containing a “judgment”, as required by Fed. R.

Civ. P. 58.

We recognize that the separate document requirement

of Rule 58 can be waived and that absence of a judgment

set forth in a separate document does not deprive this

Court of jurisdiction of this appeal. Bankers Trust Co.

v. Mallis, —— U.S. ——, 98 S. Ct. 1117 (March 28, 1978).

Until the Supreme Court thus recently spoke, most of the

courts of appeals (differing with this Court) had concluded

that a judgment on a separate document was a prerequisite

to appellate jurisdiction. The decisions are cited in the

Supreme Court’s opinion (98 8. Ct. at 1119 n.2).

While the separate document requirement may now be

waived, we would not encourage the practice. We suggest

that, where the District Court makes a decision intended

to be “final” (28 U.S.C. § 1291), the better procedure is to

set forth the decision in a separate document called a

judgment (Fed. R. Civ. P. 58).

In the case at bar, we assume that the order of March 31,

1978, was intended to be a “final decision”, but we cannot

be sure.

In any event, we believe that the questions raised by

this appeal can be more fully considered if the decision

2la

below is made explicit in a judgment. We assume that

the District Court meant to grant the motion of plaintiff

for judgment on the pleadings and to deny the motion

of defendants for summary judgment, but this is nowhere

stated. There is a direction in the nature of a mandatory

injunction that “defendant” (by which the Local union must

be intended) “reinstate” Turner. Nothing is said about

any further injunctive relief; it may be that the District

Court meant to deny any further such relief. The opinion

refers to “that part” of the constitution of the International

union which “served as the basis for plaintiff’s expulsion

from the union”; this “part”, it is said, “must be declared

void because it is vague and overbroad.” The “part” of

the constitution affected is not described with particularity,

nor is it clear whether all other relief by way of declaratory

judgment is to be denied.

Accordingly, we remand the action to the District Court

for the prompt entry of a judgment embodying the decision

of the two motions, containing the terms of the injunction

granted, and declaring the rights and other legal relations

of the parties to the extent such relief is granted. We

direct that, after the judgment has been made and entered,

the record on appeal, with the addition of the judgment,

be promptly returned to this Court. We retain jurisdiction

of the appeal for its disposition upon the return of the

record. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

22a

Appendix D

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-<—"39“<“qqQq =e eeeeececeae ee ee ee ee ee wee ee ee ee ee » «

WILLIAM TURNER,

Plaintiff, 77-C-1146

MEMORANDUM

AIR TRANSPORT LODGE 1894 of INTER- ouare

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS

AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO,

and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS,

AFL-CIO,

Defendants.

dn ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee x

Appearances

For Plaintiff: kK. Randlett Walster, of

Rabinowitz, Boudin & Standard, 30 East 42nd

Street, New York City 10017, and Robert H. Hall,

401 Broadway, New York City 10013

For Defendants: Kevin P. Quill, 29-27 4lst

Avenue, Long Island City, New York 11101

COSTANTINO, D.J.

This matter comes before the court on plain-

tiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings and

defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment.

The facts of the case, which are not in dispute,

23a

are as follows. Plaintiff, William Turner,

joined defendant Air Transport Lodge 1894 of

International Association of Machinists and

Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO ("IAM") in 1971.

In December 1974 he was elected shop steward

representing cargo agents at Varig Airlines

at John F. Kennedy International Airport.

In November and December 1975 he was nominated

for reelection to that post and campaigned

for it. In the course of that campaign,

Turner stated his communist views to fellow

union members.

In November 1975 several members of Lodge

1894 filed charges against Turner as follows:

he members of IAM Local 1894 and

Pine Bios of Varig Brazilian aig hecmnedl

do hereby wish to bring to the attention

of the Union that one of our fellow mem-

bers (William Turner) is openly and ofl

contempt [sic] violating the IAM Consti-

tution Article L which deals with im-

proper conduct of a member by advocating

Communist ideas and incorporated vomsineedh

ideas with his campaign for Shop Steward.

Article L, § 3 of the IAM constituion reads:

24a

The following actions or omissions shall

constitute misconduct by a member which

shall warrant a reprimand, fine, suspen-

sion and/or expulsion from membership or

any lesser penalty or any combination of

these penalties as the evidence may war-

rant after written and specific charges

and a full hearing as hereinafter provided:

Attempting, inaugurating, or encouraging

secession from the I.A.M., or advocating

or encouraging or attempting to inaugurate

any dual labor movement, or advocating or

encouraging communism, facism, nazism, or

any other totalitarian philosophy, or by

other actions giving Support to these

"philosophies" or "isms" or to movements

or organizations inimical to the I.A.M. or

its established policies and laws.

On December 11, 1975 Turner was tried before

a Trial Committee of Lodge 1894. On January

28, 1976 the Trial Committee found Turner guilty

of violating the IAM constitution by advocating

communist ideas and recommended that he be ex-

pelled. ‘The findings and recommendations of

the Trial Committee were approved at a member-

ship meeting of Lodge 1894 and Turner was

expelled from the union. He appealed his

expulsion to the president of the IAM and,

25a

from the president's denial of his appeal, to

the Executive Council of the IAM. The Execu-~-

tive Council also denied his appeal. He then

brought this action alleging that the union

violated his rights secured by § 101(a)(2) of

the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure

Act of 1959 ("LMRDA"), 29 U.S.C. § 411(a) (2).

§ 101 (a) (2) of LMRDA provides in pertinent

part:

i hall

ery member of any labor organization s

pts right to. .express tie

arguments, or opinions:. . Provide Reeete

nothing herein shall be construed to rs ;

the right of a labor organization po p

and enforce reasonable rules as to gi

responsibility of ee pore

zation as an ins ,

celestaa from conduct that —s. ree oe

fere with its performance of its lega

contractual obligations.

§ 101(b) of LMRDA provides that "Any provision

of the constitution and bylaws of any labor or-

ganization which is inconsistent with the pro-

visions of this section shall be of no force

or effect."

26a

ee ——EEEE

Plaintiff argues that the portion of the

IAM's constitution that prohibits advocating,

encouraging, or supporting communism, facism,

nazism or any other totalitarian philosophy is

inconsistent with his guaranteed right to free

speech and therefore must be declared void, and

that he is entitled to be reinstated in the IAM.

Defendant first argues that plaintiff lacks

standing to bring this suit. It asserts that

the facts in this case revolve around the

election for shop steward and that the right

to sue in matters pertaining to elections rests

entirely with the Secretary of Labor pursuant

to § 402 of LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 482. The

argument is without merit. "When rights of free

speech and of association - as opposed to the

rights of voting and election - of union mem-

bers are invaded by the actions of union of-

ficers, the requirement of initial appeal to

the Secretary [of Labor] under Title IV is

27a

inapplicable." Schonfeld v. Penza, 477 F.2d

899, 903 (2d Cir. 1973). Here plaintiff was

expelled from the IAM for advocating communist

ideas. Although these ideas were allegedly in-

corporated with plaintiff's campaign for shop

steward, nothing in his complaint can be read

to allege an infringement of voting or election

rights. Since plaintiff's cause of béebon

clearly raises issues concerning his right to

free speech, he has standing to bring such an

action in this court.

Defendant also contends that plaintiff's com-

plaint must be dismissed because he has failed

to exhaust his union remedies in violation of

the IAM constitution. Article L, § 16 of that

document provides for appeal from a decision of

the Executive Council to the Grand Lodge con-

vention or, by referendum, to the IAM member-

ship at large. Plaintiff failed to make such

an appeal. However, plaintiff alleged in his

28a

iti ae ma ne ne et =e

complaint, and defendant did not dispute in

its answer, that he pursued his internal union

remedies for a period of more than four months.

§ 101(a)(4) of LMRDA provides "an outside limit

beyond which the judiciary cannot extend the

requirement of exhaustion - no remedy which

would require proceedings exceeding four months

in duration may be demanded." Detroy v.

American Guild of Variety Artists, 286 F.2d

75, 78 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 929

(1961). Thus plaintiff has satisfied the

statutory exhaustion requirement.

Proceeding now to the substantive aspect of

plaintiff's claim, the court must determine

whether the portion of the IAM's constitution

that prohibits advocating, encouraging, or

supporting communism, facism, nazism or any

other totalitarian philosophy should be de-

clared void because it is inconsistent with

the free speech provision of LMRDA. The court

29a

finds that the provision of the union consti-

tution in issue unduly infringes upon plain-

tiff's right to free speech protected by

§ 101 (a)(2) of LMRDA and that it therefore

must be declared void.

It has been stated that the free speech pro-

vision of LMRDA is a codification of some of

our most basic liberties and that the substan-

tive rights conferred by that section should

be broadly construed. Airline Maintenance

Lodge 702 v. Loudermilk, 444 F.2d 719, 723

(5th Cir. 1971) (Bell, J.). A union member has

the statutory right "to express any view, ar-

guments, or opinions" subject to three recog-

nized limitations: the union may establish

at reasonable rules pertaining to the con-

duct of meetings; (2) reasonable rules as to

the responsibility of every member toward the

union as an institution; and (3) reasonable

rules requiring members to refrain from conduct

30a

A ela a Es os a _—

interfering with the union's performance of

its legal or contractual obligations." Id. at

721-22. See also Salzhandler v. Caputo, 316

F.2d 445, 450 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S.

946 (1963). Of these three limitations on the

union member's right of free expression, only

the second could arguably apply to the facts of

this casel/ It is possible that a union rule

prohibiting the advocacy of communist ideas

would not be inconsistent with § 101(a)(2) of

LMRDA if the rule was written so as to pro-

hibit the kind of advocacy that threatened

the union as an institution.

Indeed, in

Hurwitz v. Directors Guild of America, Inc.,

364 F.2d 67 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S.

971 (1966), the Court of Appeals for the

Second Circuit stated that labor unions could

take reasonable steps to guard against com-

munist infiltration because "the Communist

party has in the past demonstrated that it

poses a significant threat to the American

labor movement."' Id. at 74.

3la

Notwithstanding the above-quoted language

from Hurwitz, the court there struck down the

union's constitutional requirement that its

members sign a non-communist oath or face

expulsion. The court held that while loyalty

oaths are not per se unreasonable, the oath

before it.was vague and overbroad~/ The

court found three dangers inherent in the

oath. First, it was offensive to non-communist

labor leaders, since it could conceivably cover

them as well as communists. Secondly, be-

cause of its vagueness the oath was a potential

weapon for punishing those members who differ

politically from the union's majority or who

challenge the union's leadership. Thirdly,

and most important, the vagueness of the oath

made it impossible for signers to know exactly

what they were forbidden to do. Id. at 75.

The dangers recognized in Hurwitz are also

present in this case with respect to the pro-

vision of defendant's constitution being

32a

challenged by plaintiff’/ The provision for-

bids union members from advocating, encoura-

ging, “or by other actions giving support to"

communism, facism, nazism "or to movements or

organizations inimical to the I.A.M. or its

established policies or laws." Such broad

language prohibits an unreasonably wide range

of political activities and goes far beyond

furthering the defendant's legitimate concern

in protecting itself as an institution. It

makes it quite difficult for union members to

know that they are forbidden to do and "dis-

courages them from joining political and other

associations and from espousing controversial

political positions." Hurwitz v. Directors

Guild of America, Inc., supra at 75.

The instant case shows the extent to which

the defendant's constitution can be used to

punish union members for engaging in political

activity that poses no threat to the defendant.

In the course of his campaign for shop steward

33a

expulsion. Hurwitz v. Directors Guild of

plaintiff passed out two leaflets wherein he

America, Inc., supra at 76. Cf. Strachan v.

stated that he was a member of the Progressive

4 Weber, 535 F.2d 1202 ir.

Labor Party and had communist views./ In ad- MEpet, 255 d 1202 (9th Cir. 1976) (union

’ ; requirement that members salute flag and join

' dition, he occasionally expressed his communist q 6 J

si | 7 1 d f . . .

beliefs in the course of informal discussions | in pledge of allegiance at meetings held void

; : : because there was no showing that union as

with coworkers. At no time, however, did he 6

lab izati ld b iously h

say or do anything that could be considered aon Sienna See e seriously harmed

b 1 ° iff' f i1 ti P ° h

‘harmful to the union. In essence, plaintiff Y PASSREAte S SAAIUEG CO PACscipace in suc

. : activities). Since neither plaintiff's be-

was expelled for expressing controversial, un-

lief hi ; ;

popular views. LMRDA § 101(a)(2) was enacted iefs nor his expression of those beliefs

ai : . : posed a serious threat to the IAM as an in-

to prohibit precisely this type of restraint

: stitution, his expulsion was improper.

of expression.

: , In conclusion, that part of the IAM consti-

Even assuming that a union may expel one of

; 7 tution, as herein discussed, that served as

its members because he is a member of the

: : , ; the basis for plaintiff's expulsion from the

Communist Party, see Rosen v. District Council

- . 1 ° . “

No. 9, 198 F. Supp. 46 (S.D.N.Y. 1961) and union must be declared void because it is

; : vague and overbroad. Moreover, plaintiff's

cases cited therein, when a union chooses to

expulsion from the IAM for advocati om-

expel a person because of communist beliefs P OF aGvoceting com

; p munist ideas was improper because there was no

rather than for objective harmful conduct, —

- showing that his conduct posed a serious threat

those beliefs must seriously threaten the .

ee , : ; to the defendant's existence as a labor

union's interests in order to justify the 4

35a

34a

organization. The court's opinion does not

constitute an adoption of plaintiff's views.

