# Petition — Air Transport Lodge 1894 v. Turner > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_2728%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1979 - **Citation:** 442 U.S. 919 ## 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 a 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 ii 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 a 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 10 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 a 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. la 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- 3a 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- 4a —> 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 ; Sa 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 6a 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. a. - 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: 7a 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 8a 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’”’). 9a (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- 1 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- 2/ 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 2/ 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 a Appendix C UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For THE SEeconp Circuit —- 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 - I use the word “disease” because that's what it eee @ 8 } 65a 64a 22 24 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 23 24 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. ] Q A ¥ Q They were just given to you? A Q Can you tell us approximately when? A 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 22 24 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 © 23 24 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 24 . 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: 2s 77a 24 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: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 sorasdis Ors © pan meg andr, 8 cy7gs OND Onpto>p 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 2217 qof ogy WO 221g" yg © SB SYY ALOU] S22]ION ONE “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 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 ang 20947 PH Psemoys dogs so © OF OL UTE 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 © PANquIsip soumNy VOHIYA sTyy SuUND ‘sna>py 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 © cw Sumans ‘s09my Aig 17.814 F989 49-48 BT 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 ; 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 — ~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 es suing aang you 0 9298 © VewN 2707 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 ¥ de OF PUN Bae sew arne'y awesastnsg pou tsequiem any mypury © fjeO Winey “e f ask : Stemm™Ms iq 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) a" NN" emo ay) red * ©; 12e%. spload Furmsom,, “SP1G2 UNEN O4P MIT News §=paFaayeyo put “y IsUIeTe ‘2 fis . ‘ . : 2 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 as cansent somes wi exe4 81 yOp., yang 820U4 CF 40) YOM ‘ennen @8 ©} Siexs0m WIR orn iy i Coagii Pucne woe asysocaeny 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 nf A Baa. ? SUNZPTEE s0QCT FG -1S © be A FeuIel'pack -pem worn oy fq pax £>°. e afa 8 . . oO pau> eur.iUn OT: { 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 SION ©9 iN OTA nA _ ie 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 n 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¥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 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 duty, © man camo into Variy and handud a prckara ovor the countor, Ih fobl and 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" .CONARO © BOVOIn — 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_2728%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.