Rather, it is an affirmation of the principle

that the rights of an individual must be pro-

tected regardless of the unpopularity of his

views.

The defendant is directed to reinstate

plaintiff immediately, with all benefits to

which he was entitled prior to the time of his

expulsion. So ordered.

/s/ MARK A. COSTANTINO

a a hae se

36a

eee oe

FOOTNOTES

ae makes no claim that plaintiff's

views had any disruptive effect on union meet-

ings or that they interfered with the union's

performance of its legal or contractual obli-

gations.

oe oath read:

I am not a member of the Communist Party

or affiliated with such party, and I do

not believe in, and I am not a member

[sic] nor do I support any organization

that believes in or teaches the over-

throw of the United States government by

force or by any illegal or unconstitu-

tional methods.

te anything, the IAM's constitutional provision

in issue here is far broader and more vague in

what it forbids than was the oath struck down

in Hurwitz.

The leaflets that the plaintiff passed out

read as follows:

SHOP STEWARD ELECTIONS FOR 1976 - The way

I see it - Bill Turner

RUNNING FOR SHOP STEWARD IS A POLITICAL

ACT! YOU CAN'T BE NEUTRAL. The honest,

37a

serious candidate has to choose sides.

The shop steward represents the workers

at all times, not management. We have to

be sure that in negotiations our demands

are being heard. The candidate who sees

being shop steward as a stepping-stone to

his personal success with the company,

CANNOT BE TRUSTED , and should not receive

even one vote from us.

In 1971, when I started working at

Varig, the union and the company seemed to

be the same. Cargo Supervisors, ("an ex-

tension of management functions-Article IV,

Sect. a, of our contract), were also the

SHOP STEWARDS over the cargo department.

In large measure, my efforts helped to

change this picture. Now, Cargo Agents

represent other Cargo Agents, etc.

Most of you know of my communist views,

that the working-class should own and con-

trol all of society; that everyone becomes

a producer, (not a welfare state); and

that all production would be to fill the

needs of all the people, (not for profit).

My membership in the Progressive Labor

Party, a working-class, revolutionary

party, has taught me many valuable lessons

about fighting for workers' rights. We

learn from one another. Progressive

Labor Party (PLP) members and friends are

active shop stewards and local-union

officers, in many unions, throughout the

country.

During my year as_ shop steward, and

long before I was shop steward,I helped

make the union stronger, here at Varig.

In spite of my advise, [sic] not to tie

in the insurance plan with the rest of

38a

the contract, the overwhelming majority

voted for it. Anyway, we did receive a

pretty good wage package, while we still

have a fight ahead of us for a better in-

surance and pension plan. Throughout the

year, I have been on the job as shop steward

(not just during working-hours). I have

discussed with you, advised you, appeared

before management with you, processed your

grievances and mine, and attended the meet-

ings required of a shop steward, so that

Varig workers have a voice in our union.

At my inniative, [sic] but together, we

won weekly pay, upgraded the dental plan,

won a safety committee, got adequate light-

ing in the warehouse, established union

rights in the purchasing department, and

won more respect by management, of us as

union members. Now, we can go on and

formulate the demands for the next con-

tract which were cut short in the last

negotiations. A WINNING TEAM NEEDS STRONG

LEADERSHIP - VOTE WISELY----

More on Shop Steward Elections - DOES YOUR

CHOICE COUNT? - Bill Turner

Obviously, your choice does count, and

will count even more in the future. The

Union Leaders told Tobon not to let me win.

So, when you gave me a majority vote, -

suddently - the Union By-Laws came to life.

Presto, Change-o, we have a December elec-

tion.

WHY DOES THE UNION LEADERSHIP WANT ME OUT

AS SHOP STEWARD? Because I fight back; I

39a

give leadership; and I belong to Pro-

gressive Labor Party. They know that part

of the P.L.P. program, is for rank-and-

file, union members to control their own

union, and to do this, to build strong

caucuses to gain control. They know that

we don't compromise or allow a union sell-

out. THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE AFRAID OF!

I probably will get attacked on the floor

of the union meeting, this Wednesday, for

expressing my views. A strong turnout at

the meeting, of Varig workers, demanding

my right to speak out, can turn this at-

tack around.

We don't want union leaders in our in-

dustry to be able to throw away our pen-

sions or benefits, as they are doing in

the New York City workers' unions. That

means that members have to be active and to

know what's going on.

ARE MY COMMUNIST IDEAS, ''ANTI-AMERICAN''?

No, my communist ideas don't put me on

the side of Russia, or China, or Cuba!

The working-class in the so-called

"socialist" countries have very little to

say. These countries have a capitalist

system just like in the United States.

The only difference is that in those coun-

tries, all the wealth and production-

machinery is owned by the government,

which is controlled by a ruling-class of

high-living "party" leaders, military

leaders, and highly-skilled technicians.

Here, in the U.S., the financial-

industrialist dictatorship over the coun-

try is a little more hidden.

MY SIDE IS THE WORKERS' SIDE: So long

as Capital property is privately owned,

40a

here, or in any part of the world, the

workers, who produce all goods and ser-

vices for society, will get back only a

small part of the value of their work.

The major part of labor value is ROBBED

from us. The ultimate change that I want

to see, is for the WORKERS to own and

control ALL PROPERTY, capital, or other-

wise! Then, with the bosses out of the

way, we can begin to enjoy and share all

the things in life which our brains and

hands create.

RIGHT HERE, AND NOW, OUR FIGHT IS TO

KEEP AS MUCH OF WHAT WE PRODUCE, FOR OUR-

SELVES AND FOR OUR FAMILIES! This means,

keeping wages high - not losing to infla-

tion. This means improving our benefits -

NOTHING IS TOO GOOD FOR US!

Your vote for me on December 8th, 9th

and 10th, will allow me to continue to

represent you and to serve you as shop

steward.

(signed) Bill Turner

4la

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

42a

Appendix E

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Second Circuit

At a stated term of the United States Court

of Appeals, in and for the Second Circuit, held

at the United States Court House, in the City of

New York, on the twenty-second day of January,

One thousand nine hundred and seventy-nine.

WILLIAM TURNER,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. Docket.

AIR TRANSPORT LODGE 1894 of INTER- No. 78-7212

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS &

AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, and

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS,

AFL-CIO.

Defendants-Appellants.

A petition for rehearing containing a

suggestion that the action be reheard en banc

having been filed herein by counsel for the

defendants-appellants, and no active judge or

judge who was a member of the panel having re-

quested that a vote be taken on said

suggestion ,

Upon consideration thereof, it is

Ordered that said petition be and it hereby

is denied.

IRVING R. KAUFMAN,

Chief Judge

43a

Appendix F

Exhibit A - Minutes of Trial of Plaintiff [Excerpts]

In the Hatter of the Trial ilearing of

THE PNTOIIATICNAL ASSOCIATION OF

NACHLEESTS ANS ACROSPACE VORKERS

and

NEVISORS OF LOLGl 1694, VARIG-8RAZILTAIU AIRLINES:

RUDOLF LAILEY, AR94332;, ALUIZIO BASTOS, AXIIII05

JUSE A. GULLARI,AWI7182; COLLECH VE POOLA, ARIZA;

RICHARD J. OL OLA, RR7VG4G; CRISTINA DORNEY, AUITISS;

NMARIL FLOSRAIL CR, AC2$G27; ALFRED MOTT, AX9359B;

EMMA SIGRDANO, AX934US, HECTOR GROUROS, AX93476, :

VIRGIIIA JEQMAKtAl, AWT6G853; YARRA LENIER, AX93054;

ARTHUR J. LOU1I9, ARV4037 CUCEE R. LONCA, AUT 6963;

HWARDALCUA LOPEZ, AX93409; VICTOR NATOS, AK94005;%

KENHETN SICTTY, Aii65072; KARL L. NOLINARO, AS52135

HENRY FE. MEYCRS, \Mi79S42, HELE PICARDI, Ai!16056;

JOSCPN POPOLIZIS, AX93095; SALLY PRAUGHT, AX94048;

ORLANDO RAMIREZ, 4X93948; THORUARD SCOTT, AVION;

MOISES TALCHT 4G, AX93952; ROUWALD J. WOOD, AliGS377;

WILLIAM J. ZERILLO, AR93775,

Plaintiffs,

-against-

WILLIAM TURNER, AW16975,

Defendant.

TRIAL HEARING in the above-captioned action, held

on the llth day of Vecember, 1975, at 6:10 P.il., at the

Holiday Inn, 175-15 Rockaway Boulevard, Jamaica, flew York,

Notice of Hearing dated December 3, 1975, and

before flyrna Shore, a iotary Public of the State of flew

pursuant to

York.

Exhibit A

by the members of Varig-Crazilian Airlines, Local

Lodge 1894,

"We, the members of IAM Local 1894 and enployees

of Varig-Brazilian Airlines, do hereby wish to bring

to the attention of the union that one of our fellow

members (William Turner) is openly and in contempt

violating the IAM Constitution, Article L, which

deals with improper conduct of a member by advocating

communist ideas and incorporating these ideas with

his campaign for shop steward."

Brother William Turner, how do you plead to it,

guilty or not guilty?

MR. TURNER: Not guilty.

THE. CHAIRMAN: Let the record show the defendant,

William Turner, has pleaded not guilty.

The plaintiff, Brother Jorge Tobon, shall now

present his case.

MR. TOBON: As attorney for the plaintiffs, I

would like to admit a piece of evidence that would be

backed up by testimony of the plaintiffs as witnesses,

and I would submit this to the Trial Committee as

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1. Here are copies for the

members of the Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN: All -right.

45a

Exhibit A 9

(Document entitled "Shop Steward Elections

for 1976" was marked and received as Plaintiffs’

Exhibit 1 in evidence.)

WR. TOBON: Exhibit 1 reads, “Shop Steward

Elections for 197G - the way I see it - Bill Turner.

Running for shop steward is a political act. You

can't be neutral. The honest, serious candidate has

to choose sides. The shop steward represents the

workers at all times, not manugement. We have to

be sure that in negotations our Sitienie are being

heard. The candidate who sees being shop stews: d

as a stepping stone to his personal success with the

company cannot be trusted, and should not receive

even one vote from us.

"In 1971 when I started working at Varig, the

union and the company seemed to be the same. Cargo

Supervisors (an extension of management functions -

Article IV, Section a, of our contract) were also the

shop stewards over the Cargo Department. In large

measure, my efforts helped to change this picture.

Now cargo agents represent other cargo agents, etc.

"Most of you know of my communist views, that

the working class should own and contro! all of

society, that everyone becomes a producer (not a

46a

Exhibit A 10

welfare state) and that all production would be to

fill the needs of all the people (not for profit). -

Ny membership in the Progressive Labor Party, a

vorking class, revolutionary party, has tauglit me

many valuable lessons about fighting for workers’

rights. We learn from one another. Progressive

Labor Party (P.L.P.) members and friends are active

shop stewards and local union officers in many unions

throughout the country.

"During my year as shop steward, and long before

I was shop steward, I helped make the union stronger

here at Varig. In spite of my advice, not to tie in

the insurance plan with the rest of the contract,

the overwhelming majority voted for it. Anyway, we

did receive a pretty good wage package, while we

still have a fight ahead of us for a better insurance

and pension plan, Throughoyt the year I have been on

the job as shop steward (not just during working

hours). I have discussed with you, advised you,

appeared before management with you, processed your

grievances and mine, and attended the meetings

required of a shop steward so that Varig workers have

a voice in our union,

“At my initiative, but together, we won weekly

47a

Exhibit A

Netty 15

THE CHAIRNAN: Proceed,

MR, TOBON: This document appeared on our bultetin

boards approximately sometime in late tiovember. It

reads as follows --

NR, CLARKE: Excuse me. Is this Exhibit 2?

MR. TOBOM: Yes, this was submitted as Exhibit 2.

"More on Shop Steward Clections - Does your

choice count? - B111 Turner. Obviously, your choice

does count, and will count ev2n more in the future.

The union leaders told Tobon not to let me win. So,

when you gave me a majority vote, suddenly the union

by-laws came to life. Presto, change-o, we have a

December election,

"Why does the union leadership want me ou

Shop steward? Because I fight back, I give a

ship, and I belong to Progessive Labor Party. They

know that part of the P.L.P. program is for rank and

file union members to control their own unions, and

to do this, to build strong caucuses to gain control.

They know that we don't compromise or allow a union

sell-out. This is what they are afraid of.

“I probably will get attacked on the floor of

the union meeting this Wednesday for expressing my

views. A strong turnout at the meeting of Varig

48a

awit

Exhibit A

Netty 16

workers, demanding my right to speak out, can turn

this attack around, |

“Wwe don't want union leaders in our industry

to be able to throw away our pensions or benefits,

as they are doing in the New York City workers’

unions. That means that members have to be active

and to know what's going on.

“Are my communist ideas anti-American? lo,

my communist ideas don't put me on the side of Russia

or China or Cuba. The workfng class in the so-called

socialist countries have very little to say. These

countries have a capitalist system just like in the

United States. The only difference is that in those

countries all the wealth and production machinery

is owned by the government, which {is controlled by

a ruling class of high-living party leaders, military

leaders and highly skilled technicians. Here, in

the U.S., the financial industrialist dictatorship

over the country is a little more hidden.

“My side is the workers’ side. So long as

capital property is privately owned here, or in any

part of the world, the workers, who produce all

goods and services for society, will get back only

a small part of the value of their work. The major

49a

HENRY F.

Exhibit A

Metty 17

part of labor value is robbed from us. The ultimate

Change that I want to see is for the workers to own.

and control all property, capital or otherwise.

Then, with the bosses out of the way, we can nesie to

enjoy and share all the things in life which our

brains and our hands create.

"Right here and now our fight is to keep as much

of what we produce for ourselves and for our families.

This means keeping wages high, not losing to inflation.

This means improving our benefits. Nothing is too

good for us.

"Your vote for me on December 8th, 9th and 10th

will allow me to continue to represent you and to

serve you as shop steward."

It is signed “Bill Turner."

At this time I would like to call to the stand

Nr. Henry Meyers.

(Witness Kenneth Metty excused.)

MEVERS, called as a witness on

behalf of the plaintiffs, having been first duly

sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. TOGON:

Q Will you state your full name and address for

50a

a RS

ee ee

Aretas Se Los Seated 0. ee re oe

Exhibit A

Neyers - Direct 19

MR, TURHER: Yes.

THE CHAIRMAN: Just to procedurally go the right

wav, I would suqqest, or I would require, that if you

present any evidence along with | and 2, that a copy

qo to the defendant, Bill Turner. tow, if you have

a copy of 1 and 2, I would like you to give him a

copy of cach, as well as anything else you submit.

MR. TORON: SAI] right.

I have no further questions of the witness. You

may cross-examine,

THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any cross-examination?

MR, TURNER: Wo, it's not necessary. Thank you.

WR. TOBON: Now, I have a group of documents,

newspapers. I'd like to place the first one in as

Exhibit 3.

The paper is titled “Challenge, the Revolutionary

Communist Nlewspaper; Progressive Labor Party." This

particular issue is dated December 4, 1975, Volume 12,

No. 27.

I'd like to read an article from this newspaper,

which is located on page 7. It's the top paragraph.

“NYC Varig Airlines PlLer elected steward; union

sell-outs void elections. New York City - workers at

Varig-Brazilian Airlines re-elected PLPer Bill Turner,

Sla

Exhibit A 20

running as a communist for shop steward at the

company's Kennedy Airport freight facility. Since °

the right wing's all-out campaign against Turner

failed, the union (International Association of

Machinists)" -- there's a mistake here; it says,

in the parentheses, “Lodge 1095." It Should be --

THE CHAIRIAN: Justread what the article says.

MR. TOBON: -- “is voiding this election and

organizing another attempt to defeat him.

“As a cargo agent for nearly five years at JFK,

Turner has participated in and led a work action at

Varig (in '73) and organized mnt for strikes of

other airline workers over the. years. He has a

reputation for fighting for every grievance on the

platform, but this year a new ingredient was added.

“While previously Turner's co-workers knew him

as a militant trade unionist with revolutionary ideas,

during this election Turner distributed a leaflet

explaining his membership in P.L.P. and how his com-

munist ideas - especially that workers produce wery-

thing of value and therefore are entitled to all the

fruits of their labor - have enabled him to be a

better shop steward and fighter for workers’ rights

with a Non-compromise policy against the bosses."

52a

Exhibit A 21

At this time can I bring to the Committee's

attention the fact that the leaflet being discussed

in this article is, in fact, Exhibit No. 1.

To continue with the article, “The right wing,

including the chief shop steward and his union

superiors, went bananas. One fascist called for his

blood. One of his opponents for the steward's post

ran to the FBI, only to find out there was nothing

they could do about it. (Then this character started

a petition complaining about the introduction of

communist ideas into the election campaign.) The

chief steward asked the local president and general

chairman of the district for advice, and was told to

make sure every worker inthe department saw the

leaflet (which helped Turner greatly). The chief

steward spent all his working hours campaigning against

him and warned Turner that he would’ never let him

continue as steward.

“The rank-and-file's reaction was just the opposite.

Workers congratulated Turner for taking his stand. He

got calls from other departments offering support.

For several days debates about communist ideas raged

up and down the Varig Cargo Department. Turner

answered every anti-communist trick and carried the

53a

Exhibit A

fight right back to the redbaiters. The workers

knew him as a fighter on the job over the years and

now were beqinning to understand the source of the

ideas that led those fights.

"The anti-conmunists failed. Turner was

re-elected, getting 25 votes to 23 each for the

next two candidates (two stewards' positions were

being filled).

"The chief steward was taken aback. Although

Turner had pointed out to him before the election

that the union Constitution calls for the nominations

to take place in November and the election in Decon-

ber, the chief steward ignored’ this and said the

election should proceed, in November, shortening the

campaign (otherwise he never expected Turner to beat

the anti-communism). tlow he turned around and voided

the election, saying it had to be run Over again in

December.

"This flunky intends to also challenge Turner's

membership in the union, using the IAN's fascist

anti-commun ist clause as his weapon. Turner and his

close co-workers now must mobilize the whole depart-

ment and other supporters into the broauer local to

pack the union meeting, stop this attack on their

S4a

- eee

Pe ee eee _

teint emcee be nm

6. eas et os oe -

Net te

—

ais at AN Pt

Exhibit A 23

militant steward, and prevent any expulsion. The

loss of a communist shop steward would cost the

workers dearly. Now is the time to fight like hell."

THE .CHAIRMAN: Are you going to present tie Trial

Committee with a copy of that?

MR. TOCOH: Yes, I will, and "r. Turner also.

THE .CHAIRNAN: The original for the Chairman and

copies for the members?

MR, TOBON: Yes.

(Newspaper, “Challenge,” dated December 4, 1975,

was marked and received in evidence as Plaintiffs’

Exhibit 3.)

MR. TOBON: In addition to this p ece of evidence,

I'd like to offer these other copies of "Challenge,

the Revolutionary Communist Newspaper," and would also

like to bring to the attention of the Committee certain

elements of this newspaper that have brought me to

believe that this is certainly a communist newspaper

and certainly advocates certain violence and things

that should be incorporated into the trial.

With the Committee's permission, I'l] read the

Progressive Labor Party's motto, I suppose it would

be This is what the Progressive Labor Party stands

for as they print it in the newspaper, This is read

55a

Exhibit A

from the December 18th issuc, which is right here.

It reads, "The Progressive Labor Party Fights

for Socialism. Socialism means liberation for the

entire working class, the destruction of the bosses,

a society of abundance and full employment, an end

to exploitation, a secure and creative future for all

workers, and an end to the racism, fascism and wars

that are all products of capitalism,

“In order to achieve socialism, the capitalist

System, the bosses and their dhetatera government

must be crushed. This cannot be accomplished peace-

fully through elections.

“It can only happen when the majority of the

exploited unite behind communist leadership, violently

overthrow the bosses, and insta!l a new government of

revolutionary workers - the dictatorship of the

proletariat.

[ # “Henbers of the Progressive Labor Party are

devoted to this goal. They dedicate their lives to

actively building, promoting and organizing for the

cause of revolutionary communism. |

"The Progressive Labor Party and its newspaper,

Challenge, dare dedicated to the U.S. working class

and the working class of the entire world - black,

S6a 7

eS oes ats

KENNETH

Exhibit A

Neyers/Netty - Direct 26

“Challenge” was marked and received as Plaintiffs’

Exhibit 5 in evidence.)

MR. TOBON: At this time I would like to recall

Nr. Kenneth lletty to the stand, please.

(Witness Henry lleyers excused.)

ee recalled as a witness on

behalf of the plaintiffs, having been previously duly

sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:

THE CHAIRMAN: I'd like to remind you now that

you are still under oath.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (continued)

BY MR. TOBON:

Q Mr. Metty, did Mr. Turner ever advocate or

encourage communism or any related labor movement to you?

A Yes, he did.

Which labor movement in particular?

The Progressive Labor Party.

Where did he make these comments or advocations?

At work and in the car pool.

oe ee a ee =)

Can you tell me approximately when, and as many

times as it did happen?

A Riding back and forth to work in the car pool

we have had quite a few discussions about his ideas and

57a

Exhibit A

Netty - Direct ' 27

what my ideas were. This happened over the past eight,

nine months that I have been in the car pool with him.

Q Did he ever tell you he was a member of the

Progressive Labor Party?

A Yes, he did.

Q Did he at any time sell or promote the Revolu-

tionary Communist Newspaper, “Challenge,” to you?

A Yes, he did,

Q Can you tell the Trial Committee at wiat time?

A Well, in the summertime he save me the newspaper,

and roughly, about two weeks ago, he sold me a newspaper.

Q Did he sell it to you on the premises at Varig?

A Yes, he did,

Q Ard there was a charge of what?

A Ten cents.

Q In your converations with Mr. Turner, did he ever

reveal to you what services he offered the Progressive

Labor Party, other than his distribution and selling of the

newspaper, “Challenge”?

A In the newspaper there's a page in there which

says that for more information about the Progressive Labor

Party to contact certain addresses in the United States,

and one of the addresses was in Bay Shore.

I mentioned that there was an office out here,

58a

Exhibit A

Netty - Direct 28

and he said that he knows, that it was his post office

box.

) In other words, !!Ir. Turner maintains a post

office box to distribute information dealing with the

Progressive Labor Party for any interested parties?

A Yes, he does.

Q Has Nr. Turner ever revealed to you or discussed

with you the extent to which he adheres to the beliefs

and policies of the Progressive Labor Party?

A Yes, he did. lie said that a communist system |

would not come by electoral process because the ruling

class would not let it happen. If the voters wanted it,

it still wouldn't be so. He also said that when the

revolution comes, some people will have to be killed.

q Did he use the word “killed"?

A Yes, he did. When I asked him about that later

on -- I asked him who he meant -- he had said he meant

the Rockefellers.

Q In other words, he was advocating some sort of

violence in relation to this party?

A Yes.

MR. TOBON: to further questions.

THE CHAIRMAN: Brother Turner?

59a

Exhibit A

Neyers - Direct 32

MR. TURNER: That's all.

MR. TOBON: That's all.

At this time I would like to recall ilr. Henry

Neyers.

(Witness Kenneth Netty excused at 7:00 P.M.)

Bee fy F. NHEVERS, recalled as a witness

on behalf of the plaintiffs, having been previously

duly sworn, rocunee the stand and testified further

as follows:

THE CHAIRHAN: I would like to remind you,

Brother lleyers, that you are still under oath.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

DIRECT EXANINATION (continued)

BY N1R. TOBON:

Q Mr. Meyers, on the date of December 10, 1975,

were you working at Varig Airlines at approximately 1400

hours?

A Yes, I was.

Q You were there in your capacity as lead agent?

A Yes.

Q At that time did a gantleman come in and deliver

a package for fir. Turner?

A Yes, he did.

Q And did you receive the package?

60a

Exhibit A

Meyers - Direct 33

A The package was, more or less, just laid on the

table, and he said, "Can you see that Mr. Turner receives

this package?"

Q This was on the premises?

A Yes.

Q At that time what did you do with the package?

A They left it on the desk and then a fellow, Danny

Alvino, senior agent, said to put it on the time clock;

you know, where you clock out and you see your mail. So,

I took the envelope, and the clasp was open. The papers

were inside. So, we put it up there for him to see. The

time was approximately 1355 or 1400, because the off-going

shift was ready to clock out.

Q When the envelope opened, what were the contents

revealed to be?

A The paper, the “Challenge.”

Q Was it this paper?

MR. TOBON: I believe you have it, Mr. Chairman.

Q Is this the paper you saw?

THE CHAIRNAN: Exhibit 4?

MR. TOBON: Yes.

A Yes, that's it, because all of these come on the

floor.

Q At that time did Mr. Turner come in and retrieve

61a

Exhibit A

Meyers - Direct/Cross 34

his package?

A It would be sometime later, because the shift ,

was assigned, and we were working. I would say it was

approximately 1410, 1415, or somewhere around there.

Q So, these papers were delivered to the premises

at Varig Airlines?

A Yes.

Q Have you, in your position as lead agent or shop

steward, ever had the opportunity to speak to 'ir. Turner

on his beliefs?

A No. How do you mean? Did he ask me my opinion

or anything?

Q Did he discuss anything with you or with the

shift or anyone present?

He gave me the paper; that's ani

Not to me, no. The only thing is with the paper.

MR. TOBON: All right. Cross-examination?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

CROSS -EXAMINATION

BY HR. TURNER:

Q In relation to the package delivered, could you

clarify how the contents were revealed and how any of the

contents might have come into evidence at this trial

hearing?

62a

Sk eee a all ta eral

Exhibit A

Molinaro - Direrc 39

DIRECT EXANINATION

BY MR. TORO:

Q Will you state your full name and address for

the record, please?

A Karl Joseph tlolinaro, Jr., 221 Irving Place,

Woodmere, fiew York, 11598.

Q In your time at Varig Airlines, Mr. Molinaro,

did you ever have occasion to speak with "fr. Turner on

communism-related ideas on the jot and involving shop

stewards and local politics on the job?”

A Yes, I have.

Q Can you briefly tell the Trial Committee exactly

what you discussed and what was said to you?

: A In what respect?

Q In that respect.

A Gentlemen, he said to me the same. as he said to

Hr. Metty, in a discussion on the premises; about when a

revolution would have to take over this country, it would

not be as a vote. Certain people would have to be

eliminated. :

When I asked what he specifically meant by

“eliminated,” he stated, "Killed," and when I asked him who,

he said to start off with the Rockefellers. That was No.

Then, when this all came about, I approached him and asked

63a

| hibit A

Exhibit A 3 Bx

Molinaro - Direct 40 , Molinaro - Direct/Cross 42

him how could he, a person born in these United States -- ) 2 obviously, lr. Tobon is going over the whole line

one who had been raised in these United States and who's : 3 of conversation. lle should be, rather, asking a

lived in this country and has reaped the rewards that 4 question as to what it was the witness said rather

this country has to offer, in certain instances -- have 5 than leading him into a converation.

anything to do, or any feelings whatsoever, with communisn. | 6 MR. TOBON: The question was put to the witness

He stated to me, I believe, that communism -- | 7 to describe the conversation. The witness did so.

not as far as a country such as Russia or like that -- he 8 The Trial Committee instructed me to ask it as a

said to me, (m1 am_a_ttarxist, if you know what that is and 9 question.

if you've read anything on Karl Marx." My statement to | 10 TRE CRATENAB: That's true. ar eee SOrk Of

him at that time was that I never read anything on Xarl | 11 leading the witness. - If you could ask him questions

Marx, 12 and have him respond with as little --

He said, “I only know communism from what I have 13 MR. TOBON: Briefly, yes.

seen of it, being in the service, and seeing what it's done | 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, as little statement-wise as

to certain people and how they had to live." I stated to 15 possible. I will have to sustain that.

him at that time that although he is entitled to his own 16 MR. TOBON: 1 think, at this time, there would

personal opinion and beliefs, I felt it was in bad taste ie 17 be no further questions. |

for him to introduce these beliefs and these realisms that . 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any ee eeennessen

he believes in and his own opinion into the company and 19 of the witness?

into the union politics solely because -- if I may add -- | 20 MR. TURNER: Yes.

you have gentlemen that had to evacuate communist countries -- ; 21 CROSS-EXAMINATION

that lived there -- that work for us, such as. Cubans, and e ee :

you have had individuals that fought for this country in | 23 Q i'd Mike to knew when we allegedly had a con-

versation about a revolution or workers taking over state

the United States Armed Forces to protect it from such a asi ,

25 power and people being killed or anything of that nature

disease.

I use the word “disease” because that's what it

eee @ 8 }

65a

64a

Exhibit A

Nolinaro - Cross 43

where any reference was made to my beliefs or opinions.

A We sat down about ten or eleven months ago, and

we were having coffee. I believe it was in the customs

area, if I remember correctly. We were sitting, having

coffee, and we just started talking about different things,

about what was going on with you; things about the Vietnam

Situation, and what have you, and then we started talking

about things, and you came out with the statement, such as

I had stated, after several questions asked of you by

myself and Mr. Brown, who was there and who is not here

now, and Hr. Metty, who was also there.

Q You say that Nr. Brown and Hr. Metty were there

at the time and can attest to your statement?

A I believe so, yes. There were a bunch of other

people around, too, that were more or less hearing the

conversation, but nabeity with specific viewpoints.

Q Can you say definitely that specific people in

the room would attest to it?

A He is sitting there, right to your right.

Q Well, I can't do that now. I am asking you if --

A Yes.

MR. TURNER: All right.

THE CHAIRMAN: Any further questions of the

witness?

66a

inde ahh ini cians

Exhibit A

Matos - Direct 44

MR. TURNER: No.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

HR. TORO: As my next witness, I'd like to call

Victor Natos to the stand.

(Witness Karl J. ‘Nolinaro excused at 7:15 P.M.)

VICTOR HATOS, called as a witness on

behalf of the plaintiffs, having been first duly

sworn, was sxantnae and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXANIHATION

BY NR. TOBON:

Q Will you state your full name and address for

the record, please?

A Victor llatos, 112 Prairie Drive, North Babylon,

New York, 11703.

Q Sometime in mid-November did you receive a copy

of a leaflet issued by lir. Turner which has been designated

as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1? |

A Yes.

Q Did you, at that time, have any converation with

Mr. Turner about this leaflet, and did you express any

views or opinions to him at that time?

A Yes, I did.

Q Can you briefly state those views or opinions

which you gave to Mr. Turner?

67a

Exhibit A

iatos - Direct/Cross 45

A Well, as I recall it, I was coming into work

and he handed me the leaflet. I went upstairs to the

locker room to change and I read it. I came downstairs

and asked Turner if I could talk to him. tle said, “Yes.”

We went outside, and I gave him back the leaflet

and told him to please not give me any more of that kind

of literature again because I don't believe in it, and

because of personal reasons, I didn't want him to give me

any kind of -- you know.

Q So, at that time.you had a very strong scadadiai

opinion?

A Yes.

Q And personal reasons as to why you did not choose

to see that type of literature being handed out on the. job

at Varig Airlines?

A Right.

MR. TOBON: No further questions.

THE CHAIRMAN: Any cross-examination?

MR. TURNER: Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. TURNER:

Q Do you remember at all what my reaction was, how

I replied to what you had asked me and said to me?

A Yes, I do.

68a

a ee a ae

Exhibit A

Bastos - Direct 48

record, please.

A Aluizio Bastos, 58-19 48th Avenue, Woodside, ttew

York.

Q fir. Bastos, in your time of employnent with Varig

Airlines, did you ever have any opportunity to speak with

Mr. Turner on his communist views in any way involved with

the campaign for shop steward, or just in general con-

versation?

A Yes. Many times we spoke about it, but I never

took it serious. I never .continued the conversation. We

always dropped the conversation.

Q Did you, at any cine during this same period,

receive, or see fir. Turner with a copy of “Challenge"?

Did he give you one?

| 2

Les, he gave me a couple of copies. ~”

Did you ask for these copies?

Ho.

[He offered me a copy. ]

A ¥

Q They were just given to you?

Q Can you tell us approximately when?

Around eleven months ago, I would say.

Q And these copies were not solicited, they were

just given to you?

A Yes.

69a

Exhibit A

Bastos - Direct 49

Q To your knowledge, has this paper been dis-

tributed to any other members of Varig Airlines within

your realm of knowledge?

A Yes, a few of them had copies.

Q Were you aware that this copy is in Spanish also?

A Yes. That's why he mentioned it the first time,

that if I couldn't understand the English, I could read

the Spanish.

Q That was the reason for him showing you the copy.

that it was readable in --

A In both languages, yes.

MR. TOBON: That's all. Wo further questions of

the witness.

THE CHAIRMAN: Brother Turner?

NR. TURNER: Do you care to reveal any of the

discussion, political views or anything, as the other

witnesses might have done, that I might have volun-

teered to you?

THE WITNESS: No, I don't think so. I never

gave that much attention to it.

MR. TURNER: No further questions.

MR. TOBON: At this time I have no further

witnesses, and I'd like to sum up, if I may.

THE CHAIRMAN: Well, usually the procedure 1s

70a

Exhibit A ,

Metty - Redirect 52

THE CHAIRHAN: I'd like to remind you, Brother

Metty, that you're still under oath.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. TOBON:

Q Mr. Metty, in your testimony before you referred

to an incident that happened eleven months ago. Can you

now elaborate on it, for the Trial Committee and the

members present, and tell us if this incident was the only

incident, or if talk of communist ideas and views continued

throughout the year. Was this an isolated incident?

A It continued throughout the year.

Q Can you describe to the Trial Committee how often

and when and where discussions were held?

A Well, like I said before, in the course of driving

back and forth to work in the car pool and at work sometimes,

after he had put his first memo up on the board.

Q “At what time was this?

A When the campaign for shop steward was coming on.

Q And this was this past November?

A November. That's when they had the election,

right.

Q During the month of November, then, you had an

opportunity to speak with Mr. Turner on his ideas,

communist ideas?

7la

Exhibit A

Netty - Redirect/Recross 53

A Yes.

Q And discussions were held throughout the Varig

Cargo Department as to these ideas?

A Yes.

Q In other words, these conversations and dis-

cussions were constant; they occurred over a long period

of time and up to and as recently as what date? When

would you say was the last time you had discussed this

with Mr. Turner?

A About a week ago.

HR, TOBON: All right, no further questions.

Recross?

THE CHAIRMAN:

RECROSS -EXAMINATION

BY MR. TURNER:

Q Do you remember how soon before the actual

election the leaflet issued came out, how many days before

the election?

THE CHAIRMAN: Which leaflet? Just to clarify.

WR. TURNER: The leaflet that was issued before,

Exhibit 1.

THE CHAIRMAN: Exhibit 1, all right.

A low long before the election did you put that up

on the board or hand it out?

Q Right.

72a

———

arse ©

Exhibit A

HMetty - Recross 54

A | Roughly a week -- I'd say about a week before

the election,

Q Could it be more or could it be less?

A It could be more.

Q The other question is, in relation to the nature

of the political discussions and in relation to general

discussions around unton questions, would you say that

these kinds of -- well, let me ask you a direct question.

Were discussions around political issues generally private,

one-to-one discussions or ane-to-two dteenee tens like, say,

in a car pool, or would you say a gathering-type of .

discussion?

4 They were usually one-to-one discussions or in

the car pool with one or two other members of the car pool.

Q Were these discussions initiated as a general

discussion among groups of people, you know, that were

gathering for coffee breaks or -- I'm talking about political

ideas now.

A Well, if you mean the discussions, were they

happening in a large group, yes, they were in a large group

also at work during coffee break time. That was when you

were running for shop steward.

Q Did I request these discussions or did people

want to know what I meant by certain -- in other words, the

73a

Exhibit A

Metty - Recross 55

charges were filed and a question came up as to whether

I was conducting myself properly as a union member within

the periphery of the union Constitution. Was this some-

thing I initiated, or was there general discussions where

I was asked questions?

A I don't understand --

MAR. TOBON: Well, I --

MR. TURNER: I think it's important.

THE CHAIRMAN: And I agree, but the question was

so lengthy that I don't think the witness really

understood it. It went on and on. Could you sort of

shorten it up and come right to the point with the

question?

Q The question is, were there more than two people

involved at one time? Did I initiate these discussions,

or were the discussions sort of foisted on me?

A From what I know, the discussions started by

other people who wanted some clarification as to what your

memo was up on the bulletin board prior to the election.

They wanted to clarify your views. That's how the dis-

cussion usually would start.

Q Let me ask you about discussions of general union

questions, contracts, meetings, et cetera -- reports -- do

you remember any of these kind of meetings being held and

74a

a a eS ‘

ae ns Cie Bet enees Be ee

Exhibit A

HNolinaro - Redirect 62

A The clarification I'd like to make is such:

The conversation was between lir. Turner and myself, the

same conversation where we talked of ‘larxism, et cetera,

as I stated before. It was after I had heard it in dis-

cussion and coffee break -- and I stated it wrong before --

that he viewed these opinions of which the revolution

would take over and certain people would have to be

eliminated and killed.

In my discussions with him I personally asked

him, as such, in talking -- you know, did he say that, and.

he said, yes, he did. I further asked him what he meant

by it, and he explained to me as such.

That's what I wanted to clarify, tir. Committee,

that he said it to me; that before, I had made a wrong

statement -- not a false statement -- and when I thought

about it later on, I realized I made a wrong statement,

that I heard it before the coffee, that this was brought

out, and that in my conversations with Mr. Turner alone,

when we talked about it, I asked him questions. I asked

him if he did say such a thing, and he said, “Yes,” and

that's the clarification I wanted to make.

THE CHAIRMAM: "Such a thing” means the earlier

testimony?

THE WITNESS: Yes, the earlier testimony would

75a

Exhibit A

Nolinaro - Recross 63

enter at this point.

THE CHAIRMAN: Is that all?

HR. TODON: That's what we wanted to clarify.

THE CHAIRINAN: Brother Turner?

IR. TURNER: Well, I don't really understand

what he -- all right.

RECROSS-EXAHINATION

BY TIR,. TURNER;

Q Could you recall the approximate time and place,

again, of this alleged conversation?

A We were in the warehouse talking, you andl,

and I had asked you --

Q When?

A I know it wasn't eleven or twelve months ago, as

1 said earlier. That was the clarification. I didn't mean

eleven or twelve months ago. What I had meant is when we

were talking in general, all during the time that different

things were raised, and then when I heard the statement --

Q Could you be more specific as to time, please?

A I asked you about two weeks ago or so if you had

said that in our conversations, when you talked to me of

Marxism and stuff, and you said that you had mentioned

certain things like that before, that certain people had to

be killed if this was a revolution, and you further stated

76a

Exhibit A

, Molinaro - Recross 64

2 that in every revolution there always is,and are, certain

3 individuals that have to be removed.

4 HR. TURNER: All right.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Any further questions?

6 GY AR. TURNER:

; Q Was there anybody there at the time of this

g conversation?

9 A You and me in the warehouse.

10 Q I mean besides myself.

ll 4 No, there was nobody else there.

12 MR. TURNER: All right, thank you.

13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

14 MR. TOBON: At this time the prosecution rests.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Brother Turner, are

16 you ready with any witnesses? Do you wish to call

1? any witnesses?

18 MR. TURNER: Because of the job problem, I would

19 call Sam Rodriguez first because there's a time prob-

20 Tem with him,

21 (Witness Karl J. Molinaro excused at 8:05 P.M.)

2 SAMUEL ROORGIUEZ, called as a witness

23 on behalf of the defendant, having been first duly

24 Sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

77a

Exhibit A 110

reap the profits on the way we earn a living.

I am not ashamed of my revolutionary ideas.

However, I don't feel that the instances that were

raised here of expressing these ideas were in the

context of developing a movement within the union,

at this time at least. I think anything that's done

in relation to where the workers go and what happens

is up to the majority of the workers.

I am all for democracy, but I think we have to

see democracy work in our favor at all times and,

therefore, I feel that any statements I have made

were not made to -- in other words, to be flaunted

in the face of the union or anything of that nature.

What can I say? I ama worker like the rest of

you guys. I am not a lawyer. Maybe I have been

sloppy in my defense because, you know -- who knows?

I am just trying to do the best thing for me, for all

the people here, and for the rest of the people on

the job.

This is. my opinion, which is the best thing,

and I really feel that despite the political differ-

ences, that this issue was blown up out of proportion

in desperation. Because of a lack of initial suppert,

our chief shop steward saw fit to devote his full time

78a

Appendix G

Exhibit B- Exhibits in the Trial of William Turner

EXHIBITS IN THE TRIAL OF

WILLIAM TURNER

LOCAL LODGE

1894

La ne me me

79a

5 Exhibit B CK ANN 1T AK}

SOE UidwatD LLSCLIOWS YO! Li7u=- The way Isee it— Bill Vurner

OM DIG FOR SHOF Sasw.hD Ib 4 PLuIPICAL acy: YCU Can'l BE IEUPEAL.

The honest, serious candidate har to choose cider.

recente the workers at all times, not mamrement. We hive to be sure

th:< in nemotiations our demands are beineg heord. The candidate who cees

_ bein= shop steward as a stevoring-stone to his versonzl success with the

The chop stewi:rd rep-

ae ES,

COCHIN. CAROT BE, TKUST&D, and should not receive even one vote fron us.

in LE7L, when I sturted workine at Varin, the union and the conmstny

eecauceé to be the same. Caro Succrvisors.("P, extention of manaszenent

furctions- article IV, Sect.a, of our contract), were also the SHOT cTEyv-

AEDS over the cargo devartment. In larre measure, my efforts helxvctd to-

cheare this Picture. Now, Cargo Agents represent other Cargo Azents, etc.

Lost of you know of ny connunist views, that the working-class could

own anc control all of society; that everyone becomes a producer, (not a

welfare state); and that all production would be to fill the needs of 2ll

the ccople,(not for profit). - iy membership in the Frogressive Labor Party

be weriking-cless, revolutionary party, has taucht me many valuable less3qas

about fighting for workers' rights’. We learn from ene another. Frosressive

Inder rarty (PLP) aembers and frietds are .active shop stewards and local-

unicen officers, in many unions, throicshout the country.

During my year as shop steward, and long before I was shop ctewerd,

I helped make the union stroncer, here at Varig. In spite of may advise,

nez to tie in the insurence plan with the rest of the contracts, the over=-

whe iting sajority voted for it. Anyway,we did receive 2 sretty 200¢ wecge

Poek:re, while we still have a fight ahead of us for a better insurance

enc ronsion plan. Througnout the year, I have been on the job as orop

stev-rdé,(not just during worlking-hovrs). I have discussed with you, csavis-

ec you, aopeared before =anzsezent with you, processed your erievances and

sine, and ettended the acctings reqvired of a chop stewiurd, no thut Varia

workers have a voice in our union.

At wy innistive, but toscther, ne won weelsly pay, uveraded the dental

pl-n, won a gafcty ccnnittce, rot guate Llichtinz in the warehouce, ect-

Sbliched union richts in the parchocine @evartnent, and won more reersct

ty sanarerent, of us cs union enters. Nor, we ean go on

tic Ceomends for the next contrcet which mere eut short in

intiono. (A WIHKNIG Tear sESUS

ace

and Foruulite

the lost ne-oce

sehecG Lelers,yy~ VOrs vWIcshy ----

80a

iil

Exhibit B EKG /T HL

More on Shop Steward Elections- DOES YOUR CHOICE COUNT? - Bill Turner

;

‘know that part of the P.L.P, program, is ror rank-ana-1iile,

gain control.

out.

put me on tae side of Russia, or China, or Cuba:

tries have a capitalist system just like in the United States.

POR OURSELVES AND FOR OUR PAMILIES!

Wednesday, for expressing my views.

Obviously, your choice does count, and will count even more in the

future. The Union Leaders told Tobon not to let me win. So, when you

gave me a mijority vote,- suddenly- the Union By-Laws came to life. Presto,

Change-o, we hate a December election. '

WHY DOES THE UNION LEADERSHIP WANT ME OUT AS SHOP STEWARD? Eecause I fight

back; I give leadership; and I belong to Dramecsive oo They

union manbers

to control their own unions, and to do this, to build strong caucuses to

They know that we don't compromise or ellow a union sell-

THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE AFRAID OF!

I probably will get attacked on the floor of the union meeting, this

A strong turnout at the meeting, of

Varig workers, demanding my right to speak out, can turn this attack around.

We don't want union leaders in our industry to be able to throw away

our pensions or benefits, as they are doing in the New York City workers‘

unions. That means that memhers have to be active and to know what's go-

ing on. ° . ;

ARE LY COCTUNIST, IDEAS, "ANTI-AMERICAN"? No, my communist ideas don't

The working-class in

These coun-

The only

a@ifference is that in those countries, all the wealth and production-rach-

inery is owned by the government, which is controlled by a ruling-cless of

high-living "party" leaders, miiitary leaders, and highly-skilled technic-

jens. Here, in the U.S., the financial- industrialist dictatorship over

the country is a little more hidden.

WY SIDE IS THE WORKERS' SIDE! So long as Capital vroperty is private-

ly owned, here, or in any part of the world, the workers, who produce all

goods and services for society, will get back only a small pert of -the val-

ue of their work. The major part of labor value is ROSScD from us. The

ultimate change that I want to see, is for the WORKERS to own and control

ALL PROPERTY, capital, or otherwise: Then, with the bosses out of the way,

we cen begin to enjoy and share all the things in life which our brains and

our hands create.

RIGHT HERE, AND NOW, OUR PIGHT IS TO KEEP AS MUCH OF WHAT WE PRODUCE,

This means, keeping wages high- not

the so-called “socialist” countries have very little to say.

losing to inflation. This means improving our denefits- NOTHING IS TOO

_ GOOD FOR Us?.

Your vote for me on December 8th, 9th, and 10th, will allow me to

continue to represent you and to serve you as shop steward.

Bill Farm §

7 8la

a Te we 3. os eret

stS119_, & Wt Sapa. pn toum ey Aq poqdnes

MIP BIND PYM pun Senyieys ‘porg soy epee Apop

SINS CHE YIOM OF potunics tou pey Ta eld oy

(Binoy weNr JuNArdieg MuNsAD OF PINITH popysyE

a ed Ld rd ee

mod & Aq posinds usoq owes suoneyeton ony

PIMA MA MIAESAA_Y 1H HAG AE SHHYEITS

SSA JO UIIAG “YOY SKB EPS Oy) KUMZDN Soy

SIOHITS £E OBS JO BSODI—IG MEQ po OED AjmEEIAD

Fe pur “LIONS SAN Ue cyays seco poet

AE SE MYNS AC) OYF PUNO & O>ySIEZE OM Aer End

Prepee one wie if aeqyiy Wey Sopey boy

pmasdag orm Ay OTIS HOM JO IFO OYL Ie AYN

Cinvi VAM SWAGVaAl ANMLS 40 ANOT

: eq ap em eq

ergy Eyzasep Japze Rupqesgcrs Ararodwag pinay

AN “OCH ston eee som ye Asaeyge

PTs pus pose yo oyna Bey Sacpeymam

aan ‘sasro.tey Aed pas o7ys 93249 ‘Aysn329 qnf 1920

ssalqghaa 22g) YH enedsp FYPAID Spr oF He

*s29q290) SLIOM POO Yreyg P29EYO—O iva wT

OG SSO) AuIjNIOG GOP IOI Jey.

M4 OTT PEAY OF Ota ays #Y AVERY “AprBOp B20 q10m

QTE F509 PyNO es GaTreys Coys pspurmew # 99 SsO4 EGE

Mm -uysndse Ace quassrd pow pre mays poopy syoqy

42 BO PION EP dogs “Feqoors aqua eqy :od 0 yoaey

‘h anpeong orp o7oy Sampsrddns saqto pue yomapedap

“4 OITQN CQD CTY FOU JsA"N MOT £IDYIOM OD OSC]? BLY

Py s2umy ‘vedeam spy Se assay? ysyrnnnna? que

hd gspoteg PAG YE OM Bap ‘oope og wy dpyucqniana

Bs2any oforgrg? orp OF Sparyoy Agrmy AI4L

paqeuazagg Uy ET sox0 WAI OF OF

Pe Hf Byles “uoR ap OY) PapIea puw punose powsny

By MON EUCAINURHOD PUN otf) FrAg OF soUINE prod

Af JDATS OY OSLAZOyP) wyedums oy Buqurpsods

“so quIAAEN Un pas PRoys w9yI949 OY Pye pus

SEE Pas0874 Presi gs gee Ny ‘saqUE IAG] UE HORNED

OY purr suqworyy vy FoKpl Eye) OF FUOTUYHED

Out 209 POY CONN SHAD UOTE ONL je

DOUMKF EYL BIOFTq THY OF JrO PIHNEd pry saNINg

Bnoyyy “Yeqe vnyny sem purwogy porgy Cyf.

en Hq:

er seegied spamaays Og) SArNpUt Omg yrort

DPMS sioypseoy *ojeyjiig

panjesapen oy Buptuying 20m mow pre sieak eq

“REATIEG PIT OAD OF POE 14H? ING OM PO[TIED Poe

PET ee-nge9-ge~ £1900 pasomcae s9uINy “UIT

4qirdop 03302 Spo, eq vanp poe dn potas ceopy

PeLAMW.D rege cIAq7p shcpP fF 19A03 404 “rord:Ins

Buy toye Byraupodap s2Re HoH sYyRDd 1O3 C]y Pers

Opry Rey y ss 20g s2Emm yg, popeynyH.sSues sary Ay “eH od

Jo om isef sem aonzes 80g -pre-yous eq .

Panmoys se oruy

“uO? wry jy soAad PROM OY JOU) JONNY, FourHM

pus wry ysupeSe Auteurs sanoy Suppom,,

Bm AT penis pumors yong OqL “fApwosT sowny

poly yma) TOYO] ey Mes Feounsedop oH

Wy INYIOM AINA OAS OYE OF PO] SEM PUC onAPT

20) INISIP OY JO GEMM) FRIOUNT PUR. yu _pIsIId

PP] OY POPS PIeEmors yore) ous, (udpetams

HOHE? ON OPH SONPY Fayed Jo tenyIMpnIIIG

OYL EYA Seynopkens voynad w poyseys sayoeseyy

FRYE HENLE) “HE HOge OP Prod Ao Sipew era oso

wre Prag oF Apen “ppL7 ONE Mm WEE ysod Ss panmoys Op

00 oop ee bw met ewes te « oGens <0 cbs =3 g-ee “&

BIYM “SINCUPIPIK PY JO [POUIS Op Jo Peay ‘oy>sy

saunerof yorg 209 Acp Ayongun og sem ince oy

Anpreyt —(riesauung jo “Apyy) STIOSVANATNY

JOTI PUIIIE

1}!9}

“TUNE LO “ANA

“SeRsOy OI pene

Aoyed aspwordwoouou & qyM ‘sHyS}s s20pI04

Pores OAGY— sOqNG JOYE PO SEM Ig WEL FON PORNO

O1n o20;NIEN, PUD eryNA so Bry tsnae Gonposd

Ss9y10m «ye Agomodsa—seopy Ispemunnos sty

MOY PUA Ths UF Ayssoquenn sq Suyayepive tyro

ArvuTPyoast Yr JsyuOHIM Opes, FTyIW e se

UIT MOITY $1N7I0M.09 B s0UIN, AysnOjAnsd HPL\)

pre

60m yua~passry mou 8 30394 s1yy ING] “WZONEFT Oy) LO

ermmanysS Asoan ang Buyytyy 199 VONeINdos & sey OF]

“BIVIA OYA JOAN GINZION ONGIFE INGIO Fo SIYINS 395

Yodkins porn to pus (f¢ Ut) 3404 pe YOHIe-YoM

@ pay pur wy predioqued seq sowny “y4f 18 s100K

AAU ATIV3N 104 INIDV ODUVD V S?

“EP app

tdex9} 78 smpoan Sayqar$ ro pus eng re;9 Tyq) Bay TyI8

81 (scan STpeg “ery ERY JO “2e33y “PE}) BCH

Oy) “PrTy 299INE PPOSA nsywdares pro ge sSuyn

VEE om eres “Arey HTN HOdaqy Spor

83a

sfhurdaca ay go ‘pemyt ays my yore

20g Kymin lo wey po INT) Pong LE 209 POYHD pot9sey

FOWL CATALE SESH AWODTINY ak | OM PeHrURG Pnw-—seydns Hom apy pus

SPA OOP Pyle srapyep pp esanesaqy = ENO dogs jog ong Benpagrus— Sova pytys o-¢L wenger Arena ye 833410M—ALOD WANA AVIN

STO) MM) A DIG CNGOMAa? WOT 7:

SUOMIAD IA] (MOA SEMOPO'S We juiy)

PieMols polo la{{ suupiy ois DAN

Powe

egy 30g Goes Ez OF SOMA C7 Hen Pry es em

£06cg / JONITVIFND /S/61 ‘¢ sequiercg

op a peete re es

ee ee ge ee ee ee

ig . .

. LG '€ UC steve aeg eek re Bee ha

SISS0q LSMIVOW |

NUM RRIOLS.

oy mo sISMEIENe') Jo |" a

3 ; ‘

;

ss ‘|

“Nes

moe LE SN vor wavs ov Eup tos

Sprewop MAN Pe vo sIeNOEUTD OF

spr mogag efoicp Sb te pe si

Cue sop yoo een So ned erissc oe

19 PMHEIIOT CH? Gorge pO CIPI

URN IT POU UID FD PITH FON NATS 9:

arin ogy cuosNd | CDAD

ayy oe See of Fipue.*

"pra WEE MR! TH TsES oe CIE TSS

M78 WRM9e CATS, UIA Sh

ee Ree Liter ie eh Bed |)

R252

ade die | Pe

Sa AE. CVE UE As.

‘UZ HQUINN 'Z1 OUIN|OA—SLBE *p sorjuI999q)

AMTIA UGOVADNOSNIDC

~ gpa

‘

‘ ‘

rm. tenes. >» ~ crap; | oa : 5 ; ’ 4 , pA go _-- a > ~ ~

FEEL AWA ISMHTEET CKD. hoa TU aE, oF aaey cua,

a — ~<4 bes 1 , | f? . = vos

‘ .

CS hI PT XD

~, ~

| !

—_—

~_—_s

—

———

wea”

a a“

a“

. ee

sy ~

—

~—

“Sa, =

-_—— —— ae ee

‘

—_-

Ge %, tod s S ofl

pe cwerers pete wer nereteied 79 egress we : emementtdet te x0 tee dt tie or be tb ere ats. retibty ter corte rrssr wer wetser rere

EY “EWN A

82a

Exhibit B

' “WISTIVIDOS YOs SINDIS AlUVd HOEVT 3AISSIUDONd FNL

co Ak Mh «oe

hie

° ““_eoe

ay ms

coer t

‘

Lae ei ey

SIR IANA an)

PUAORA MUO ROR

NED Solan

Gi amar fay ip Sie

CODY

SS wer

6Z JAQUING ‘ZL SWN|OA—SZEL ‘Bt seqQuiesaq

ibe

eT Ter

Sia) Mwdg] Ol

Ain SIN PAPUA PIO4 S® YOOS S¥—HOTNL

BOMML SIGVAM VISINOIN!

(ensst tau speiap move)

‘ajod ay) pue sinoyes ‘sassoq eu Aq

SYIPHE Pure Soy Et FO ONS UT VOM aIeTS

ey “e1y SIZBIOMOING UPSSIN JO LOIUN

junpuatopuy eur sO GrysJOped] eUy 05

SUONIAA OF VOM VOPUAY ceqes Pue ZINE

uRPqnisy ‘SoweEr OpuNuHEY JO s1es eT

-pue-yues oy) —O7K979 ‘YOVAINUIND

AYOLDIA IWS -OMY- wrivu

we et Be —-- a

an SS nMSHO

Wa PANY,

_Aluvd ne ethan

Sub

j Pie

PALIIAVUO? JO UVAAOP UIOL 21 MINOUS Sdes Any S1IAdIIS OY UPA>ID SessOg

aut evew oF iy6y ved sdno0 pay isiunmwus02 Anunwutos syt Ut

"191% INO BDIOFUA OF POTIUCBHIO Bg IsNW SAMINS ANNE)

IsQuOy PUe SiUapNIs aul JO SAaYsIM Isnt ay OF MO OF SIOFENSIUNW Wy

-pe yt 82705 ISMUI aM SndweD AJDAa UEC “BuUITIUeHIO IstUNMWUIOD J

JOF S$IDIVID NWOT SjOOUIS St PU PIINjJos 94 ISMUD SFOM! SSOq-Osg ” Ye

“SI9YIESD} 1S19e) OY YA BuOTe paddeins 3q ISMWw S}x9) ISIDeY “SOSINDD , oe

$sej9-B5ungom-ijue pue isines Sassog ssureGe sajGGnis jo siaquan OV}

DIPsAAUO? OF ISMW SaSseID PaAsi9aas AP SyTeG-IND AY PUN PysYy PUB

pezias 6q shu sGuIppINg VONeNnsiunUpY “SayrY LOTTINE pur S¥seq-}ND -

S9SS0q oyT ISuIeBe $S911 104 & O1UT PaUIN] Aq OSTe IsMW SNdweD A1DAg

ssep> Buryom oy oF punoi6 A168

pue P2919) OF DAeY BIA OUM SSPYD Bulins oy) O89 fH HH tUOY Ssarddo

OumM ccous IsuIPBe 1PM OF YDIPUS TIM SIAMIONA “91ND SPADIIOUIOI BWOI0Q

1% ays DWpers0ds Ss Aepoy, slerd-vOUIWwOD ewWODDq [1M S24DFEU! PUR”

saaing “yoene Aayy awn Aa9 siayiom ny pue Aejjaq 0} s¥906 VOoIUN

maul vo A191 §.ued Aout per rrouy SSOG OY) 191 IM SINE PHONATNEG

e our doys Asana urn ver (su0nres) SBuIdnO6 pay-isiuNUnOD |

“Jt EYED OF Bary ISA! [1M AM PU ‘SsayIOM VON PadeoYy 9q jm SasNae

siow pue sow s6uidnros6 Asay exey OM SSaTUF, ENUITUOD IM $470

FENTANT Jepeanieaeg) Avr serorayonay OUL

: Mit WMidee

P £'’Diudt3

-Aey doys Asan ut s6indnbih pay-ystunwuro2 sz1ur610 ue? om Ssaqun

“UIA OF MOY B2U9II8dxa WOH UIE VED Sset2 INO OS B6finns Ssejo jo

yInn fevOIIPUOIUN Bayt 1UasSaId OF SAAINS ‘eBuayegs ‘1edcdsmeu ino

‘UEIAUWY BANeN pue “veIsSy ‘ajiym ‘UNeT "¥9271Q—P}JOM |

asmjua ait jo ssey2 Gurysora any pue ssejo Burysom “Sf oUt OF paresipep

on ‘aGuayeugd ‘sadedsmau sys pue Ayed s0qe} oarssasBorg oul

‘wsiunwwo2 Arevonnjonas jo asnes oy 10; Buszue6s0

pue Bunoword ‘Buipjing Ajaanze oF Saay neyt eIctompap Aayy e208

SY) OF PMlOAap 47 ALYVd VOEV? JAISSIVOON Ful JO Sequiayy

‘perse}87010 ey) 40 Sryssorelsip eyl — Siaysom Asevoninjoaas jo puewUIZACB .

Meu @ NEISU! PUe ‘sassog oY) MOJYLIEAO AjlUajoNA ‘OryssOpe sy IstUNWwOD

puiyaq B11UN palrojdxe ayt fo Ajolrw oy voym vaddey Ajvo wed 1

‘suonzaje uBnomyy Annjaceed peysydusos 7 THe

“38 8q jovuRD siyy ‘paysnID eq Isnur juaWULEAOB prLIOneE;oIp ney

Pue $3ssoq eyl ‘wasIShs IsHPIIdeD eYyT ‘WwSHeII0S DAaMYOR OF L9PIO

‘wSHeNCeD [0 SIINPOsd He O72 }eul SIEM pur WSIDSe; ‘wS;Ie! OY a

Of pus ve pue—ssaysiom ye 404 anny Palje2s9 pul oINDEsS E—VONE}IOIC <e “bay

0} pua ve—jvawhojdwa "rg pue ssuepunge jo Ajarous @— sassog ry) so

VOHINISEp eyi—sse7? Burysom enjue oy) sO; VONPIEQY SUPoW ws TeII0S

S¢—100k | :wondposqng

pred eBejs0d ¢se19 puczeg

oset-sesiziz) -859I0 wor Npo?

Of 008 “Ate WOR MON ¥

toons prez 1883 Ozz 2

70710 OREPrD119 Pus woNErTINd u

Ayeg 1oqe) ensseiGor4 ein Aq

‘oom seunspys tdesxe ‘Ayyoom peyspqng ~K

6z JOqunN ‘Zt CUNOR,

S61 ‘Bt soquaseq

sv OHYS20-J9NATIVHD

SLEL ‘At 9qQUINDAG IONIVWHD / Z Er,

85a

84a

Exhibit B

hued mary oa at ofeg oun) orem ow) WT Aneoteg Bom oq pene tage on lem 4 = + o20g) 6] Oy hq

4312014 eyy Vint — a:7 am owl >" Sret “ft 4m"F UE, WA” ColUneyiersemeg,, fo wor Uiem oul “pe 3 Jos ” : erqNd FNS pow re *

pres w9 oun erp., Oy | oNdige = “uawotcuew Avertwos ey) Ut Ze Od Kuan O78 pode oy 4 Om) Forres 407 400m =

a 8 80 80019 -sepry (fq autagid oF % os SuCtITssGOwep erIs°I 301g [9 Seep! auL., i” be a | sie! s4 “Tet9ed tar scey

[rl Pa 4) pur reat “PUITED CHK “Td 24) Say sed pue Sue1y “Swrie19 oy “senes suNCOOD ES | ete , POC sant HOw pit

wren ays Kose on pata foN2e) efoul 7O eNO slerquie song .eng .884ng Bolsnp wesed aa ai: ae ot el cal jay: Sormns eq jo 800

par sasseg 0%) — erie Sure ef XUTY,, OY) Cantesway) de fH — ry),, 49d -. oo of bess eae a Stajaguo.e2 Famg “due

Pyasews move sunian ayn wie ay fonoer pue ¢ we ye Sseqiaie Aidue -edearo wienwwoa ain Pur La ° ¥ Seer . +P 79] [2IMOD SeorsL Iri8—

12810) e711) Oe woes = “10298 94) S9YIFO HM aSNeD o> eu aAnae MON «= -{epod aWOE — 2981/05 50 po? sat 1 52 OF 2g) OY ED ¥

jeer owes eqn UF % “Pye-TUCs 341 UO 4909 40 tena aE 4 \ ‘ 4200 68C;9 Prrys9% oy, 30

agg BB DAUP $Y PATNI PYE BERT -aq Twang .,'o%e suo aw :* “8 . { Ci ssoreinp @,. Sarg ate

nee copes sit vee a AGN VE VONTIUETIO, 1819 OM} HIN OF HITG GI B8Cy “i ‘ ‘ H “F.1D OE BANGIN FAEAC

pe een ‘ewesd ae atone 3s BEE SAAN op Ng) FOUTUDD —-MwWWwO? ay) PIU, SUING Pinom an ‘AUEdWO? au)

oa denen oe pase. “yin -410 9G) 407 yueddns yo sUONZERTUl {9 aouCHAp wn Mees j tig piraen bie “hug 42.07

wows, ere Bina +, horde AWWRE HOKU BPEL AD GIN poUNaTSIG popand ssew pey ow jf, ee a ' . oe) aetna rma

om Saapageent ba pes Oe Hoh) Lomentsad pue Hawanorg wniID¥ 4 DIUASS|a 40 -ONE i She : ae gO ew eed

guna 64 powenee tae Eoran og) wins O) .Gea8., S0NIN OU) J® WER [09m gat Oy) U ‘eFuNIOW HHUA . ee aie b "youwon Fire Ay

~ s ates ha "a os * FuIpenssod papnyd ire © 39 sepeay se — Aad ye,, GIees Yor srmosip she Ne “a” APP Cs AsweTT we ee eter

ight timation Ry perp yewrer kved — ..oF 30} OF, "A12 BMY 49N0 -9EFEC) UTA FY WHA BUHIay / histone € 1940 WS) S9-LuTAEY oy

at Low of eons, , eu oO at) ME OME | COUT, FOYE BFOZE ‘COTE Somme ‘aseq eye Urns; eWOtUE Zony Pi wee . ey ‘ | *49tt wyuap Uiom © pur

oe wew Pare, Line ut WO KEP As9A:g,, GON SOWA C20} IG) EM OINESIP AIG IHPIO eNO? es2Pd4 & mrad Sek eS . * 3 8) 157240" ON;9 Cope UF

ae vat sulunes ate “MIVOD UR ShOF OY 21) SMOVES 1821) EY “ELST Aerg que ISR] pewTeRO scung Me else srg ; > | "

Sibu aiee oa shen esseeee iid eCome WF 7, wy prEddys SERIE ‘ADEM GENIE BY po vsnt[0q - ae 4 ; eu) JO mares ue oF

rib ’ pF og wey vere Soweukg 7e49yey je WwetwsieseEq FuIwieD ‘ . § TAILON, Pay pA C290 Sorat

ek nauk ax oneoak vt porsFue m sung worug jpoXry @ 491V¢ ase Keys se 4 PES ¥ Sac OF "bteg e513 oo8

t a peas i : 443/024 1) PO ONES! WIAs -pog ur én mass OYM Od 24) OF A202 V09 A2IC5 4 Ppt . 2” . “9 oy 1UUFE Lt set iuty © Bt

OTT MON Sur Jo 728g 4m) OU SANUS ,,"2(TSAZ “JUsPIKDd YHAION SUL JO EMIYS puE EIYDIEW seELT § ye Se asset o= ae stang ®42g Ansar

fattg Otay wr QO ay UO pap ieNanuOD oo h204d SPIT LPAYe OFF INQ * =sHey | c” m -~ * G0 1829195 Ap09ee 1g ‘Ds v.04

i “f Utros) LON IN pold ju yeWod = -MeaanG IénJI02 OY dwND sted f1.My NDIA Wels + ° bb bHOS—KOLOWUD ;

157 HAL EMOT) a Sean et ¢" : dare 1b UE TASS

% es : ° e104 ctor fg

*sOMMULOD A14-9-"UCy oy Aq OVP @ATIZAIOD Gred Ssonsey eq sanz] 94) 07 629470" e1001 DA : “ : iu atv)

IYI 40} pezatBr0 Icj0q ouyt voxoid #91 Oy) BOF OF Bay meip hq-0194) pu Sayroqond sam 10) Ay99@997 O11) O74) ore : . , ! oe amas

-Giviu yxou ays AAT2 din eq 04° "9 “190 "STU Cees “sU9D 09 “RARIP OF JepsO WH “(a19ymasI9 wos} Porsodur) 9.14 ¥.19,[10 Or Sin Te ‘ GOSOIYS

Oaj2p 03 puvys] Boy (ae fT ‘'N'DAN ‘WUO,)' se3wavsuA\-uE | 4 PPETCIS Grey s1ax10M OOO'OT JO EE ATHO) Dusseqi» WHO.7) ' # Sage A

90g Of Greg 9q1 Jo Spustss pul vsocqual! eareehso (¢) Sqeos 184 07 42) Ao 88 Appoycades posers 302 s1oquiour oe Ti = - . rs : BUR AL

“ mones Aneiy ‘1 Osoddo s10ye) GoyUN aq) ‘Sajyero10 seeu ee oe ey oe lies Maen eee Pek Cp

a 29 “TIED OBOND | 205 Suy43}j aeOq Fey OT4-F-HOEY YL 494) #9} }4A;10u INO

Sayrapad Jo ©1809 20) Ard OF OD) UD) Py t= y- tL OM moge 49ds4e sca Pusu, w OP Atop AS he pws OUP OP EID ' ’ alas Ya a ore Be Fie’ ee y 77 IOSD or

* OL pads OF SUNTAN pug srloys ay SaMOIO[!OO UN OYE (c) =94 SD) Giyesopery seg Sup aoqpos 2.07 s29y40" saityy OS pddet. -tL's pila ve a

Ren ce bn ea et baal tn "OST 07 pastus Puyoq mou sy YHEW*anss] 4949 Pjor 6 4 ? - i”

, Peppoey ove ww ‘w0) ae ss — 369 ee eau wioded 021 inva “OMusd Oya axon-nS MTA Cy) JO wie i n nor. Riki ene

ee Oren eee ee BUPSHNIAIT WONIL/ APNE PUL" ane Vid=-9-YUCY POINTIG eit aT SO) at : id dd! Wid"?

$SAdM 9914) GT GOT) “Woy BC] Oo" A199 POOU gy ats pas Luyajo{ oF exn1o ri ae ws \

-28 sy) vaoddns aes Ayard 9y) Jo Agcy PEL er9quI ru oud ‘OAT S19) ON) PVT WW ‘Apart OUI PLUjoOf OABY S19yYION

WIOD*Goj64) Bj. FUR, yar; upeia 24) IV OTg WO 20) 3uy OML ‘A-) Of F21Tnsys Mavys 2404) Jo oULUe oy Suypuo’ | Weeaeosee: . seer vorowni S6ODe LEH ELS 16909800 90COE *2CTE ME 2ECOS: 4 8ERORD:'

-Giour ACPO, 404 poy? oq cul] 34.1919 S8rut U pool Ins 109g DAML "TE AME 9.2049 yno WoIg DALY #1941044 AD } : $.6t ‘N saquaidag ‘Acpucyy “wu0D ‘dnpul7 man

js ADS! Lg ad Ti Ms oth qj [ele ih cH I oly, 3{ iy ~ 30 * ath SU9:101991 40 ROBIN LPM sequeyy

iS)

is Jsadedsmau 6uiper

gS ST |

5,19 If{20UU0D UIIISIF

EX/na wr b

Exhibit B

12/4/75 TO CLEAR UP SOMB NISUIIDERSTANDINGS WHICH. AROSE IN THE COURSE

ME WITH THE LOCAL UNION~

3 a c -

: z E st. Me 3 5 mit.

. Gas. F378 g Been?

: f i £ E co ° Bye

~ A [?) 34 4 a § z ial

c reef 3 él #28 : HT

° 5 Bs - > - ‘3 »

: aet. a gey fy Gyre

qa ; a § ae

Th tit Heit

é eas 4 : 2kB as

2 oS_s g : ° ~e §3

. ge i° gxgeie safat

+ dl g é gees

fuss a 4 + eR,

{ 3

: é

Then, come down to the trial hearing, next Thursday, and

tell the union trial comsittee to DROP THE CHARGES.

A SHOP

I cannot believe that a majority of my fellow-workers agree

that I should not have the freedom of speech which the laws of the land

OF THE SHOP STEWARD CAMPAIGN-

oS. Constitution demand.

PILED AG

take place Thursday, December lith, at 6:00 P.M., at the Holiday Inn,

In editing the article, which I gave them permission to do, sever-

Blue Room- 175-15 Rockaway Blvd.

al changes in

They may try to do worse.

TO DEFEND MY RIGHTS!

The only reason I included a paragraph in the leaflet I issued, which

mentioned my communist views (a-la- Karl Marx, not- Breshnev, Nao, or

Pirst of all, let me say, IN NO WaAY,did I intend to say that I was

Castro), was to be open and above-board with my fellow-workers.

running for shop steward as a “communist candidate". (as if there were

a “communist ticket" and a “non-communist ticket")

I now ask for your support, in the spirit of fair play and unity

which we enjoyed over the years.

To any of you who may have felt inswlted or "tricked", I am sorry

there was any misunderstanding.

I hove this cléars up most of the misunderstandings.

there remains, among many people, very basic disagreement on politics.

Nevertheless, there will always remain, very basic agreement on the

iseves we face on the job, now, and in the coming years.

NOT try to tie in my political views with the cammign for shop steward,

as my oponents would have you believe.

of the workers at Varig Airlines, leveled charges against me, that I

violated sections of the union constitution by “encouraging communist

tution clearly violate our fundemental rights, and should never be put

try to use this trial to prohibit me from representing you as shop stew-

each one of us to speak ous and sign the petition to the union, which

newswiper, was based on factual inform-tion which I sent in to the edit-

into effect.

ing that voting for me, meant voting for “communist leadership” in the

union.

be, "all for one, and one for all.”

LEADERSHI.

ISSUE.

CHAR

ideas".

and the U

ard.

I prepared.

ors.

87a

Te te

86a

Appendix H

Exhibit C - Trial Committee Report of William Tumer

| TRIAL COMMITTEE REPORT

OF WILLIAM P. TURNER

®eeeeeeeseereeeeeeeeeveeeeeeee

EXCERPTS FRO HINUTES -

ee ee

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

88a | 89a

Exhibit Cc

Exhibit c

2 " f Varig

We the members of IAM local 1694 and employees o ; aul : . | |

Brazilian Airlines co hereb’ wish to bring to the attention of ) Gi ive Ofravesnsrt a f shige aga

* the Union that one of our fellow members (william @urner) is ‘ { U hauge 4 ‘

openly and in contempt violating the I/.l Constitution Article | |

L which deals with inproprr conduct of a member by advocating

ai rN AN -

Communist ideao and incorporating these ideas with his campaign INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS

for Shop Steward . eee YOHIN FF. RENINCOY INTERNATIONAL AIEEE, NEW YORK

Lecoubor 3, 1975

Mr. We Turner

€ Jonscn }oad

ive BLY LUOLD, bi eX 11706

Lo~r Sir and Erothor,

2% GCucicsneq with the provisions of tho Constitution of th. TAMAW, the

Teial Cv...dttee has dcvcided that a tricl hearing is warrant. for tho

Chor[~es Uist were brought against you by the moubers of Varis Adivlinos,

“o2Ch ovo nproper conduet of a nombir undor Article L of tho Constitution.

-£3S heaving will tsko placo on Thursdsy, Doce:bor 11, 1975 at tho Holiday

ei looves at 17815 Rockaway Blvd., Jamaica, N.Y¥<s at 6:00 2M.

+.» hearing will be conducted in aCcordance with the appliczblo provisions

re" th. Cou.stitution of the IAMAW.

Fraternally Yours,

/ .

Fred Howitt

Chuimnan, Tria). Committoe

es: Sess) Comittoo, JA. CePeter, ee Mellina, F. F innoan, Me Clarke

ee: Sei ntitfs(/arig Brazilian Airline nemtership) LL 164+

fiky

90a | —

‘wo 54

ce ve Exhibit Cc

December 2, 1975

Mr. W. Turner

6 Jensen Road

N. Bayshore, N.Y. 11706

Dear Sir ard Brother,

Enclosed you will find a copy of the charges that have been

filed against you by the IAMAW mombers of Varig Airlines. You are

charged of misconduct of a member under Article L, Section 3 of

the Cosstitution of the Intwrnationsl Association of Machinists

and Aerospece Workers.

Fraternally Yours,

Lloyd Colley

President

Enclosures: Copy of Charyon

Constitution of IAMAW

92a

Exhibit C

hy. Willies Tosnor

6 Jonsen Road

N. Dayshore, RX. 117066

Cear Sir,

At tho Rezular Mcsting of the Local Ledre which was held on

Janvcory 28, 1975, the Trial Cetsittes which had been convened to

conszidor the chirze9 that had tcon <iled against you roported thir

findinzs to tho eacbership in attorilunce.

Tais is to infora you that you havo been fcund guilty of tho

chargo of vilictinz Artiale L cr the Lim Constitution which doals

With <coroper conzuct of a rnes>or ty ejvocsting Co-cunist i¢s8.

The rcnalty tat has toon imposod is that you be exrollod

feca messorship in tho Intornational Association of M-chinists end

Aorospsce Workers. An aprecl frcu thess findinss may be modo in

accordance with Article L, Seation 14 of the Geend Lodgs Constit-

Sincerely Yours,

JA. DePoter

Recording Secretary

Cocal Iccze 1EH

eos G.S.T. :

F. Houitt, Cenimcin of Toi] Comittoo.

Le Colley, Presidont, Lorai Leitso 1554

S. Nathan, Financial Searetary, Local Lotze 1&AA

filo

93a

Appendix I

~_———— . se

Exhibit D = Air Transport Lodge 1894

Fg Report of the Trial Hearing

Exhibit Cc . , ¢ >a Pi a ae 2 Ee —

Spe ! Pr aie Tos. WMS. S. PME TE eg

, ; , == ear bs 1 os"

. Wine Fe Se Pena ear =. sis Qir Gransport <<) Lodge 1894

. e P =. mai s *- . = . *er ‘ “3.5 <a

- " : ates : . INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS

ae ‘ JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEW YORK

REPCRT OF TRIAL HEARING OF MEMBER WILLIAM THEIR

Jan 1976

Subjects T — ll At the joeal Lodge moeting in the month of November, 1975, charres of

impropor cenduct warn submitted in writting to President Lloy? Colley

apainst. «d. Turnor by soma thirty union membors of Variy Airlines, The

y ; charyos wern as follows: “wa the mombers of IAM Loca] 1°94 and employens

Mr. Stanley J. clathan a of Varir 2razilian Airlines do horoby wish to bring to the attention of

Financial Secrotary the union that one of our fellow members , William Turner, ic openly and

Local Lodee 1£5% in contempt. violating the IAM Constitution Article L which deals with

760 Trman Avenus improper conduct of a momber by advocating Communist ideas and incorpor-

Easd Meacow, N.Y. ating these ideas with his campaign for shop steward."

Dear Sir amd Brothor, President Colley sppointed a trial committee consisting of the five following

The following language froa Section 17 of Article L cf the Lit members: Fred Hewitt, Vice President, Chairman; J.A. [ePeter, Recording

Constitution is broucht to your attonticn so that you nay be guided Secretary, Comnittee Secretary; ©.Mellina, M.Clarke, Frank Finnegan.

on satters concerning William Turner, Ecok Nucbor A°/169751

“hile exy mostcr of tho LoL. 49 exorcising tho >isat of appsal, This Trial Committee proceeded to investifate the charges and decided that

the finsneisl standing of such conber chall not be inpairod by re- ) there vas sufficient evidence to warrant a trial hearing. The respective

fvsal to accept duss until tho £.C. has passed on the appeal." parties wera notified that the hearing would take place at the Holiday Inn

at 175-15 Rockaway Blvd., Jamaica, N.Y. on December 11, 1975 at 6:30 P.M.

»? The trial hearing commenced at the appointed time. Present at this trial

Fraternally Yours, hearing were all the duly appointed committee members, william Turner,

Jorge Turner, Chief Shop Steward of Varig Airlines and eight of the orginial

signees of the letter of charges, A..Bastos, W. Lehner, V. Natos, K. Metty,

K. Molinaro, H. Meyers, H. Picardi, and W. Zerillo. The trial reportor was

Myrna Shoro, an employee of Esquire Reporting Company Inc.

JA. DePoter ; The trial cams to order. The chairman asked the plantiffs if the had app-

Recordin; Secrotary ointod an attorney to prosent their case and he was notified that they had

Local Lodge 13% chosen Jorge Tobon.

The chairman then asked the dofendant if he had appointed an attorney to act

in his behalf. William Turner replied that he would represent himself. Stan

001 G.S.7. Nathan, Financial Secretary of LL 1894 was then called by the trial committee.

President L.L. He testified under oath that all those present were members in food standing.

Chairezan of Trial Comittee The defendant was then asked what his plea to the charres was and ho rep) iod

« Turner ; "not guilty." Jorge Tobon was then directed to present his case.

Documentary evidence was submitted to the committee by J. Tobon. Exhibit #1

Shop steward campaign litorature: The way I see it- Bill Turner. In this piece

of literature W. Turner writes about “his communist views that the working

class should own and control all.of society; that everyone should become a

producer and not a welfare membor and that all production would be to fill

the needs of the people ani not for profit. My membership in the Progressive

94a Labor Party, a working class revolutionary party has taught me many valuable

lessonsabout fighting for workers rights.”

PB 54

95a

Exhibit D

Kon Motty, membor from Vari¢ Airlines took tho stand was placad undor path,

Metty testified that he had rocioved a copy ofexhibit #1 from Turnor.(No

cross examination was given by Turnor.)

J.» Tobon then prosonted ehibit #2, more literature ‘by W. Turner, ontitled

" Does Your Choice Count 7?" In it Turner states that he belongs to tho

Progressivo Labon Party and also talks about his communist idoas,

Henery Meyers was called to the stand and wes administered tho oath. Moyers

testified that he had seen exhibit #2 on the bulletin board on tho property

and that WwW. Turner's signature on it was, to the best of his knowledre that

of W. Turner.

Jorge Tohon. then presented Ehhibit #3 entitled "Challange, the Revolutionary

Communist newspaper." dated Decembe 4, 1975. Vol.12, No. 27. Tobon then read

into tho record from this paper on page #7 an article entitled: " NYC Varig

Airlinos PLrer electod a shop star, but union sellout voids cloction."

The article reported that Turnor had won a shop steward clection and that the

election had been protasted by the Cief Shop Steward, J. Toton. at Varir ; that

the protest had been upheld and being runover, It also talkon nbout Turners’

running as a communist for shop steward and how Turner answored evory anti-

communist trick and carried the fight back to the red baiters.

After he had read the complete articlo into the record, he also sub mitted

additional copies of CHALLANGS (Exhibit #4) and the proceeded to read into

the record the motto of the Progressive Labor Party from a copy of CHALLANGE

dated December 18, 19755" The Progressive fights for socialism. Socialism

means liberation of the entire working class, the destruction of the bosses,

a socirty of abundance, full employment, an end to exploiation, a secure and

creative future for all workers, an end to racism, facissm, end wars that are

the products of capitalism. In order to achieve socialism, the capitalist

system, the bosses and their dictatorial rovernment must be crushed. This

cannot bo done peacofully through elections. It can only happon when the

majority of the exploited unite behind communist leadorship, violently over-

through tho bosnes and instal] a now government of revolutionary workers, the

dictatorship pf the proletariat. Members of the Prorressive Labor Party, are

devoted to this’ goal. They dedicate their lives to actively buildinr, pro-

moting and organizing for the cause of revolutionary communism."

Bro. Metty was returned to the stand and testified that Turner advocated

and encouraged communism, and that he was a member of the Progressivo Labor

Party and that Turner had sold him a copy of the newspaper CHALLANGE for 10¢

at Varig. He also said that in the newspaper CHALLANGE there is a section that

if anyone wanted more information about the PLP to contact certain addresses in

the U.S.A. one of which is located in Bayshore, N.Y,.a post office box that he

maintained for the PLP. He also tostificd that Turner told him that people would

have to be killed when the revolution comes and he specified the Rockfellers'.

Under cross examination by Turner Bro. Metty admitted that he had asked Turner

for the nowspaper CHALLANGS . Turner also brourht out that discussions on

revolution and his memborship in the PLP came out in convorsationn that took

place while he and Metty car polled

96a

Exhibit D

PEPORT OF TRIAL HARING CF FEMBER WILLIAM TURNER

PAGE $3

Brothar Meyers wan raturned to the atand and taatifind ona day while he was on

tho contents worn oxposed. Tho packare contained copins of the paper CHALLANGE «

Bro. Moyers tostifiod thar Turnor had also given him a copy of CHALLANGL.

On cross examination Turner asked Meyers how the clasp on tho mickare had become

oponed and how a copy of CHALLANGS that had been entered in evidences at the trial

had got here and Meyre testifiod that he dicn't know.

Brother Tobon then presente? oxitbit 76, campaien material by Turner entitled

" TO clesr up some micunderstandings which arose in the course of the shop

steward campaign." ‘tio read this statement intothe record. In it Turner wrote

about the article that had anneared in CIIALLANGE. "the articlo was based on

factual information which I had sent to the editor (reforing to oxhibit 73)".

Brother Melinaro was sworn in and testified that Turner had also told him that

cortain people wouldhave to be killed when the revolution t»xok over this

country and that the Rockfellors would be number 1, .

On cross examination 23ro. Molinaro stated that this conversation with Turner

had taken place about ten or eloven months ago in the customs area at Varig

and that Bro. Metty was also there.

Brother Matos was sworn in and testified that he had been given a copy of

exhibit #1 ~,-cy Turner and that he had handed it back.

On cross examination Turner asked Matos what his (Turners) reaction was when

he was handed back exhibit #1, Matos then testified That Turners reaction was

to explain that the kind of communism he was trying to put forward in the leaflet.

wasn't the same as in Cuba or Russia or anvother communist country. Turner asked

Matos if he recalled that. he (Turner) hid called Cuba a facist dictatorship, but

Matos could not recall the statoment..

Brother Bastos was sworn in and tostifiod that Turner had -ive him a couple of

copies of CHALLANGE and had pointed out that the paper was also printed in

Spanish .

Bro. Metty was recalled to the stand and testified that his conversations with

Turner had continued for ovor a year

Under cross examination by Turner Bro. Netty admitted that Turner had never called

meetings to talk on political subjects

Brother Mollinaro was recalled and tostified that his conversations with Turner had

taken placo during coffoe breaks. Undor cross oxamination Hollinaro stated that the

conversations had taken place two or three weeks ago in the wharehouse.

THE DEFZNSE THEN PRESENTED ITS CASS

97a

Exhibit D

REPORT OF TRIAL YEARING OF MEMBER WILLIAK TURNER

PAGE £0 4

Brother S. Rodriruoz, Chief Shop Steward at. Northwast Airlinos tentifiod that

ho had nevor soen anything impropor tn Yrothor Turners conduct and that. he

rogardod Turnor a7 a ood union mombor and a miditant shop stoward at. Vari).

Under cross examination Bro. Rodripuoz stated that he was not a membor of tho

Progrossive Jabor Party.

Brothor Turnor called Brother Lomba to the stand and Lomtn testified that that

any conversations ho had on political matters were just two individuals talkinc.

Lomba also testified that he ahd never seen or heard Turner encourage communism,

Turner asked Lomba if he thourht that he done anything improper by including his

political views in his camnaifn Literature annd Lomba thourht that. Turner had done

so because he didn't want this information to come out aftervwoods, and people would

say he had ve pea facts.

On cross examination Brother Lomba admitted that his opinion had chanred abont

Turner when the article appeared in CHALLENGE which stated that we votod for

Turner becauso we thought he was a communist. Ho stated that ha had written a

lotter stating that he had voted for Turner because he was a good shop steward

and not because ho was a communist. «

La Rocca

Brother testifiod under oath that he had never heari Turner discuss his communist

ideas on the jcb. Brother LaRocca also testified that that in a conversation with

Turner, he (Turner) had said in reference to the article in CHALLANGE that they

did not print it the way he wrote it. Additional testimony by Bro. LaRocca in response

to questions by Bro. Turner indicated that he believed that Turner had raised the

communist subject only to show that he believed in the Progressive kabor party.

Brother LaRocca said he did not think was encourgaging any communist ideas and that

he always worked hard at being a shop steward.

SUMMATIONS ¢ :

Brother Tobon pointed.out that all documentary evidence had beon brourht out by

Brother Turner himself. Tobon said that Turners membership in the Progressive

Labor Party in any context is not favorable to the union because of its policy

of being a rovolutionary cormunist organization. Communism is their goal and

being a member of that party makos communism a goal of Turner.

Brother Turner in his summation stated that nothing he had ever done was detrimen-

tal to the union on to the workers at Varig. He further stated that he was not

ashamed of his revolutionary communist ideas and didn't think that expressing these

ideas were in the contoxt of developing a movement within the union "at this time

at least." He said that he was for democracy but that he has to see democracy work

for us at all times. He folt that the whole thing was blown out of proportion

because of ths shop steward campaign. He admitted being a member of tho PLP but

felt that being a } ca in no way put him at odds with the union

A TIONS OF THE TRIA

Aftor a reviow of nll the tostimony, ipeaaalady otvenee and summations of the

parties the committee unamiously finds the defendant guilty of improper conduct.

of a member as defined in the constitution of the IAIAW.

The Trial Comniitee unamiously rocomends that Brother Wil)iam Turner bo expelled

from membership i: the International Association of Mcchinists and Aerospace Workers.

98a

Appendix J

LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 7, i977 FROM K. RANDLETT

WALSTER TO HON. MARK A, CONSTANTINO

RABINOWITZ, BOUOIN & STANDARD

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

30 CAST «aw STREET

NEW YORK,N.Y. 10017

Oxrono 7-6640

viCTOR eaginowits CALE #080V0'I"

MICHAE. @. BTANOARO 200 wOOCOWwARO Oui. OIne

MICHAEL A@INGAY 7323 (8 sTeCcer, «4

8. MANOLETY wacereR WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20008

senecer sonoaN (202) @20-<067

calc 4. .€Otaman

SUSAN 0. SVUBman

want CL.LEH GYAN

November 7, 1977

The Honorable Mark A. Constantino

United States District Judge

Eastern District of New York

225 Cadman Plaza East

Brooklyn, New York

Re: Turner v. Air Transport Lodge 1894 of

Int'l Association of Machinists and

Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, et ano. -

77. ¢ 1146

Dear Judge Constantino:

With regard to plaintiff's pending motion for judgment

on the pleadings and defendants‘ cross motion for summary judg-

ment, I wish to advise the court that the plaintiff has examined

the “exhibits” submitted by defendants‘ counsel and has advised

me that they appear to be accurate records of the trial proceedings.

He would correct the transcript at page 37, line 13, “agreement”

should be “disagreement”, Thus, although the records were not prop-

erly authenticated as required by Rule 56(c), FRCP, we do not object

to the court’s consideration of the “exhibits”.

We also wish to advise the court that plaintiff is with-

drawing his claim-that he was denied adequate notice of the charges

against him (Complaint, Par. 13). As a result, there are no factual

issues in dispute in the action.

I am sending a copy of this letter to the Clerk of the

Court for docketing and filing.

Respectfully yours,

KRW 16d € A Stett A ahorR

cc: Clerk lett Walster

Kevin P. Quill, Esq.

Burt Hall, Esq.

99a

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.